Category: Recruitment

Posted on

Lessons Learned in Social Media, Recruiting and Discrimination

onboarding process

 

Employers have been getting hit big recently for negligent hiring, according to attorney Lester Rosen, founder and CEO Employment Screening Resources. He presented how to successfully use social media for recruiting or background screening during Day 1 of the SHRM Talent Management Conference and Exposition in Chicago.

“Social media allows employers to look under the hood to who a candidate really is,” said Rosen. “But if you use it incorrectly, there’s a world of privacy and discrimination problems that could arise.” Rosen said employers need to be aware of TMI — too much information — while using social media for recruiting. Employers become knowledgeable of factors that should not be considered for employment purposes.

According to a 2016 survey by SHRM, 56 percent of organizations said a job candidate’s online profile can’t indicate work-related performance. “Social media should not be a tool that allows you to stop someone from getting to the interview stage because you found information that’s not a valid predictor of job performance,” said Rosen.

Discrimination rules still apply even during sourcing or if the candidate doesn’t know their social media profile is being looked at. To avoid a lawsuit, you need objective, consistent and documented procedures to demonstrate information found online is a valid predictor of job performance and used fairly.

“Employers need to consider ADA aspects, such as a website showing dress, appearance, or lifestyle based upon religion,” said Rosen. Employers can’t hire everyone, but they must be able to prove that a candidate’s profile didn’t deter them from the job due to discrimination. He recommends using social media later in the hiring process.

“Firms can be at risk for discrimination claims for “failure to hire” in sourcing, even if a person is passed over and they don’t even know it,” said Rosen. To prevent this, he said clearly stating the essential functions of a job in its description. He recommends an organization has a clear policy and documented training in discrimination. “Establish standard practices to show decisions are made on an objective basis using metrics,” said Rosen. Document when a person meets the objective criteria, but why they weren’t included in the next steps of the hiring process.

Rosen said automated key word searches to comb through a candidate’s profile can be ineffective. “The problem with key words is its all context,” said Rosen. Instead, perform social media checks through a 3rd party behind an “ethics wall”. They don’t make the hiring decisions and only provide job related data to the decision maker after there has been an offer.

Recruiters and HR scan candidate’s social media for different purposes. According to SHRM, 84 percent of organizations used social media sites to recruit candidates in 2015. Eighty-two percent of those organizations said the top reason was to recruit passive job candidates who might not otherwise apply.

“Recruiters looking for passive candidates look for positive attributes, while HR looks for the negative,” said Rosen. As the years increase, so do the percentage of employers who find alarming information on job candidates’ social media — enough for them to not get hired. More than one-third (36 percent) of organizations rejected a job candidate in 2015 because of “concerning information” such as illegal activity or discrepancy with applications found on a social media or online searches.

Rosen recalled a recruiter who found a perfect candidate with great credentials. While checking their social media, the recruiter discovered the candidate offered sexual services at night via Craigslist. If negative material is found online, he suggests showing it to the applicant before dismissing them. “There is less risk for HR professionals if Internet searches are done pursuant to a written consent and after a conditional job offer has been made,” said Rosen. “Social media is growing as a tool for recruiting and sourcing, as long as you use it wisely.”

Mia Mancini is a Workforce intern. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.

Posted on

Comparing Notes on Internship Programs

We have an internship program. And, for better or worse, I am in charge of it.

Perhaps like you, the internship program is collateral duty for me; in other words, it’s another responsibility among many.

I enjoy it, though. We have had some wonderfully bright young minds pass through the cubicles at Human Capital Media, and they continually surprise me with their talents and abilities.

So it was with more than a passing interest that I attended a session on internships during the opening day of SHRM’s Talent Management Conference & Exposition, which is conveniently being held in the Hyatt Regency Chicago — right next door to HCM World Headquarters. I wanted to see if I was getting the most out of our program, and if we were providing a valuable experience for our eager young journalists in training.

I’m happy to report that yes, our program seems to be on par with what others around the country are doing. Sharon Beaudry, an assistant professor at the Oregon Institute of Technology in Klamath Falls, led the session titled, “Tomorrow’s Talent in Your Hands Today: Developing a Robust Internship Program for a Win-Win Result.”

Beaudry, who spent two decades in HR and now is in academia, had a good handle on developing and maintaining a good internship program. One of the key points she made to the room of 100 or so HR practitioners was eerily parent-like: “They listen to you, not us.”

