Workplace Romances – Jared Woods

What would you miss if you left tomorrow?

// August 18th, 2010 // No Comments » // Employment Branding

Imagine your organisation closes its doors tomorrow. The people disperse, the product disappears from the market. Teams are divided off to competitors, the brand vanishes.

What would the world be missing out on?

What would you, as an employee, miss out on?

The answer to the first question is the reason your company exists.

The answer to the second is your employer brand.

The reason any employee works at a company can be seen as an overlap between the company’s ‘generic’ employer brand (ie, the value proposition constructed from the points which the majority of employees agree are part of the employment experience) and the employee’s personal brand affiliation. Let’s call this an overlapping synergy. The larger the synergy, the more likely you’ll be a culture fit, and the more likely you’ll enjoy the role.

Mapped in two dimensions, this is a simple Venn diagram. Larger overlap, more points of common perceived benefit (between you and the ‘brand’ average) means a picture of more engagement. (and as a side note, look at those values and try and construct a person out of them. Even a fictional person makes it very easy to start drawing comparisons. This is what I call a ‘brand mannequin’ – looks like a person but isn’t, but good for measuring people against)

However, the two-dimensional synergy (and indeed the brand mannequin) doesn’t take into account the power of beliefs. Sharp spikes in the strength of those values can create different synergies. That extra dimension makes a substantial shift in the nature of engagement.

For example – Carl works for a company which has ten core values at the heart of the EVP. He doesn’t care about six of them, and two of the remaining four are things he agrees with at a reasonable level. The remaining two are Carl’s defining passions – they drive his career goals and his desires. In a two dimensional argument (yes/no) along the brand agreement, Carl scores 4/10. Not a high score on the employee engagement scale.

However, ask Carl what he’ll miss if he can no longer work for the company, and his answer will probably, amidst the social data, suggest that the company was aligned to his values. Maybe not all of them, but certainly the ones that mattered.

Overlapping synergy between the brand values is the first goal of an EVP – find out what we stand for and why people work here, and align the workforce, through education or ongoing recruitment, to build an overlapping synergy between the company and the individual value positions. Understanding the passions, and how huge a difference they can make to brand loyalty, to engagement and to a personal investment in your own professional development, comes once an organisation’s value proposition becomes part of the performance and career dialogue.

If you had to leave tomorrow, what would you miss? And is that really the reason you go to work every day? And if it is, what are you doing to get more of that, or keep it more secure?

Social recruiting experts – who needs them? Not you.

// August 13th, 2010 // 3 Comments » // Employment Branding

There’s an old saying that applies to social media. “If all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail.” For those of us who have been swimming in the social media pool for a while, it’s easy to start thinking it’s a silver bullet. And maybe it is. Except that even silver bullets need to be well-aimed and fired from a  gun that works.

Using online social networks  as a channel for attracting and engaging talent is a great idea. It’s a great idea because it allows you to communicate in real-time with an opt-in talent pool. It allows you to stand up as part of the tribe, as a voice worth hearing in your industry. And it allows you to tell the story of your brand, your employment experience, and amplify the messages you want to send about your culture.  Most other media, such as newspapers, videos and careers events, let you do that too. The only real difference is that online social platforms give your audience a voice to converse with you, too. The democratic nature of response-focused online media gives your brand greater access to feedback and conversation.

Being able to use social media to engage people isn’t any different than being able to talk at a real-life networking event, or present on a stage, or do phone-screens for candidates. Being able to communicate on social media requires two things – knowing who you are, and knowing how to speak. And while it’s pretty easy to learn how to speak using social media’s pantheon of tools (there are certainly enough blogs, video tutorials, articles and resources out there), it’s a lot harder to know who you are and how to talk to people as a brand.

To acquire the knowledge of who you are, you need to rely on the principles and values that underpin your brand. Your tone of voice, your communication style, the content, frequency and responsiveness are all things that descend from your brand. If yours is a brand that is friendly, approachable, picky about getting the details right and wants to add value, then those are the defining traits of your brand on social media. The platform doesn’t change the personality of your brand.

