Six Sigma in Recruiting- Part II October 30, 2009
Posted by miketherecruiter in Process Improvement, Talent Supply Chain (TSC).Tags: DMAIC, DMAIC in Recruitment, new recruiting blog, recruiting, recruiting process, recruiting process improvement, recruitment process, recruitment process improvement, Six Sigma, six sigma in recruiting, six sigma in recruitment, yield ratio
add a comment
Six Sigma in Recruiting- Part II
Segment(s) of the TSC Impacted: Nearly all of segment two except the universal variables
This article continues and completes our look at the Six Sigma Recruitment project we completed.
Why Variability is the Enemy
Very often we focus on what we perceive is broken, not on how stable a process is. Process steps become black and white. We all know that things aren’t that simple.
So why should we care about variability? Because variability is the one thing you cannot plan for very effectively. Stop and think about it… we all have things that we need to do that we know are almost always inefficient and we plan and anticipate accordingly.
For example, if you always knew that you could get in and back out of a certain store in less than 10 minutes, you can figure out easily if you have time to stop by that store before your next appointment. Even if you knew that you could never get out of that store in less than an hour (although you also know that it shouldn’t take that long) again, you could easily figure out whether or not you have enough time to stop by before your next appointment.
So, what if the visit to the store took 5 minutes 40% of the time, 10 minutes 5% of the time, 30 minutes 30% of the time and 60 minutes 25% of the time? There would be no way you could figure out if you could stop by before an upcoming appointment… At best you would be hoping to be lucky! This is why variability is the enemy. People cannot plan and cannot rely on the process.
How Does Six Sigma Work in Recruitment
As you know, I look at Recruitment as a supply chain. To apply Six Sigma to Recruitment is relatively easy in concept, but admittedly more difficult for some in practice.
Just as with any other process, Six Sigma will ask that you document your existing process, step by step, including how things inter-relate, how long each step should take place and what each step consists of.
If they don’t already exist, you will need to determine (or Define from DMAIC) guidelines for each step with the customers needs in mind. Within Recruitment hiring managers are typically defined as the customer and candidates are typically defined as the product. You will then compare how your actual process performs to how you think it needs to perform to meet everyone’s needs.
Sounds simple, but trust me, this can become very complicated.
Things to Know Before Taking on a Six Sigma Project
There are a few things that you need to know when you consider a Six Sigma Project.
The first is that Six Sigma is extremely data dependent. If you do it right, simply sitting back and saying “I think we take two days to contact an applicant” is not good enough. That way of thinking may be the reason why a Six Sigma project is needed! You need to actually measure… many times, people are surprised by the disconnect between how they think the process works and how it actually works.
So your ATS either has to be able to give you numbers that you can rely on, or you need to be able to get them another way.
The next thing you need to know is that data is a double edged sword. When the Six Sigma project was announced a handful of managers actually stood up and clapped. They thought this would finally reveal that Recruitment was the cause of their inability to fill positions.
The funny thing is that those voices suddenly fell extremely silent when the process review finished with Recruitment and found mostly minor issues that were not accounting for the scope of variability… Those same managers recognized if Recruitment’s taking 2 days in a 60-90 day process and HR is taking 5 days then I must be taking 53-83 days.
You can imagine how a vocal critic would suddenly wish the project would go away.
The final thing you need to know that I will share is that you need to be open to other peoples input and perceptions. The process has a good way of getting information about processes out to people and breaking down perceptions that are false. One may believe a process that takes 5 days is way too long, but when they look at it they realize that 5 days is actually very quick. Conversely, we need to be open to hearing that there may be a difference between what we think the customer wants and what they actually want. It is this openness that will determine if the project is successful or not.
Results
So you may be wondering how well we are doing with our project, when the project took place, what are our results.
We have made some significant improvements, but as I mentioned, we have things that we can still work on. There are things I would like to see our ATS provide, that I am hoping will come when we complete our upgrade. We can still make improvements to our website. Of course there are always a host of other things we can do better!
The results I am sharing are the product or many things, including Six Sigma. We are a large organization with lots of improvement initiatives going on at any given time. We also must not forget about things like employment market conditions, etc. that have an impact on our performance.
Our project started in November 2005 and finished in the summer of 2006.
All the measurements listed below indicate the change as of June 2009 compared to March 2005 unless otherwise noted.
Open Positions
78% reduction
Time to Fill
32% reduction CY 2009 as of June compared to all of CY 2005
New Applicants
79.6% increase
Applicants per Posting
216% increse
Registry (short term interim staffing coverage for RN positions)
52.9% reduction in costs
54.6% reduction in hours worked
Traveler (long term interim staffing coverage for RN positions- 13 week assignments)
34.9% reduction in hours worked
Quality of Hire (as measured by changes average merit increase for those hired after the project started)
FY 2004 vs. FY 2005: 15.3% increase
FY 2004 vs. FY 2006: 23.1% increase
FY 2006 vs. FY 2007: 20.5% increase
FY 2007 vs. FY 2008: 23.1% increase
Conclusion
As funny as this may sound during a Six Sigma article, I think the non-measureable benefits are the most important ones.
These include things as simple as better relationships with the managers, including having the Recruiters receive more recognition from them and being able to provide our input to the managers with more confidence and more acceptance.
We also have a much more data driven justifiable approach to reviewing new media and other initiatives that make us more comfortable taking risks.
Another boost to our credibility is the awards that our team has won recognizing our efforts and our use of resources.
So I always highly recommend looking at your processes to try to improve and stay head of your competition. Six Sigma is a great way to approach making changes, but it also is not for everyone.
I believe that there is greater benefit to trying Six Sigma and later finding it’s not the right approach than not doing anything. Even getting just part way through the process will provide benefits for your organization!
If you have any questions or comments, feel free to send them my way! All the best to you until next month!
© 2009 Michael K. Peterson, All Rights Reserved
Six Sigma in Recruitment- Part I October 9, 2009
Posted by miketherecruiter in Process Improvement, Uncategorized.Tags: DMAIC, DMAIC in Recruitment, Lean, Lean in Recruitment, Lean Six Sigma, Lean Six Sigma in Recruitment, new recruiting blog, recruiting blog, recruiting process, recruiting process improvement, recruitment process, recruitment process improvement, Six Sigma, six sigma in recruiting, six sigma in recruitment
add a comment
Six Sigma in Recruiting- Part I
Segment(s) of the TSC Impacted: Nearly all of segment two except the universal variables
Six Sigma seems to be a hot topic within Recruitment and there is certainly good reason for it. This methodology has a proven track record that helps organizations improve processes in a sustainable manner based on data, not emotions or best guesses when correctly and fully deployed.