Which is true. I occasionally [ahem] go on these long-winded philosophical diatribes with the interns regarding all manner of journalist-ing. And somehow they sort through my babble and will come back with a “ … but you said …” that will stop me dead in my tracks. “Oh yes, right, absolutely you should attribute that sentence.”

There were a few things I could check off as good practices: we pay our interns (although not at the national average of $17.69 — yikes!); keep the busy work to about 20 percent of their time; and we don’t treat them like second-class citizens. Our interns are involved in staff meetings, companywide events and sit smack-dab in the midst of the editors.

We try to offer ongoing, continuous supervision, although I like to let them think for themselves, too.

Unfortunately Beaudry’s presentation ran long, leaving no time for Q&A. A couple of people offered thoughts during her talk, but it would have been a great opportunity — for me, anyway — to hear what others are doing with their interns.

Outside of paying $17.69 an hour, that is.

 

Odds and ends … It’s fairly common to hear HR people say “that’s inside baseball” when someone is talking about the minutiae of some program or practice. Well, you could say Molly Fletcher’s opening keynote was as “inside baseball” as you can get. Fletcher is an agent for a number of major league players and coaches, and her stories and anecdotes got the conference of to a great start, although for the non-seamheads, it might have been a too little inside baseball.

A new term to add to your HR bingo board: Geo-fencing was a new one on me. It popped up during a panel discussion on top recruiting trends for 2017. Recruiters may get it, but I’m still a little hazy on it. Carol McDaniel, director, Talent Acquisition, Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital, explained it as setting up a virtual perimeter, having to go where the talent is to target people with specific skills.

Make sense? Yeah, didn’t think so.

Rick Bell is the editorial director for Workforce and is pinin’ to hear Roy Rogers to sing “Don’t Geo-Fence Me In.” Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.

Posted on

What’s Your Recruiting Experience Really Like?

I saw in the elevator at work recently that jobless claims are lower than expected, signaling — according to that brief paragraph — signs of strength in the labor market. I wouldn’t know. I’m not looking for a job, and I don’t know anyone who is, which is interesting. Because I know quite a few people who are jobless.

Why? A variety of reasons. Layoffs, bad bosses, health issues, whatever the reason, they should be looking for work. But to a man, their “search,” well, let’s just say it deserves those air quotes.

I’ve asked why, and again, to a man, their responses are some variation on the following: You couldn’t pay me to look for another job, and let these folks treat me any old kind of way. Um, OK. So it’s more important that you be treated well  than it is to find a job?

Their response: Basically? Yeah. Out of necessity small, home-based businesses are popping, there’s long-term temping, dedicated freelancing, there are all kinds of hustles out there keeping good workers out of traditional offices.

Of course, when I hear stories like these I ask for details. One lady told me for one job — she’d been looking steadily for over a year— she interviewed with four different people. She thought she was in until that last one. The man interviewing her wouldn’t meet her eye, and he was looking pained. He also kept sighing and rubbing his head.

She said she knew it was over at that point. Weeks went by and she heard nothing. She finally called them and was told some vague variation of “we’ve gone in another direction.”

“Well, thanks for sharing,” I scoffed.

“Mr. Crusoe, I’m concerned about this 20 year gap in your resume.”

She nodded. “Yup. That’s what I thought too.”

Another lady told me she was up for a great job. Her first phone screen went well. The second one went even better. Then she showed up for the in-person interview. She was kept waiting for almost an hour with no explanation or apology, and when a man came out he looked at her with feigned surprise and said, “You’re [fill in first and last name here]?”

“He wasn’t even the person I was there to meet. But I suspect the receptionist told him what I looked like.”

We had a good laugh about it. I shared an eerily similar story of my own that happened years ago.

“Huge waste of time,” I recalled. “Whenever that mess crosses my mind I regret that I even sat through it. What did you do when he asked you were you really you?”

She laughed. “Girl, you’d have been proud. I said, ‘I sure am,’ and I held up my phone. ‘And I just found out I got a fabulous job. Bye!’ I should have won an Oscar. Buzzards. Wasting my time, making me put on my good clothes and spend money traveling to deal with stupid ****. They weren’t getting another minute from me.”

She has since suspended her search altogether and is now happily enrolled in beauty school. She’s been doing hair on the side for years and figured she was doing well, why not make it official? She likes being her own boss, she said. “And I always treat my customers right.”

Both stories are examples of how talented employees are choosing to vote with their feet and take themselves out of the talent pool because companies are not ready or willing to treat them with respect. It doesn’t make sense.