So much of what’s discussed in social recruiting applies to recruiting skills in general. Good communication, timely response, the ability to identify talent amidst the chaff – these are recruiting skills, not social media skills. You wouldn’t hire a Job Board Expert to teach you how to post a job on SEEK. You’d try yourself, and if you got stuck, you’d ask people you know (usually someone who’s naturally aligned to this sort of thing) and maybe attend a one-off training course with SEEK. You wouldn’t hire an expert just to show you how to use one channel – you hire an expert to show you how to apply the brand to all your channels. That’s where brand agencies and internal employer marketing teams come in – here’s the message, regardless of the place you want to shout it from.

A social recruiting expert will teach you the tools, which you can learn for free and trial for yourself without them. A social recruiting expert can show you how Twitter works, and show you the mistakes they’ve made. However, a social recruiting expert can’t tell you who you are, and how to accurately and authentically create the brand using social media as an additional channel. They can show you how to hold a guitar, but not how to write music.

If you’re ready to explore social media to find and engage talent, because you have a strong brand, a well-defined value proposition and a good idea of how to appeal to your prospects,  then you don’t need a social recruiting expert to show you how to do that. And if you don’t have those things, all the social recruiting expertise in the world won’t help you find out who you are and help you connect with the talent you need.

Mobile recruitment apps for corporates are a bad idea

// July 19th, 2010 // No Comments » // Recruitment Marketing

Applications (or apps, as we now call them) for mobile devices are the new black. With smartphone technology advancing, new devices and a flood of marketing and journalism around the app market, there’s plenty of noise. Apps are the new silver bullet, the must-have part of any process. At least, according to some. Not me.

The point of mobile apps is repetition. They’re designed to be used multiple times. If you’re downloading a program to your mobile device, you’d want it to be something you use time and again. Like ordering a pizza, or logging into Twitter, or taking photos. They’re designed to perform a specific repetitive function for the user.

Which is why they’re not suited for corporate recruitment.

Applying for a job is a process which requires a one-off, content-rich transmission of information from candidate to employer. It’s not like ordering a pizza or checking Facebook. It’s often a multi-stage process that requires consideration and a lot of detailed information. It’s a sales process, in which the candidate creates (essentially) a marketing impression upon a company.

Designing an app which includes the process of applying for a job with a company would require a huge amount of information transfer. Also, as most smart devices don’t allow a user to store a resume on file for upload, the app would have to mimic the entire resume-building process. Realistically, we’re talking about an app which requires the user to input four A4 pages of information to complete the process.  And assuming the app works seamlessly with multiple candidate management systems (which is a big call, as many of these systems have very specific information requirements) you’ve just entered the database.

So why keep the app? You’re in the talent pool for that company now. You aren’t going to reapply to that company again, are you? If the company is sophisticated enough to be looking at recruitment apps, it’s a fair bet that it’s using a sophisticated automated candidate management system, and any repeated candidate applications will be discarded anyway. The supporters of this idea say the app could be updated with information about the brand and the company. And they’re right – although given the company already has this information on their website, why duplicate it? It’s additional content creation for another channel which doesn’t add any tangible value.

And what’s the value of it being an app at all? The preachers of this idea say it becomes more mobile. More accessible. Both of these are true, and yet both could be addressed by making the core recruitment portal online more mobile friendly. It wouldn’t make it any less time-consuming regarding the process, but it would mean that content only has to be updated once, not across multiple languages and platforms.

In addition, applying for a job is something which should require concentration. It’s a process of creating a great first impression. It isn’t something you should be doing on the bus, or while waiting for a movie to start. I know people use mobile devices in the home more and more (I know I do!) but that doesn’t change the fact that applying for a role requires a bit of gravity and dedication. It’s a sit-down task, and I honestly believe that giving the application process an app makes it seem flippant. It also isolates information – a recruitment-specific app doesn’t let candidates tour around and see what else you’re doing as a business. And if you include more information for a brand-rich environment, it’s like having two corporate websites that need updating. Why not just have one that you manage really well, that’s mobile-friendly?