A lot of people within Recruitment have only a limited understanding of Six Sigma other than it is an approach to improving processes.
Recently I was asked to give two presentations on the topic because my organization completed a Six Sigma Recruitment project with significant results. The first of these presentations was co presented by one of our Six Sigma Black Belts. An archived copy of the presentation is available to members of the Human Capital Institute if you’d like to check it out. Of course as an organization, we still have opportunities to improve, but the project set us on a new path which delivers value add well beyond the scope of the original project.
What is Six Sigma?
Six Sigma is a data driven methodology that strives to bring a process to levels of near perfection by reducing variability.
The term Six Sigma is actually a mathematical term that refers in this case to “defects per million.” So something that is one sigma has 697,672 defects per million pieces or roughly 70% of your product is defective. Something that is six sigma has 3.7 defects per million pieces or roughly .0003% of your product is defective. So as you can see, there is a dramatic difference as we move up the sigma levels. Most processes and organizations operate at approximately the 3-4 sigma level or .7% defective.
Translating these numbers into real world examples, comparing the classical view of being 99% reliable as good (or about 3.8 sigma) to six sigma means that the postal service would go from losing 20,000 articles of mail to 7. The US would go from 5,000 incorrect surgical operations per week to 1.7. We would go from 2 long or short runway landings at most major airports per day to 1 long or short runway landing at most major airports every five years.
Within Six Sigma there are also supporting approaches that enable to project to run more successfully. They are DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve and Control) and Lean.
DMAIC
So you probably already have an understanding of what DMAIC is just from what I mentioned above, but let me take you a little more into a couple of the pieces that I think people easily overlook, which is Define and Control.
Define- I cannot say how many times I have been involved in a project only to stop about half way through and ask “what does success look like on this?” with no good answers. We are very good at focusing on task completion, or milestone achievement, but that is almost always just part of the story. During this initial phase of the project, you have to find a way to really look at your objective. It’s got to be SMART or specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time oriented.
For example, we are currently upgrading our ATS. I could say the goal is simply that we upgrade to the new version by a certain date. But is that the real measure of success? Of course not! We need to not only upgrade by a certain date, but we need to pick up certain tangible capabilities, we need to see measurable improvements to processes, we need to see measurable improvements to system reliability and staff productivity.
Control- This is where many projects fail. Once we finish implementing many times we walk away thinking we’re done. Nothing can be further from the truth… that is like saying that once you get married you no longer need to worry about your relationship.
So the key is to set up processes, measurements and structures that allow you to hold onto your gains. Failure to do so is what has led to the cynicism that many of us have when a new initiative is unveiled.
Lean
At this point you may be wondering what Lean is. Lean is what I would describe as a complimentary process to Six Sigma. While Six Sigma focuses on reducing variability, Lean focuses on reducing waste with the idea of making the process efficient (or lean) and improving process velocity (right direction and speed).
So how does Lean work with Six Sigma? There are two uses for Lean in Six Sigma that come to mind. Lean is a good approach to improving smaller scale processes or one where you know which step(s) present challenges. The second benefit is that it can be used to eliminate waste which is making it difficult to complete an accurate Six Sigma review. Waste clouds the data that you are gathering as part of your review and makes it more difficult to identify true root causes.
A key part of a Lean process review simply asking why. Look at a process, ask why are we doing this or why does that happen? When you get the answer, ask why do we need that?
A great example that I saw during my training involved one of the monuments in Washington DC. They had a problem with the statues rusting faster than they should have. So here is how just asking why got them to a solution:
Why are the statues rusting faster than they should?
Because there are a lot of birds that congregate in the monument and they do what birds do (hint: they do the same thing to your car after you wash it).
Why are the birds congregating in the monument?
Because there is large population of spiders (mostly harmless) that resides within the monuments structure and the birds feed on the spiders.
Why is there a large population of spiders that reside within the monument structure?
Because there are a lot of insects in and around the monument which the spiders feed upon.
Why are there a lot of insects in and around the monument?
Because in the evening the monument is illuminated, this attracts insects.
The root cause of the statues rusting is the lighting. I am willing to bet that no one would have guessed that. The lighting attracts the insects which create an environment desirable to the spiders; which then attract the birds that then accelerate the process of rusting.
If we eliminate the insects the entire chain of events that lead to the problem is broken. So what did they do?
They illuminated the monument later in the evening which apparently reduced the number of insects enough to break the chain of events.
Certainly if this was only one of many reasons that led to the problem, implementing this simple corrective measure would make it much easier to focus on other causes to address.
So next month we will complete our talk about Six Sigma in Recruitment by talking about why variability is the enemy, how Six Sigma works in Recruitment and of course, our results.
If you have any questions or comments, feel free to send them my way! All the best to you until next month!
© 2009 Michael K. Peterson, All Rights Reserved
Will This Recovery Be Different? September 1, 2009
Posted by miketherecruiter in Employment Market Dynamics, Uncategorized.Tags: recruiting blog, recruiting process, population trends, labor market, employment market, employment market fluidity, sustainable employment, shamrock organization, Kevin Wheeler, Charles Handy, economic recovery, recession, employment sustainability, insourced worker, outsourced worker, core worker, unemployment rate
add a comment
Will This Recovery Be Different?
Segment(s) of the TSC Impacted: Universal Variable- Employment Market Conditions
Some say we are past the worst part of this recession and I agree with them. The crisis in which we were uncertain of the very existence of the financial system as we know it has passed and we are now looking forward a return to normal on the horizon.
But what will the new “normal” be? Were things “normal” in the past few years? History has already made it clear that as a society we were living unsustainably and many of us recognized that fact even before the economic meltdown.
So what does the future hold and what does that mean for us in trenches of the war for talent? How has the landscape changed? While I don’t fully understand I do have some guesses.
Below are some “New Possible Realities” that could impact the employment market and the TSC. I don’t pretend to be an economist, but I do pay attention to what is going on around me and this is very different than the other recessions we have been through.
New Possible Reality Number One- We won’t spend because we can’t
So, this problem is somewhat simple. People will not be able to spend at the levels that the economy grew used to because they simply cannot. They will not be able to get equity out of their homes as easily. They will not be able to access credit as easily.
All of us are confronted with that reality now, but I think we are kidding ourselves if we think that suddenly in six months or a year we’re going to be back to our old ways of lending and borrowing. I believe that a certain percentage of the population will be able to return to those habits if they wanted to, but I don’t think they will because they were probably more judicious all along.
So what does this mean? It means diminished consumer spending compared to before the meltdown. While there will be an increase in spending when things turn around, it will be relative to the depths of the “great recession” and still significantly less than before. Diminished consumer spending means less demand for goods and services, which in turn means less demand for workers.
