Hire-Intelligence

The Most Misguided Knock Against Video Interviewing.

Posted on May 22, 2013 by Ryder Cullison

Everyone who uses video interviewing does so because it can drastically reduce costs associated with hiring, speed up the hiring process and help managers make more informed decisions. In short, video interviewing is more effective and efficient than traditional phone screening. Aside from those late adopters so afraid of technology they still use rotary phones, you might think video interviewing is a no brainer solution for most hiring organizations.

There are those who exist however who view video interviewing as a tool that makes Stop Discrimination discrimination easier. They know that, with or without video interviewing, if the hiring manager is bigoted, discrimination will still take place at some point in the process. They understand in today’s world of social media that with or without video interviewing you can still learn the race, gender, age and often ethnicity of a candidate prior to the interview. They understand that since corporations save more time by video interviewing than phone screening they actually have more time to review and screen in a broader range of candidates. Despite this, many opponents are determined to hold back the tidal wave of video interviewing with nothing more than a stop sign bearing the word “Discrimination”.

I’m certainly no proponent of discrimination but I’m no proponent of inefficiency either. Let me ask you a question. For how many of you does it take two hours or more to get to work on your horse? Anyone? No? No one? Okay then, for how many of you does it take at least one hour to get to work on your horse? Still no one? You mean to tell me that no one rides a horse to work? No one drives a carriage to the grocery store? Of course you don’t. Automobiles are much more effective and efficient in getting you to your destination and picking up the goods you need.

I’m perplexed however about something. In 2011 over 32,000 people died in car accidents. Each year in the U.S. over 2.9 million people suffer automobile accident related injuries. Two weeks ago a young girl in my county was killed while driving. July of last year my son spent three days in the hospital after the car in which he was riding was struck by another motorist.

Each day I, and probably you, are willing to risk death or dismemberment for efficiency because the benefits far outweigh the risks. Phone screening is to video interviewing what horse travel is to automobile travel. If we’re willing to die for the efficiency of automobile travel then can we not risk the few possible drawbacks of video interviewing for the far more numerous benefits it provides?

Video interviewing is here to stay and those crying “discrimination” should accept the technology and focus more on rehabilitating their organization’s discriminatory drunk drivers.

Posted in Candidate Screening, Interviewing, Recruiting, Virtual Interview | Tagged video interviewing | Leave a comment

Is Discrimination Against the Uncool, “Ok”?

Posted on May 16, 2013 by Ryder Cullison

Recently the CEO of Abercrombie and Fitch, the trendy clothing retailer aimed at twenty somethings and younger, declared that he had no intention of designing plus sized clothes Flash Thompson because overweight teens were not part of the “cool” crowd. In other words he doesn’t want un-cool kids, the overweight and unattractive according to Abercrombie, wearing his clothes thereby soiling his brand’s cool and sexy image. While he has every right to design clothes for whomever he wants, he also applies the same principle to hiring. Since he designs clothes for only cool, hip and sexy people then he also hires only cool, hip and sexy people to sell his clothes. How is this possible?

I have written in detail about the many types of discrimination. Just like Bubba Blue rattling off all the ways to cook shrimp in Forrest Gump I could easily with the same southern drawl ramble on about why people are rejected. So many reasons now exist that essentially anyone is fair game. Are you ethnic, old, female, religious, pregnant, overweight, unemployed, very attractive, short, bald, bearded, a smoker? These are just a few reasons why you aren’t making the cut and even though some categories are protected by law you could certainly also fall into one of the others that aren’t.

Even today I’m still confused how some employers get away with discrimination while others get skewered by the EEOC. I’m not a patron of Hooters but I’m pretty sure I’ve never seen an obese waitress in their commercials. Clearly they are discriminating against the plus sized crowd but no one cares as though we all, even the overweight, are accepting their sales gimmick. Maybe profit is the overriding factor here. “I may not be able to discriminate against you because you’re black but if you can’t sell my wings because you’re fat then, well, that’s a different story.” Is this fair? Does anyone actually care anymore?

