<img height="1" width="1" style="display:none" src="https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=2059727120931052&amp;ev=PageView&amp;noscript=1">

Put Your Kids to Work Day

Posted by Colin Kingsbury

Apr 27, 2006 5:58:00 AM

Since today is Take Our Daughters and Sons to Work Day, Popular Mechanics has a funny and timely post on their blog.
But here at Popular Mechanics, we think there's something parents can do every day that will help their kids a lot more than parking them in the office conference room once a year: Instead of taking our kids to work, how about putting them to work?
I'm not that old, but I have to wonder how many upper-middle class kids today have the experience of doing real manual labor.

Growing up, I spent summers picking orders in a warehouse, driving a delivery van, and doing general contracting. I helped my father build a large part of the house we lived in from the foundation up. In high school I spent more than the legal number of hours for my age in the kitchen and behind the counter for a local pizzeria. All of this taught me various skills, some useful, others less so. If you want a recipe for 80 pounds of pizza dough, let me know. And even at the boarding school I attended, where many of my classmates were from the truly upper classes, all underclassmen were required to do dishwashing duty in the dining hall every month or so, an assignment hated worse than any test or paper. 

We talk a lot today about "working smart," but these jobs taught me about working hard, both mentally and physically. The tasks were often dull, occasionally gross, and rewarded persistence and discipline rather than intellectual cleverness. In short, they were pretty much the opposite of school. I was thinking about this the other day because I got an email from an old high school friend expressing shock and outrage at the fact that students are no longer required to wash dishes, because the school "felt there were other activities of more greater educational value." I suspect that translates into English as, "parents kept asking why they were paying $25,000 a year to have their sons and daughters wash dishes."

Well, I sent them a letter indicating that I could not disagree more. It is wonderful and amazing that those students today have the opportunity to go on field trips to the Amazon River to learn biology or hone their Spanish in Madrid, but looking back I realize that these jobs taught me a lot more about the world and work than an internship in my father's office would have. They also exposed me to a whole range of people who I would otherwise never have interacted with, except perhaps as a customer, and gave me a very serious dose of perspective on how fortunate I was.

What this has to do with recruiting!
It's understandable that someone recruiting college students would favor someone with internship experience in the field over someone who waited tables or did landscaping. But while people have their whole adult lives to learn their profession, these days the high school and college years are the only time they might work outside of their economic and social status. I believe that doing so taught me many rich life lessons about work and people and really expanded my perspective on things in ways that simply can't be bought with any amount of money.

When hiring college graduates, the focus should be on the potential of the person as a whole. If nothing else, seeing a steady history of "real jobs" on a student's resume tells me that this is a person who knows how to drag herself out of bed, show up, and deal with a situation where their needs don't come first. So before you count a 22-year-old out because they didn't do a three-month internship at Big Name Inc., ask them what they learned pushing a mop bucket. The answers may surprise you.
Read More

Decoding your Vendor's Philosophy

Posted by Colin Kingsbury

Mar 31, 2006 12:24:00 PM

As a software buyer, one of the most important things to do is get a sense of the core philosophy of each vendor you're considering. With mostapplicant tracking systems today being purchased on an ASP or On Demand basis, you're buying into a company's way of doing business more than ever before.

Client references and RFPs are useful, but they are rear-view mirrors, and flawed at that ("objects may be closer than they appear"). As a user, the success of your deployment will be determined as much by the decisions that vendor makes in the future as by the ones they've made in the past. Call it what you prefer: personality, philosophy, core values; the important thing is to try to understand how the vendor will make those future decisions.

To give you an example, one of the things that I am seeing in the market right now is that many ATS vendors are emphasizing integrated product lines rather than their core applicant tracking system. Basically, they're saying, "buy our ATS because it is integrated with a talent management system, performance management system," and so on. This type of pitch tells us two very important things.
  1. They're done doing major development to their ATS
  2. The business is increasingly focused on upselling existing clients rather than getting new ones
The first item (more mature software) sounds like a good thing but it often isn't. In practice, it means that the application you buy tomorrow is the same exact application you will be using in two years when there are a whole host of new tools you want to use that won't integrate with it. More fundamentally, nearly all mid-market ATSs today are still operating on an ASP, rather than On Demand model. (Why this is a critical difference) In most cases, moving to an On Demand model will require a bottom-up rewrite of the entire software package, something that few companies have the stomach to do in such a competitive market. If they're talking about their other products when you're shopping for an ATS, it's a safe bet they won't be investing in their ATS anytime soon. So you had better be happy with what it is today.

There's a name for this type of software: legacy applications.

