Should Human Resources be Recruiting?

No doubt you've heard about "The War for Talent." The economy is rebounding and organizations are scrambling to find people to help keep up with a growing business. Some of you reading this may be wondering why these organizations aren't fighting to find you. My answer is simple: they are, they just have broken mechanisms to find you.

In most organizations the responsibility for finding people falls on Human Resources. This is the department that is in charge of ensuring that the company is compliant with federal, state, county, and municipal law; researching, negotiating, and administering increasingly complex benefit programs; developing programs to maximize return on employee investment; making sure employees are properly trained, that leaders are following prescribed procedures for managing & promoting people on their teams, that existing employees are happy, and that no one is being sexually harassed or discriminated against. They make sure the workplace is safe and (while they're at it) they're charged with attracting, screening, vetting, and on-boarding new talent (seeing as how they have so much spare time).

Job seekers generally give HR a bad rap. Some of this reputation is earned - when I see job descriptions that include requirements such as "While performing the duties of this job, the employee is regularly required to talk or hear" it makes me question their understanding of how to attract talent. I'm fairly certain silly requirements like that come from legal, but just as bad is "must have excellent communication skills" which I'm pretty sure was included in a description 20 years ago and the HR team has never bothered to take it out.

The big reason they have a bad rap isn't their fault. People educated and/or trained in Human Resources have a LOT on their plate. Take a look at the required courses for a Masters Degree in HR Management at one of the top schools in the area for HR (Ottawa). One class in recruiting. ONE. It's not a priority. They have too many other pieces of the organizational puzzle to manage to be effective at talent acquisition. 

HR professionals are simply too busy to dedicate 100% of their time to recruiting. Frankly, I'd be shocked if they have 20% of their time available to recruit. They aren't effective recruiters because they simply aren't given the time necessary.

Here's the rub - to say recruiting is a full time job is an understatement. 

Recruiting is the only job I've had where I could work 24x7 and not run out of things to accomplish. Organizations that are effective at talent acquisition usually have two strategies. The most effective is a great referral program. Happy employees make great recruiters. They other strategy is having dedicated Talent Acquisition teams. These may or may not be people trained & educated in Human Resources, but their time is 100% dedicated to recruiting. Without one (or both) of those programs I have to question how much priority the company puts on hiring great people.

If it was up to me, recruiting would be a separate department under sales and marketing. They're already out there promoting the company brand, they know how to get the audience's attention and get them to act. Good customers like your company and trust you enough to earn their business. 

I'm sure some of them would like to be on your team.

Resume Missing Something?

People agonize over resumes – writing, editing, re-writing, proofreading, and starting all over again yet it seems like once or twice a month I get a resume that falls short in the critical information department. When I saw critical information I’m not talking about great content, or compelling copy – I mean CRITICAL INFORMATION.

This may or may not come as a surprise, but the most common critical information missing is a way to contact the person.  I’ve had applicants send me a great resume and I have no way of connecting to them. I’ve received resumes with a phone number where the voice mail isn’t set up. I’ve had emails kicked back. Folks, if it’s on your resume make sure you know we’re trying to connect with you!

Another piece of missing information is dates of employment. I’ve seen resumes that don’t include any date information. I can’t work with no date information – if there’s no date information at all I move on to other resumes. However, there is another common piece of date information missing: months of employment. Most of us want to see the start and end month of your employment (for me going back 5 years is fine) because 2013 – 2014 can mean you worked there a month, or two years. I immediately thing “hiding a gap” when I don’t see months listed on recent employment.

Another common piece of critical information is missing names. I get a LOT of resumes with just the first name – very commonly from people who are originally from India. Not sure why this is so common, but I have 1,000 Kumar’s in my database and adding another one doesn’t do anyone any good. I also see resumes with just the initial of the person. I’ve even seen a resume where the person used a pseudonym. Don’t send me a resume without your first and last name because it’s not going to get read.