A 2006 write up about the Abercrombie headquarters paints a picture of a corporate campus heavy on the cool kid culture and I doubt anyone not fitting that culture, despite their adequate skills, is getting a second job interview. Is this fair? Does anyone care as long as Abercrombie’s profits continue to climb which they are doing?

Would allowing unattractive and potentially un-cool looking kids to sell Abercrombie’s clothes hurt their image and sales? Maybe. Does the CEO have a case then to say that job candidates lacking a certain image cannot effectively handle the job duties given to them despite their skills? I don’t know, does he? Does this set a precedent to allow predominantly white companies to discriminate against skilled black candidates by suggesting that blacks would be less successful in selling to a white target audience? Probably not but I can see many of them using this as an argument.

If we say that it is okay to discriminate against the un-cool because they would be less successful in selling to a particular target audience, then what prevents companies from applying the same principles to other protected groups? If I am “White and Nerdy” as the Weird Al song goes, would it make sense for hip-hop mogul, Jay-Z, to hire me to sell his line of hip hop attire? Of course not. I don’t fit the brand’s image and I know this. Likewise I probably wouldn’t even apply for the role in the first place.

Maybe in many instances the problem just goes away. How many overweight women still apply to Hooters? How many bald sales people try to sell Rogaine? How many skinny women try to sell Lane Bryant’s line of plus sized clothing? Many of us have learned that “long haired, hippy people need not apply” and just try to fit in elsewhere. We don’t force ourselves into places we’re not wanted.

On May 13^th clothing retailer Wet Seal agreed to pay over $5.5M to former black employees because they were discriminated against for not fitting the “white”, “blue eye”, “thin” and blond appearance the clothing line desired. Back in 2004 Abercrombie paid $40M to African Americans for committing the same offenses. Fairness it would seem does override profit. In some cases at least. Despite this the discrimination continues. According to a survey of NY retailers, whites earned $.80 more per hour than black workers in the same position and minorities were more likely to have their hours reduced.

If even the protected classes are getting slammed what hope exists for the “un-cool”? You can almost picture “Flash Thompson”, the “Heathers”, “Biff” and that mean blond guy from Karate Kid sitting in a glass office laughing over their hiring policies. As an un-cool worker meanders buy they steal his Taco Bell money and pull his underwear over his head. In the case of Abercrombie what is most uncool and unattractive is their attitude and I hope that many people will echo ignorant Biff’s words and say, “Why don’t you make like a tree and get outta here!”

Posted in Corporate Culture, Job Fit | Leave a comment

Are Your Candidates “Sponge Worthy”?

Posted on April 29, 2013 by Ryder Cullison

Last week I was engaging in a discussion on Linkedin with one of our competitors about how video interviewing screens candidates into the hiring process and she brought up a Elaine Benes point about screening candidates that I had not given consideration. Here is what she said. “In my own hiring I have also found that I can be more open-minded about including candidates in the screening round even if their resumes are not strong, because recorded video interviewing is so much more efficient.”

Basically she is saying that in the past she was more selective about which candidates she considered because she did not want to waste time screening unworthy candidates. A recent study by Sarah White Associates points out that for 35% of the companies she surveyed, just scheduling a phone screen took up to 30 minutes. Combine that with the time it takes to actually conduct the phone screen and for some organizations screening candidates is taking nearly an hour.

This reminded me of the old “Sponge Worthy” Seinfeld episode. We are all adults here and at the time Seinfeld was the number one show on television so I’m sure I won’t be offending anyone. Basically Jerry’s friend Elaine learned that her favorite female contraceptive, the Sponge, was being taken off the market. She thus ran out and stocked up on all the remaining Sponges she could find. However, now that she had a limited supply, she was much more selective of who she invited into the bedroom. She actually put her potential partners through a screening process to determine if they were “Sponge Worthy” because she did not want to waste her limited supply of contraceptives on just any old schmo.

Now that the hiring process has become so cumbersome for many recruiters and hiring managers, we find them being much more selective of whom they even choose to invest time in phone screening, much less who they bring in for a tete-a-tete.