New Possible Reality Number Two- We won’t spend because we don’t want to
This is another path to the same outcome as stated above. Since there are two ways to get to this outcome, I think that makes it more likely. Of course, both could take place, impacting different segments of the population. Spending and saving habits have changed. The important question is on what scale and what level of permanence?
This is a more difficult thing to get our arms around. Partially because this change may be by choice and choices can be fleeting. It’s also difficult in terms of the impact to the employment market. There are some benefits to increased savings rates and a shift here may only change the pace at which we spend vs. whether or not we are spending.
For example, many of us are guilty of buying something that we could have saved up for. We often used excuses like “it was on sale” or “I was having people over” or “I deserved it.” If we shift to a save and then buy philosophy, then we would have spent a few months saving the money instead of using a credit card to buy it. This would only a delay the purchase, not eliminate it, keeping consumption at the same level.
Of course the other possibility to this is that we will slow our spending simply in favor of saving. This would mean were consuming less and that would impact the consumption of goods and services, thereby reducing the demand for workers.
New Possible Reality Number Three- Retirement? What’s that?
I truly feel bad for Baby Boomers. I think of all the generations, they are the ones that have had the retirement rug pulled out from under them the worst. Generation X, Y and others following them have the time and opportunity to save for a retirement that does not rely on Social Security, whereas Boomers have not had as much of an opportunity. Now, even for the ones that were diligent about saving, significant losses have eroded their retirement nest egg.
I think we all know what this means… a portion of the population that was going to retire isn’t going to be able to. Right now, we do not know how many or what the impact will be on the employment market.
There will also be a percentage that still retires, but retirement may be different than they planned. They may either delay their retirement or scale back their retirement to make less money last longer.
I also believe that many people will elect to not fully retire. These are individuals that want to keep themselves engaged in work and continue to contribute to society in the way they have all along. While this isn’t really a change, it is something to consider.
All these factors in turn reduce the demand for new workers and cause a drag on employment market fluidity or the employment market churn rate.
New Possible Reality Number Four- Living with less
It also appears that we have entered a new perspective on consumption. This is supported by what we hear in the media and commercials where phrases like “back to basics”, “simple things”, etc. are becoming common. While we have yet to find out if this is truly a glimpse of the future or merely a fad, there are some interesting dynamics that indicate this is more than a fad.
Most importantly, this new attitude has also come at a time when were are more and more concerned about the environment and sustainability. Will these two start to build upon each other? I believe they will, because going “back to basics” and “simple things” strongly supports a move toward sustainability through reduced consumption which was already underway. There is a continued push to review consumption earlier and earlier in the consumer supply chain. I came across a new term that reflected the momentum of this sustainability trend. The term was “pre-cycling” which loosely translated means reviewing your consumption before you even consume. Do you really need that item? Is there another more sustainable way to fill that need you have if you truly need it?
While this reduces consumption and the demand for goods and services relative to where it was, I wonder will this translate directly to the employment market itself.
Recently I was listening to a webinar by Kevin Wheeler through the Future of Talent Institute, where he addressed this. It is his belief that companies will look to the sustainability of their workforce in a similar manner as consumers do.
As a society we measured our personal success by things like the size of our homes, cars, TVs, etc. Companies measured success in part by headcount. While, it makes sense for a company to measure success by growth in market penetration, revenue, and customer satisfaction there isn’t a real reason to measure success by employee headcount and that is what makes it vulnerable.
Kevin sites an organization model that was developed many years ago by Charles Handy that may have fallen on some very fertile ground as we transition back into growth and recovery.
The model is called a “shamrock organization” and is comprised of three major groups of people. The first group is the “core worker, which consists of the organizational leaders, essential functions liked R & D and other functions that simply have to be done in house. The second group is the “insourced worker” comprised of contractors that are working mostly on projects. As you may have guessed, what makes this group different is the temporary to semi-temporary nature of their work with the organization. These may be the folks that pick up the project once R & D has conceptualized a project and with their continued support, bring the project to life and the product to market. The last group is the “outsourced worker” group. These are people responsible for operations that are primarily transactional in nature. There are already many examples firmly in place that we can point to, payroll, customer support call centers, product delivery, etc.
This type of organization allows the company to be very focused on their core business and gives them ultimate flexibility within their workforce. It allows for the prudent use of resources, and could make the organization more sustainable by nature of the flexibility that the model brings.
Admittedly, there are also problems with this model. One that comes to mind is that you give up having competitive advantage to come from anything other than the “core worker” group. So for example, if you outsource manufacturing it automatically becomes more difficult to gain advantage through any manufacturing process efficiencies because you have little control over that piece. A competitor could easily match your manufacturing processes by simply hiring your manufacturing partner.
But what does it mean for the employment market? Since this would be a fundamental shift, it’s very difficult to say.
There is a finite amount of work to be done, so it may come down to the efficiencies realized in this new model and the added work involved in managing a new set of dynamics in vendor and contractor relationships.
So if this new model becomes the norm, does it eliminate some of the “deadwood” that would have existed otherwise? Does the challenge of finding “insourced workers” differ than finding permanent employees? Does the need for someone to manage the new dynamics of three distinct large groups within an organization create new needs and how are they met? All of these are questions that we will only be able to answer once the model has been more widely deployed.
Conclusion
So there are several scenarios that point to a decreased demand for good and services and thereby employees. We also see that the coming wave of Baby Boomer retirements may not be as large as we thought which will also reduce the demand for new employees.
All these things point to at minimum an uncertain future. Based on what we’ve explored here my “gut feeling” is that we are entering a time where we will live more modestly. I believe that the unemployment rate will be somewhat higher than what we saw a few years ago, but lower than it is now. I also believe that we will see more of Handy’s “shamrock model” but that it will be adopted over some time, more prevalently and quickly in some industries, not in any meaningful way in others.
What I believe is not as important as what will actually happen, but what are your thoughts? With the perspective of different people, perhaps we can gain a clearer understanding of where we all may be headed!
If you have any questions or comments, feel free to send them my way! All the best to you until next month!
© 2009 Michael K. Peterson, All Rights Reserved
The Talent Supply Chain- Part Two: Access to the Pool of Candidates (article 3 of 3) August 5, 2009
Posted by miketherecruiter in Talent Supply Chain (TSC), Uncategorized.Tags: background check, creatively meeting candidate needs, employment market, employment offer, hiring manager interviewing, hiring manager training, offer acceptance, population trends, post offer physical, pre-employment physical, recruiting, recruiting blog, recruiting process, recruitment process
add a comment
The Talent Supply Chain- Part Two: Access to the Pool of Candidates (article 3 of 3)
This month we will complete the foundation for future blogs by finishing part II of the Talent Supply Chain (TSC), Access to the Pool of Candidates.