Finally, I have seen resumes with absolutely no employment information whatsoever. I see the role and responsibilities but they neglected to list WHERE they worked. I can understand if you’re posting the resume to a public board putting “Confidential” if you don’t want your current employer to stumble across your resume, but it’s ALWAYS a red flag when I see that listed on a submitted resume. If a candidate isn’t willing to disclose where they work I can’t help them.

Missing information always makes me ask myself “What else are they hiding?”

I want your full name, a way to contact you, where you’ve worked, and the dates of employment. If my initial six second scan doesn’t hit those points I’ll find someone who does.

Your Role in the "War for Talent"

Employers are worried about their employees. The increasing competitive landscape for recruiting and retaining talented employees is causing quite a bit of turmoil at all levels of management. Global Management Consulting firm Hay Group estimates that 160 million people worldwide will switch jobs this year.

Some experts have said as much as 25% of the US workforce will change employers this year. Today’s Department of Labor report stated that the number of people who voluntarily left positions vs being laid off or discharged was 1.5 in July – more than double the pre-recession level of .7 in Dec 2007.

Trust me, employers are worried about losing you and the “quick fix” to stop the exodus is an old fallback position  – the counter offer.

Here’s your problem – a counter offer is nearly always made to serve the best interests of the employer, not the employee. The National Employment Association estimates that 80% of the people who accept a counter offer either leave voluntarily or are discharged within 6 months of acceptance. Why such a high number?

Accepting a counter-offer is a bad idea.

There's a reason you started job-searching in the first place and chances are money is not the only reason. More money will not change other motivations that caused you to look. You may not be a huge fan of management, difficult co-workers, there may not be any coherent business strategy, you might be bored or stagnant, you don’t get deserved recognition, you’re working with insane deadlines, the commute or parking situation, the crazy hours – those factors aren't going change with a few hundred extra dollars in your pocket each month.

You have now made your employer aware that you are unhappy. From this day on, your loyalty will always be in question.

Once the word gets out, the relationship that you now enjoy with your co-workers will never be the same. What did you do to deserve a raise besides threaten to leave?

What makes you worth more today than yesterday in the employer’s eyes? The answer is nothing. Do you really want to work for an organization where you need to threaten to leave before getting a fair shake on your compensation?

Put the shoe on the other foot for a second. What if a company extended an offer to you, only to rescind the offer a few days later because they had “found someone better”? How do you feel about breaching your agreement to join a new company because of a counter-offer?

Counter-Offers are in the Employer's best interests, not yours.

Employers know counter-offers are not a long-term solution. They’re often made in a moment of panic. You need to finish this project or that. They’re running lean and losing you means they fall further behind.

They know the odds of you sticking around long term are slim so they’ll immediately start looking for your replacement. It’s only a matter of time before the panic wears off and you are more “disposable.”

Thinking long term is in YOUR best interests.

The Hays Study pointed at five factors areas organizations should address to attract and retain top talent.

• Confidence in the organization and leadership.
• Placing the right people in the right roles, creating efficient work processes, enabling collaboration, and providing a supportive working environment.
• Opportunities to learn, grow and progress.
• A fair exchange between contributions employees make and the rewards they receive.
• Authority to do their jobs and influence how work is done.

If your employer was hitting on all cylinders you wouldn’t have been looking in the first place. Chances are pretty good the new employer shows more promise in these areas than your current employer, otherwise you probably would not have accepted their offer.

When considering a counter-offer you need to seriously think about your experience with your company on these points and decide what's in your best interests long term.

It's unlikely they will make sweeping organizational changes simply because you accepted a counter-offer. As a matter of fact, I’m 80% certain they won’t and you’ll be somewhere else in 180 days.

Exciting News in the KC Business World today

You probably have heard Sprint CEO Dan Hesse is stepping down and being replaced by the CEO of a 10.6 billion dollar global wireless distribution and services company called Brightstar. Its no coincidence that as of October of last year Brightstar is a wholly owned subsidiary of Sprint majority owner Softbank.

