Reputation Management - Look After Your Temps!

Over recent years, I’ve had many conversations with hiring managers in which they’ve asked about the reputation their departments hold within the market as an employer. These questions will often come at a time when a firm is struggling to attract candidates for what should be a relatively straight forward vacancy to fill, and I’ve had a couple of these conversations just recently.

On both occasions the hiring managers were concerned that a negative message may have been filtering out to the market from temporary workers they’ve had working within their teams within the last year. This may or may not have been the case, but it highlights an extremely important consideration for managing your employer reputation: LOOK AFTER YOUR TEMPS!

Recent legislation (the Agency Worker Regulations) has ensured that temporary workers are assured of equal treatment to comparable permanent employees in terms of their pay, annual leave and access to employer facilities, but legislation can only go so far.

When it comes to how welcome they are made to feel, how much time is invested in getting to know them and to what extent they are made to feel part of a team, temporary workers will experience vastly different approaches from one employer to the next, and even between different departments within the same firm.

These temporary workers may only be with an employer for a matter of weeks, but during that time they will have formed an opinion on whether the department they’ve been working in is one they’d recommend or one they’d advise others to steer clear of. Naturally their views may not always be taken as gospel, but people talk, and ‘career temps’ will already know and come in to contact with a huge number of potential hires for your firm as they move from one assignment to the next.

So, if you use interim staff in your firm, consider how much time you invest in making them feel welcome, and consider how other team members will engage with them also – do they know why they’re joining? Might they feel threatened and unwilling to assist them as a result?

Treated well, a temporary worker can make a significant positive impact on your employer reputation.

Social Recruiting - let's get some perspective...

Although I like to think of myself as a modern day recruiter, and one who embraces the world of social media (both personally and professionally), I can’t help thinking that there is a huge amount of information and advice for recruiters online that will only help a very small proportion of the industry, and actually have a detrimental effect on the performance of others.

I hold a dual role at Balance Recruitment. I’m an owner/Director of the business and I am therefore jointly responsible for the promotion of our brand, our culture and for ensuring we achieve and maintain a positive reputation with all those we come in to contact with. I also carry out a full 360 recruiter role, representing a niche client base, sourcing candidates and managing all the really easy stuff (ahem) that goes in between.

Whilst wearing both hats, I feel it’s vital to keep abreast of new networks/tools/techniques to utilise the internet for the benefit of the business, but I also need to guard against investment of time in networks that just aren’t ever likely to yield returns. But this is where there’s a problem, because with each new social network online, there seems to be a blog somewhere telling recruiters that they should be using it or risk getting left behind.

So on the one hand, agency and search recruiters are working hard to stay ahead of the competition from in-house recruiters and RPO’s, whilst at the same time they’re being told that they should also be spending an untold amount of time on the development of peripheral social branding even just to keep up?

As I see it, too many recruitment or business focussed social media experts place the readers of their blogs in a position of being behind the curve, without considering how generic and non-targeted the advice they’re providing to a broad recruitment industry audience actually is. So whilst it may well be fair (I assume!) to admonish a specialist online marketing & design recruitment business for not having a Pinterest or Instagram presence, does this also mean an IT recruiter should be scouring the internet for stylish photos of server storage racks too?

Sure, some of the social networks are clearly beneficial to recruiters, whilst others may have great success for specific sectors and career disciplines (online, creative and marketing usually), but there are plenty for which, I suspect, the majority of recruiters will never really see enough return from the investment of time they put in.

The dangers of one stage interview processes

For recruiters, recruitment processes with just one stage of interviewing can be very appealing. Less time spent arranging interviews, and generally a quick process to manage with fewer decision makers for the applicant to please/upset. In most cases however, this is a false economy.

It may be convenient for an employer to reduce the time spent interviewing during busy periods or for urgent hiring requirements, and in some instances, such as when it’s for an interim assignment it’s also convenient and anticipated by the potential employee. But in other cases, these one stage processes often do not provide the opportunity for potential candidates to build up enough of a connection to the employer or hiring manager.

Recent recruitment industry surveys in the UK have shown that whilst demand for staff is on the increase, the availability of candidates is decreasing, which inevitably means that jobseekers who are actively interviewing will have more options to consider. Whilst on the one hand it’s important to move quickly in order to secure high calibre candidates, if the focus is all on speed of hire, the candidate engagement process will be compromised, which could lead to offers being rejected as candidates join competitor businesses.

