Friday, February 23, 2018

Why I'm not a "Social Recruiter"

I know that I am going against the "popular" grain here...but I am not a social media recruiter per se. Everything you see or read about now days (especially on Social Media) from other recruiters or "brand managers" or "talent engineers" or whatever they call themselves these days - is focused on how important a social and branding strategy is to recruiting.

I'm not here to disparage that...I'm guessing that social media really works for some folks. But...I'm also here to be honest and say - it doesn't work for me! There...I said media DOES NOT help me recruit top talent.

*One caveat here....I do not include LinkedIn as social media....I consider it more of an online resume and professional media forum (though some people seem to be trying really hard to make it more like Facebook).

Here are the numbers from my nearly 20 years of recruiting experience (for those who need data):

Number of placements from different social media sources - 
  • Twitter - 0
  • Facebook - 0
  • Instagram - 0
  • SnapChat - 0
  • YouTube - 0
  • Pinterest - 0
  • Google+ - 0
  • MySpace - 0
  • Online blogs - 0
Rather than taking the time to throw that into a spreadsheet and google how to do a "SUM formula", let me do the math for you. 0 placements over my entire career from social media sources. ZERO.

Now - if you were to include LinkedIn, then the answer might be 200-300?. If you were to look at non-social media sourcing, the answer would literally be 1000's. 

Again, I'm not saying it doesn't work for some recruiters....just sharing my experience with you. 

My real reason for the post is perhaps an explanation to myself...I've been justifying having Twitter, Facebook, Snapchat, etc. on my phone for years. The justification always being - well, I'm a recruiter and I need them to be successful at work. Social Media is the new recruiting Mecca....

Truth be told, social media on my phone is nothing more than a time-suck. It has become a thing for me to open and check almost without even conscious awareness. I am weak...I get sucked in. I end up spending valuable time reading about politics, news, sports, and opinions from people who I really don't care what their opinions are. I've found myself disliking friends and even family...not even to speak of complete strangers...because of their opinions. Perhaps I just follow the wrong folks...or bots. But I've hung it up (mostly). I'm done.

I've deleted my Facebook account entirely (after just taking it off my phone a few weeks ago), I've removed Twitter and SnapChat from my phone. I've found myself so much more content with life and so much less stressed by the contention and division that may or may not even be real in this country and world....btw, who even knows what is real and what is fake on social media anymore. People that I care about can connect with me by phone or text or....heaven person! I still have a Twitter account that I Buffer professional links to (at the same time as LinkedIn - thank you Buffer)...but no longer can check it from my phone. I'd have to actually login from my laptop to check it now...which I don't.

Again - not preaching here...spend your time how you'd like. I'm just done spending mine on social media and justifying the accounts for "work purposes"...

I carry a book now and my life is better for it.

Friday, July 21, 2017

The "Compensation Conversation"

Ahh yes.....the "Compensation Conversation".

Let's face it, no matter who you ask about this subject, you'll get a different opinion. Candidates, recruiters, hiring managers....each of them have not only a different interest and view point, but different situations even within their own ranks. I truly believe that this is one of the most talked about areas of a job search - where people on all sides (candidate, recruiter, hiring manager) want to make this black and white....and guess is anything but "black and white".

To consider some of the things that go into a compensation perspective, let's start by simplifying and talking mainly about base salary + bonus. Sure there are a ton of other things that fit under the compensation umbrella (ie...benefits, culture, perks, flexibility, growth, etc.), but those are too difficult to discuss all at one sitting. Let's focus mainly on base salary and "guaranteed" or at least "expected" bonus.

Here are some things to consider from each of the different players:

Remember, what you make is NOT your personal or implicit value....but it is your current MARKET value. That means a few things.