It's also no coincidence that piggy-backed with the CEO change, Sprint / Softbank announced they no longer are interested in pursuing a Sprint / TMobile merger. In related news T Mobile decided to reject a bid from French Telecom to acquire the company. In the immortal words of George Costanza "You're giving me the 'It's not you, it's me?' I invented that!!"

What does this mean for KC? First and foremost I think a merged TMobile / Sprint has the potential to adversly effect the local job market so the break-up is a good thing for KC. If history is any indication, we know how the Sprint / Nextel merger worked out for us.

Beyond that I think a merged company would look to consolidate operations which gives Sprint HQ a 50/50 chance of moving to Bellevue, WA. Given telecom is a technology driven industry, and the perception that the West Coast is much more "tech heavy", I'm happy the merger is off.

And if "As the Sprint World Turns" isn't enough for you, Cerner just announced a 1.3 Billion dollar CASH acquisition of Siemans Healthcare Systems. Forbes has a great article on the benefits of the acquisition and as you read you'll know the benefits to the KC market. Cerner still plans on adding 16,000 jobs in the coming years outside this partnership and I suspect this partnership is part of the reason those jobs are coming to our community. 

I'm optimistic for another reason - demand for our services is as high (if not higher) than the peak days in 2001 & 2007. We currently have a dozen openings for development resources on all platforms and roles from basic team members to highly placed technical strategists. I've never seen competition for hands-on technical people this fierce. 

We also are seeing plenty of activity in SDLC related roles: Business Analysts, Quality Testers, and Project / Product Managers. In short, if you're in the software development world and considering a move you will find plenty of firms interested in speaking with you. Including me. :)

Kansas City to become a Cisco "Smart City"

If you follow KC Tech news no doubt you've already seen the announcement. Its exciting to see Kansas City becoming a "test bed" of technology. First Google Fiber, and now Cisco's Smart+ initiative.

Ironically I was reading an article just yesterday on "Fog Computing." For obvious reasons Cisco will be a key player as technology moves closer to the user. Their team describes Fog Computing as "a paradigm that extends Cloud computing and services to the edge of the network. Similar to Cloud, Fog provides data, compute, storage, and application services to end-users. The distinguishing Fog characteristics are its proximity to end-users, its dense geographical distribution, and its support for mobility."

Everyone catch that? Essentially they're saying the systems that allow you to process information on your phone and tablet are going to be widely available and lightning fast. Are you listening TimeWarner & Comcast? The Smart+ initiative may put sensors in the track for our new light rail (here's where I sarcastically hold my breath), and I'm sure the smart folks in our tech community can find the real benefit when those sensors aren't chewing up bandwidth.

I'm certainly no "nuts and bolts" technician, but I am very excited to see how this new technology can impact our community.

What's Happening?

Years ago, when I first joined the KC IT Community, there were a handful of "special interest" user groups that met on a regular basis and discussed the latest and greatest in Microsoft, Oracle, Java, Access, and a handful of other technologies. One of the longest running groups I know is the Heartland User Group. I thought it would be fun to look at their archived site from 2000. My how far we've come in 14 years.

In those 14 years the number of local special interest groups has morphed into a community dedicated to advancing technology in the community. Groups like Adam Arredando' Start Up Village, Ryan Weber's KC Next, and Mike Gelphman's KCITP have done some amazing things promoting the Kansas City IT community. If you're not familiar with these groups you need to check them out.

One site that seems to have accelerated the growth of special interest groups in KC is MeetUp.com. I'm sure many of you are familiar with Meetup, but every week I run into someone who hasn't heard of it so it's worth a mention. MeetUp is a mash-up of social media and good old fashioned "get together" networking. 

RiverPoint has been a key sponsor for two of the technology related Meet-Ups:

KC Java User Group
Upfront

Those two groups are just the tip of the Meet-Up Iceberg. Here's a sampling of groups on MeetUp that meet on a regular basis here in KC.