If you just started reading my blog, you may want to go back to review the previous entries to familiarize yourself.
As mentioned in earlier entries this segment lies at the core of recruiting activities.
Interpreting the illustration
Just as a reminder of how to interpret the illustration, the red parts of the TSC drawing are parts you have no control over, the yellow parts are ones you have some influence over, and green are parts that you have strong influence over.
As you can see, this part of the TSC has all yellow components, so these are all ones that you have some influence over.
In your particular organization or situation, you may disagree over whether or not you have strong influence or some influence over a particular part, but just know that there is always some variability from company to company and situation to situation.
Segment two- access to the pool of candidates
The Talent Supply Chain- Part Two: Access to the Pool of Candidates
Components that you have some influence on
I feel that this part of the TSC can be one of the most interdependent, because doing things the right way with the earliest component will directly improve later components.
The most critical component that we will explore today is your organizations ability to close candidates. We need to realize that simply getting an acceptance does not constitute success. At a minimum, having the candidate start would be the measure of success with a better measure being that the new hire meets or exceeds quality of hire targets.
Of course having the candidate accept the offer is still the first hurdle to cross because if this doesn’t happen the process stops. I believe that many companies look at candidate acceptance as a one or two variable problem. They focus on compensation and/or benefits. Benefits can be especially difficult to use because there isn’t a lot of flexibility, you can only hope that your benefits package is better than anything else they are considering… if it’s not, there isn’t too much for you to leverage.
I have always wondered why this is… why does a relationship that is as complicated and important as an employment relationship get boiled down to one or two things at the beginning?
The truth is it doesn’t need to be this way and it shouldn’t be this way. We are all different people with different needs, which is something to embrace and leverage at the same time. Almost every employment survey that asks why someone works where they do shows compensation as being a secondary priority, at best showing up somewhere in the middle of the top 10 reasons.
I’ve heard these items called “workplace hygiene” issues and also included in this are things like physical work environment, parking, equipment, etc.
So I suggest reviewing at one of those surveys, or even better reviewing your most recent employee engagement survey and determining what the top 3 or 4 motivators are among your employees. Then meeting with your key managers to find out what they can commit to providing. Is it flexibility, challenging work, a fun environment, etc.? By doing so, you gain a lot more flexibility when you are working with a candidate and this in turn makes your opportunity more impressive. The key is to always remember that different people have different needs. So don’t make the mistake of thinking something like flexibility is the new one size fits all solution… it may be ideal for one person, but the next person may not value it at all.
Next you need to find out what motivates each of your candidates and what they value. This may take more than one conversation and will take some very active listening on your part. You need to listen for clues about what this candidate finds important and begin to connect those clues to the appropriate thing.
People tend to talk a lot about what is important to them. Many times it is the incongruence between what they find as important and their employer’s or prospective employer’s ability or perceived ability to meet those needs that motivates people to look for or keep looking for other opportunities.
So a candidate may talk about their family a lot… perhaps this a flexible schedule it important to them. Perhaps the candidate talks about lack of challenge, so challenging work is important… I think we’re pretty good at listening, but we need to do more than know what they want, we need to actively meet those needs with things that will naturally engage the candidate by meeting unfulfilled needs.
So for example, you’re interacting with a candidate and they start talking about their kids… it keeps coming up here and there in the course of conversation. It becomes apparent this is important, and they may even mention missing out on past important events in their kids lives. What do you think their reaction would be if, while at their current employer they hardly ever got to see their kids school activities, and now they are being offered an environment where they can not only leave to see the school play, help in the classroom, etc. but where the organization actually demonstrates it’s commitment to an employees work/life balance by thinking about these issues ahead of time? I think you can agree that there isn’t a dollar value that can be attached to that.
The next critical step in this approach is to brief the manager. You would review your typical things like background, experience, compensation, etc., but you also need to bring this other element into play. Let the manager know what the candidates top 3 motivators are and how you think, given the information you should already have about what the manager is willing to do, they can meet those needs.
It is meeting these types of needs that really make an offer stand out, not the compensation and not even the challenge of the work (because they can find challenging work elsewhere). It’s matching what the candidate values to what the opportunity can truly offer. Yes, there will be times that it simply doesn’t work out, but it’s better for this to be realized now than after they start.
So you have extended the offer which the candidate has hopefully accepted. They are very exited and engaged. You now need to move them through the customary post offer checks like the physical, drug screen, background check, perhaps credit and of course the all important showing up to work on the first day of work (although if you’ve done a good job earlier this would not likely be a problem).
Nothing can be more frustrating than having someone fall out of the process after the offer has been accepted. There can be two main types of failure here. One would be the failure to pass one of the checks and the other would be the candidate changing their mind for some reason. But there are some things you can do to minimize the number of times you go through this.
First I will talk about candidates failing to pass post offer checks. If this is something that you do not encounter very often, I would say not to worry about it. While you may go through periods of “bad luck” on occasion, I find that you do not need to come up with a systematic way of addressing this unless it becomes frequent. It may even be detrimental to “over-address” this issue if you only run into it occasionally.
Sometime ago, I left healthcare for a brief time to recruit for another industry before returning. One thing that I found different than nearly any other organization that I worked in was the high rate at which people failed their post offer checks. Up to that point, I could probably count on one hand the number of times someone failed their physical/drug screen or background check.
So I needed to figure out how to get this under control. The person I reported to had some simple suggestions which seemed to help. As some of you may be already thinking, it’s a matter to setting expectations and conveying a balanced message that your organization is serious about these checks.
So I included information on both the website as well as each posting that all employment offers would be contingent based on the applicant’s ability to pass a post-offer physical which included a drug screen as well as a background check and credit check. I went further to discuss this during the interview as well, asking if there would be anything that would prevent them from passing any of these requirements. I was somewhat surprised at how candid people became once they saw that we were serious. We had people withdraw much earlier in the process, which was still frustrating, but not as frustrating as having them fail a post offer check.
The second failure to start scenario is tougher because it involves someone that could fill your open position but decided to take a different position (with or without telling you). To clarify this isn’t the candidate that is about to fail the post offer check, rather they would have or already have passed everything and are now electing to take a job somewhere else.
I believe there are two possible drivers for this situation to develop. One is what the candidate values and what you could offer did not match. The other is that you were someone’s second choice as an employer.
It is very difficult to match someone’s values to what you can offer if you don’t have a clear understanding of the candidate. I think that most of the time, candidates and Recruiters develop a good understanding of what everyone has to offer. But we need to be mindful of a handful of candidate types that may be more problematic post offer. I’ll call these candidates “at risk” for lack of a better term.