For the instances when time is at a premium, adding in a 15 minute telephone interview to the recruitment process can make all the difference, even if only for the preferred applicant. It adds another layer of selection in to the process, giving the candidate confidence that they’re being selected on merit, not just availability, and crucially it allows them time to reflect on the opportunity after their first meeting, so they can follow up with any questions or raise any potential concerns they might have. The chances of them accepting any offer would undoubtedly increase and potentially save the employer having to go back to the drawing board.

Do you agree, or you do feel one interview should be sufficient to identify and attract the right candidate to your business? Please add your thoughts below. 

Yahoo and the flexible working debate...

Since publishing my last blog on flexible working, the topic has hit the headlines in a big way with debate raging amongst the business community on the pros & cons of working from home. I’d love to say it was my blog that triggered all this, but I suspect it may have had slightly more to do with the leaked internal memo from an HR representative at Yahoo, informing their staff that the business was putting an end to all “work from home arrangements”.  

The tone of the memo suggests that flexible working isn't working at Yahoo, and the move was to encourage greater collaboration between staff by working side by side – literally.

This bold move, driven by CEO, Marissa Mayer, has been widely criticised as being a backwards step, with accusations that Mayer is “out of touch” with the modern working demographic (not helped by reports that she paid to have a personal nursery built adjacent to her offices in order to be closer to her son).

There have subsequently been numerous blogs and articles quoting unnamed members of Yahoo staff who've said that people have indeed been abusing the system and that the move is a necessary change in culture to help weed out the slackers who are holding the business back.

(Photo by Chiot's Run)

So what will be the outcome of this change at Yahoo? There may well be an improvement in output from some of those who have slacked off when unsupervised, but are these really employees you’d want to retain in a business? If they’re just plain lazy, presumably they’ll now just take their foot off the gas at the first opportunity anyway; when their manager is away, for example. Or on lunch. Or in meetings. Are they really going to be monitored around the clock?

And what about those employees who are currently productive when working from home? Will they be even more productive in the workplace? Or will they just resent the change in circumstance and look elsewhere, to join a business that trusts them enough to allow them to retain their current working arrangements? That could signal a mass exodus of talent if so, and when hiring to replace these individuals, Yahoo is unlikely to appeal to those looking for a degree of flexibility on work/life balance.

To me, a blanket ban on working from home seems a step too far. Flexible working is a privilege that requires trust between employer and employee, but managed properly it can and will work for most businesses. It may mean getting everyone together for face to face meetings on a regular basis, and there may be limitations on the percentage of time individuals can spend away from the office, but there is usually a balance that can work for all parties. And if someone just can’t motivate themselves to work from home, they should be given the opportunity to work in the office or to find work elsewhere. Why let them spoil the system for everyone else?

Managing salary expectations in the hiring process

In the increasingly competitive “war for talent” we are experiencing in the world of hiring these days, you’d be forgiven for being a little surprised to hear that there are employers who will go through a lengthy application and interview process and then knowingly offer their preferred candidate a salary lower than the figure they’re looking for.

Certainly it comes as a surprise to the candidate, and not a nice one, but it happens and we’ve experienced it on a couple of occasions recently despite making the individual’s salary expectations explicitly clear from the outset when making the initial introduction.

It’s understandable that the employer ultimately makes the decision on how much they feel each individual is “worth” in relation to an opportunity within their business, but if there is a difference between the salary expectation of the candidate and the employers’ valuation of their skills and experience, this really should be addressed as early as possible in the hiring process to save wasted time and to improve the chances of securing the desired individual.

 If it’s not dealt with until the point of offer, the underlying message sent to the jobseeker is: “we think you’re good, but not as good as you think you are” and all the faith and buy-in that has been built up during the interview process is immediately put at risk. The jobseeker, believing they’d gone through this process with their minimum expectations established, can feel undervalued and at worst, misled. There’s a high chance they’ll decline the offer and walk away from the process with a very low impression of the firm employer brand. 

Managed properly this can be avoided:

• ·         If a candidate’s salary expectation is above the level the employer is prepared to go, they shouldn’t be entering the interview process, unless it’s made clear to them that they are asking for a salary above budget and would need to lower their expectation. They may choose to walk away, but better that happen now than later in the process. 

• ·         If the candidate is within budget range but they are pricing themselves out of the running by asking for a higher salary level than other comparable applicants in process, this should be addressed as soon as this becomes clear. They may not be aware they are asking for a salary level above market rate and may just need their expectations managed before reaching the end of the process.

