Recruiters’ Favorite Wastes of Time
We often read about a variety of supposedly recruiting-related topics which are designed to have in-house (either full-time or contract) recruiters do better. We typically work on 15-25 requisitions at a time, putting in 45-60 hours of work/week for immediate hires. Consequently, if it doesn t directly lead to helping us quickly and affordably put more/better quality butts in chairs, these topics are wastes of our time. A number of these suggested topics/tasks are useful (if not vital), and others aren t. However, when we recruiters aren t drinking from a firehouse, we re wondering how soon they ll lay us off, so in neither case can we work on these useful tasks. It would be valuable to have a company say to us: We re slowing down a bit now, so we ll have you work on these other important tasks you haven t had time to do up to now to keep you working for awhile. Many companies are unable/unwilling to do this, and would rather lose our accumulated knowledge and practice and start all over again in the future with some largely/wholly new crew. Anyway, back to those favorite wastes of time we re supposed to do in the negative-5 to negative-20 hours of free time we have during the week: Retention This is not only a waste of time for recruiters. It s actually harmful to us. We recruiters are paid to fill hires for new or open positions. When people stay longer, the amount of work we have decreases (since there s less turnover), and so does our job security. As I sometimes say, there s no job security in filling a full cup, but there is in trying to fill a sieve. A company can t reasonably expect us to work against our direct interests when it isn t prepared to offer solid and meaningful guarantees of continued employment to recruiters when the need for new hires slows down (as discussed above). (Social Network) Employment Branding I don t consider this recruiting. It s to recruiting what marketing is to sales. (Actually, it is a kind of marketing.) Let the marketing people do it, and figure out how/if it works. It s like the old joke about advertising: Fifty percent of advertising spending is effective, and nobody knows which 50% that is Also, wouldn t putting the money that would be used for branding be better spent on tried-and-true recruiting methods, like an improved employee referral program with meaningful payout amounts to participants? Candidate Care/Candidate Experience While it s another important area, it appears recruiting decision-makers don t think so, even to the extent of hiring $3.00/hour virtual candidate care reps to make sure all candidates have a decent experience, while allowing recruiters to concentrate on dealing with candidates who are moving ahead ( for now or at all). It nicely dovetails into (social network) employment branding, though staying on this side of the recruiting/marketing border. It s ironic that companies seem very eager to spend so much money and other resources getting the interest of people who might apply to them, while spending so little to improve the experience of those who actually do apply. Talent Communities This is a very hot topic right now. Here are my two different definitions: A group of individuals with company-relevant skills attracted to gain their interest in the company s skill-relevant activities for possible eventual employment. This is perhaps the biggest waste of time it s passive and slow. How do you measure it? Who s going to do it are they existing people or new ones? Who ll train them or will they learn on the job ? As said before, wouldn t the relevant resources be better used on proven methods instead of this trendy boondoggle ? The 2013 term for talent pipeline. This is a very good idea, and one most companies should implement. However, recruiters can t really develop pipelines when we re spending 50 hours/week on immediate hires. Companies should specifically hire people to create and maintain these talent pipelines of people we re pretty sure we want to hire, without the schizophrenia of having to simultaneously fill current openings. (I d like a job like this; wouldn t you?) Paperwork/Data Entry/Metrics This is a case where you can have too much of a good thing. (You re thinking: Paperwork s a good thing? Yes, we need all our stakeholders (staffing managers, hiring managers, colleagues, etc.) to know what is going on in clear detail). However, I ve learned about two large companies where the recruiters spend 60-70 percent entering and documenting what they do the remaining 30-40% of the time. It would be laughably ludicrous if it weren t so dysfunctionally pathetic. I haven t seen a clear case for taking more than about 5 percent of your time, and if real reasons (we ve been audited ) or imaginary ones ( if we give them all sorts of metrics, then they ll say we re serious and important just like them and will give us a seat at the table. ) justify a greater amount of time than this, spend as much time as you think just outsource it to some data entry people for $2.00/hour. I m looking to hear your thoughts about these, folks. What would you add to the list of Recruiters Favorite Wastes of Time ? 管理新知 您可能感兴趣的文章 Terminations: A True Test of Your Company Culture 2012-12-20 【人力资源管理】的六大模块一句话解析，非常精辟！
2015-03-06 适当的冲突可以让团队变得更好 2016-08-18 最近文章 TEST 2018年01月15日 嫖娼被抓不属无故旷工，公司解雇赔4万！（法院判决） 2018年01月15日 如何判断你是否具有HRBP胜任力？
2018年01月15日 阿里为什么不去清华招人？
2018年01月15日 因利益冲突，Facebook COO和Twitter CEO退出迪士尼董事会 2018年01月15日 热门文章 嫖娼被抓不属无故旷工，公司解雇赔4万！（法院判决） 2018年01月15日 如何判断你是否具有HRBP胜任力？
2018年01月15日 阿里为什么不去清华招人？
2018年01月15日 2017年度职场出差行程调查，出差最多的居然是他们！！
2018年01月12日 员工在自己QQ空间评论HR经理吃屎，可辞退他吗？
2018年01月11日 扫一扫 加微信【已隐去】 关于沙龙 顾问委员 广告推广 隐私安全 联系我们 申请vip会员 支付方式 市场合作或广告投放 电话：【电话已隐去】 邮件：【邮箱已隐去】 在线QQ【已隐去】 VIP会员 企业VIP会员 机构VIP会员 广告刊例 商务合作 Follow HRSalon