Our opinion here at HRMDirect is that recruiting is changing too rapidly to even think about saying there's no room left to innovate in terms of applicant tracking functionality. Many of today's most talked-about tools like Jobster didn't exist until a year or two ago, while people like Joel Cheesman are pointing us towards a future beyond job boards. Anyone who thinks today's ATSs are fully prepared to support this future will likely find him or herself buying a new system in 2-3 years.
Read More

Is "Fit" Obsolete?

Posted by Colin Kingsbury

Mar 31, 2006 11:34:00 AM

John Sumser has lately been adding a welcome dose of sanity to the conversation by emphasizing what the big job boards are good at. Intoday's column though, he slips in an aside that I have to disagree with:
Many voices, ranging from the industrial psychologists to the search algorithm enthusiasts, suggest that the output of the Job Boards could (and should) be improved by addressing the "fit" question. The hard thing is that the definition of fit is a moving target. Particularly in knowledge work enterprises, the best employee this month may be maladaptive next month....

In other words, "fit" is a red herring on one level.
This isn't wrong per se but I think John is belaboring the point. "Fit" is not a static yes-no question, but a funnel that narrows down as you move from screening resumes to conducting interviews to extending an offer, let alone the promotion/dismissal decisions that take place one or two years later.

Today, the job boards can barely tell me even the most basic things about a candidate:
- How many years of experience do they have in the specified functional area?
- Have they worked at a small (medium/large) company roughly the size of mine before?
- Do they have experience in my industry?
- Do they have experience interfacing with customers?
- Have they worked at a product (service) company before?

None of these questions strike me as beyond the pale in terms of what a search engine ought to be able to generate. It would require integrating third-party data sources and no, but nothing half as complicated as what is standard in other data-driven industries like finance and securities. Referrals are in many senses simply a way to outsource this level of "fit" determination to a cheap third party.
Read More

When Bad Features Feel Good

Posted by Colin Kingsbury

Mar 24, 2006 12:18:00 PM

My policy has long been that when a certain market segment is full of inferior products, it can largely be blamed on customers. The other day I stumbled across this Malcolm Gladwell article  on SUVs and safety that illustrates the point. This passage really caught my eye:
During the design of Chrysler's PT Cruiser, one of the things Rapaille learned was that car buyers felt unsafe when they thought that an outsider could easily see inside their vehicles. So Chrysler made the back window of the PT Cruiser smaller. Of course, making windows smaller—and thereby reducing visibility—makes driving more dangerous, not less so. But that's the puzzle of what has happened to the automobile world: feeling safe has become more important than actually being safe.
Gladwell would answer that puzzle a year later in his book  Blink , which argued that people make many of their most important decisions in about two seconds. While many of these snap decisions turn out to be quite good, the PT Cruiser example clearly illustrates how "rapid cognition" as Gladwell calls it can lead to very bad judgments.

What does this have to do with  applicant tracking , or recruiting in general? Successful vendors are successful because they build products that people buy.  That's obvious, but what's more often ignored is that people often don't buy the "best" product objectively speaking. Sometimes, they actually buy based on what I call "anti-features," which are features that do the opposite of what they should--like smaller windows that make you feel safer.

The popular response is to blame the vendors, as if it's entirely Detroit's fault that people flock to dealerships to buy SUVs. To be fair, marketers invest amazing amounts of time and energy in "stimulating demand" for their product in ways that are a little shady. But no amount of legislation or professional "codes of ethics" will ever be as effective as a change in customer opinion, and that's why car dealers are now offering $5000 rebates on full-size SUVs that were selling at retail price a year ago.

This is why I see what we are doing here at HRMDirect as something larger than simply adding another choice to the already crowded ATS market. As a software vendor, the easiest thing to do is to say "yes" and give the customer precisely what they ask for. While our focus is on building a great product, we're also working to change the way people think about buying applicant tracking systems. Of course this benefits us but in the long run the recruiters who choose us see that our approach benefits them as well. Judging by the way most recruiters talk about their ATS, it's pretty clear the traditional model isn't delivering. One recruiter I spoke to recently who was demoing a number of systems said "you would be amazed" at how anti-productive many of our competitors' products really are.