The phrase war for talent is a little dated, but it’s definitely still valid. Companies have tons of unfilled positions, and I know there are a good number of qualified, hardworking people out there who would love to fill them; I’ve worked with the Oscar winner/stylist before, and she’s sharp as a tack, professional and dedicated. It was definitely their loss.

The problem is, the recruiting process is broken. Whether it’s a sign of the times, the result of technology and the rapid pace of business edging out common courtesy and common sense, recruiters aren’t always what they should be.

I’ve heard them described as careless, rude— how would you like to go to an interview in your best clothes and be called by the wrong name or be asked were you there for the housekeeping position?— and completely unprepared. And what’s with the weeks going by without telling people whether or not they got the job? Even a form letter-type email is better than silence. Close the loop already. Don’t just leave people hanging.

Recently my boss sent our intern candidates — interns — who didn’t get the post an email within days of us making the decision. And that’s standard practice for him. So, talent leaders? Y’all may need to ask yourselves, what is our recruiting process/experience really like?

If you have unfilled positions and you’re spending a lot of time and money recruiting and interviewing with no results, something’s not right. Determine:

  • Are we being careless with people’s time?
  • Are we making assumptions about candidates who look a certain way?
  • Do we have a clear idea of what we want a candidate to be able to do?
  • Are we willing to offer training if a candidate looks promising?
  • Are our resume review, candidate selection and interview processes user friendly and free of bias?
  • Are interviewers well trained?
  • Are candidates being treated with respect? For instance, are we informing people in a timely fashion that they did or did not get the job?

Those are just a few questions to get you started. The actual recruiting process analysis will need to be much more in depth, and correcting any problems will be an even bigger job. But it’s a job worth doing. Further, you need to ask these questions of the right people — the candidates.

The best time to ask is right after the interview when the experience is fresh in their minds. Of course, who’s going to answer honestly when they’re still holding out hope of getting the gig? The next best time would be after they’ve been notified in the negative. Shoot them an email. It’s kind of like an exit interview.

I think companies should send in the job-seeker version of secret shoppers. Send in fake candidates of all shapes, colors and sizes with stunning resumes and see what happens. It might save some serious recruiting costs in the long-run by rooting out systemic bias and other institutionalized missteps. And anytime you sweep out the bad— assuming the company fixes what is broken — you make way for something good.

And good in the recruiting game means talent.

Kellye Whitney is associate editorial director for Workforce. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.

Posted on

Recruiters Tug on Lever to Gauge Hiring Success

Lever recruiting software
Recruiters need to track their recruiting conversion funnel.

Recruiting software provider Lever recently conducted hiring research that collected data from more than 600 small- and medium-sized businesses for over a year. The data was collected to help “startups and SMBs understand whether what they’re seeing unfold in their hiring practices is typical,” said Amanda Bell, director of recruiting at San Francisco-based Lever.

According to Bell, a data-driven recruiter analyzes their recruiting-conversion funnel. “This is how many candidates are making it from the top of your pipeline to a screen, from a screen to an onsite interview, and so on. It’s the information you need to spot inefficiencies in your process and understand what benchmarks to hold your team accountable to,” said Bell.

Among the findings is that 31 percent of candidates decline their offers. “As a recruiter, by the time you extend a candidate an offer, you’ve invested substantial time in them. You’re emotionally invested too, so it’s tough if they say no,” said Bell, whose company promotes a 50-50 gender balance among its 92 employees. Companies should be aware that it’s normal for almost one in every three candidates to turn their offer down, and then take steps to curb that as much as possible.

The research showed only 17 percent of candidates make it to the first stage and 32 percent of screened candidates make it to the on-site interview stage.

“This data is a useful benchmark for a recruiting leader at a small company,” said Bell. “If the conversion rate dips, it means my recruiters are spending too much time on candidates that don’t meet the bar … and time is our most precious commodity.”

The significance behind hire rates is candidate-to-hire ratio, said Bell. Knowing the right number of candidates needed at the top of the funnel maximizes chances of making a hire. The research showed SMBs go through an average of 120 engineering candidates to make one hire. “Unless your ratios are meaningfully better, if you’ve only filled your pipeline with 80 engineering candidates, you risk needing to start your search back at square one,” said Bell.

Data revealed it takes 86 candidates from all sources for every hire, but far fewer employee referrals — just 12 — to make one hire. “One in every 64 proactively sourced candidates is hired, which proves the importance of candidate sourcing as a core component of a proactive talent strategy,” said Bell. Combining sourcing and referrals is important for hitting aggressive hiring targets.