So, do you implicitly test to see if your candidates are “Phone Screen Worthy”? More to the point are you eliminating good candidates who did not list on their resume every last qualification you have required for your job? When considering the high costs of employee turnover, hiring good candidates is essential. With so many candidate applications flooding corporate inboxes, trying to efficiently screen them all often leaves many qualified candidates out in the cold. You simply can’t invest the time. However if you can implement a more efficient process such as video interviewing to cut that time in half then you can take more risks on viewing marginal candidates you might have otherwise rejected. In essence more candidates are now considered “sponge worthy”.

More time to screen candidates means more opportunity to find your organization’s potential soul mate.

Posted in Candidate Screening, Interviewing, Job Fit, Recruiting, Virtual Interview | Tagged screening, video interviewing | 1 Comment

Recruiters: How to Sell Your Job Candidates with Video Interviewing

Posted on April 22, 2013 by Ryder Cullison

As a search professional I am commonly asked by others in the industry, “How do you use video interviewing in your search assignments?”

Before I get to how, let me tell you why I use video interviewing in my search assignments. I use it to help the hiring manager and other decision makers save time by not meeting with candidates they would otherwise reject within the first five minutes of meeting them face to face. Saving my clients’ time and allowing them to make more informed hiring decisions repeatedly makes them happy. Happy customers keep coming back.

So, how do I sell my candidates using video?

First, I invite the qualified candidates to take a virtual one-way video interview. There are two versions of the one-way video interview. The first doesn’t allow the candidates to see the questions in advance and only gives them one chance to answer the questions, much like a face-to-face interview. The second version gives the candidates the questions in advance, and then allows them to re-do their answers until they are satisfied. It’s no wonder this version is called “showcase”. I almost always use the first version.

I set up the interview and send the candidate an invitation by email. The candidate logs in and on their screen appears a series of questions related to the job to which they are applying. I have put together the set of questions in advance, often with client input. The candidate’s webcam and microphone record his or her responses. I receive an email notifying me once the candidate has completed the video interview. After reviewing the interview, I decide if I’m going to share it with the hiring manager or not. I can even decide which questions & answers I’d like to present to the client. The easiest way to share it is to send a link to the candidate’s recorded interview to the hiring manager for review.

I may choose to use the “showcase” style video interview if I have an enthusiastic, personable, and well-qualified candidate who either just isn’t good at interviewing or is thrown off his or her game by taking an online interview. I have found that this strategy not only makes my candidates happy but makes me happy as well. I can now sit down with the hiring manager, review the candidate’s interview and convince them that, although this candidate is bad at interviewing, they are certainly a skilled candidate who is likeable and knows their stuff.

Another option I use to counter the blank “deer in headlights” stare that candidates occasionally present when faced down by a web camera is to conduct a live video interview. Similar to the one-way interview, the live two-way interview allows me to interview the candidate in real time and record the interview. Some candidates are just more comfortable interacting with a human and in these instances live video interviewing helps them feel more at ease.

Lastly, as you know, you are on the front lines with the candidates. You email them, you talk to them and you laugh with them. You understand better than your client when you have a winner. Sometimes your client might even be “overly selective”. One really effective use of video interviewing is to save a candidate who doesn’t quite meet all the strict job requirements set by the employer. In the past several months we have had two instances where a previously rejected candidate’s chances were revived by video. In both instances the candidate ended up getting hired!

As you can see, video interviewing has not only enhanced my service offering but also screened in candidates my clients might have missed out on. That’s why I roll with video interviews!

Posted in Candidate Screening, Interviewing, Recruiting, Video, Virtual Interview | Tagged executive search, recruiting, showcase, video interview, virtual interview | 2 Comments

Who is Saying What about Video Interviewing?

Posted on April 1, 2013 by Ryder Cullison

You have heard me go on and on about Video Interviewing so maybe for a change you’d video interviewing pic like to hear from some of your peers not trying to sell you anything. The following candid quotes were provided by recruiters, search consultants and HR professionals who participated in our 2012 survey on video interviewing. So as the saying goes, don’t take my word for it.