Apps are about providing information to make it easier to do something again and again. Applying to work for a company is something candidates should be doing once, and doing with the maximum effort to increase their chances. Making it an app-driven process will make it more time consuming, less content-rich and (I believe) ultimately less enjoyable for a candidate. Personally, I’d rather my candidates found it easy and enjoyable to apply to my company. It’s part of designing the employment experience to make them more likely to connect, and stay, with the company long term.

Better Experiences, Better Stories, Better Brand

// June 23rd, 2010 // 1 Comment » // Employment Branding

Three years ago, I had a conversation with one of our internal recruiters around the TVP (talent value proposition – like an EVP for a particular talent segment) for his area. He was recruiting IT people for an engineering firm, and attrition was high in that team. People weren’t staying for more than 6 months, and we were looking for a solution.

We sat down and read the ads that had been used in the past, looking for clues. They were pretty standard ads – list of skills, what you’ll be doing here, the usual jazz. There wasn’t much to inspire there, not a lot of cultural discussion. So we started writing new copy for all the ads to talk about the team from a human perspective.

And we hit a snag.

We were looking at recruiting into a team with an obvious problem around staff performance and culture. We were looking at recruiting into a team that suffered such quick turnover that only the staff who didn’t leave became the culture.  We were recruiting fast moving fish into a stagnant pond, and watching them jump out straight away.

We had to choose how to tell this truth to the market. We had to find a way to still hit the targets and attract people, even though we were selling them a culture that would require a massive shift. The old ads had used the company EVP – be inspired, become part of a fast moving team, we’re doing great things, etc. However, the greater business EVP didn’t apply to a functional support area like IT.  The first draft, which I call the dead draft (a cacophemism, the absolute hard truth version) read something like this:

“Join a team where your ideas will be crushed by the indifference of colleagues. You’ll work as part of an undervalued function, delivering services that the larger business will take for granted and making adjustments that no one will probably notice. You’ll sit beside some of the most boring and difficult to work with people we can find, who’ll inspire you to either abandon hope, or quit your job and work somewhere else. Apply now!”

We took this to the manager. We explained that we weren’t going to solve this by recruiting more people who either hated the culture and left, or hated the culture and stayed. We needed to fix this by being honest, and by fixing the team culture while we recruited people who could act as change agents.

By doing this, we replaced a lot of people in that group. We did it using our own brand, which cut down on recruitment fees. We did it using an honest TVP that explained that the function was changing, and we needed people to a part of the new evolution. We made this new direction obvious to staff and gave them the chance to opt out. We dropped attrition 20% in a year once the new culture was in place. And we influenced change to the point where that group started wanting to tell people outside the business how things were now, and how being an employee was making their lives better.

Building a brand (in employment or otherwise) involves three things – a good story, the right channel and quality execution. Are you spending as much time on creating a good story as you are on telling it?

Social Recruiting And Talent Seduction

// June 17th, 2010 // No Comments » // Employment Branding

Our level of social interaction almost always plays a part in our self-image. The communities in which we operate, where we find prestige, acceptance and camaraderie, become part of our internal value system. From a retail perspective, advertisers have known this for years. It’s the reason why Coke is always being drunk by thin, attractive, socially conversant people on TV, even though many awkward, overweight and homely people probably also enjoy it in real life. We associate products with an image, which we use to rationalise our choices, and to make brands part of our social atmosphere. I wear Prada, therefore I am like the celebrities I admire who also wear Prada.

Online social technologies have made it easier to create our own tribes, and to interact with a wider array of people. As the limits of geography and  chronogeography fall away, our social interactions are becoming faster and more diverse. Want to talk about cross-stitch? There are Facebook groups and discussions forums and probably a Twitter community who will share links on even the narrowest channels of embroidery and haberdashery. Love web design? Hundreds of blogs, communities and places to find inspiration, advice and people who share your passion. The PLUs – the People Like Us.