These conversations can easily be held by recruiters who ultimately want to assist all parties in reaching a successful conclusion to the process. They should also be able to help in identifying early on if a difference in salary expectation is likely to be a deal-breaker or something that can be managed.

The urgency compromise in Recruitment/Hiring

Having had over 10 years experience of working within recruitment, I can safely say that timing is everything when it comes to a firm successfully managing a hiring process.  Unfortunately I need to add that the majority of firms fail to recognise this and demand urgency when it’s not required and then expect patience when they should be acting quickly.

The outcome can greatly impact the calibre of candidates that are put forward for vacancies by recruiters, and can lead to employers missing out on talent they were hoping to secure.

On many occasions I have been instructed with a vacancy on a Wednesday or Thursday and have been told that the hiring manager is hoping to have CV’s through by the weekend. A shortlist has been sent to the hiring manager within this timescale, but then there has been no feedback on the CV’s until later the following week, or even longer in some cases.

This to me is wasted time. If the hiring manager is prepared to wait a week before reviewing CV’s and arranging interviews, they could have allowed the recruiter another week to spend time finding the best available candidates for their shortlist. Admittedly a good recruiter will already have an existing database of jobseekers and will be able to react quickly, but a good recruiter should also be able to go to the market to find new talent who may be even closer to the requirements of the role and produce a definitive shortlist at the end of this process.

A good proportion of the vacancies we have filled within my business have been with applicants who were not actively looking for their next move at the time. Having been approached and briefed about a suitable role however, they have considered the opportunity, met with us to discuss it in more detail and have gone ahead with an application. This process can rarely happen within 24-48 hours and rushing to receive CV’s will therefore rule out the largest potential candidate market available; those who aren’t actively looking (yet!).

There is also a high chance of missing out on candidates altogether when encouraging recruiters to send through only readily available applicants and then taking too long before reviewing CV’s. These candidates are likely to be very active in their job search and, even if they are still available a week or two down the line, they may not want to arrange further interviews if they’re already progressing to final stages elsewhere. This can put a supposedly “urgent” process back to the drawing board two to three weeks after it started.

The recruitment process rarely runs completely smoothly as there are too many variables affecting the outcome and causing delays. The whole process is generally a task that needs to be completed in addition to the hiring manager’s already busy workload. It’s therefore extremely important to put in place a realistic timetable for the recruitment process, and if you want to attract the best talent for your firm it may be worth allowing a little more time for a thorough search to be carried out before asking to review CV’s from a recruiter.

If you've enjoyed this blog, please do share any comments/views/experiences you've had in relation to this topic below. 

The interview cancellation dilemma:

It’s a dilemma I’m sure many hiring managers and human resources professionals have faced; they’ve just interviewed the perfect candidate for a vacancy and are keen to offer, but they already have further interviews scheduled. Should they risk losing the perfect candidate by waiting until all interviews have been conducted, or should they just make an offer and either cancel the other interviews or conduct them out of courtesy, even though they have no chance of securing the role?

On some occasions the decision will be guided by the perfect candidate’s availability. If they’re already under offer elsewhere, they may not be prepared to wait until the end of the interview process, especially if they’re spread over a lengthy period. Then it becomes a case of whether the employer is prepared to risk letting them go elsewhere whilst they meet the remaining applicants.

I've recently had this scenario unfold for one of my clients, and due to business demands and risk of losing their preferred candidate they decided to offer the role to him before completing the scheduled round of interviews and called wishing to cancel the final remaining interview.

The candidate whose interview was cancelled was understandably disappointed. He’d already invested time preparing for it and was eager to meet with the client to prove his suitability to the role. Fortunately in this instance, he was understanding of the situation and hadn’t pinned all his hopes on the interview.

Personally however, I don’t feel the situation was handled well and the client ran the risk of damaging their employer brand by having a job applicant come away from the process feeling aggrieved. This particular candidate happened to be the understanding type, but that’s not always going to be the case, and it’s well documented that people like to share negative experiences more than the positive.

If the client needed to make a quick decision on this hire, the sensible option would be to bunch all the interviews together over the course of a day or two. In the real world this is easier said than done, but if a candidate can only commit to interviewing a few days after the others it should be made clear to them from the outset that there is a chance the interview will be cancelled if an appropriate candidate is identified beforehand. Then there can be no surprises and the dilemma of whether to cancel or honour the interview is already decided.