Why use Video Interviewing? Reasons May Vary.

Posted on February 15, 2012 by rcullison

Video Interviewing provides many hiring advantages, but determining who can best benefit from which advantage may not be readily apparent.  Here are two cases showing first why a Human Resources professional and, second, why a hiring manager should use video interviewing. 

If you are in HR one of your assigned tasks is to find quality candidates with an often limited budget.  Scheduling candidate interviews into your already busy day is stressful enough, but often times the person you interview on the phone is very dissimilar to the candidate who walks through the door.  Your challenge is to streamline your hiring process while more effectively screening talent.   

In this case, video interviews just make sense.  They are more revealing, easier to schedule and more cost effective than phone screening.  Many video interviewing tools provide an automated interview feature that allows candidates to interview themselves after-hours at their convenience.  Upon completion the HR professional can deliver the candidate’s completed interview right to the hiring manager’s in-box for his or her review.   

In addition, the candidate interviews are stored for a period of one year or more, allowing the HR Professional to re-examine previously rejected candidates for future job openings.  Because each candidate answers the same questions, HR will have created a standard non-discriminatory interview process with a video record of their non-discriminatory practices. 

The case for hiring managers to use video interviewing may be even more compelling. Hiring managers can often determine in the first five minutes of an in-person interview if a candidate is a poor fit for their organization, but at great cost of time and money. .  Video interviewing allows hiring managers to quickly pre-screen candidates before committing to a face-to-face interview.  If the candidate is questionable, video interviewing allows the hiring manager to share and collaborate with colleagues, comparing candidate responses to one another so that a more informed hiring decision can be made.  Video interviewing tools such as Interview4 enable the hiring manager to upload job-specific questions for the candidate to answer.  This allows the managers to determine if the candidate has both the skills and cultural fit to succeed. 

For managers hiring globally, video interviewing allows them to review and screen top talent outside of their geographic region at a fraction of the cost their organization would spend to bring in candidates.  Either the Live two-way or Automated one-way solution provides managers with the flexibility to affordably interview international candidates. 

Screening candidates with video interviewing reduces the need for candidate travel resulting in less environmental impact.  This is significant to hiring managers whose companies support a green initiative. 

Whether you’re an HR professional or a hiring manager, a case can be made for effective, cost efficient video interviewing, while offering somewhat different advantages to each over traditional methods.

Posted in Candidate Screening, Interviewing, Recruiting, Video, Virtual Interview | Leave a comment

Who’s responsible for Job Fit, the Job Candidate or the Company?

Posted on February 6, 2012 by rcullison

Recently I read a post entitled “What Do You Get from a Job besides a Paycheck?” which discussed various questions a candidate should consider before taking a job.  Here’s a quick list of the author’s suggested considerations. 

  •       Does this role provide the opportunity to develop my career?
  •       Are the company’s values and philosophy in line with mine?
  •       Am I going to be challenged?
  •       Were the people who interviewed me happy?
  •       Will the work/life balance be in line with my lifestyle demands? 

These are all great points. In an ideal world where unemployment is low and a job candidate has numerous job offers from which to choose, perhaps they can take the time to carefully investigate and consider these concerns before taking the job.  Most job candidates, however, don’t have the good fortune to weigh all their options before accepting a job offer.  Moreover, is it even possible for a candidate to develop accurate answers to these job fit questions?  At best, with limited time and information, a candidate may only be able to develop a very general sense of how well a new job will work out. 

Consider this scenario.  John has been out of work for three months, his bills are piling up, his daughter is starting college in four weeks and the dentist just told him his son needs braces.  Fortunately, after sending his resume out to thirty-two different employers and having been to eight different interviews, he has finally received an offer from a company operating within his industry.  At this point can John seriously consider evaluating the points above prior to taking this job offer?  Does he care if he’s going to be challenged or if the company’s philosophy is in line with his?  No, at this point John is concerned about paying his daughter’s tuition, ensuring his son doesn’t end up with buck teeth, and finally getting off the couch and out of the house.  This job will at least pay the bills until something better comes along. 

This is a scenario too many job seekers are finding themselves in these days and one in which companies should give careful consideration.  Job dissatisfaction and employee disengagement are a major concern for companies today.  The problem is exacerbated when companies hire candidates who accept their offer merely as a means to survive this down economy.  If a candidate’s philosophies and passions are not in line with the company’s then soon the candidate’s levels of enthusiasm and engagement are going to drop which results in a loss of productivity for the company.  Because jobs are scarce many candidates have no choice but to accept a job not in sync with their strengths and passions which in turn hurts the hiring company. 