With this ability comes the opportunity for talent sourcing functions to step away from traditional recruitment and talent identification models towards something more immersive. For the first time, companies have access to the conversations that are taking place around their brands, their employment experience and their fields of expertise. These conversations are taking place on social networks and are searchable, trackable and joinable. They’re happening all the time. And with the right know-how, they’re a devastating weapon in creating expectation and aspiration among talent you’d like to attract.

Seduction is about conversation. It’s about finding common ground for a beneficial relationship, whether it’s a short-term relationship that’s mutually beneficial, or something longer. It’s about presenting an image that’s aligned to shared perception – an honest portrayal of values and benefits, delivered in a mutually-spoken language. Talent seduction is no different – it’s a process of creating connection, establishing a shared platform of interests and mutual benefit, and building trust and respect until the connection is solidified into a transaction or exchange of benefit.

So there are two parts to using social technology platforms to seduce talent. The first part is about content creation and dispersal. You’re going to attract people who share your values, and that includes the value you put on this content. A 3-minute video shot on a handycam might appeal to a certain market, but if you’re going to do a video and you want it to resonate, why not invest more time and resources to make it look better? The same is true of blogs, photo shoots, brochures – any created content transmits both the content and production value to an audience. It’s like a suit – anyone who tells you there’s no difference between off the rack and a bespoke suit has only ever worn off the rack. Putting the effort into your content is investing in your image and brand, and that can only help you appear considered, well-presented and attractive to the right people.

The second part is the conversation. It’s interaction. Being well-dressed is fine for a first impression, but if you sound off like a ladette the second someone speaks to you, it’s going to undo the work you put in to good content. The art of conversation is about listening more than you speak, about thinking before you sound off, and about an evolution of comfort. It’s a balance between sharing stories and responding to other people’s remarks. It’s an opportunity to influence the conversation, which shouldn’t be mistaken for dominating it. It’s creating expectation through shaped communication, not by standing up and screaming about how wonderful you are. And most of all, it’s about personal connection between a brand and an individual’s wants, needs, fears and expectations.

Imagine you go into a bar, and someone comes up to speak to you. They look like your sort of person, you’ve seen them around at other places you go, they’re outfitted in a style that speaks to you. They say hi. You say something back. They say, in a monotone “Thank you for speaking to me. I look forward to speaking to you! Hooray!” Offputting?

This is an automated response in real life. Whether it’s Twitter, email or anything else. It’s anti-human and anti-connection.

And here’s the kicker – if you know who you are (which in this case means you know your EVP and have an established brand) your targets will also know who you are. It means you can be more conversational and approachable – you don’t have to establish your identity or appear flashy. Your reputation will precede you, because you’ve spent time building it through interaction, and through being consistent. You can establish your value proposition in a social community by demonstrating those values and by being open to discussion with people who want to become part of what you offer.

We identify with those who share our take on things. We are more likely to work for companies who share our views on things that matter to us. Some companies might publish a list of those things on a website, and that’s a start. However, if a company can get into conversations about those values, and use those conversations to create a rapport, they can generate an emotional connection. And those are much harder to sever, and much more likely to make us invest in any relationship

‘Social’ recruiting isn’t about the technology

// May 26th, 2010 // No Comments » // Recruitment Marketing

Recruiting is about people. It’s about human interaction – people identifying with a story, with an idea, with a culture. It’s about creating a common perception that’s driven by people, and related to their social habits. Technology facilitates that, but it certainly doesn’t replace it.

So while we talk about Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and their web-based friends, we’re failing to discuss a fundamental part of the concept – those channels are only as good as the people using them. Not from a skill perspective, but from a content perspective. Who is managing your interaction? What is the purpose of it – to land a candidate or to build the brand?