Referrals get hired at high rates, so they represent a small percentage of the candidate pool, but much larger percentage of total hires. “When comparing benchmarks to companies like Lyft, which has seen employee referrals account for as high as 40 percent of hires — startups and SMBs realize it’s worthwhile keeping the focus on employee referrals high,” said Bell.

Bell recommends tracking conversion rates, offer-acceptance rates, hire ratios and time to hire. In addition to knowing these metrics, the most efficient way to leverage recruiting data is to understand how the processes vary by role.

“Invest in the right places by knowing the most efficient sources of hire,” said Bell.

According to Bell, create an inclusive culture by asking the right questions that will evaluate talent based on their work abilities. Know what you’re looking for before you go into an interview. “This allows you to ask candidates similar questions for fair comparison and reduces bias through objective decision-making,” said Bell.

After making an offer, special touches are helpful.

“At Lever, we’ve pulled all sorts of crazy stunts to make sure our offerees feel valued, like shipping a travel care package to a candidate who was about to head to Australia on vacation. You simply can’t afford to let up,” said Bell.

Mia Mancini is a Workforce intern. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.

Posted on

Snagajob: Recruiting for an On-Demand Economy

man holding "we're hiring" sign

Snagajob is one of those companies that solves a problem no one else seemed to notice — how to quickly match hourly workers with the employers who need them.

In 2015, 78.2 million workers in the United States held hourly jobs, representing more than half of the national workforce. And as more people turn to hourly jobs to supplement their salaries or piece together a working income, these numbers likely will grow. Yet online recruiting sites mostly ignored this segment of the workforce, said Snagajob CEO Peter Harrison. “There is an inherent bias against these kinds of jobs,” he said.

“With the growth of the on-demand economy, we think there will be a substantial tailwind in this segment,” says Habib Kairouz, managing partner of New York-based Rho Capital Partners, which led a $100 million investment in Snagajob last year.

The Arlington, Virginia-based recruiting technology company provides a platform specifically designed to link low-wage hourly workers with employers, primarily via a mobile app that lets them apply for openings in a few clicks.

“Recruiting hourly workers requires a different set of processes and tools,” Harrison said. “Employers aren’t looking for extensive resumes and experience. They are concerned about location, availability and attitude.” At the same time, hourly workers want a quick, easy way to find and apply for jobs and get to work.

Recruiting platform Snagajob is growingSnagajob was built to address these needs. It began as an hourly job board in 2000, but expanded over the years, adding testing features, tracking tools and its mobile app. Then in July 2016 it acquired PeopleMatter, an end-to-end talent and workforce management platform, adding training, scheduling and performance management features to its site.

The platform now has more than 75 million registered workers and 300,000 employer locations, and filled 3.5 million jobs last year — almost entirely via the app.

“It’s the largest marketplace for hourly workers out there and they have already made the hiring process much smoother,” Kairouz said. Because it has such a broad employer and employee base, his team believe it is well-positioned to maintain a leadership position in the space. “Innovation is always easier when you have an existing base of customers.”

Though the most exciting thing about Snagajob is the potential of a new pilot project, which will let employees apply for occasional shifts at a variety of companies. “We see it as an opportunity to be on the forefront of the work-on-demand trend,” said Harrison.

Through the pilot, employees register to be considered for shift work, then notify Snagajob when they are available. So far the company has seen a 98 percent fill rate on open shifts in the first minute of posting, Harrison said.

They are still working out some challenges, like how quickly workers need to arrive, who ultimately employs and pays them and how to best match candidates with positions. But Harrison believes once these issues are addressed, the Snagashift model will be a game changer. “There is a tremendous appetite for this kind of service.”

Snagajob Chief Operating Officer Jocelyn Mangan agrees. The shift work approach fills a need for employers, who often to scramble to fill shifts when workers quit or call in sick, and for workers to bolster their income without making a big commitment to any one job, she said. “It’s a great way for them to grab a few hours of work and get paid whenever they have the time,” said the former OpenTable chief product and marketing officer.

Snagashift is just another way the company can accommodate the needs of the young and mobile workforce — and the companies that hire them, Kairouz added.

“Thirty years from now it could be the way all hourly workers find work,” he said.

Sarah Fister Gale is a writer based in the Chicago area. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.

Posted on

Gaming the System to Boost Recruiting

Gamification is helping companies curb unconscious bias from recruiting.