Smaller, simpler, and different: that's our message.  It's a message that's still revolutionary in a software market where RFPs are still mostly written as feature wish-lists. As a buyer, it's in your own best interest to  think beyond the blink  when you choose a system. Be aware that first impressions can sometimes be deeply flawed.
Read More

Blogging Metrics and Venture Capital

Posted by Colin Kingsbury

Mar 21, 2006 11:25:00 AM

Interesting post from a VC blogger in NYC who noticed a major bump in traffic after he got linked by a prominent site. More interestingly, he includes a graph of his dealflow--the number of inbound "leads" on new business opportunities--which spiked to more than double the usual number for a few days after being linked. Money quote:
It got me wondering - what deals have I missed out on by not being part of the online conversation?
Read the whole thing. 
Read More

The Talent Shortage Is a Good Thing

Posted by Colin Kingsbury

Mar 20, 2006 11:44:00 AM

The New York Times ran a story yesterday on the relative shortage of female partners in law firms, which compare unfavorably to accounting firms. What caught my eye was this quote from a Deloitte executive, explaining why the firm was offering such a wide range of benefits including long-term sabbaticals and flexible schedules:
"The cost of women leaving and the cost of turnover was so high and the fact that the majority of accounting graduates were women were strong drivers of our initiatives," said Wendy C. Schmidt, a Deloitte principal in New York.
While legislation and PR will compel many companies to provide minimum lip-service to things like policies that support working mothers, nothing beats the bottom line. To the extent that benefits like these make the world a better place, the talent shortage will do more than any legislation ever could to compel companies to provide them.
Read More

Measuring Business Blogging as an Entrepreneurial Venture

Posted by Colin Kingsbury

Mar 13, 2006 3:06:00 PM

Finally a great conversation is taking shape on the role of metrics in blogging. From the beginning I've agreed with John Sumser and Jeff Hunter that the use of metrics is essential. In this post I'd like to flesh out how I and my colleagues at HRMDirect approach them.

Entrepreneurial vs. Mature Businesses
Blogging as a form of communication is fairly new and the use of blogging as a business tool even more so. In a mature business (e.g. direct mail) you don't spend much time arguing over whether something like response rate is a meaningful benchmark of success. Planning and forecasting are statistically-based and fairly accurate. Failure to meet or exceed forecasts is a reliable indicator of execution failure. Pretty dull, huh?

An entrepreneurial venture can be completely different. We are working with a company right now that over the next twelve months will do anywhere between a hundred thousand and thirty million dollars in revenue. The higher number is not realistic, and yet to do even a million could be reasonably regarded as successful. That's quite a scale.

Where the long-term business model is uncertain and often unknown, simple metrics are elusive and forecasts can be little more than horoscopes with numbers attached. An incorrect plan can deliver poor results while being executed perfectly. Success can come from being very lucky and finding the right path the first time, or from stumbling down enough wrong ones fast enough to find the right one before running out of time.

In an entrepreneurial venture the question of utmost strategic importance is not "are we executing the plan well," but, "is this the right plan to be executing?" In the short term, that question will often be answered by soft rather than hard metrics: by positive customer feedback rather than increased win rates, for instance. Leadership is a matter of vision rather than bookkeeping. If you want to see an awkward conversation, put an early-stage entrepreneur together with an I-banker from a major Wall Street firm. Both will leave irritated and more convinced than ever of their own intelligence and the world's foolishness.

Is The Plan Right?
At the tactical level the picture changes completely. It is fine for the founders and investors to discuss whether we should take Strategy A or Strategy Anti-A, but once that decision has been made we must implement it as if were brought down from a mountain written on stone tablets. It's like going on a fad diet: it may be that eating nothing but steak will work better tha eating nothing but grapefruit, but eating a diet of half steak and half grapefruit will prove nothing. In the short term the plan is not open for discussion, at least on a day-to-day basis.

Metrics in the Time of Ambiguity
Likewise, in the short term metrics are not just helpful, they are pretty much all we have. They may be very fuzzy, and we may feel conflicted about them, but unless we plant a stake in the ground somewhere we will have no way of knowing if we have moved at all, let alone in which direction.

In business blogging today it is probably impossible to judge the net present value of a link from Talentism or Recruiting.com to this site. But we can reasonably theorize that they have value, and therefore set inbound links from certain sites as an indicator of some kind of success. Likewise, pageviews tell us an incomplete picture, but what they tell us is not meaningless. If relatively few people visit a blog, and those few rarely return, it is more likely that the blog is failing to engage any audience than that it is successfully reaching a super-select and influential few.

Because only one thing counts in this life: get them to sign on the line which is dotted.
I know that we're living in a new world where networks matter more than individuals and collaboration will produce more returns than competition and zzzz....

The bottom line is that business is ultimately about closing deals. Some people are closer to the blood and guts side of that than others but in the end we're all either adding to the value chain or taking up space. It's not just a question of whether blogging has a positive impact, it's a question of whether that blogging is the best possible use of company resources.

