Tick Tock Too: More about Recruiting Hourly Workers
July 3, 2009
If you're new here, and have enjoyed what you've read, you may like to subscribe to one of our RSS feeds. Thanks for visiting!
Leaving off in a recent post, I introduced “How to Find and Recruit the Best Hourly Employees,” a Workforce Institute white paper by Mel Kleinman of Humetrics. While the paper is full of interesting insights and information, the part I want to focus on is a study of 500 hiring managers from diverse industries, conducted in 2007-2008. Asked to cite their best recruiting sources (multiple answers were allowed), here’s how they answered:
|
55% Referrals |
|
39% Miscellaneous media |
|
21% Walk-ins |
|
21% Schools |
|
15% Customers |
|
14% Internet |
|
9% Company Web site |
|
6% Job fairs |
The top choice is certainly no surprise, since “Referrals” are not only the most cost-effective source for all types of recruiting, but also the best predictors of good fit. “Miscellaneous media” (which includes location signage, billboards, newspapers, radio, and TV) and “Walk-ins” are also not surprising in the hourly hiring realm, since in the first instance volume hiring supports volume advertising, and in the second, many hourly job-seekers want to work near their homes. “Schools” makes sense since hourly jobs are often starter jobs and/or student jobs.
But why do the two online resources rank so low? An immediate guess would be that hourly job-seekers lack computer access and/or technological skills. However, that’s (a) not necessarily true, and (b) rapidly changing. For one thing, just about everyone has a cell phone these days, and the increasing emergence of phone-friendly communications like Twitter, texting, and email in recruiting may be a response to that fact.
Kleinman’s explanation is that organizations and managers are not using Internet resources effectively. ”Part of the disconnect,” he suggests, “may be due to the fact that Internet tools deliver applicants much faster than the typical organization can respond to them. Another common criticism of Internet recruiting is that it delivers too many unqualified candidates.” And it’s easy to see how these factors would be more serious barriers in high-volume, high-speed hiring than in the (often) more leisurely world of salaried recruiting. Along these lines, Kleinman offers some smart tips for process improvement.
That brings us, finally, to the biggest loser: the corporate website. The paper cites “anecdotal evidence” that the major problem may be application processes that are “too impersonal, long, and cumbersome with no appreciable ROI for the applicant.” And there’s no doubt that frustrating, time-consuming, and/or unrewarding procedures will be a turn-off for all job-seekers, hourly or otherwise.
But the problem could be even more acute for applicants who may have short attention spans or little online experience–especially if they are applying for low-paying jobs they don’t expect to enjoy! And although improving processes is an obvious step, it’s also especially important to sell these applicants on the job before they start the application. After all, it’s much easier to stay on a path when you really want to reach the destination.
That applies no matter what type of job is being offered, from Courtesy Clerk to CEO. Employer branding is important (it helps if the applicant wants to work for the company), but so is “job branding.” The more information and encouragement you can provide about a job–emphasizing day-to-day rewards and the importance of the worker’s efforts–the more likely it is that an applicant will be genuinely motivated.
(Yes, that’s a very early time clock! Thanks to Pargon for snapping it at the Computer History Museum.)
Tick Tock: Recruiting Hourly Workers
July 2, 2009
I was aware that I didn’t know much about the subject of hourly hiring, but it turns out I knew even less than I thought. There are a lot of moving parts to the process, including several (such as drug testing, background checks, and physical exams) that aren’t as likely to apply in salaried hiring. And whereas salaried employees are typically inclined to keep their jobs as long as possible, turnover is a huge issue in the hourly world–so the hiring process tends to be constant rather than cyclic or intermittent.
Other differences I hadn’t thought about: Walk-ins are an important source of hourly applicants. Location is often especially important to hourly workers, who are likely to work within five miles of where they live. And time-to-hire is a key factor for many hourly applicants, who may need to find work quickly.