The burden to find and hire candidates that fit culturally must be placed on the hiring company and not on the candidate.  Don’t assume a candidate applying for your open position really wants to work for your company.  Chances are their cabinets are stocked with Ramen noodles and they have nothing but ketchup packets in their refrigerator.  In other words they may be desperate to pay the bills and your opportunity will keep them afloat until something better comes their way.  Hiring companies are in a better position to determine who best fits their organization by screening the vast ocean of job seekers using behavioral tools to test for cultural fit or video interviewing tools to assess enthusiasm, energy, experience and overall “likeability.”  Don’t let the candidate who needs a job determine if they are passionate enough for your company.  You make the decision! 

 

 

 

Posted in Behavioral Interviews, Candidate Screening, Job Fit, Recruiting, Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Video Interviewing: 5 Things You Need to Know before Choosing a Provider!

Posted on January 30, 2012 by rcullison

Video interviewing is quickly gaining prominence among HR professionals and hiring managers thanks to its ability to reduce costs and save valuable time during the interview process.  (Please visit my previous blog “10 Reasons to use Video Interviewing in 2012” to understand how this tool can benefit your organization.)  Thanks to increased webcam penetration, higher bandwidth, and the need to cut costs in the hiring process, more and more companies are exploring this solution, but not all interviewing providers are created equal.  Determining which solution is best for you can be challenging if you’re new to the technology.  Here are five questions you need to ask before choosing a provider. 

  1. Does the video interviewing system provide both one-way automated, and two-way live interviews?  Some hiring managers prefer the live solution because they can ask impromptu questions, while many prefer the automated solution because candidates can interview themselves on their own time with little inconvenience to HR or the hiring manager.  Not all providers support both solutions so it is important to evaluate these options.
  2. Does the solution have the ability to record the interviews?  Some providers don’t provide this technology which can be a huge drawback.  Recorded interviews can be reviewed repeatedly, compared against other candidate interviews, and shared with colleagues.  Because recorded interviews are indexed by question, the candidate’s recorded interview can be screened in much less time than it takes to interview a candidate face-to-face.
  3. Does the solution allow candidates to redo their interview more than once?  While some customers  prefer allowing candidates to retake their interview to increase the candidate’s performance and appeal, most employers prefer seeing a video interview that closely replicates an in-person interview.  In a face-to-face interview candidates would not have the opportunity for a “do-over”.  Allowing it during a video interview may not present an accurate picture of the candidate.
  4. Does the solution integrate with most major applicant tracking systems?  Incorporating your  video interviewing solution into your ATS may be important to your hiring process!
  5. Does the solution allow customizable questions?  If you’re employing an automated solution, you’re definitely going to want the ability to upload your own questions specific to each position you’re trying to fill.  A few providers provide only their default databank of questions. 

Obviously there are additional bells and whistles to evaluate while choosing a video interviewing provider, however these five key features are a must if you want to take full advantage of the benefits that video interviewing provides.

Posted in Interviewing, Video, Virtual Interview | Leave a comment

Employee Satisfaction: Is it as BAD as you think?

Posted on January 23, 2012 by rcullison

It seems like a new employee job satisfaction survey is released every week.  The results of these often gloomy surveys are then blogged about, tweeted, and posted on social sites such as Linkedin.  I’ll admit that I’ve often blogged about such surveys and offered my opinion on how the results affected products our company offers to hiring managers and recruiters.  Yesterday while reading the results of yet another survey I paused as the results seem to contradict what I had been reading for the past year.  This made me re-consider the validity of the data in these surveys.  Here’s why I’m scratching my head. 

In January 2010 CNNMoney.com reported on a survey of 5,000 households conducted by the Conference Board.  This survey indicated that only 45% were satisfied in their jobs, the lowest level ever recorded since they began tracking employee satisfaction in 1987. 

In March 2011 MetLife released a study that indicated employee morale was at a three year low.  Now morale isn’t exactly the same as employee job satisfaction but I think we can make a connection between low morale and low satisfaction. 

In April 2011 consulting firm Blessing White’s survey of 11,000 employees revealed that only a third were actively engaged at work.  Again, we can probably make a connection between low engagement and low job satisfaction.  While these three studies don’t report on exactly the same variable, what we can glean from low satisfaction, low morale, and low engagement is that workers are not happy. 

In May 2011 the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index revealed that, despite job satisfaction being lower now than in 2008, still 87.5% of U.S. workers were satisfied in their jobs.  A contradictory data point? 