When we talk about candidate management systems and CRM systems for talent acquisition, we’re replacing human interaction with technology. We’re substituting human connection for reliability, for a consistent experience.  Yes, every candidate gets a response when they apply, but it’s not from a person – it’s from a program. When we adopt systems that search online for social media profile information, are we using technology to spy on people, or to replace our ability to evaluate humans without going through their online personas? Is every communication in line with the employment brand?

As a community of people whose profession is talent, finding and engaging people is what we do. More than ever, technology delivers us opportunity and risk. Ensuring that our communications, regardless of the media, are clear, are going to be interpreted the way we expect them to be, and are in line with the brand and our values as a business, is going to have a more positive impact than being on fifty new social media platforms and using them all randomly.

Get the voice of the brand right. Make it something people want to listen to and engage with first, and then adopting new channels, new strategies and new media becomes easier to manage, and more lucrative.

Rejection And Criticism

// April 15th, 2010 // No Comments » // Behaviour

Rejection.

If a client chooses another option over the one you’re selling, there are two things you can do.

The first is to attack the client directly – accuse them of being unprofessional, complain that you didn’t do your best and deserve another chance, bad-mouth the competitor, complain and use all your sales skills and existing knowledge of the client to try and guilt them into reversing the decision.

The second is to take it on the chin, to wish them well and tell them that the door is always open if there’s anything you can ever do for them. Keep it professional and objective, get feedback on what you could have done better, and stay in touch.

Guess which one means you might get the business back eventually? That’s right – the one most of us don’t do.

Criticism.

There’s a poster on my wall at work that says “If you’re tired of people exposing your mistakes, don’t attack the people. Attack the mistakes.” I’ve seen a few people in the industry respond to criticism by publicly attacking the critic. How does this make you look more credible? If you have issue with the review, address the review, not the reviewer. Attacking people, instead of issues, just weakens your argument. Or, just for something different, be confident enough in what you’re doing to ignore the criticism. If you don’t credit the reviewer, don’ respond publicly – just ignore it. Drawing attention to nasty things someone said about you on the internet doesn’t create anything but antipathy. And I’m pretty sure we’ve got enough of that already.

If it works, do it again. if it doesn’t, do it again. And don’t feed the trolls.

Creating Tribal Value

// March 29th, 2010 // No Comments » // Employment Branding, Internal Communications

Paul Jacobs wrote about epic wins this week in a thought-provoking blog post that links gaming, the most immersive artificial experience currently available, to the industry of talent and service. This got me thinking about what the epic win represents to the individual, and how we can emulate that feeling when it comes to work. How can we deliver epic wins?

(I’ll preface this by pointing out that I am a gamer, albeit casually. So my insights into gaming as a subculture are driven largely by my own participation in gaming. )

Where gaming becomes essentially a tribe (by which I mean a subculture with a communal interest, language and standard of value) is when shared exposure to a particular experience becomes a unifying factor. Gamers become members of factions within their tribe that revolve around genres, platforms, styles, social connections and more. There’s occasionally some tribal warfare among these smaller groups (PC vs console, X360 vs PS3, etc) but they are still all gamers. Their membership to a self-selected class of people becomes part of their identity. They actively seek out discussion on their areas of interest. They recognise each other through a shared cultural language and, occasionally, uniform.

(more…)

Tips For Social Media Reference Checking (if you must)

// March 22nd, 2010 // 1 Comment » // Employment Branding

Following on from my last post on the topic, rather than talking about whether it’s right or wrong, I thought I’d try a different approach to the social media recruitment/ background check debate.

I think there are five things that smart, tech-savvy corporates (and recruiters, but I tend to write from a corporate perspective) can do to help candidates and managers with the issue of ‘public’ information about people’s private lives.

(more…)

Using Social Media To Profile Candidates

// March 19th, 2010 // 3 Comments » // Employment Branding

I’ve already been involved in some online debates about whether the practice of gathering data from personal social network profiles to research candidates is ethical. And rather than repeat my position, I’ve got some case studies for those who have been commenting, because I think this deserves exploring.

(more…)