I also had some misconceptions. Although it’s true that hourly workers have traditionally tended to be young and either under-educated or still in the process of getting educated, today’s hourly workforce is divided roughly into thirds in terms of age (a little over one-third for the under-25 set, a little under one-third for the over-45s, and the rest in between). And as for education and experience . . . in today’s economy, teenage dropouts may be standing next to down-sized professionals at the application kiosk.
I gathered my new view of hourly hiring by visiting the websites of several specialized recruiting consultants and niche job boards. The Job Magnet, a site specifically catering to hourly job seekers, has an overview of candidate sourcing (PDF) in their Employer area. (And while you’re there, check out the nice way they have matched up the look of their seeker-facing home page and their employer-facing home page. Each shows five photos of audience representatives across the top, and the difference in depiction of the two groups–job-seekers and employers–is quite instructive in itself!)
Kronos, which provides HR solutions specifically tailored for the hourly workforce, offers a case study and a webinar on the ROI of selection. (Look in the right-hand navigation pane.) And HRLogix, which specializes in “strategic talent acquisition strategy” for the gaming and hospitality industries (major employers of hourly workers) provides a nice graphic overview of the whole hiring and onboarding process.
Niche board Snag-a-Job offers helpful information in its Employers section. There are a variety of short, targeted articles in the Hiring Library, and a good round-up of information and tips in the monthly Recruiting Edge newsletter..
But by far the most interesting and useful resource I found is “How to Find and Recruit the Best Hourly Employees (PDF),” a Workforce Institute white paper by Mel Kleinman of Humetrics. Among the eye-openers included in this paper is a 2008 survey of hiring managers which found that only 9% regarded the corporate website as one of their best recruiting tools. And a mere 14% listed the Internet as a top tool.
What’s the problem? Find out in the next post.
(Thanks to Chris Metcalf for the cleverly framed clock.)
Is Online Recruiting Elitist?
June 29, 2009
“Today online recruiting is more than just a human resources tool . . . It’s a whole culture.”
That’s a quote from Peter Capelli, director of Wharton’s Center for Human Resources. It’s featured in The Evolution of Recruiting, a short, entertaining video put together by ERE’s Brendan Shields and HR superstar Susan Burns. (Excellent music, by the way!)
I don’t know exactly what Capelli meant by this statement–but it brings up a good question. “Cultures” can be quite closed to outsiders, especially when they are organized to focus on internal values. And it doesn’t ultimately matter whether exclusionary tendencies are the result of prejudice, profit-seeking, or just the desire to fit in.
So is it possible that the self-reinforcing culture of online recruiting is inherently (or at least potentially) unfair? Sometimes it does appear that HR experts and recruiting bloggers are focused mainly on the competition for top talent, oblivious not only to the challenges of job-hunting but also to the practical realities of staffing. And as mentioned in a recent post, quite a few of the readers who commented on an NPR story about online and social media recruiting had very negative reactions. Several voiced concern that this trend excludes older and poorer job seekers, who may have less technological expertise and access.
The issue is complicated. On the one hand, there’s a case to be made that most workers today need to be at least basically conversant with current technologies for working and communicating. So requiring them to demonstrate that competence during the job-seeking process is reasonable.
On the other hand–there may be some perfect people out there who won’t be found purely with bits and bytes. They might be ideal candidates for jobs that don’t require much technical sophistication, or they might be able to get up to speed quickly on whatever technology is required.
Hypothetically: Could someone without email potentially be an asset to your organization?
Sometimes we may have to ask not just what’s cutting-edge for the corporate Career site, but also whether the site supports a broad array of recruiting approaches, suitable for a real-life variety of candidates. We could think of it as the techno-equivalent of diversity . . .
I’d love to hear opinions on this.
Get the Popcorn: A Festival of Recruiting Videos
June 26, 2009
Visit these flick sites for a summer triple-feature:
1. In case you weren’t one of the 225 (give or take) folks who got to attend the “first ever” Social Recruiting Summit, pretend you were there by watching videos of several sessions. Choices include: “LinkedIn Networking with Shally Steckerl,” “Online Employer Reputation and Social Recruiting with Shannon Seery Gude,” and “Ubiquity and Authenticity in Social Media with Laurie Ruettimann.”
2. In case you don’t have time to troll various sites in search of corporate recruiting videos, find a short (but handy) roundup of YouTube links at About.com’s “Job Searching” channel. You can also do your own YouTube search–but let me save you some time: Any search string with “recruiting” in it will bring back lots of opportunities to join the armed services and/or play college sports. Go with “career opportunities” and “corporate recruitment.”
3. In case you want to rummage around for treasures in a big basket of job-related videos, stop by the Video Job Shop. And for a real treat (it’s honestly hypnotic) check out some of the one-minute career overviews stored in the VJS Library. No matter what you ever wanted to be, you can watch a video about it: Choreographer, Bindery Worker, Glassblower, Psychiatrist, Railroad Yardmaster, Paleontologist, Able Seaman, Fine Artist, Coroner, Nuclear Engineer, Drywall Installer, CEO . . .
There haven’t been any Hollywood blockbusters (yet) about corporate recruiting, but if you want to include a big screen business classic in your festival–Forbes came up with a list of The Ten Greatest Business Movies: Citizen Kane, Wall Street, The Insider, Network, and six more. Business Pundit’s more adventurous list offers up fifty choices, including charmers (Baby Boom, In Good Company, Working Girl); thrillers (The Game, Antitrust, Disclosure); satires (The Hudsucker Proxy, The Coca-Cola Kid, Barbarians at the Gate); documentaries (The Corporation, Salesman); serious stuff (Glengarry Glenn Ross, The Boiler Room); and some surprises (All About Eve, Once Upon a Time in the West).
Missing from both lists are two of the all-time best biz-flicks: the intelligent corporate soap opera Executive Suite (1954), and the sly, smart farce The Wheeler Dealers (1963). If you haven’t seen them, now’s the time.
Summer’s just getting started!
(Thanks to Mo Kaiwen for a great shot of the modern movie palace.)
Paper Resumes? OMG!
June 24, 2009
First, read or listen to NPR Morning Edition’s story entitled Job Seekers Find New Rules of Recruitment. The gist: Recruiters and hiring managers don’t have much patience with job-seekers lacking LinkedIn profiles, snappy digital resumes, and an established social media presence. “If someone sends us a paper resume folded in thirds, stuffed in an envelope,” opines one CEO, “it’s hard to take it seriously.” And even for job-seekers who communicate via email, the report notes, there are potential faux pas–such as email sent via AOL and husband-and-wife addresses.
Next . . . read the “lively” (not to say vitriolic) discussion of this story. Among the commenters are populists who think Recruiting 2.0 is elitist; sympathists who are concerned for the plight of elderly (i.e, thirty-something) job seekers; cynics who think it’s all about HR laziness; and conspiracy theorists who accuse the NPR reporter of shilling for LinkedIn. Also a few people making thoughtful points.
Takeaways? (a) There are a lot of passionate opinions on this topic. (b) Recruiting 2.0 probably is elitist–but that’s the reality of the current job market. (c) Rising unemployment statistics will shine a harsh light on hiring practices.
For another take on this topic, consider Lou Adler’s article Recruiting Top Talent 2010 - Are You a Traditionalist or a Web 2.0 Free Radical? Traditionalists, according to Adler’s model, may be using niche sites, Facebook, Twitter, and all the other 2.0 trappings–but they are still operating on “the flawed premise that top people will respond to negative, boring, and exclusionary ads if you post them in enough places.”
Free radicals, on the other hand, are “talent-driven,” and their strategy is “nurturing prospects for future opportunities.” The article offers a ten-point test/action plan for assessing/strategizing this shift. For example: “3. Go req-less, using big-target talent hubs,” and “8. Convert your recruiters from screeners and sales reps into career advisors.”
Food for thought: What will happen if or when all major employers are nurturing talent with social networks and wooing prospects with precisely targeted micro-sites? Will that be Recruiting Paradise–or merely passé?
Get our updates
 |