“I personally find it to be a great method to save time and money on travel expenses when conducting interviews. However, for some reason, our HR management refuse to use it.” – HR Professional

“Video interviewing saves time, cost when you are abroad or not in local area. It’s better than telephonic interview because you can see expressions of the candidate. As actions speak louder than words, video interviewing helps alot in this.” – HR Professional

“Video Interviewing is a great help in every organization wherein you can reduce cost, manage your time, scheduling hassles as well as you have enough time to choose a right candidate for the job.” – Executive Search Consultant

“I think it would be a good resource but I do not think my organization is ready for it yet.” – Executive Search Consultant

“I think this is the wave of the future, especially to help narrow down the candidate pool before bringing the finalists on-site.” – HR Professional

“Nothing can ever replace the face to face meeting in my opinion, though I do think there is a time and a place that this could be used and of value. I have just never done it before.” – Corporate Hiring manager

“Could be useful for initial interviews of candidates who are not local.” – HR Professional

“This has been extremely helpful as a cost savings measure when interviewing candidates that were not within commuting distance. I can see this as helpful as a tool in the initial selection process, but feel it is very important to meet the final candidate in person–both for the candidate and the hiring company.” – Corporate Hiring Manager

“Video conferencing may be an option if a low-cost, easily implemented, good quality solution were available.” – HR Professional

“As technologies continue to simplify, more video interviewing will be done thru laptop computers and items like smart phones or iPads with Skype or other inexpensive software. It is a plus for companies to see a person visually before flying them to a corporate or other location, especially where presentation is important, such as sales roles.” – Executive Search Consultant

“I see a value and a future in Video interviewing particularly on higher level positions where relocation is likely required.” – Executive Search Consultant

“Video interviewing will become more prevalent in the next few years.” – Corporate Recruiter

“Video interviewing is awesome and anyone who uses it will gain the respect and admiration of millions.” – Ryder Cullison, (Video Interviewing proponent and the guy who wrote this blog post.)

Posted in Candidate Screening, Interviewing, Recruiting, Video, Virtual Interview | Tagged HR, interview, recruitment, video interviewing | Leave a comment

Hey HR! 3 Reasons You Shouldn’t Fear Video Interviewing!

Posted on March 25, 2013 by Ryder Cullison

Right off the bat those in the Human Resources profession may take offense to my use of fearful professional the word “fear” for surely so small a thing as a webcam does not scare them. Search your soul though soldiers of compliance. I’ve been a part of enough discussions both in person and online to have learned by now that some of you want little to do with video interviewing. What have I learned? Well I’ve learned that some HR managers, far more so than any other group, believes video interviewing will make it easier for hiring managers to discriminate. Additionally you believe that having recorded videos on hand, perhaps potentially showing your manager’s discriminatory behavior, will expose you to litigation.

Many of these fears are born from a misunderstanding of how video interviewing technologies work. Here are a few ways that video interviewing actually counters discrimination.

Structured interviews: A number of video interviewing vendors provide a solution where candidates can take the interview on their own and at their convenience by means of an automated interviewing solution. Each candidate applying for a particular position is administered the same set of questions. Structured interviews of this nature, whereby every candidate regardless of age, gender, race, ethnicity and so on, answers the same questions, reduces discrimination. Hiring managers, in other words, aren’t allowed to deviate from their script of questions based on the demographics of the candidate sitting before them.
Video interviews provide a record of your non-discriminatory practices. You probably didn’t think of this, did you, while you were so preoccupied with the assumption that your biased managers would get caught red handed on tape. Imagine if an issue arose with a disgruntled candidate and you could point to a video interview clearly showing no discrimination took place. Furthermore by comparing the disgruntled candidate to the other candidates who applied for the role, you can demonstrate why one candidate made it further in the hiring process than another. Ever hear of the Hawthorne effect? This is a psychology term used to describe the increasing performance levels that occur amongst workers when they know they are being observed. When your hiring managers are conducting recorded live interviews, ones they will share with others, I imagine they understand that observing good interviewing practices are in their best interest.
Video interviews can actually screen candidates into the process. One recruiter approached us after video interviewing a candidate and said his client had refused to move forward with the candidate because he thought the candidate, based on the candidate’s resume, lacked the energy level to do the job. This is a nice way of saying that the client thought the candidate was too old. After the recruiter showed the interview to the hiring manager, the hiring manager was able to see the candidate’s energy and enthusiasm for the opportunity. As a result, the candidate got the interview and eventually the job. An additional example is of a candidate that I encountered with a very ethnic name. He was originally dismissed because the hiring manager determined he probably could not speak English. Once he demonstrated his English speaking prowess on video, he got the job.