The first candidate that fits this category is the one that is primarily motivated by money. They are very clear on what they want. Even in my industry, I’ve had RNs call me and tell me “…listen, all I want to know about is the sign on and my hourly rate… nothing else matters and if you don’t tell me I’ll just call your competitor down the street…” I told him to go ahead and call. Even if you get them to start, they will leave as soon as they see more money somewhere else. I know there are a handful of industries that are oriented this way to a point, but if you have someone that falls into this category, you’ve got to be prepared. If this person is really good and you really need them, even before you make the initial offer you need to come up with two or three additional contingencies to use post offer acceptance to mitigate the possibility of losing them.
The second candidate that fits into this “at risk” category is the one that doesn’t know what they want. They may be individuals that are stuck between their motivations and the differing motivations of a spouse or personal situation. I think we’ve all seen this where the candidate walks away happy with the offer, but then comes back with a significant change after talking to someone else. I’ve also seen situations where a candidate really isn’t motivated by money, but because of their personal finances has to be. You may have to help candidates find a balanced solution that meets the needs of all parties. As you may know, what makes this difficult is that you are actually negotiating with multiple parties. Another type of candidate in this category is someone that may simply not know what is important to them. I find this is often the case with people that are at key transitional points in their lives… those that are getting married and/or starting a family in the not so distant future, those that have kids going off to college, etc. This is where you may help them figure out what may be of value to them and then have no choice but to make the most educated guess that you can.
The key for all of these situations, however, is to develop trust between you and the candidate so they feel comfortable calling you and talking to you if their situation changes after the offer. If they don’t, it will not matter how many contingency plans you have or what else you can offer, you won’t have a chance to do what you can to save the offer.
There is one other component of the TSC that is really more the domain of Human Resources which focuses on the on going relationship with the employee. I thought that next month we could begin to explore single issues more in depth, so keep an eye out for that! Please also feel free to review my other blog entries if you haven’t and take a look at the full diagram of segment two of the TSC!
If you have any questions or comments, feel free to send them my way! All the best to you until next month!
© 2009 Michael K. Peterson, All Rights Reserved
The Talent Supply Chain- Part Two: Access to the Pool of Candidates (article 2 of 3) July 6, 2009
Posted by miketherecruiter in Uncategorized.Tags: employment branding, employment market, hiring manager interviewing, hiring manager training, new recruiting blog, population trends, position desirability, recruiting blog, recruiting process, recruitment process, screening, writing job postings, yield ratio
add a comment
The Talent Supply Chain- Part Two: Access to the Pool of Candidates (article 2 of 3)
This month we will continue to build the foundation for future blogs with part II of the Talent Supply Chain (TSC), Access to the Pool of Candidates. If you just started reading my blog, you may want to go back to review the previous entries to familiarize yourself.
Since this segment of the talent supply chain is the largest, I broke this segment into multiple parts and we are on part 2 of 3. So this month I will explore the next four components of segment two- Access to the Pool of Candidates
As mentioned in earlier entries this segment lies at the core of recruiting activities.
Interpreting the illustration
Just as a reminder of how to interpret the illustration, the red parts of the TSC drawing are parts you have no control over, the yellow parts are ones you have some influence over, and green are parts that you have strong influence over.
In your particular organization or situation, you may disagree over whether or not you have strong influence or some influence over a particular part, but just know that there is always some variability from company to company and situation to situation.
Segment two- access to the pool of candidates
-
- The Talent Supply Chain- Part Two: Access to the Pool of Candidates
Components that you can’t control
For this particular part of the TSC, you more control than in segment one. The only variables you don’t have any meaningful influence on are the universal variables of Net Migration, Employment Market Conditions and the Mortality Rate.
Components that you have some influence on
Your organizations ability to sell positions is one of the most critical pieces. I believe for most of us, this is really something we have a strong influence over and should be green, but I also know that the hiring managers abilities in this area can vary widely, which is why I left it in the “some influence” category. What we need to do here is move away from the old model of telling people what we want and moving to a model of telling people why they would like working with us.
I look at many of my competitors and my own postings throughout a given month and I have to say, many of them read terribly. I freely admit that this is something that we need to improve here and fortunately are taking steps to do so.
As I mentioned there are a few key assumptions that we need to change in order to successfully present our positions and sell them well.
First, we need to take ownership for the content of the postings… this is not the hiring managers responsibility.
Second, what works for one group of people does not work for all… language counts. Some people, like Accountants for example, may be more drawn to what I call the language of stability. Words and phrases like tradition, well organized and detail oriented may appeal to them. Those same words may not appeal at all to your sales team, where words and phrases like dynamic, exciting, self starter and innovative would.
Third, candidates don’t really care what we want. It’s good to let people know what you are looking for, but it needs to be something that is not front and center (or at the top) of the posting. You need to begin selling the person on your position right as they start reading the posting. For example, would you be compelled to buy a car if, instead of the language that talks about things like “picture yourself driving down the road in…” to “in order to qualify for a loan through our financing unit your minimum FICO score must be 650… your rate will be index to LIBOR, blah, blah, blah…?” You wouldn’t? Well, we do exactly the same thing with our postings sometimes. If your postings start with anything like “Qualifications” or “Education” and not with why someone would want to work for you, then you’re doing the same thing as my example did. I know some of you do a great job with this, but there are many of us, myself included, that can improve!
The other component that we have some influence on is your hiring manager’s ability to effectively screen candidates. I admit, this one can be tough… the managers that need help and know it aren’t the challenge here, it’s the manager’s that need help, but think they don’t that are the problems.
And this isn’t just a one way street that is about the manager’s ability to pick a resume out of a pile, it’s much more. This is about that and about their ability to screen people into the team, about how well they sell people on the position as well.
I have to share a funny (but not funny at the time) story. We had a team that we were trying to build and we had a number of challenges that we were working though. Once we got the requirements nailed down (which took forever) we were puzzled by the very high failure rate of offers. One day, we were in a situation where needed to sit in on the interview with the hiring manager (not our standard process). After I brought the applicant into the office, he introduced himself to the hiring manager and I thought all was going smoothly. Then it happened… the hiring manager took his little finger and started cleaning the ear wax out of his ears! I sat there with my mouth open in disbelief and disgust… If only that was where it stopped, but I will spare you the additional details. In the course of the other interviews, I came to realize this was a not a one time thing… it was habit he developed when interviewing… needless to say, I understood why offers were failing!
So, my lesson learned is to never assume anything when you see high failure rates… Most of us don’t have the problem that I described, but I ask; do you know what your problems are? We need to give our managers the tools and coaching to be successful as they try to find the talent they need to. So coaching them on how to review resumes, how to conduct interviews, how to screen people into the team for the right reasons, etc. are critical. How many times do we see problems develop and fail to do anything about it?