Finally a survey conducted by SHRM as recently as January 2012 revealed that 83% of employees were satisfied in their jobs even though only 43% were happy with their career development and opportunities. 

So on one side we have three surveys suggesting that employee satisfaction is at a 22 year low, that employee morale is at a three year low, and that only one in three employees are actively engaged at work.  But then we have two surveys revealing that job satisfaction isn’t below 50% but rather  hovers somewhere between 83% and 87%.    The SHRM study is particularly perplexing as it indicates high satisfaction but only 43% of employees were satisfied with their career development.  Can these seemingly contradictory results all be correct? 

What can we take from this conflicting data?  Well not all surveys are created equal and many results are skewed by the age of the employee, their tenure with the company and probably their career level.  While some surveys paint a gloomier picture than others one thing among all these surveys remains constant and that is employee satisfaction is declining despite some results showing that it is still very high.  Don’t ignore this sobering fact.  Your employees, even the ones actively disengaged, are your company’s most valuable commodity.   

For tips on how to boost your employee morale and increase employee retention, please visit one of my previous posts.   

Posted in Employee Retention | Leave a comment

Top Reasons your Social Profile could be Hurting You!

Posted on January 18, 2012 by rcullison

Social Media Monitoring Server, Reppler, conducted a study recently and found that 91% of recruiters and hiring managers have visited a candidate’s social profile on Facebook, Linkedin or Twitter as part of the screening process.  This figure is much higher than I suspected and it demonstrates the due diligence many recruiters are using in trying to find the best candidates.  Maybe even more surprising is that 69% of those surveyed admitted to rejecting a candidate based on the content found on their social profile, while an almost equal number hired a candidate based on their positive social presence.

Here are the top reasons why a candidate was rejected and ones to which all job seekers should pay attention.

  • Lied about their qualifications
  • Posted inappropriate photos/comments
  • Posted negative comments about their previous employer
  • Demonstrated poor communication skills
  • Made discriminatory comments
  • Posted content of themselves using drugs

With competition for jobs so intense, don’t many of these blunders seem too obvious to make, or are job seekers underestimating the screening process of the companies to which they’re applying?

I’ll admit that I didn’t realize so many managers were reviewing these sites, but a candidate has to understand that a search of their social profiles could happen and that pictures of them partying at the local watering hole are not going to paint the flattering image of a good employee.

Candidates need to be conscious of the fact that their profiles are not off limits to everyone but their friends.  Your profile is a glimpse into your private life or rather the real you, not the dedicated, hardworking employee you portray during the face-to-face interview.  You may look great on paper, in a video interview, or even in person but if company XYZ has a choice between choosing a guy whose Facebook pictures show him crossing the finish line of a 15K or you crashing through a pyramid of beer cans, which job candidate is going to get the job, much less the interview?

So in looking at the top reasons above the moral of this story is simple.  Don’t lie, don’t bad mouth your past employer, don’t do drugs, and for heaven’s sake, curb your racist tendencies or better yet just don’t be a racist at all!  Or at least don’t advertise it on the internet.

Posted in Candidate Screening, Interviewing, Recruiting, Social Media | Leave a comment

10 Reasons to Use Video-Interviewing in 2012

Posted on January 4, 2012 by rcullison

10 Reasons to Embrace Video Interviewing in 2012 

Video Interviewing, the process of interviewing job candidates live over the internet, or having them interview themselves with their webcam, is a solution gaining in popularity.  For those of you who have yet to adapt this effective, time-saving hiring tool, here are ten reasons why you should embrace video interviewing (or screening) in the New Year.   

  1.  Save money – Video interviewing reduces travel costs associated with bringing candidates in for face-to-face interviews, while online video screening saves valuable staff time spent scheduling and conducting phone screening interviews.
  2. Save time – Are your hiring managers wasting valuable time interviewing bad candidates?  Video screening allows your hiring managers to more effectively select the best candidates to bring in for a face-to-face.
  3. Eliminate scheduling hassles – The demands of  scheduling interview times between busy hiring managers and job candidates impedes your time to hire.  Allowing candidates to interview themselves at times convenient to them boosts the speed of your hiring process.
  4. Discover and attract top talent – Video interviewing allows you to affordably screen more top candidates outside of your immediate geography while the technology demonstrates to them that your organization is on the cutting edge.
  5. Hire more effectively – A video interviewing solution that allows you to record the interview (one-way and two-way, something Skype doesn’t offer) enables you and your team to compare candidate responses to one another and review responses repeatedly thus allowing you to hire more effectively.
  6. Go Green – What better way to promote the environment’s health than by reducing the carbon emissions associated with flying in candidates for interviews?
  7. Reduce discrimination – Administering an automated interview provides a structured interview setting where each candidate answers the same questions thereby reducing discrimination.  Seeing and hearing the candidate reduces biases formed from resume viewing only.  Recorded interviews provide evidence of your non-discriminatory practices.  (And video interviewing is acceptable to the EEOC.)
  8. Increase collaboration – Recorded video interviews allow you to share your candidate’s responses with colleagues and members of the hiring team so a more informed decision can be made.
  9. More revealing than a phone screen – A large proportion of communication is visual.  Using video, you can better gauge a candidate’s enthusiasm for the job by seeing as well as hearing them.
  10. Get an edge over your competitors – In the war for attracting top talent, video interviewing will allow you to see more candidates and move top candidates more quickly through the hiring process than can your competitors, ensuring you a better shot at landing them as employees.
Posted in Interviewing, Recruiting, Virtual Interview | Tagged | Leave a comment

