The problem with software is that everyone has it.

// June 1st, 2011 // No Comments » // Employment Branding

Technology is designed to make our lives easier. It’s part of an ongoing process by which science creates tools that enable us to achieve more things in less time. Whether it’s time we save by not needing to learn the individual steps, or time recovered from having to manually complete those steps to achieve an outcome, it is time that is the reward when technology is used correctly. Technology is a tool that allows us to do things more exactly, more correctly, more efficiently than we would if we did things by hand.

These days, most of our technology comes in two formats. It is either devices, such as tablets and smartphones, or it is software. While the two often go hand in hand, it is software, and specifically the operating platforms we use therein, that make the most impact to our administrative lives. It’s a growing field in which we can see huge gains made in our processes by adopting newer platforms and versions of existing software, and taking advantage of the automation of some of those tasks.

But there’s a problem. The leap towards software as a saviour has had an unexpected side effect. We seem to have forgotten what it’s for. We’ve made the ability to save time and effort a benefit, instead of looking at what we can turn those savings into.

There’s a saying among the more sartorial; they should never see the outfit, they should just see you. The outfit should be so natural, so tailored and so obviously aligned with what you’re offering that it should become invisible. This is how I feel about the two things that software gives us in the people community; user experience for our passive and active talent, and our internal processes for evaluating, hiring and on-boarding our candidates.

There’s a hierarchy of creating pleasurable interfaces (taken from Stephen P Anderson’s excellent presentation on the same topic) that shows the growth in engagement and emotional payoff for users as we move from ‘functional’ experiences to ‘pleasurable’ ones. As we use our resources to make the experience richer and more natural, we generate confidence and enjoyment among our users, which benefits both their attachment to the brand and their sense of comfort. We build trust by making things fun, simple and streamlined, preferably by attaching the brand values we recognise as our own into the mix.

It’s a big jump. Almost all the software we use to do the function-specific elements of our job was designed to make our lives easier as recruiters. The majority of careers pages are designed as add-ons to existing corporate websites, and are built in rigid structures that have been inherited from a company’s original website. Our media channels (with the exemption of social media) are just as rigid, even down to the way we phrase our job descriptions and role advertising. We are driven to a standard template through a mix of anecdotal experience and system limitations, and even those are linked. When the first pieces of recruitment software were built, we asked that they be able to do what we thought we needed, and so that’s what they do, and nothing more.

There are some pretty easy runs to be put on the board by stepping beyond the line in the sand that we drew ourselves. Some companies are already doing it, and I expect we’ll see more. Building gaming and rewards-based interaction into recruitment processes, using rich media content to demonstrate the corporate culture (and not just the video that was made for the shareholders, either) and creating opportunities for interaction over and above what’s required or generated by the system are all good places to start. The technology is good, but it should be used as a tool to connect people with things that are interesting: other people, good stories, immersive brand experiences, even the odd moment of inspiration. We sell the belief in a better tomorrow, but many of the interactions we subject candidates to set a tone of satisfying process, rather than escorting candidates through a learning experience that familiarises them with the brand even as we tick our checklist in the background.

The other benefit of this is that people relax. No one is comfortable using an interface that makes them feel stupid or overly taxed. Giving them a means of communicating and interacting that feels natural and enjoyable creates an atmosphere of comfort, and leads users to be more open, more likely to offer feedback, and more likely to raise issues with the company, not in a social media back channel somewhere. Your point of difference goes from being robust on the process side, to being accessible on the human side. And that’s where all the wins are.

If your point of difference is software, then your point of difference is that you have something that anyone else can have for a price. If your automated process is the crown jewel of your efforts, then you’re replaceable. It isn’t the software that makes you different, or remarkable, or enjoyable to deal with. It’s what you do with the extra time that software gives you, particularly if you invest it in being more creative, more communicative and more approachable.

Work tips from my time playing video games – Chime

// November 25th, 2010 // No Comments » // Behaviour

For those of you that don’t know it, Chime is a surprisingly enjoyable puzzle game. The player is required to use pre-defined shapes to build over an area, by creating modules which build up a point score. These modules then contribute to a whole-of-map coverage area. When 100% coverage is reached, the level clears. Additionally, the game is timed to music, with each differently shaped module creating a melodic element that plays over the background music.