Components that you have a strong influence on
Your organizations ability to source candidates is probably one of the most important, if not the single most important factor in your Recruitment Teams success. It’s pretty simple, if you can’t source candidates, positions aren’t going to be filled.
So you need to first decide what your organization needs, both in terms of actual skills to maintain and grow revenue as well as the type of Recruitment Team you need to meet those demands. You need to assess your environment, what skills do you need and what’s the availability of those skills given the parameters you have to work within? What is the volume that you need? Will that change anytime soon? Will the supply of talent change? What type of Recruitment Team do you need to put together to meet these demands and is it congruent with the companies culture?
That last item I mentioned can be a real problem that is many times overlooked and can cause the Recruitment Team to be very conflicted.
For example, within many parts of the country, there is something of an “unspoken” agreement between hospitals. They all agree to only get “too aggressive” with Recruitment efforts, and for good reason. As one Chief Nursing Officer put it to us in a meeting “… I don’t want to take so many nurses from (them) that they can’t take care of their patients, but I would like to take enough so we can fill our openings…” I personally agree that there are certain times when an aggressive approach to recruiting can be detrimental, or even a danger. The problem comes when not all of the leadership team is in agreement. So in this example, the Recruitment Team was tasked with filling open positions as aggressively as possible, but was only permitted to go “so far” in those efforts so they weren’t “too aggressive” which caused problems.
The other issue that I run into many times is a hesitance to depart from things that “used to work.” I find this a curious problem because if my car “used to work” I would either get it fixed so it “now works” or get rid of it and get something that does work. So why is it different when we are recruiting? Find what actually works, be sensitive to political issues and managers that don’t know better, but begin to educate them. Find new things to try, benchmark against companies that don’t compete with you and see if you can talk to their Recruiting Manager for a few minutes, we all are willing to share some information that will lead you in a different direction. The great thing about many of these new sources is that they are very low cost and no cost in some cases (unlike when job boards came along)… I guarantee no one has been recognized as having a best practice team for doing what everyone else does!
The next part you can control is your Recruiters ability to effectively screen candidates. This is something that is more challenging when you have managers that are unable to screen effectively. In this situation, you have two potential problems and need to determine if only one is the true issue or if it’s both!
So as a starting point, you need to be looking at yield ratios throughout the TSC at least up to hire. In this case, you are going to be particularly interested in what percentage of submittals become hires and benchmarking that against something of meaning.
You need to look at the data at a level down to recruiter and manager and in some cases down to the position… This is where you will likely see where the problem lies. For example, if the Recruiter’s performance is low no matter what manager they are working with, I would say the problem is either the Recruiter or something systemic (poor job descriptions, poor manager training, poor processes, etc.). If the Recruiters performance is high but drops off only with certain managers or positions then there is something to look at further… is the manager the issue (again poor communication of what they really need, poor training, etc.) or is the position an issue (new role that no one understands, poorly written job description, etc.). The important thing is to look at the data and start following where it leads you.
Once you have identified the problem(s) you can then come up with a plan to do something about it! Your Recruiter’s may need some training, your managers may need some training, your descriptions may need to be updated or rewritten, you may need to change processes, etc. If your team is not performing, the key is to identify the problem and solve it… otherwise people outside your team may decide to solve the problem for you.
Next month, I’ll talk about the final four components of this segment of the TSC, which will admittedly focus primarily on choosing candidates and policies around failed background checks, physicals, etc. Please also feel free to review my other blog entry if you haven’t and take a look at the full diagram of segment two of the TSC!
If you have any questions or comments, feel free to send them my way! All the best to you until next month!
© 2009 Michael K. Peterson, All Rights Reserved
The Talent Supply Chain- Part Two: Access to the Pool of Candidates June 5, 2009
Posted by miketherecruiter in Talent Supply Chain (TSC).Tags: recruiting, recruiting blog, new recruiting blog, recruitment process, recruiting process, college outreach, college recruiting, college recruitment, population trends, labor market, employment market, employment market fluidity, employment branding, position desirability
2 comments
The Talent Supply Chain- Part Two: Access to the Pool of Candidates (article 1 of 3)
Continuing the series that I launched my blog with, we will continue to build the foundation for the future blogs with part II of the Talent Supply Chain (TSC), Access to the Pool of Candidates. If you just started reading my blog, you may want to go back to review the May 2009 entry called The Talent Supply Chain- Part One: The Pool of Candidates.
Since this segment of the talent supply chain is the largest, we will look at it over the next three months. So this month I will explore the universal variables within this segment and the first three components of it.
This part of the TSC overlaps slightly with the end of part one. Optimists could argue that the transitional point from part one to part two of the TSC are outreach activities, others may say high school graduation rates and yet others may say college graduation rates. All this depends on a variety of factors that are unique to your approach a situation. This is also probably the part of the process that you are the most familiar with, because this part lies at the core of recruiting activities.
Interpreting the illustration
Just as a reminder of how to interpret the illustration, the red components of the TSC illustration are parts you have no control over, the yellow components are ones you have some influence over, and green are components that you have strong influence over.
In your particular organization or situation, you may disagree over whether or not you have strong influence or some influence over a particular component, but just know that there is always some variability from company to company and situation to situation.
Segment two- access to the pool of candidates
The universal variables- mortality rate, net-migration and employment market conditions
In this segment we have an additional variable that will remain a factor for this segment and the third and final segment. That new variable is the conditions of the employment market.
Of course, this is the universal variable that you are probably the most impacted by, the most familiar with and the one that changes the most. Like the other two universal variables, net-migration and the mortality rate (see my entry from May for more on these); you have very little control over this one as well.
Fortunately, you can monitor it and to some degree you may be able to change the definition of your employment market.
To monitor the employment market, you most likely know what to check for. The key is to look at local information within the sectors that you are recruiting. When I say local, of course I mean local to where your open positions are. Of course the most common measure that we all are familiar with is the unemployment rate.
There is a more critical measure that I have not been able to find a reliable source for which is what I call “employment market fluidity.” I define this as the rate at which employable people are able to move from one position to another. The reason I feel this is one of the more critical measures is because the number of people unemployed is only part of the picture.
To illustrate why I feel this is more critical than the unemployment rate is to use the classic bathtub example. In this case, the reported unemployment rate is the amount of water in the bath tub plus the water coming out of the faucet. Employment Market Fluidity is the rate at which the water is draining from the tub (and in this case into a new job). Essentially, the unemployment rate is nearly irrelevant if the fluidity within the employment market is high because people may be losing their jobs, but they can find new ones within a reasonably short period of time.