Now, after everything I’ve said, won’t you sleep easier tonight knowing that video interviewing means you no harm whatsoever?

Posted in Candidate Screening, Interviewing, Recruiting, Virtual Interview | Tagged discrimination, video interviewing | Leave a comment

Technology Doesn’t Discriminate, People Do!

Posted on March 18, 2013 by Ryder Cullison

I have spoken to numerous HR professionals at conferences about the benefits of video interviewing. Most all get it, but as a few consider the implications of seeing a candidate on video before the face-to-face interview, a shadow of worry creeps across their face. “Is video interviewing discriminatory?” they ask.

Speaking facetiously, I don’t ever recall my web camera or computer telling me not to hire video interview2 someone because they were too old, too obese or a member of any particular ethnic group. My camera and computer have no emotions or even a voice, so no, video interviewing isn’t discriminatory. The question I was really being asked by the HR professional was, “Some of my people discriminate. Will this make it easier for them to do so?”

Similarly, while many job candidates blame an applicant tracking system for eliminating them sight unseen from the hiring process, that ATS is only discriminating according to orders given to it by a human.

I recently followed a discussion on Linkedin regarding the legality or fairness of using video interviewing in the recruiting stage of the hiring process. Several commenters, mostly from HR, seemed to feel that a job candidate’s selection should be based on nothing more than the candidate’s resume. What I found ironic about the discussion is that every person who responded had a picture of themselves next to their response as is customary with Linkedin membership. And since most of their recruiting was being conducted on Linkedin they are seeing photos of almost all the candidates they screen. By recruiting through Linkedin, their biases, if they possess any, will likely come into play.

The question remains, does technology discriminate and the answer will always be “no”. Has technology, however, made it easier to discriminate through its ability to target job candidates and improve the efficiency of the hiring process? The answer is probably yes. Similarly in an effort to improve the efficiency of travel, cars have made it easier to injure more people than we could with horses. This is a con we are willing to endure because the benefits of speedy travel far outweigh the detriments and like with hiring technology the car itself doesn’t do anything but what the operator intends for it to do.

If a hiring manager does not want to hire someone of a certain age, for example, he will make this determination before he even posts the job. Their biases have already been engaged before they have employed the use of an ATS, a video interviewing tool or any other recruiting technology. Upon occasion I have read of hiring managers viewing video interviews of candidates they might have rejected on the basis of the demographics appearing on the candidate’s resume only to discover after viewing the video that the candidate was more than suitable for their position. In this instance video interviewing actually negated the hiring manager’s pre-conceived biases towards the candidate.

Video interviewing and similar technologies are simply the scapegoat for an organization’s inability to properly train their hiring managers to be non-discriminatory. Take a look at this Linkedin quote from an HR Director in response to the video interviewing discussion I mentioned above:

“If we want to protect the organization from such a [discriminatory] manager, it is still better to not have a file full of rejected applicant videos waiting around for a subpoena.”

The flip side of that point of view is that if you are not discriminating you might be better off to have a file full of rejected applicant videos if a subpoena shows up. At least then you have a record of your organization’s non-discriminatory practices.

Posted in Candidate Screening, Interviewing, Job Fit, Recruiting, Video, Virtual Interview | Tagged recruiting, video interviewing | Leave a comment

5 Ways to Choose a Spouse Like You Hire!

Posted on March 4, 2013 by Ryder Cullison

According to census numbers for as late as 2009, the divorce rate in the U.S. hovers close Gold Bands to or exceeds 50% for all 50 states. Basically when you enter into a relationship with another person you have a heads vs. tails shot of actually making it. I could go into all the reasons why divorces are so much more prevalent now then once they were years ago, but I’ve got to keep this under 10,000 words.

Here are a few ways you might avoid marital hell by applying your hiring principles to picking your mate.