Part of the problem with blogging is that it's fun, and this will lead to people finding justifications for doing it in a work context. Hey, I think it's great, and people should try to find work that they enjoy (because they'll b more productive) but we would't be having this conversation if the activity in question was "making cold calls" instead of blogging.

Think of it as a question of self-preservation. Right now, a good talker could probably sell his or her management on a company blog and evade the question of return on investment and measurement thereof. But there's an old saying on Wall Street that person would do well to heed:
Pigs get fat, but hogs get slaughtered.
It may take some of the fun out of running your own e-magazine to build a business case based around measurable standards of performance, but doing so will radically increase the odds that:

1. You will get rewarded proportionally to the value of your contribution.
2. You will be permitted to continue blogging as part of your job description.
3. You will not get fired when a new manager comes in who doesn't get it.

Someday in the future, I'll talk more about how we got the HRMDirect blog off the ground and the indicators we used to judge its success. But I will say that the experience has convinced us that blogging does have a place as part of an integrated communications strategy.
Read More

Sense and Sensibility

Posted by Colin Kingsbury

Mar 9, 2006 5:08:00 PM

Wherein I celebrate the opportunity to finally disagree with Jeff Hunter on something...

In case you haven't heard, earlier this week John Sumser, publisher of the Electronic Recruiting News, managed to ignite quite the brushfire with aharrumph of a post concerning Microsoft blogger Heather Leigh's antipathy to metrics in blogging. All of which brings us to Jeff's post from earlier today, which concludes,
Yesterday I got a call from someone who questioned how I could be friends with John Sumser. He is just so obnoxious and mean. Junior High School, man. That's what it is. I was the kid who always liked the geeks and wore funny clothes to school to dare the bullies to do something about it. So, in that spirit, let me say John, you are my friend, what you do is a credit to this industry, and how about we start a business together?
Jeff's larger point seems to be that HR needs to "Cowboy up" and quit being so sensitive:
John Sumser writes an article that is in bad taste and hurts people's feelings. So what? Bill Gates gets called a thousand time worse than a spoiled child in print every day. Does he quit?
I agree with Jeff to a point. Blogging in a business setting has one (potentially) revolutionary characteristic, and that is its personal immediacy. Conventional marketing gives us made-up people, and we now know that; blogging gives us real people, or at least we think it does, and people are wired to connect to people more strongly than to things. Of course, this only works if the blogs are written by and sound like real people, or else they become nothing but a daily stream of press releases. To the extent that John Sumser said exactly what he would say to the boys after a few drinks in the corner bar, yeah, I guess you could call that "good blogging."

But Mr. Hunter needs to be careful what he wishes for. Business today is for the most part conducted in the language of international diplomacy: all parties are addressed as "my esteemed colleague," and even the most outrageous offenses are "disagreements we are in the process of resolving." Even when we say bad things about our competitors, we do so "with the utmost regret," as if we wished they would fix that nasty bug all their users are screaming about.

Want to know what's really "junior high?" Shooting off your mouth without caring what anyone else thinks. The professional world is increasingly the last outpost of civility in a world where "upper class" is defined by Paris Hilton instead of Jackie Onassis. "You are what you blog," is the order of the day here: if you call Bill Gates a coprophagic pederast, I'll take your word that's honestly representative of your feelings, but I'll also back slowly away from you while looking for the exit.

In blogging as in email, I've always taken the attitude of not writing anything I wouldn't say to the subject's face. That doesn't preclude honest debate. In fact, it enriches it by keeping the combatants focused on issues of fact rather than style. To the extent that the business world has not yet caught up with the larger culture in this regard, it is a thing to celebrate. 

PS: If this subject is your cup of tea, don't miss this post on SixApart co-founder Mena Trott's on-stage spitball fight at a user conference. Even the comments are really interesting.
Read More

How does your candidate service stack up?

Posted by Colin Kingsbury

Mar 1, 2006 1:12:00 AM

Here at HRMDirect we speak to a lot of what other vendors refer to as "small" companies, meaning fewer than 1,000 employees. They often ask us how an ATS will help them, since they think they're doing fine now without one. In many cases the true answer is that what they're doing now isn't good, they just don't know it.

This is especially true with what I call "candidate service," which concerns the interactions your company has with each candidate. To understand why this is important, read this post on the O'Reilly blog network arguing that HR is "Your IT Company's Biggest Enemy."

This isn't to say I agree with the details of that post. Like many of the dozen or so commenters who rose to defend the noble profession of Human Resources, I suspect that the author either had a poor resume, or wasn't a good fit for the positions he applied to. But that's beside the point! This person has now added a dozen companies to his personal enemies list, and may have said unflattering things about them to some of his friends. Multiply this by ten or a thousand applicants and you have a pretty substantial negative word-of-mouth campaign going on.