It’s fun and relaxing and complex, and it’s taught me a few basic concepts completely outside the game itself.

It’s almost impossible to build a perfect solution.

In Chime, the building blocks are multiples of five units. The smallest possible active module you can build is nine blocks. So unless you manage to get the right sequence of parts and are fast enough to utilise them the right way, it’s almost impossible to build a solution which covers everything without needing to go back and fill in the empty spots later.

Every decision leaves artifacts behind that can hamper you later.

As the building blocks are different shapes, the creation of modules often means that afterwards, there are left-over artifacts from your previous solution. Often, these are either a good place to start making new plans, or something that gets in your way later on. And they often impact future plans in unforeseen ways when you’re building in a different area.

These artifacts become less important over time.

In Chime, the beat line of the song chases from left to right across the game arena, and every pass weakens the artifacts of previous modules, until they disappear (and take your multiplier with them), clearing the board. The colour changes as these get weaker as a signifier. Which means that, after a certain point, you stop trying to include the artifacts of past solutions into your new solution, and begin building from scratch. Factoring past consequences of your designs is only good up to a point – there comes a time when the remnants of a previous solution need to be ignored.

There’s a finite amount of time before you have to abandon a larger solution.

As you build modules, each module has a finite amount of time during which you can add to its overall size before it’s deployed. This timer resets whenever you add more volume (another full side) to the module. However, as modules become bigger, it’s harder to add a full side before the timer runs out, because there’s more ground to cover. At some point, you must decide a solution is finished before the effort of trying to add more to it becomes futile, and stops you capitalising elsewhere.

Looking beyond the primary function of a tool can lead to better results.

Most of the shapes seem to have an obvious application, but it’s surprising how many different combinations can be used to create differently-shaped modules. As the game progresses, you are required to adopt different sets of building blocks for differently shaped arenas. There’s a substantial difference in how well the game flows when you begin to look past the obvious application of shapes, and start looking at which gaps need filling, rather than how to combine your tools perfectly.

Repetition breeds unconscious competence.

I haven’t played this game to death, but I have played it a lot. Enough, certainly, to know that I’m faster now because I know how to create success from a score (and coverage) perspective. That didn’t come with study – it came with repetition, the ability to deploy solutions quickly and effectively. There’s an unconscious competence bias to games like this – the less you have to think about which actions are required (press X, move stick, press A, etc) the more you can focus on the big picture, and work faster.

It is either growth or decay – nothing is a constant solution.

In Chime, you’re either building a solution or waiting for one to embed in the background so you can build over it. The game is always a race against time, and your solutions are either in construction or in the background. Artefacts from previous solutions are either employed in a new solution, or they’re becoming obsolete. As soon as a solution is deployed, it becomes part of the established background, and new solutions, new problems need to be tackled to advance.

If you know your playing field well, you can fill in the tough spots first

The five arenas in Chime vary substantially in shape and size – including different corners and void areas. Once you realise that specific solutions are required to cover the trouble spots first, the game becomes a lot easier to plan and manager.

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.

Since The Internet, What Has Changed?

// March 15th, 2010 // No Comments » // Uncategorized

From a discussion with Riges Younan of Peerlo, I started thinking about what’s really changed in the ten years since I started working in employer marketing. And as a result, I started looking, not at what the technology allowed us to do as vendors and marketers, but at how I think it’s changed our behaviour as a people.

When we first began using the internet as a forum for classified advertising, with sites like SEEK, we found that we could significantly reduce the time and cost of going to market for jobs, provided our audience knew how to deal with internet recruitment tactics. Companies had a basic site (some more complex, obviously, usually aligned with interest in the internet’s tools, like computers) but content published online was still paid. It was a niche media stream, like running one’s own private magazine. The global economy which exists online makes it easier for people to find work, and the searchable nature of the information made it easier for us to find data on nearly any subject. The problem became quality control. Ease of publishing led to a loss of focus on quality, and a perceived dip in value (after all, publishing online was easier than newspapers, etc, so didn’t receive the same respect from the business community)

(more…)