The only measure that I have found that I can use to attempt to measure is this the change in employment numbers or current level of employment. The challenge with using the change in using this measure is that it is too broad… it does not measure if someone has secured a new job just to put food on the table, or if they have really transitioned from a one role to a similar or even higher level role. Of course we have the same issue with the unemployment rate, so this should not be a surprise.
Components that you can’t control
This segment of the TSC is very different than segment one. The biggest difference is that you have at least some influence over every variable other than the universal variables that I have already described.
Components that you have some influence on
Within the components of the TSC that we are looking at today, there is only one that falls within this category and that is the desirability of your open positions.
Desirability of your open positions can be a tough one to influence and I admittedly think for some of you this may barely be yellow. There are just some jobs that do not have broad appeal. So what can you do about this? Well you can only do your best. So, if you have an open position that is defined as “not desirable” for some reason, determine the root cause of why and try to address it. Sometimes its pay that is well below the market, sometimes it’s because of the person that it reports to, sometimes it’s the hours, sometimes it’s just the job itself and sometimes it’s many things. In any case, you have to look at the problems that you have control over and resolve them; otherwise you’re just going to keep running into the same problems over and over. Once you have addressed the issues that you can control, sell the position! It may not have broad appeal, but if you don’t put together a great (and honest) job description you won’t even get the few that would be interested excited about the role.
Components that you have a strong influence on
There are a couple components that fall within this category and certainly some of the ones that I have classified as “some influence” may really fall into this category depending on your specific situation.
The first of the components you have strong influence over are outreach activities. They are the first step to building the next component, branding and candidate awareness. I would argue that this is also the part that is most often overlooked.
Similarly to what I mentioned in our look at segment one of the TSC, this is an area where you should do what you can and not expect to do everything for everyone. So I suggest that you identify at least one or two majors at the closest, best college you can and begin supporting that program. Ideas that I mentioned earlier that you can review in a little more detail in my earlier entry include creating a mentoring core, presenting real life projects that your team is working on to the students in support of the content they are reviewing in class, bringing doughnuts or lunch if permitted, providing a small graduation gift, etc. These are all ideas that keep your name in front of your potential future candidates and generally don’t cost a lot.
Next is branding and candidate awareness. There is a saying that all companies have an employment brand, they just may not know what it is. I believe this saying is one of the few constants in our profession. I also personally think branding is just a nicer way of saying reputation.
You should also realize that if you work for a small company that does not mean you do not have a brand. Like the doughnut shops in my neighborhood, different ones have different reputations. And just because someone outside my neighborhood has no idea of the shops I know, that does not mean they do not have a reputation.
So my question to you is- do you really know what your brand is? More importantly, does every piece of your communication about open positions support the critical elements of that brand?
If you answered “no” then you need to find out what your brand is. This can be accomplished by simply asking your current and former employees. There may also be some value in asking people that don’t work for you. What is critically important is that the brand you convey is truly reflective of what your culture is. Nothing will lead to high turnover like creating and presenting a brand that does not reflect reality.
I have said for some time, that the employer brand is not something that is created by the recruiting team and advertising team… it is something that is created between the employees, managers and other leaders. Our challenge is to convey it accurately. If you’re not comfortable with what you find, you need to make some very difficult decisions!
One should also realize that branding does not have to be about a big budget. I think we need to focus more on the consistency of the message throughout the entire candidate experience and congruency of that message with your real culture. If you are able to successfully do this, then your assessments of candidates will be much more accurate, your workforce will be much happier because they are a better fit, you will see a reduction in turnover and an increase in productivity and profitability!
Next month, I’ll talk about the next four components of this segment of the TSC. Please also feel free to review my other blog entry if you haven’t and take a look at the full diagram of segment two of the TSC!
If you have any questions or comments, feel free to send them my way! All the best to you until next month!
© 2009 Michael K. Peterson, All Rights Reserved
The Talent Supply Chain- Part One: The Pool of Candidates May 1, 2009
Posted by miketherecruiter in Talent Supply Chain (TSC).Tags: recruitment process, recruiting process, high school outreach, college outreach, college recruiting, college recruitment, population trends, labor market, employment market
2 comments
The Talent Supply Chain- Part One: The Pool of Candidates
For my first few blog entries I wanted to build a foundation for the rest of what I write. Today I’ll start with what I call the “talent supply chain” or TSC.
When I first starting working in Recruiting, I had a pretty simple view of how things worked. There was a certain supply of people and a certain supply of jobs. While the number of people didn’t vary a lot, what they could do did. And of course, the jobs varied a great deal.
To get my degree, I needed to take an upper division Statistics class which focused its application within the realm of Public Administration, specifically population trending. Over time this knowledge, along with very limited exposure to some friends that work in Supply Chain and Logistics, I’ve developed a particular way of looking at the labor market.
As with any large scale population trend, the talent supply chain (or TSC) starts with birth and ends with death. What happens in between is what determines how many candidates we have to work with. Some of these things we have absolutely no control over, some things we have an influence over and yet other things we can have a strong influence over.
I have illustrated the first segment of the TSC below with its major components. For the coming months, I’ll talk about the additional segments and major components.
I will also refer back to this series of illustrations from time to time in future blog entries and will highlight the parts of the TSC impacted by what I am discussing at the moment.
Interpreting the illustration
Since I am more a visual person, I have color coded the TSC. Red items are ones in which we have very little to no influence, yellow are ones where we have marginal influence, and green are ones where we can have strong influence. One thing you will notice in this particular segment is that there are some key red sections, a handful of yellow ones and no green ones.
You’ll also notice that there are arrows leading to and from the “core” TSC. These lead to two variables that interact with every component. These variables are net migration and the mortality rate. The arrows are solid in some cases, dashed in others and in one case, bold and red.
The solid lines indicate events that are a little more common in occurrence and the one bold, red line indicates something that can actually be expected within certain conditions. The main example of something that one could expect to see develop under certain conditions is when the employment market degrades to the point that individuals feel they must relocate out of the area to secure employment. The dashed lines indicate something that does not occur in a very significant number in most cases. For example, the dashed line from the Birth Rate to net-migration indicates that it is not typically common for a region to experience a high number of new born children relocating out of the area.
The lines with bi-directional arrows indicate that this is a component where you could gain or lose talent. This describes almost every part of the TSC as it interacts with net-migration. The unidirectional arrows are a “one way trip” and in this segment illustrate how the TSC interacts with the mortality rate.
Segment one- the pool of candidates
The universal variables- mortality rate and net-migration
The only two components that can impact the TSC at any time are the mortality rate and net-migration. These are ever present variables that you have no control over.
While the mortality rate is something that we all understand, and are impacted by more at the later stages of the TSC, it is still always there. The less understood variable is net-migration.