Employers Bear the Load of the Overweight Worker

Posted on December 21, 2011 by rcullison

I have written past posts on weight affecting a job candidate’s ability to land a job based on the notion that an overweight employee could more significantly impact a company’s  healthcare costs in comparison to a candidate of normal weight.  Gallup has recently released more research to substantiate this fact and many are calling for legislation to protect not only the overweight job candidate but also the overweight employee.

According to the survey, absenteeism was far higher among overweight employees with one or more chronic conditions when compared to normal weight individuals with one or more chronic conditions.  The annual cost of lost productivity due to these absences was three times higher for overweight individuals compared to employees of normal weight.  This cost increases when “presenteeism” is accounted for which is when employees go to work but are less productive because of their overall poor well being.

Years ago, as the detrimental effects of smoking gained attention, employers began discriminating against smokers or charged higher healthcare premiums to those who smoked.  Tobacco lobbyists came to the rescue and legislation was passed in 30 states to at least partially protect the smoking worker’s way of life.  Today overweight individuals far outnumber smokers but little is being done to protect them.  A great deal of evidence points to obese women earning less pay than their healthy weight counterparts and experiments show that overweight individuals with credentials equal to those of their healthy weight counterparts, receive less job interviews and lower performance reviews.

Clearly, discrimination against overweight candidates and employees exists, but is the discrimination justified?  A corporation’s primary goal is to make money. When an overweight individual costs the company several times more money in lost productivity and health care costs does it not seem logical for a company to hire the cheaper more productive thinner worker?  Is this discrimination or just good hiring practices?  On the flip side, how many perfectly healthy and productive overweight workers have been passed over for a thin, seemingly healthy worker who smokes?  Considering that 65% of the workforce is now considered overweight, the attendant health issues are being forced on employers.

Posted in Corporate Culture, Employee Retention | Leave a comment

What percent of your employees are going to leave in 2012?

Posted on December 14, 2011 by rcullison

In 2010 nearly 900 high potential employees were interviewed. Twenty-percent said they planned to leave their employer in the next 12 months.  Are one in five of your best performing employees ready to bolt?  Could it be an even higher percentage? 

One reason so many top performers consider leaving, according to the same survey, is that 40 percent of internal job moves end in failure.  So planning to leave may just be a rationale response on the part of smart, high performing individuals who can see the handwriting on the wall. 

This evidence points to an ongoing problem which suggests that many companies are ineffective in managing and retaining top talent.  Here are a few suggestions to retain and manage your superstars. 

“You’re special!” – Thirty-three percent of employees not told of their status were looking for a new job compared to only fourteen percent who were told they were special. 

Empower them – Give your employees assignments and allow them to both make mistakes and succeed on their own.  Research suggests that high potentials excel when they are held accountable for clearly defined outcomes. 

Respect their lifestyle needs – For example, don’t destroy morale by forcing your married workers with young children to pull up roots and relocate.  Finding creative solutions that accommodate lifestyle needs yet still promote advancement is very attractive. 

Provide learning and advancement opportunities in abundance – Allowing your employees to receive training and giving them opportunities to perform will help you identify employees who perform well in specific areas. 

Give managers adequate assessment tools for selection – According to a survey of 120 HR professionals, 48% of manager are inneffective at identifying high potential employees. 

Part ways on friendly terms – You never know when you may want to go out and recruit back that high potential employee. 

Your top leaders have to buy-in. – As Roland Smith, Ph.D., lead researcher at the Center for Creative Leadership states, “When we look at organizations that are best in class in identification, selection and development of high potentials, the senior most executives are directly involved and understand it’s a key responsibility.”