Consumer goods maker Unilever announced the launch of a new digital recruitment program that will use gamification to eliminate unconscious bias from its hiring process. The technology, unveiled in September, mixes gaming elements with video interviews to identify the best candidates among its 250,000 annual graduate applicants, said Leena Nair, chief HR officer for Unilever.

“It is hoped that this innovative approach will help us attract new talent to the company,” Nair said in a statement.

This trend, which promises to make every aspect of the talent development experience “fun and engaging!” has led to a surge of new tools, vendor platforms, and social features across the HR tech platform, from recruiting through training, performance management and succession planning. It is important to note that gamification is not the same as gaming, said Kyle Lagunas, analyst for IDC.

“It’s not about turning work or job applications into games,” he said. “It’s about leveraging game mechanics for other use cases.”

For example, a status bar letting candidates know where they are in the application process is a gaming mechanic, as is giving employees points or badges for submitting good referrals. “The end goal is to incentivize a certain behavior through these technologies,” he said.

Unilever joins a number of global brands including Google, Uber, Marriott, and Deloitte , using gamification in their recruiting strategy in an effort to increase candidate engagement, shorten screening time, and build brand awareness. Though using it to eliminate bias is somewhat new.

The platform invites candidates to play a series of games that allow Unilever to gain insight into their skills and potential, which may not show up on a résumé. It also gives them a sense of how well the candidates “connect with the company’s goals and purpose.”

Nair called it a “truly interactive experience” that will allow the company to connect with applicants in a more meaningful way.

Dishwasher Hired in Coding Challenge

It’s an interesting spin on a difficult problem that recruiters and hiring managers struggle to address. “The challenge with bias is that most people don’t realize they are doing it,” said Vivek Ravisankar, co-founder of HackerRank, a tech talent recruiting platform that uses coding challenges to assess candidates’ skills rather than résumés.

Bias isn’t just limited to racial or gender issues. It can extend to what schools a hiring manager thinks are relevant, where a candidate is from and what past experience they have. “We are drawn to people who are like us,” he said. That can subconsciously impact hiring decisions, leading managers to dismiss the most skilled candidates in preference for someone more familiar, or to leave the job open. Ravisankar notes that unconscious bias has led to the myth that talented developers are impossible to find. “When you eliminate bias and just look at a candidates skills, you’ll find there are a lot more options.”

Ravisankar shared the story of a former dishwasher who taught himself to code on the side but was repeatedly rejected by companies because of his non-traditional career path — until he completed a HackerRank challenge for VMware, the virtualization software subsidiary of Dell.

“He did great on the challenge and got the job,” Ravisankar reports. “It’s a great example of someone who was repeatedly rejected in every résumé screen but now works for a Fortune 500 company.”

Gamification can also be used to challenge decisions made by recruiters and hiring managers to further drive bias out of the process, Lagunas said. For example, having recruiters and managers rate candidates with a five-star tool that requires them to provide justification for low ratings. “They can’t just say ‘poor culture fit,’ ” he said. Instead they are prompted to explain how that candidate doesn’t align with the core pillars of the company’s culture. “People often use ‘culture fit’ as an excuse not to hire someone. This use of gamification challenges that excuse.”

But technology alone, no matter how fun or engaging, will not solve the entire problem of bias, Lagunas said. While these tools help companies look beyond the résumé, managers still need to be aware of their internal biases when making final hiring decisions. “The biggest hurdle is admitting we all have them,” he said. “You have to embrace your bias before you can find a solution.”

Sarah Fister Gale is a writer living in the Chicago area.

Posted on

RPO Customers: We Want More of Everything

Big companies are increasingly relying on recruitment process outsourcing as part of a strategic approach to recruiting that allows them to tap best-in-class technology, top recruiting talent and advanced performance metrics.

This is good news for RPO vendors, who’ve seen their businesses steadily grow. But it has also put them on the hook to provide an increasingly sophisticated set of tools and services to keep these clients engaged.

Today’s RPO customers want their vendors to do more than just fill seats, said Stacey Cadigan, principal consultant for Information Services Group, a market intelligence firm. They are looking to them to build their employment brand, increase passive candidate engagement and improve personalization in the application process without losing efficiency.

“Those services used to be differentiators,” Cadigan said. “Now they are expected.”

RPO vendors are responding. In recent years they’ve added a variety of recruiting technologies to drive engagement and brand awareness for clients, including digital marketing tools, video interviewing, and mobile job application and follow-up features. They are also working with clients in a consulting capacity, adding “brand specialists” who work with clients to help them highlight their brand message across all of their candidate touchpoints.