  • You should do your homework and research to get a sense for the market value of those similar in experience to yourself. Take into consideration things like: size of company, geography, years of experience, education, titles, demand vs supply.
  • Talk to people (you trust) that are doing similar work to you, check out online calculators, talk to recruiters or career coaches...gather data (but take it with a grain of salt or two and be realistic in the data sources).
  • Do math and stuff. Do you know how much your benefits cost? How about your commute? Vacation time? Unless you put a $ on cost, you can't really compare them to a potential new offer. Spend the time to figure out exactly what your budget is...this gives you flexibility in what new compensation ranges you can actually consider and how much different salaries will actually change (or not) your current lifestyle. This is vital when making a change as big as a new job!
  • What is your value currently...well, if you only have one job and no offers...your current compensation IS your market value. How much does your current company value you? Be realistic here...sometimes your current company values you more than a new company will...sometimes less. Perhaps it's time for a conversation about growth and comp increase instead of time to look around...
  • What is supply/demand like currently for your skill set? How many job openings do you see posted? Last time on the market, how many offers did you have (and what has changed since then - for better and worse)? Remember: interest is not interviews, interviews are not offers....offers are king!
  • It's crucial to know whom you are competing against for the role as well. Are there internal candidates being considered? How many qualified candidates have applied so far? How long has the role been open? Is it filling a gap for someone that left, or brand new?
  • How do your skills/experience compare with a similar role at a new company. Keep in mind that the more of your positions/roles there are at a company, the better knowledge of market value they will likely have. Most companies will compare you against who they already have and adjust offers accordingly. 
Hiring Manager
As difficult as it is, remember that you are dealing with people here....that's right....PEOPLE, not resources.
  • Most hiring managers have a budget that they need to adhere to. Often a hiring budget is based on a few things, including: 
    • What are the current team members in and outside of this role making?
    • What did we pay last time we hired this role (and how recent was it)?
    • What is current market supply/demand for this skill set?
    • What else needs to get accomplished with this budget amount? 
    • Do I have any flexibility on salary, bonus, or benefits?
  • Keep in mind that some managers are building a team, some just filling a need. This could have a huge impact on any new offers.
  • How many QUALIFIED candidates am I seeing for this role. The more good candidates a company has access too, the less likely they are to go outside of the established budget. If there are choices in applicants, most managers will stay on budget - even if you are the right might not be the right fit for the established budget (and yes, that matters to a company).
  • Do I have anyone internally that is interested in and qualified for this role? Promote or hire internally first when you can. It is often a better long term fit, better for team morale, better for culture.
  • As a manager, please remember that $5K up or down has a much bigger impact on a candidate than it typically does on a team budget or company. It could be all the difference in the world to someone that is trying to make a move make sense. 
  • You should always make the best offer you can - and let them know that up front. If you are trying to save a few $ by low balling...not only are you at risk of losing a good candidate, but also getting a good candidate and establishing a poor culture.
  • Finally - just like a candidate, you should know the market. Do research, find mentors and colleagues at other companies (that you trust), use online tools.
Yep...recruiters often have a role in this as well. You should know their role too.
  • Know the recruiter's role in this. There are things you should have a basic understanding of when it comes to recruiters:
    • Agency Recruiter - this is a recruiter that isn't employed by the company you are interviewing with. They are typically compensated in one of 3 ways:
      • Contingency - meaning that they work for free until they place a candidate. Usually they will get "x"% of the first year salary or total estimated compensation that is paid to the candidate. Meaning, if a candidate is paid $100K and the rate is 25%, the recruiting agency will be paid $25K. 
      • Retained - meaning that the agency has already been paid part of the percentage up front, another third is paid when interviews take place, the final third when a candidate is placed and starts for the company.
      • Negotiated contract - meaning that the agency has a flat fee per head (regardless of what the compensation of the candidate is).
    • Contract Recruiter - this is a recruiter that is contracted by the company and paid an hourly rate. Most contracts are for a time period, not for an actual number of hires.
    • Corporate Recruiter - this is a recruiter employed by the company...typically on salary, sometimes HR, sometimes outside of HR.
  • Once you know the recruiter's stake, it's easier to determine if they are advocating for you or the company....or both. 
    • Agency recruiters on contingency don't get paid unless you get hired. They get paid based on what you make. Keep in mind that the fee does not "come out of your salary" - this is a common misconception. They want you to make as much as possible (it helps their fee go up)...but let's be realistic...they want the company to hire you too (some money is better than none) it's a balance for contingent recruiters. They also are incentivized to make sure that you are the right candidate - as most have a guarantee that a placement will stay at least 90 days or more. They can be your ally (if you find a recruiter that you trust and can be open with) or your enemy (there are plenty of bad recruiters out there). Yes, I know that the fee looks huge, but remember, most recruiters only see a percentage of that (unless they are a one person show)...the company takes a huge chunk, and other people involved in the process do as well. I say that so you as a candidate know that $5K isn't really that much more or less to a recruiter in the end either...meaning, they won't want to lose a deal (either way) over what amounts to a few hundred dollars or less in their pocket.
    • Contract and Corporate recruiters are typically paid a set rate independent of how many people they hire. That is a good thing for you as a candidate - if they are hiring well. If they are not, they won't last long. Typically, they'll have a good idea of what the salary range really is. They don't ask typically to negotiate you down...they just don't want to waste the hiring manager's time if you are not in or close to the established range.
There are certainly a number of things that this post doesn't cover when it comes to compensation. It's difficult to be all-inclusive in this type of forum. Other things to consider would certainly be things like culture fit, mission, cool projects, growth potential, stability, perks, benefits, flexibility, commute, company brand....the list goes on and on. I've also seen that it usually comes back to base salary as the focal point though, because benefits don't pay bills. 