Net-migration is the net loss or gain in population that your region experiences because of people relocating. What becomes key in net-migration is not that the overall rate is positive (gaining people) or negative, it is what part of the demographic is growing or shrinking.
For example, when we started to see a decline in our population here in San Diego, many people immediately thought it was because of the cost of living and the people that could no longer afford to live in an expensive city were the ones leaving. Following that logic, it would be mostly unskilled to semi-skilled workers moving because they generally are the most sensitive to cost of living because their incomes tend to be the lowest.
What really happened was very different than some people’s expectations and, I would argue, was more typical. It was the professionals and highly skilled employees that were moving. Why? Mainly because they could! Generally these individuals are the ones in demand across the county, have the most options, are well networked and most importantly have the resources to make a move.
So how do you monitor something like this? There are several ways, the simplest is keeping track of the general population, but I believe that is a too broad an approach. The high level number can be easy to get, but trying to drill down any lower can be a challenge. This number also is not updated very frequently in many cases, so it can be unreliable.
I favor monitoring school district enrollment. Why? My logic is based on the assumption that most people have children within a relatively narrow time frame. In general people start having children as they are transition from an entry level career to a mid level career if not a more senior level role. If you see enrollments climbing, it stands to reason that the majority of these children have parents and at least one works. If enrollments are declining, it stands to reason that the majority of these children are still going to school; they’re just not going to that school anymore.
While this number is not a lot more refined than the general population number, I feel it’s much more timely and accurate. It can also provide an indication of a trend. The key is to not monitor just one district, or one type of district. For example, we have all seen the decline in enrollments at urban school districts as people move to the suburbs for perceived better educational opportunities for their children. A decline in this case alone is not necessarily a sign of negative net-migration. When you see declining enrollments in both urban and suburban districts however, that should be a cause for concern. It means that people aren’t moving from the city to the suburbs… it means that people are leaving the area entirely.
Components that you can’t control
In reality, you really don’t have much control over the variables we just discussed above and you also have very little control over the birth rate. Birth rates are somewhat easy to monitor, but they are so early in the process they are unreliable on their own. You probably already monitor labor market conditions although it is also largely beyond your control. So, let’s focus on the other things you can control.
Components that you have some influence on
There are a few components in this part of the TSC that you have some influence on through outreach activities. Those are high school graduation rates, general college admission rates, college admission rates within majors you need and college graduation rates (again within the majors you need).
Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that you have a tremendous influence (because it would be green if it was), but you do have some. Here, a philosophy of doing what you can and accepting that you can’t do everything sets the proper expectation.
Through the active support of properly executed outreach activities you will not need to see a huge influx of new graduates to make a positive impact for you and your organization.
Even if you can only reach out to one class of high school freshmen and stay engaged with some of them, influence a small percentage of them to graduate and go to college, or better yet, major in something you need; if you can then maintain a presence with that student through continued outreach activities and branding, a significant portion of that small group will start to develop a relationship with you and your organization and will have you top of mind as they graduate.
So more specifically, what can you do? I like to keep things simple. Identify the “choke points” in a process. For example, try partnering with a teacher that has some sort of critical class for admission to a particular major. If you need Civil Engineers, and physics is a requirement for any student that wants to major in Civil Engineering, I would partner with the physics teacher. Start off with just one teacher at one school. First, give of yourself, so spend an hour of your time finding out what support the teacher could use from you. Maybe they would like something as simple as having an engineer to come out to the class so they can bring the concepts they are learning to life. Expand the initiative as it makes sense, but be sure not to expand to the point where it becomes a burden.
Continue with these types of activities with high school students and expand them, offer to host a field trip, add the students that are interested to the company newsletter list, just get your name and some useful information out in front of them two or three times a year.
As they enter college, continue to support students. Distribute a “welcome kit” with useful basic items to students in key majors. Arrange for your staff to present in support of critical classes (and bring out some lunch or some doughnuts if the school approves). See if you have staff that is willing to serve as part of a “mentor” group to help the students that are struggling a bit. See if the college will help distribute a congratulations gift (something modest) to the students that are graduating. These are all things that support the students, contribute to higher graduation rates and keep your name in front of them.
Next month, I’ll talk about the next part of the TSC, which I call “Access to the pool of candidates.” This part of the TSC is very different than the part we discussed today because you have a lot more influence.
If you have any questions or comments, feel free to send them my way! All the best to you until next month!
© 2009 Michael K. Peterson, All Rights Reserved
Introduction May 1, 2009
Posted by miketherecruiter in About me.Tags: intro, new recruiting blog, recruiting, recruiting blog
add a comment
Introduction-
If you’ve stumbled across my blog or are someone that I am connected to through a social network you may be wondering, who is this and why should I read this blog?
Who am I?
I don’t profess to be a recruiting guru, although people have said that I am pretty good at what I do… More than one person has said that I have the ability to see the big picture and at the same time think in a methodical way that allows me to create strong processes.
I don’t consider myself to be an optimist or a pessimist, but a realist. I do consider myself pragmatic and one that favors the simple solution over something of elegance. Although I recognize that sometimes something far from simple is needed, something elegant, or bold, or something that shifts the way we think is the best solution.
I think my success has been in large part due to my background and experiences, which are diverse. I’ve worked in as a restaurant manager, in a toy store (one of the best jobs I ever had), in accounting (process level, nothing too high on the food chain), in the interim staffing world, defense, health care, real estate, etc. I’ve worked for small companies that don’t even have an HR person, to multi-national Fortune-500 companies to non-profits to quasi-governmental entities. I have served as an officer in professional associations and on advisory boards. My goal is to learn something new of substance every year.
Why should I read this blog?
With all the blogs out there, this is more than a fair question! What I have to offer is that I am not a guru, that I am not a VP or a Director, that I don’t have a big budget and a global recruiting team. I am a Recruitment Supervisor and I work at the operations level. I am the bridge between strategy (development going upstream, execution going downstream) and the front lines. I work for a non-profit and have a budget that would make most my peers laugh. My recruiting team may seem somewhat large for the market we’re in, but we’re also the largest non-governmental employer in the region and the Recruiters requisition loads can be very high. I tackle today’s problems with a forward thinking view that is tempered by the realities of my company’s conservative culture and fiscal challenges. I am not someone that works with theory, although I will look at it and try to “operationalize” it if it makes sense.
I guess what makes my blog a little different than some, is that it’s written by someone a lot like you…
So, I plan to post something once a month. Some articles will be self contained, while others may be part of a series, or may refer back to something we discussed some time ago. I am open to input and ideas and appreciate anything that you may have to say or add. I try my best to be helpful and answer questions that people send to me via LinkedIn and e-mail and I will do my best to do the same here.
© 2009 Michael K. Peterson, All Rights Reserved