Turn off your internal ATS – Applicant tracking systems are designed to filter out unwanted resumes but our eyes work so much quicker when it comes to determining what we do or do not like. With blazing speed we scan a room and eliminate those who don’t meet our mating criteria. He/she is too tall, too round, too hairy, too pale, too freckled, too skinny and so on. While your company ATS removes all emotion from the selection process and theoretically chooses candidates based on skill, your internal ATS however is corrupted by the “love” virus. This trojan tricks us into believing that the object of our affection will be as emotionally and physically attractive to us 5-10 years down the road and barely considers skill in the selection process at all. This brings us to….
Exchange spousal resumes – Darn right we need these! The love virus essentially shuts down all logic and reasoning during the spouse choosing process so much so that couples forget to seek common answers from one another that we so easily deduct from looking at a job candidate’s resume. Here are a few obvious inquiries not often considered:

“Do you like to cook dinner?”
“Do you know how to do laundry?”
“Do you have more than $15,000 worth of debt?”
“Do you have severe psychological disorders that I can’t see because I’m so foolishly in love with you?”

Couples need to exchange resumes listing such accomplishments as:

“Successfully maintained employment for 36 straight months.”
“Achieved quarterly quota of getting my kids to school on time.”
“Presently have no addictions to Pepsi, Oatmeal Pies, Daytime television and sitting on the couch for hours on end.”

Exchanging a resume of sorts will help individuals discover if their potential spouse has the skills to meet his/her needs in the long run of life.

Execute background checks/Credit checks/References – I’m not a big proponent of credit checks when discriminating against candidates especially in this down economy but I’ve heard countless stories of individuals getting hitched only to find out they had unknowingly taken responsibility for their spouse’s massive debt. Who needs that? Additionally while you may not want to ask this, don’t you want to know if your impending mate has three DUIs or charges of insurance fraud? Wouldn’t a background check serve you well here my friend?
Interview – Your love affection may be able to fool you but can he/she fool a panel of your peers? Within your organization candidates most likely interview with several different individuals. Why not do the same with your spouse? Video interview him/her and share their video with friends and family so a more informed marrying decision can be made. Better yet, before you even go on that first date, have them record a video introduction of themselves and email it to you. This way others can point out the potential obstacles not registering with your eyes. Ask obvious questions during the interview (see point #2) such as how many kids you want to have if you even want any.
Present the Offer letter – This is totally overlooked during the courtship phase and needs to be put in writing rather than assumed. A few might think the vows are the offer letter but vows are assumed moral obligations. The offer letter plainly lays out what each of you will commit to during at least the first five years of marriage. This way expectations will be met and bitterness from feeling let down or cheated won’t set in.

Now obviously at the risk of offending our loved one, we don’t employ any of the hiring practices above that we enact to ensure a prospective employee doesn’t ruin our company. But what they hey, it is just a marriage right?

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

Alleged Talent Shortage Caused by Corporate Selfishness?

Posted on February 18, 2013 by Ryder Cullison

Flipping through the recent copy of Human Resource Executive magazine I stumbled upon the results of a recent survey with the headline, “Aggravating the Skills Gap.” An Selfishness e-card organization recently surveyed 494 employed adults and found that only 35% had received training and development to better perform their role within the last six months.

Why are so few receiving training and how does it affect the alleged talent shortage occurring in the United States? As I have mentioned in my past articles on this subject, I’m not fully convinced a talent shortage exists, yet I can’t deny that organizations’ increasing reluctance to train people will further exacerbate the talent shortage over which many of the same organizations are currently crying. So though I don’t believe talent is as scarce today as many people seem to believe, I certainly foresee a problem in the future if companies continue to act so selfishly.

I will explain. As Peter Cappelli, a Professor of Management and Director of HR at Wharton notes, companies are less willing to pay for training these days. Why pay to train a candidate only to have them hired away by a competitor who avoids the expense?

This stingy attitude brings to mind a poem shared with me by Teresa Turner, the Founder and President of Synchronized Resources Inc, entitled “The Cold Within”. Teresa, an affirmative action consultant, has been sharing this poem for years to emphasize the detrimental outcome of discrimination. I believe the poem’s additional themes of selfishness also apply to the current philosophy on not training employees.