“Branding has become such a critical part of the RPO delivery model,” Cadigan said. “It filters into every aspect of the recruiting process.”

44_wf0117_hotlist_1

The Challenge: Merging Good and Fast

Clients may want a more robust suite of services from their RPO providers, but that doesn’t mean they are letting go of the key performance metrics that drive this business model. Time to hire and cost to hire are still key measures of RPO success, said Dan Oakes, senior vice president and general manager of Randstad’s RPO business in North America. That’s forcing vendors to juggle sometimes competing demands to create a personalized and engaging candidate experience that is also fully automated to increase efficiency.

“The challenge is how to best combine the technology and the human experience,” Oakes said.

One way Randstad is addressing this issue is by developing more complex talent community tools that proactively seek out and engage passive talent, so they are already warm when a position becomes available. It is similar to a talent community, but rather than passively storing data on anyone who applies, they seek out specific kinds of talent and sort them according to skills and experience, Oakes said. “It will help us get candidates to the client as fast as possible.”

Clients also are giving up on their desire to see proof that the RPO is meeting deadlines and cutting costs. “Analytics are a big part of that,” Oakes said. Most RPOs have rolled out a variety of analytics tools including dashboards and weekly reports to track candidate status and other measures. Though Oakes admitted, “No one has really mastered it yet.”

He would like to see the industry get to the point where data is available in real time, and appears as a tickertape running along the bottom of his screen showing constant performance updates. “We aren’t there yet.”

Part of the challenge is the disparate data sets. Much of the data that would provide recruiters with insight into where the best hires come from and the best ways to engage them live inside the company’s applicant tracking system or HR management system. Without that data, it can be hard for RPOs to make connections between past successes and future hires.

This challenge is further complicated by the increasing use of contingent labor, said Stephen Clancy, director of workforce strategies for Staffing Industry Analysts. The company’s data shows contingent workers represented 29 percent of all U.S. workers in 2015, representing $792 billion in staffing buyer spend.

“The penetration of contingent labor is pushing recruiting trends toward total talent management,” he said. That means RPO vendors need to get more creative in the way they source and engage candidates, leverage their networks and keep track of talent once these contracts have ended. “It is generating a lot of debate about the role RPOs play in finding contingent talent.”

Inside Intel: Adapt to Contingent Labor Trends

Most RPOs aren’t yet integrated into the total talent management process, but Clancy predicts they will move in that direction as contingent labor becomes a bigger part of the workforce. “RPOs need to think about how they are going to innovate to take advantage of this ‘known talent’ pool,” he said.

He believes that the vendors who figure out how to integrate contract labor into the broader recruiting and talent management program will gain a competitive edge going forward.

In the meantime, clients should continue to push their vendors to deliver more robust analytics around their recruiting efforts, and keep track of all the talent that moves though the organization, Cadigan said. “Clients should expect their RPOs to innovate, and to provide real-time data to support the decisions they make on their clients’ behalf.”

Sarah Fister Gale is a writer based in the Chicago area. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com. Follow Workforce on Twitter at @workforcenews.

 

 

 

 

 

Posted on

The Increasingly Important Role of Screening in Recruiting

Today’s recruiters face tough competition for good talent — and they worry about losing good candidates to long, drawn-out screening processes.

Recruiters are also facing increased pressure to fill more roles faster as 3 out of 4 companies plan to increase hiring. “With hiring on the rise, there is always a time challenge,” said Clare Hart, CEO of SterlingBackcheck, a background-checking provider. “The war for talent has enabled people with skills to change jobs more frequently, which is creating anxiety for recruiters tasked with filling those roles.”

At the same time, recruiters can’t afford to skip this vital step in the hiring process, especially with trends showing candidates are misrepresenting themselves more than ever. “I don’t want to be responsible for hiring someone with an unacceptable background,” said Kimberly Martin, senior human resources manager for Dentsply Sirona, a global dental supply company based in York, Pennsylvania. “People falsify their applications all the time.”

Mary O’Loughlin, vice president for global customer experience for HireRight, attributes this rise in part to the recession. “A lot of candidates were unemployed, and they are trying to expand previous jobs to cover those gaps,” she said.

Automate Everything

To meet the needs for faster, better and more seamless screening, employers are looking to their background-checking providers to streamline the screening process and make it as transparent and easy as possible for both the candidates and hiring managers. In response, vendors are revamping their technology and processes with a focus on improving the candidate experience from start to finish, and eliminating much of the manual entry and administrative tasks that bog recruiters down. “It’s all about addressing the pinpoints in the screening process,” O’Loughlin said.