Wordpress
Node
Drupal
AdobeAdobe Visual Design
Adobe WebCore
PHP
.NET
Big Data
Mobile App Developers
Ruby
Python
Just for the Girls

There's also groups that aren't on Meet-Up

KC Oracle User Group
Kansas City Quality Assurance Association
KC International Institute of Business Analysts
If nothing is grabbing your attention there are still many other groups you can find on this list.  I'd also like to say if you are in any of these groups and would like to have RiverPoint get involved as a sponsor feel free to reach out - we're always happy to help.

If you are interested in these events, we keep an up-to-date list at our LinkedIn Group so please join us and sign up for the daily or weekly digests to stay on top of these events.

Speaking of events - there's two events next week you should consider attending.

Mobile Midwest Conference The latest conference set up by KCITP will feature thought leaders from across the US including Ben Milne (Founder - Dwolla), Steve Huffman Co-Founder of Reddit), and Matt Galligan (Co-Founder - Circa) among others. Mobile is where technology is heading and this is a great chance to learn from some of the best and brightest in the business.

Digital Consumer Workshop KCNext hosts Accenture as they share the results of their latest consumer research where you'll hear from senior thought leaders on the latest strategies to better engage customers. They'll also demonstrate some of the latest technologies to keep the non-stop digital consumer satisfied. 

First Come, First Served Recruiting

In this hot market, one can only guess how many recruiters are hitting the phones, sending emails, and texting IT professionals. There are at least 150-200 local IT recruiters here in Kansas City, and likely double that working KC opportunities from locations as far away as India. It all adds up to a constant barrage of requests to consider your "next career move" or work at "the best company in Kansas City."

Sound familiar?

If you're not considering a move you probably ignore the messages however, if you are considering a move, what's "fair" when it comes to multiple recruiters contacting you about the same job at the same client? If your answer is "First Come, First Served" please consider the following and ask some questions before you give your permission to be submitted to a client.

Your relationship with the recruiter.
Is this the first time you've ever connected to this person, or is it someone you've dealt with in the past that you trust? If you don't know the person on the other end of the line from Adam is there a recruiter you do know and trust that may be able to represent you for the position? When you have an ongoing relationship with a recruiter they are going to be much more effective representing your interests at the client than a "newbie." If they're new to you, find out what you can about the job & call the recruiter you know before agreeing to be submitted.

The recruiter's relationship with the client.
Sometimes the "newbie" has a heads-up & that gives them a leg up on the person you know. Sometimes the "newbie" is recruiting off a job posting they saw on CareerBuilder and is fishing for candidates they can sub-contract to the primary agency. Then there's everything in between. The recruiter that has the stronger relationship with the decision makers (generally not the HR folks) is going to have better odds of getting you a meeting.

The recruiter's knowledge of the market.
Obvious question - who is going to be better connected, and have a better handle on the IT market in KC - a 1st year recruiter working a call center in Denver or a recruiter who has been in market for 10+ years? New recruiters working for local firms are going to be somewhat immune to this because they have other staff members with good local knowledge to support them, but they are still new recruiters and require a little more information from you than a veteran.

Compensation, Benefits & Employment Terms
If there are six agencies recruiting a job at a client there are going to be at least six different options for you to consider. Is this going to be a salaried position with full benefits, paid time off & paid bench time when the assignment comes to an end? Do you even WANT a salaried position with those types of benefits? Speaking of benefits - cost of benefits varies wildly between agencies. If one agency offers $40 an hour, but benefits are $500 more a month than the agency offering $37 an hour, the $40/hr rate actually pays you less.

There are other less critical things you may want to consider such as mileage reimbursements & 401k vesting schedules but until you can answer questions related to the four above topics you should not be giving your permission to send your resume to a client to any agency.

First Come, First Served is a disservice to you.