As the story goes six individuals are sitting in the black and cold around a dying fire. In each of their hands they hold a log capable of sustaining the warmth and also their lives but because of their prejudices they ignorantly refuse to help those toward whom they harbor resentment. Below are the last two stanzas from the poem.

The last man of this forlorn group
Did nought except for gain.
Giving only to those who gave
Was how he played the game.

Their logs held tight in death’s still hands
Was proof of human sin.
They didn’t die from the cold without
They died from the cold within.

Now picture six competitors sitting around a fire, each unwilling to give help to the other unless the other gives first. Does this not echo the statement above about companies hesitating to train employees?

In my world of recruiting, more and more companies want fully trained employees right off the conveyor belt as though there is a factory somewhere spitting out employees matching every one of their mandatory qualifications. Do you not see the conundrum here? Where are companies going to find fully trained employees if they and their competitors are unwilling to provide the necessary training?

As more and more withhold their logs, I see the fire dying out and a very chilly future for America’s workforce.

Posted in Corporate Culture, Recruiting | Leave a comment

Want to Discover a Black Hole? Just Apply to an Online Job Posting.

Posted on February 4, 2013 by Ryder Cullison

Do you know what a black hole is? Basically a black hole is a spot in space that is so dense it creates a gravitational pull so powerful that not even light can escape. In other words, once you get sucked in, you’re not coming out.

Until recently black holes could be examined only through literature, movies and the theoretical imaginings of scientists far smarter than I. However, startling research in the last twelve months has uncovered the existence of black holes much closer to home than originally hypothesized. As it turns out black holes have been forming within HR organizations for some time and have grown steadily bigger as the job market has worsened. A direct correlation appears to exist between the number of unemployed workers and the intensity of the black hole’s gravitational pull.

Let’s break down this phenomenon and clearly examine what is occurring. As the economy worsens, more and more unemployed people hit the job market and apply for the scarce number of job openings. These online job postings, whether posted to a job board or on a company’s website, are then inundated in some instances with hundreds of resumes. Qualified candidates are clicking “submit,” but their online applications are often drawn into a void from whence corporate replies rarely come. According to a survey conducted by The Talent Board, a non-profit seeking to improve the job application process, only 1 in 10 employers say they respond to every candidate. “You’re submitting your résumé to a black hole,” concurs Dr. John Sullivan, a human resources consultant for large companies who teaches management at San Francisco StateUniversity.

Some companies like Google, Proctor & Gamble and Starbucks, which alone had 7.6 million applicants last year, have 150 to 500 people apply to each open position. Perhaps the largest known job black hole on record was described by Peter Cappelli, a Professor of Management and Director of the Center for Human Resources at Wharton. His continuous research into the job market revealed a black hole at a staffing firm so large it swallowed 25,000 job applications for a “general engineer” position. Though the belief is that a small percentage of the applicants did receive a reply of some sort, not one resume out of 25,000 resulted in a hire.

Can job candidates do anything more than click “submit” and say a prayer when sending their resumes into the abyss? “You need to have (current) employees make referrals for you if you want to find a job,” suggests John Sullivan.

Black holes affect not only the candidate but also the hiring organization. Top talent enters but fails to exit the black hole on the hiring manager’s side seemingly disappearing into an ATS wormhole of sorts. Job openings then remain vacant. As a result big companies like Ernst and Young are adopting Dr. Sullivan’s referral suggestion and are increasingly using their own employees to find new hires. Employee referrals now account for 45% of their non-entry hires and they hope to reach 50%.

The referral behaves much like a homing beacon or tether between the applicant and referring employee. The resume can journey through the black hole quicker and with greater success. Riju Parakh, for example, a passive candidate not even looking for a job, was hired by Ernst and Young within three weeks after receiving an employee referral while thousands of other weekly applicant resumes wallowed untouched in the darkness.

Though I write this post with a bit of jest, resume black holes are very real and increasing. Be careful not to let your resume blindly go where thousands of others have gone before.

Posted in Candidate Screening, Recruiting | Tagged ATS, resume, screening | 1 Comment