makingfans

The funnel approach to recruiting seems pretty tiring:

• What will get me the most candidates?  A favorite among hiring managers and usually implies that “somewhere in this pile of crap is a pony”
• What source will most likely get me the hire?  A favorite among recruiters and implies that “because I have a favorite hammer, I’m going to hammer this search into submission.
• Will you make your hire-by-date?  A favorite among recruiting or HR management and implies that “I don’t give a crap what you do or use, just make the delivery time.”

Generalizations?  Absolutely.  Yet we’re all guilty of think along these lines at some point.  This week, I was feeling particularly guilty.  I knew I was missing the bigger picture.  So I went off and looked for another angle.  I looked at the number of applicants versus hires by source for this fiscal year across all hires (temp and perm).  We’re talking about conversions here or, more specifically, the “conversion ratio”.

Here’s are some of my findings mixed in with my initial reactions:

• More isn’t necessarily better: Duh.  Examples of this include our career site and job boards, which as a source, has a conversion ratio of 00.5% and 00.8% respectively.  ”Effectiveness” comes to mind – or really, the lack there of.
• Clarification is key: Defining and setting expectations can only help your partners, your employees your would-be-candidates to better select initial fit upfront.
• Over fishing? Employee referrals, as a source, has a conversion ratio of 10%.  As a source of hire it’s 45% of our hires.  I wonder if this could leave of disappointed employees.  Sure employees can see the status of their submissions and we do call all employee referrals.  Yet the employee could be disappointed if only 1 in 10 of their referrals get hired, not to mention the recruiter workload in this area is felt.  Further investigation will be required.  Perhaps different forms of employee recognition could be in order
• Agencies can be helpful: Agencies, as a source, has a conversion ratio of 2%. That’s pretty good. If they are selected and managed carefully, agencies can have a great ROI.  Clarity of requirements and timely feedback from the client are critical, but often-overlooked investments by corporate clients.  I must note that we’re quick to “un-assign”  agencies that don’t deliver.  To be fair, I don’t have that kind of control over my other sources.  I turn off my corporate jobs page, now can I?
• Testing 1, 2, 3: Conversions, as a source, has a ratio of 100%.  The try-before-you-buy approach works and the current economic climate makes this even more attractive.

How would your sources or behaviors change if you knew your conversion ratios?

Photo by Joe Pemberton… and, no, I’m not trying to convert anyone to “become a PC”.

Mark Sullivan of Time Warner Cable asked a question last Thursday on Twitter:

Everyone would like this recession to be done and over.  Every month there are new surveys, charts, and numbers.  What should we track?  The percentage of unemployment or how many jobs are being created or saved?  We know things aren’t good.  Hold your breath and take a look at the current job loss number put in a historical context below.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics lists the average work hours per week in the private sector, manufacturing and overtime since 1994.  Overtime is an important indicator.  When it goes up, a company’s existing staff can only sustain overtime hours for short periods of time before adding additional headcount or adding temps.  A drop in overtime would indicate less production is needed, more workers are being furloughed and fewer temps are needed.  With the official start of this recession as December 2007, each category has lost ground: 0.7, 1.8 and 1.2 respectively.  Here is the compiled raw data for overtime.

What do you think?  If anyone knows of studies in this area, I’d love to hear from you.

It can be amusing or dismaying the amount of heat and energy that the topic of recruiting tools generates.  I’ve laughed at some of the silliness and have certainly contributed to a good portion myself.  Rather than get lost in the partiuclar brands, anecdotal stories or vendor statistics, wouldn’t it be helpful talk about the various groups of tools (ATS, networks, social media etc.) and discuss how far they have matured?

Gartner developed a diagram in 1995 to help visualize the adoption of technology: The Hype Cycle.  Shown below, I’ve added numbers to better  distinguish the different phases of adoption.  Here is a list of recruiting tools and technologies and what phase I think they would fall into. 

• Phase 1:  social media, networks, automated reference checks
• Phase 2:  job boards, headhunting marketplaces
• Phase 3:  ATS, corporate website

So, with a nod to some folks like Howard Adamsky and Kevin Wheeler, let’s set aside the “likes” and “dislikes” and discuss “The Hype” as it relates to recruiting technologies.