These upgrades include integrating user platforms with clients’ applicant tracking systems in order to automate candidate data capture, offering tools that enable candidates to enter their own data from any device rather than requiring recruiters to do it, and providing text and email alerts to let the candidate and hiring manager know where they are in the screening process. Some vendors are also working with clients to develop candidate-facing tools including videos for their hiring sites to educate candidates about the screening process. “It helps set their expectations, which helps them build their brand as a great place to work,” she said.

To demonstrate the effect of these new tools, they are also offering more metrics to help customers understand how the screening process is functioning and to track key trends such as where red-flag candidates might be sourced from, said Christine Cunneen, CEO of Hire Image, a national background screening firm, and a member of the board of directors for the National Association of Professional Background Screeners.  “Employers want more metrics about screening because it helps them to hire faster,” she said.

 

Contingents to Marijuana

Along with streamlining the screening process, employers are also turning to their screening vendors to help them manage a number of emerging trends in the broader recruiting world. One of the most notable trends is the tremendous uptick in use of contingent labor.

In 2015, the U.S. Labor Department found that 65 percent of employers anticipate an increase in the use of flexible staffing arrangements to meet their future talent needs, and consultancy Ardent Partners anticipates that 50 percent of the workforce will be contingent by 2020. Yet, less than half of organizations screen these workers, which exposes them to increased risks of negligence, fraud, theft and violence.

O’Loughlin said that interest in screening these workers is rising, though it can be more difficult to track down data about serial contracts, particularly because of how they record their work history. “They may say they worked at IBM, but really they were part of Beta Staffing Co. doing a project for IBM,” she said. “It’s a challenge to sort out.”

There is also the question of how to handle the data, and what you can screen for with contingent laborers, said Chris Dyer, founder and CEO of PeopleG2, a background checking company. “In most cases you can evaluate more data for contract workers because they have fewer protections,” he said. However, as contingent labor becomes a more dominant aspect of the workforce, that’s likely to change. Employers should pay attention to shifting regulatory trends. “If compliance rules for screening contract labor changes, it could impact the business,” he said.

Then there is the issue of drug screening, which Cunneen believes is an area of the background-checking process that is “ripe for change.” The big issue: marijuana. In many states marijuana use is legal in some or all cases, but it is still a federally banned substance, and unlike alcohol there are no tests to determine whether someone is using on the job because the drug stays in a person’s system for a long time. Employers are already asking how they should address marijuana testing if at all, she said, and she anticipates that there will be a lot of lawsuits as employers and regulators figure out how to handle this issue.

Lax Compliance Puts Employers at Risk

One area that employers are less worried about than they should be are general compliance rules. Less than one-fifth of employers say they are extremely concerned about compliance issues and related lawsuits despite the ongoing risk of lawsuits tied to mishandled screening processes.

In 2015 alone, BMW Manufacturing Co.; Chuck E. Cheese, also known as CEC Entertainment; Food Lion; Home Depot Inc.; and Whole Foods Market Inc. paid substantial Fair Credit Reporting Act class-action lawsuit settlements ranging from $716,400 to $3 million for conducting illegal background checks, failing to disclose background checks to applicants and breaking other FCRA rules.

Cities and states might also have a unique set of regulations governing what employers can screen for, how far back they can look, what constitutes a personal intrusion, and how exactly an employer needs to notify a candidate about the screening process. And when employers “screw up,” they face serious consequences, Cunneen said. “It is the employers’ responsibility to follow these rules, but they need to be able to rely on their background-screening provider to let them know what’s going on.”

This risk will only increase as more employers use these firms to screen employees in other countries where data can be less accessible, rules vary and information is harder to track down. Employers also need to be concerned about where screening data is stored when screening global candidates. “If a vendor’s data center is overseas, employers should be aware of their security protocols and their liability if that data is breached,” she said.

The issue of global compliance is becoming more important in light of the rapid growth of this $2 billion industry where several leading vendors have been acquiring competitors in order to quickly grow their global footprint. In the past two years alone, Accurate Background acquired fellow background checking company Hirease; HireRight acquired Powerchex, a pre-employment screening firm in the United Kingdom; and SterlingBackcheck acquired EmployeeScreenIQ then merged with cloud-based TalentWise earlier this year.