 

Posted in Employee Retention, Interviewing, Recruiting, Uncategorized | 1 Comment

The One Chart Best Depicting the Great Recession’s Impact on Hiring

Posted on December 7, 2011 by jrobinson

Chart of Unemployed Per Job Opening

This chart, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, is worth way more than a thousand words.

It hints at the real impact of 8 million jobs lost. It shows the human toll of the unfettered greed and avarice in our financial system and depicts in meaningful terms the challenge before us.

Take a close look. First, examine the “ordinary” recession that preceded the Great Recession.

If you were a job seeker in early 2001 things were pretty good. Numerically there was almost one job available in the United States for every person who was looking for a job. Sure, that doesn’t mean there was a one-to-one fit, but it does speak to your odds of finding a job if you were looking for one.

Then, starting in March of 2001, the U.S. economy entered a nine-month long recession. During that recession the number of job seekers for every job opening essentially doubled from 1.2 to 2.3. Ouch, that hurt. Even worse, after the recession ended the job market continued to deteriorate for job seekers, and by September of 2003 reached almost 3 job seekers per opening. How am I ever going to find a job?

Fortunately things finally turned around and the market improved steadily from September of 2003 until early in 2007 reaching 1.5 job seekers per opening. Then someone decided the real estate fueled boom was going bust. Welcome to the Great Recession, the worst downturn since the Great Depression!

What happened next is what we call a “hockey stick” effect for its similarity to the way the end of a hockey stick juts up from the handle. From the time the 19 month long Great Recession started in December of 2007, until its end in December of 2009, the number of job seekers per opening did something not seen in recorded history. It grew from 1.8 to 6.1 job seekers per opening! And, like the previous recession, after the Great Recession ended it kept growing to almost 7 job seekers per opening.

Can you imagine how that must of felt? During the Great Recession job openings fell (from 4.5 million to just over 2 million) while layoffs and discharges increased (from 2 million to a peak of 2.5 million). It was like the reverse of an old saying, the rats didn’t flee the sinking ship but rather kept getting on the hiring ship as it was going down.

Where are we now? In September of this year the number of job seekers per opening had declined to 4.2, still almost three times the ratio before the Great Recession.

This bulge of job seekers presents human resources professionals and hiring managers the challenge of identifying the most suitable candidates from among large numbers of applicants. We’re seeing success dealing with this issue though the use of video to screen and interview job candidates. The benefits of video screening improve both time-to-hire as well as quality of hire.

Posted in Candidate Screening, Recruiting | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Is a Lack of “Executive Presence” Impeding your Career?

Posted on December 6, 2011 by rcullison

Is A Lack of “Executive Presence” Impeding Your Career?

            A report from the Center for Work-Life Policy, a non-profit research organization recently found that though they are highly ambitious and motivated, Asian professionals are unable to reach senior positions at their companies.  According to Asians in America: Unleashing the Potential of the ‘Model Minority’, sixty-three percent of Asian men feel stalled in their careers.  Forty-one percent of Asian men said the bias issues they faced were severe enough that they’ve scaled back their work efforts and nearly twenty percent said they plan to quit within a year.

            These biases, labeled as the “bamboo ceiling”, occur as Asians move up the corporate ladder and are held back from executive positions through the perception that they don’t have “executive presence”.  This presence considers factors such as appearance, self-confidence, poise, authenticity and an individual’s ability to “look the part” as defined by the corporate culture.

            The bamboo ceiling and this assumption that Asians lack executive presence brings up yet another set of criteria for which job candidates are assessed.  Today job candidates are screened for not only their qualifications and skills but also a number of behavioral characteristics most candidates don’t consider, and for which many hiring managers don’t even realize they are subconsciously screening.  These may include is the candidate “likable”, do they appear “healthy”, are they dressed appropriately and well groomed and now, do they have “executive presence?” 

          Job candidates should try to be aware of all the criteria for which they are now evaluated.  Is your lack of self-confidence hurting your chances at securing that sought after leadership position, as is allegedly occurring with Asian professionals?  Are you discriminated against based on your weight or appearance because companies fear paying the health care costs associated with overweight individuals?  

         While no hiring manager may admit to eliminating a candidate for anything but a lack of qualified skills, a myriad of other issues influence the hiring manager’s decision.  Actors with years of experience and training must still audition for roles for which they are suited based on criteria such as their age, weight, and height, not just their comedic and or dramatic ability.  So too must qualified job candidates with years of experience now “audition” for executive positions based on a number of similar criteria that could make or break their role as superstar employee.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment