My definition of talent is simple: it's those people who have the skills, knowledge, and desire to work for your organization. Increasingly, it is hard to find people with either the skills or the desire.
When I speak with young people they are generally turned off by what they perceive as the impersonal and uncaring attitude employers have toward them. They wince every time they hear the expression "people are our most important asset." They know that most executives really believe that labor is a cost, just like steel or semiconductors, and want to get it as cheaply as they can.
Their cynicism has basis, in fact: layoffs and dismissals still occur among the youngest and mostly recently hired employees regardless of contribution or ability. We still believe that time on the job is the most important reason to keep or promote someone.
Prospective employees instinctively seek out organizations that appear to care for their employees, treat them with respect, provide development and career opportunity, and keep people based on contribution. However, even organizations that do provide these often overlook how important they are to getting candidates interested in the organization.
Most career sites remain uninspiring. Interview processes remain sterile, with most recruiters and hiring managers not capitalizing on the power of getting candidates more involved in the recruiting process through technology.
Many recruiters are adept at engaging candidates when they are face-to-face, but many are at a loss on how to do this with candidates who are on their career site or whom they have found during an Internet search. The power of social networks and Web 2.0 is its ability to get people involved, with a process, with a topic, and with each other.
Facebook and other social networking sites offer a variety of experiences, tools, and content to excite, engage, and motivate people to come back often. LinkedIn offers email, lets you invite friends to join, and provides job information. Facebook offers more. It adds the ability to share photographs and music and to engage in real-time conversation. These are all elements that should become part of your recruiting process.
Five young people between the ages of 22 and 27 were part of a recent panel discussing work and recruitment. These men and women said they wanted to work for an organization that is a fun, exciting place. They wanted to contribute to the success of the organization in meaningful ways, not just by doing what they are told. They wanted some say in what decisions are made and in the manner they work. They were especially attracted to organizations focused on doing some sort of good for the world and its people. They all felt that the career sites of their organizations failed to give them any information about these issues. The sites were also deemed boring and administrative. These are from people who are used to Facebook and YouTube!
It is really a simple lesson. If you want to capture more candidates and get them to accept your offers, and ultimately retain them, then improve your thinking around how you get candidates involved virtually.
Forrester recently presented the results of a survey they conducted on engagement. In it they list four elements to a successful marketing engagement program:
Involvement. Essentially is the component that measures whether a person is present.
Interaction. Doing something meaningful. Buying something. Taking a survey.
Intimacy. The sentiment or affinity that a person exhibits in the things they say or the actions they take.
Influence. Addresses the likelihood that a person will recommend your product or service to someone else.
I have taken the four Forrester findings and written them with recruiting and candidates in mind.
This is step one. This is your career site, your job description, or your company itself. Is it presented in an interesting way? If someone were to come to your website, how long would they stay? How many people who hear about you actually ever look at open positions or ask for information? Are your job descriptions written like the marketing tools they are, or do they just list requirements and facts? There is a lot of room in this step for improvement. Most career sites are not very compelling nor do they try to involve candidates in discovering more about the organization. Measuring this step is easy: use the Web analytics I am sure your IT department is already capturing to tell you how many have come to your career site, how long have they stayed, and how many additional pages have they looked at.
Do your candidates fill out profiles? Do they watch videos or download podcasts? Are they participating in your site? Interaction is a significant component of any Web 2.0 application and is the main method for getting people really excited and willing to explore deeper. All career sites should have three to five different ways to involve candidates. And once again, success can be measured by how many candidates use these tools and for how long.
This is a complex part of engagement and often its depth depends on the brand your organization has and what employees say about it. Candidates who get involved and interact for some time should come away with a general feeling about your organization and what it might be like to work there. Whether this is positive or not makes a huge difference as to whether someone will accept your offer and to how long they will continue to work for the organization.
Success in this step can be measured by how often candidates mention your company as an example to other recruiters or to friends. It can be measured by surveys about candidates' perceptions of what it is like to work in your firm.
This is the Holy Grail or the ultimate goal of your engagement process. At this level, candidates are recommending your site to their friends and a viral referral program is in effect. This is easily measured by the number of referrals from other candidates and by membership in any networks you establish.
While this is a high-level view of a complex topic, the idea of getting candidates engaged is not new. What is new is how to do it effectively using the Internet and the more impersonal tools that have emerged over the past five years.