Put yourself in the candidate's shoes: You've spent 30-45 minutes tweaking your resume and writing a cover letter. You go through the registration process to send in your application, and a week later you hear... nothing. The message is clear: you're worthless to the company, undeserving even of the courtesy of a form letter.

Of course you (the recruiter) are juggling too many tasks to dedicate personal time to each and every applicant. That's where an automation system like an ATS comes in handy. In our product, you can create a list of applicants who were turned down at the screening stage and send a polite thank-you note to them with about 4 mouse clicks. Outlook can do this too, but it's a little confusing and takes a good deal more time, so very few recruiters do it.

Likewise, some of our clients actually include their email and phone number with their rejection letters so that candidates who really want to know what happened can talk to them. When a candidate calls, any recruiter can pull up the Notes in our system for that candidate, and quickly explain the decision. It may even "save" a candidate or two who somehow ended up in the wrong bucket. Either way, it shows the candidate respect and professionalism, and will leave a positive impression of the employer. 
Read More

ATS vs. CRM Part Two: Where CRM Will Fail

Posted by Colin Kingsbury

Feb 28, 2006 12:42:00 PM

In part one I laid out the case against the ATS: too expensive, too much overhead, and too focused on bureaucracy. I've written about this before in my series on how screening questions drain your talent pool. So I understand the appeal. Heck, I started an ATS company precisely becauseI was so unimpressed by what the rest of the market had to offer.

I also understand the appeal of CRM on a conceptual level. The traditional ATS is designed for a market with a few jobs and a lot of jobseekers. It's like the service counter at your local department of motor vehicles. CRM, on the other hand, is built for sales, where leads are immensely valuable and cultivated over long periods of time. And there's no denying that Salesforce delivers a better user experience than most ATSs.

But I come not to praise CRM, but to bury it. Using CRM for recruiting is not a terrible idea. It would probably work well for a small staffing firm which specializes in no more than 4 or 5 defined categories of candidates. It would probably work well in a corporate setting as a sourcing tool, again for a few categories of people. But using it as a full-blown ATS replacement will prove problematic.

It's not set up to manage requisitions properly. "Show me all the candidates in consideration for this opening" is the type of query that CRM will have a hard time providing. In sales, you don't have leads competing to win a deal. Talent scarcity or no, you are still going to be working with pools of applicants and managing interview and evaluation processes. There's still requisition approvals and diversity reports and interview schedules to worry about.

Sourcing the best candidates is important, but it's not the only part of the process any more than finding leads is the only part of selling. Successful sales managers will tell you that they'd take strong salespeople with weak leads over weak salespeople with Glengarry Leads(NB- typical David Mamet "colorful" dialogue) any day of the week. That's why managing the post-sourcing process is so important, and CRM won't do it out of the box.

So you've got a choice: build it all in CRM, or use an ATS as well. Can you customize and tweak a CRM package to deliver all of this? Probably. But don't kid yourself--it may be just a feature or two now, but in the end you're going to catch yourself developing your very own ATS. If you're lucky you'll end up with a good ATS that costs as much as any commercial package and can be supported by any of the 1-5 people who worked on it, and is dependent on an underlying CRM platform that will change over time. That's if you're lucky. As a vendor I regularly talk with customers who tried the DIY route, and most of them are only too happy to kick the habit.

Using two systems is okay at first, but will get messier over time. In the process of sourcing candidates in your CRM, you will build up large amounts of valuable information that may not make it into your ATS. So, you're going to have to check two systems every time you look at somebody. When you bring a new person on they will need to learn two systems which in all likelihood are fairly different from each other. Integration will either be limited or costly, and often both. Then there's the redundant data entry that will probably go on, which is about the most anti-productive thing possible. Invariably what you end up with is one system where everything really gets done, and one system full of incomplete and incoherent information.

Don't blame the entire ATS industry for your current vendor's bad behavior. If you're going to hold CRM up as the ideal, it bears remembering that in 2001, companies were cancelling projects in the millions and tens of millions as abject failures. And yet today the CRM space is stronger than ever. The ATS space has not undergone the kind of shakeout that hit CRM in 2001-2003, but that doesn't mean that there are no vendors who get it. I'd like to leave my readers with just one thought:
Simplify, simplify, simplify!
There's a temptation to always be buying more expensive tools, to always add more functionality (on paper at least), to "increase your holdings" in terms of software. A lot of what's wrong with ATSs today starts with them trying to be all things to too many people. Don't think that because your last system cost $100k to implement that your next one has to as well. Systems which do less can often do more.
Read More