The industry has also seen HR tech firms from other areas of the workforce management software world moving into the background checking space through deals such as CareerBuilder’s acquisition of Aurico, a global provider of background screening and drug testing services. “Background screening is an essential part of recruitment and a natural extension of CareerBuilder’s product line,” CareerBuilder CEO Matt Ferguson said in a news release about the deal.

And this is just the beginning, said SterlingBackcheck’s Hart. “The industry is definitely consolidating, and we will continue to make future acquisitions as opportunities arise.”

Hart said that the consolidation trend is being driven by demands for better, faster and cheaper screening. “You gain advantages with scale,” she said, arguing that larger firms have the talent and resources to upgrade their platforms and provide a global service to meet the needs of international customers.

Vendors need to be thoughtful about their acquisitions and how they will continue to meet the needs of clients during the often tumultuous integration process, Dentsply Sirona’s Martin said. Martin previously worked with a background screening vendor who provided great service until it was acquired by another firm.

Suddenly the technology stopped working as well, links were broken or timed out, the screening process was delayed with no explanation, and in one case the vendor asked a candidate to travel 200 miles to do a drug screening.

“It was frustrating for the applicant, and it took up a lot of my time,” Martin said. It also caused a few good candidates to move on to the next job offer because the screening process took so long. “We hung in longer than we wanted to make sure the next vendor would be a good fit,” she said.

Martin now uses HireRight, which she said eliminated a lot of the technical glitches, automated much of the data entry, and in most cases completed the screening process in 10 days or less. “Background screening should feel seamless,” she said, adding that vendors need to stay on top of that customer experience or risk losing business. “If it’s not done well, customers will feel it,” she said, “and they have a lot of other options to choose from.”

Sarah Fister Gale is a writer based in the Chicago area. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted on

Misled in a Job Interview? You’re Not Alone

WF_WebSite_BlogHeaders-14

Entering the workforce, whether it be as an intern, part-time worker or full-time employee, is both an exciting and daunting challenge. It requires countless hours being devoted to researching job openings, creating résumés and cover letters, preparing for interviews and, hopefully, receiving and deciding between job offers.

Once a job seeker accepts a job offer, one of two fates is likely to unfold:

The first, a positive experience full of one-of-a-kind learning opportunities that are both fun and educational and take place alongside intelligent, friendly and supportive co-workers who will serve as possible connections and resources throughout the newbie’s future career.

Moritz Bio Picture
Moritz Kothe, kununu

The second, an utter disaster full of boring tasks and surprise responsibilities, resulting from poorly skilled employers, negative work environments, and misleading HR professionals who misrepresented the company during the interview process.

This second fate is what Moritz Kothe, CEO of kununu, an employee rating site new to the U.S. market via a partnership with Monster, describes as the “Oh my God, what have I done?” feeling that job seekers experience all too often after accepting a job offer.

In a kununu survey, which sampled 1,019 employed Americans 18 and older, it found that 23 percent of participants reported having been misled during a job interview, which is almost the same amount of people who reported having been misled on a first date. Furthermore, 3 out of 10 job seekers felt it is often difficult to receive accurate, honest information about the day-to-day experience of a specific job during the interview process.

Based on these findings, it is no wonder that many Americans regret a job after accepting an offer. Fortunately, this does not have to be the case for everyone. The solution here is research. And lots of it.

Job seeking Americans are curious about many aspects of their potential future employer. For example, Kothe says, “some might be interested in what opportunity advancement is like, and some might be interested in what the culture’s like.” Kununu and other employment rating platforms allow inquiring job seekers to access the answers to these questions as told by real employees who have shared their thoughts, experiences and ratings. This allows interested candidates to receive accurate job and company descriptions from people who have actually experienced it firsthand.

Besides using such platforms as kununu or Glassdoor, job seekers should do as much background research on a company as possible by thoroughly examining the company’s websites, press releases, mentions in the media, etc. They should also seek out any possible connections they might have to a current or past employee of a company, because a job seeker can never have too much information when it comes to choosing which company is the right fit for them.

Whether it be through employee review platforms, internet research, or speaking to personal connections, conducting thorough research about a potential employer is vital. This is the key to finding an internship, part-time job, or career that makes a person happy and helps prepare them for success in future aspirations.

AnnMarie Kuzel is a Workforce editorial intern. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com. Follow Workforce on Twitter at @workforcenews.

The Career Hackers is a new blog devoted to helping people start their careers and achieve their goals. Learn more about The Career Hackers on Tumblr.