I guess what I'm trying to get across to all sides is this...compensation is a complex issue. In my opinion, it is best approached early and often in a job search. It should be a transparent conversation (understanding that certain things may not be able to be fully transparent) and happen with an open enough mind to see that there are at least 3 (sometimes more) sides to the conversation to consider, empathize with, and understand. I hope this helps someone.

Wednesday, February 18, 2015

Is Voice Mail Dead?

The greatest debate about "what is proper" since etiquette gurus arm-wrestled to decide where the salad fork should be placed is upon us....

"To leave a Voice Mail.....or not to leave a Voice Mail"

While I'm certain that there are many polls and stories and heaven forbid...blogs...out there on this subject - and many are probably about as opinionated and worthless as this blog - I do want to give some context and numbers from a study quoted in PC Mag (September 2012).  It says:

"A new report from USA Today and VoIP firm Vonage confirms what was already fairly obvious: Voicemail is dying.  In preparing data for the paper, Vonage found that the number of voicemail messages left on user accounts decreased 8 percent in July compared to a year ago. The data also indicated that checking your voicemail is an even bigger hassle than leaving someone a voice message. Retrieved messages fell 14 percent among Vonage users during the same period."

So I ask myself...2+ years after this study... "Is Voice Mail Dead?".  

My answer is (in my usual non-committal, afraid of maxims and ultimatums and dictums) depends.

I've asked around my office.  The sales people tell me that when calling clients or potential clients they always leave a voice mail for business related calls - and sometimes for personal calls.  The recruiters tell me that when calling candidates or potential candidates they only leave a voice mail after 2 missed calls or so - and rarely for personal calls.

The average age of my sales people is 40-45.  The average age of my recruiters is 34-40.  Interestingly to me, the average age of managers that my sales people are calling on are 40-50....the average age of tech candidates that my recruiters are calling is 20-35.  

Why do I bring this (age) up?  Because voice mail is for old people of course.  Just kidding....or am I?  

My own voice mail behavior/etiquette  you ask?.....

Well, personally - I HATE VOICE MAIL.  I unequivocally shudder every time I see the flashing light on my office line, or the little mailbox on my cell phone.  Call me lazy, but for me to take the time to dial in to the voice service and enter a password, then click digits and listen to blah blah blah, then click more digits to delete the message I've hardly paid attention too...but just want to get the light to stop flashing - YOU'VE LOST ME!

If you need me and I don't pick up the phone, email me or text me or tweet at me or skype me or IM me...just don't make me expend the effort of clicking through and pretending to listen to your poorly contrived and long-winded voice mails.

Then again - I am an absolute hypocrite.  I will call candidates and clients and leave a voice mail and put them through the same HELL that I just described I hate going through.  But, I do choose wisely who will be the recipient of that HELL.  If I'm calling someone who I think is over 40 - I leave a message, if under 40, I don't.  I'll then follow up on all recipients with an email or text message - depending on if I'm calling a land line or cell phone.  

Why do I leave a voice mail, even if I hate it so much? 
  1. I'm lazy. I ignore the fact that it takes me less time to leave a voice mail than text/email, but the recipient more time to retrieve the voice mail than read a message.
  2. I’m afraid. I was trained as a salesperson to "leave no stone unturned"...meaning I'm afraid if I don't leave a voice mail, it is that one person that loves voice mail and hates email/text messages - and now I've blown it.
  3. I’m an ageist. I think older folks still prefer voice mails to texts.  It gives them the warm fuzzies of the “personal touch”.  Younger folks – you millennials – don’t even bother…tweet, IM, or text me.  Even email is getting antiquated….
Do people actually listen to my voice mail?  I don’t seem to have any better response rate to voice mail than I do text or email. Perhaps I’m not good at creating a message that is concise or important or easy to respond to – as my sales guys say is essential.

Perhaps Voice Mail… no better than a message in a bottle…..DEAD.