Welcome to MNTRN - The Interactive Education Network for Talent Acquisition Professionals
Become a member of Minnesota Technical Recruiters Network, right now!
Main Menu
Event Calendar
July 2010
Add event Submit Event
S M T W T F S
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
About MNTRN
The Return of Recruiters - SHRM
The Return of Recruiters
Will staffing professionals be the first or last to be hired as the economy recovers?

Amid accumulating signs that the Great Recession is moderating, companies that believe their core business is improving may begin to restore the employee positions they shed over the last several months.

Has the hiring begun? More to the point, are these companies building up their depleted cadres of staffing professionals in anticipation of employee hiring? Could the hiring of recruiters be, in the terminology of The Conference Board’s monthly national report, a leading economic indicator?

Experts’ opinions vary, but taken together their answers present a vision of workplace recruiting operations after the recession that will be quite different from the staffing models of a few years ago.


Help Wanted?

Angie Salmon, senior vice president of the executive recruiting firm EFL Associates in Leawood, Kan., says some organizations are starting to hire "because they feel more confident about the market and their businesses."

A recent survey by recruitment consulting company DoubleStar of West Chester, Pa., bears this out. Asked late last year whether they planned to increase hiring activity in the first quarter of 2010, 27 percent of respondents—representing organizations in the Mid-Atlantic states—said yes. This represented "a pretty good bump" over the 13 percent who indicated such plans for the fourth quarter of 2009, according to CEO Harry Griendling.

And the Society for Human Resource Management’s latest Leading Indicators of National Employment (LINE) report, released in March, revealed that hiring was up on an annual basis for the fifth straight month. The percentage of companies hiring in manufacturing will reach a level not seen since June 2008, according to the report, and the percentage of companies hiring in the service sector is the highest since July 2007. The LINE report is based on a monthly survey of private-sector HR professionals at more than 500 manufacturing and 500 service-sector companies.

Mitch Beck, president of Crossroads Consulting in Monroe, Conn., has seen hiring pick up but notes that some companies are keeping quiet about it. "What I’m finding is that more companies are starting to hire back but don’t want people to know they’re hiring back, because they don’t want to get inundated" with applications, he says.

Not everyone is optimistic, however, that economic recovery will translate into more jobs. Scott Craighead, general manager, Americas, of Bluesky Executive Search in Fairfield, Conn., says that, in general, "Economic recovery has occurred without hiring increases, as companies have focused on staff cuts to yield profits."

Even if they aren’t cutting staff, companies may not be bringing new hires on board. For example, "Smaller hedge funds that need to hire are standing on the sidelines," says Ev Nucci, owner of Nucci Consulting Group of Gwynedd Valley, Pa., a retained search firm serving the hard-hit asset management industry. "A friend of mine who owns a hedge fund needs four or five people but is holding off" because of concerns about the economy, she explains.

Still, companies with skeleton crews can’t operate that way much longer, says executive search consultant Kevin Palisi of Norwalk, Conn. "You’re going to see more hiring because [companies] can’t squeeze any more blood out of the [surviving] workforce, from a productivity standpoint."


Leading or Lagging Indicator?

"This recession has decimated HR departments and, along with it, recruiting departments," Griendling observes.

Are reinforcements on the way?

Those who think companies plan to increase overall hiring in the near term believe so. For example, Mark Mehler, principal of CareerXroads, a staffing strategy consultancy in Kendall Park, N.J., says certain online companies "are hiring in volume." Those companies—and others wishing to add to employment rolls—must first hire recruiters, he explains, noting that "Recruiting is a bellwether for the economy."

Palisi also believes that organizations "are interested in bringing in recruiters in the near term, the anticipation being they will hire more staff in 2010." He adds that companies "need to hire recruiters six months ahead of the curve."

Others say companies will continue to make do with the resources they have on hand for a while and that an increase in recruiter hiring could actually be a lagging indicator of recovery.

"Usually the first person to get fired and last person to get hired back in a recession is the recruiter," says Dan Finnigan, CEO of Jobvite, a Burlingame, Calif.-based marketer of technology for recruiting via online social networks. "Many companies will actually not hire recruiters right away and be forced to recruit with a smaller recruiting team."

He cites a client—an online retailer—that hired 60 employees in six months during 2009. "They tripled [the workforce] and did it with one recruiter," he says.

Griendling notes that after a recession, companies tend to test the waters by hiring temporary workers as opposed to regular full- or part-time employees. And, in fact, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that 284,000 temporary-help jobs have been added nationwide since September 2009, including 48,000 in February. According to Griendling, it isn’t until later in a recovery, when companies start hiring non-temporary workers, that recruiters are brought on board.

Lisa Rowan, program director, HR, learning and talent strategies, for advisory services provider IDC in Framingham, Mass., expects hiring of temporary workers "to come up further before we see any surge in permanent employment."


Get in Line

Companies looking to grow their workforces may turn to transitional help, such as staffing agencies and freelancers, before hiring recruiters.

As piles of resumes roll into their headquarters, companies find it "easier to inundate an outside recruiter" such as an agency, according to Beck.

Staffing firms and consulting firms confirm the trend. Tracy Cutone, partner and general manager, Human Resources Divisions, of the staffing firm Winter, Wyman Cos. in Waltham, Mass., says demand for contract recruiters from its clients was up more than 85 percent between the third and fourth quarters of 2009.

Griendling adds that his company, DoubleStar, was hired by four new clients in a recent 60-day period, and it has its "largest new business pipeline in the last year and a half."

Freelancers may be in line ahead of staff recruiters, too. "Small to mid-size firms are bringing the search function in-house [by] hiring ex-search consultants to be their in-house recruiter on a contract basis," Nucci says.


A New Model

Another strategy being used as companies try to do more with less: Many are asking hiring managers and employees to take on more staffing responsibilities. Some experts believe this trend could continue for some time, so even after some semblance of a professional recruiting operation is restored, veteran staffing professionals may not recognize it.

"The hiring manager will no longer just be the end of the road for hiring decisions, but also the person identifying talent," Finnigan says.

"Hiring managers, although not experts in recruiting, will be forced to be," Salmon agrees.

Also taking on more recruiting tasks, according to Salmon, are ordinary employees in other departments. "Responsibility for recruiting has been pushed out into the organization," she says.

Finnigan calls it a whole-company approach to recruitment. "Employees will be called upon to make referrals and publicize jobs. Even executives will need to be on the front lines. … Referral hiring is the nirvana of recruiting," but it’s not easy. So, he says, companies are asking employees to tap into their personal online social networks. Instead of posting and advertising job listings, businesses are seeing if they can get their first round of applicants through referrals.

What is lost with this strategy, Salmon notes, "is the expertise in recruiting, particularly the recruiting of passive candidates" by staffing experts who have built their own, focused networks and developed the skills to manipulate them efficiently.

Using professional recruiters is still "the best way to find the right people," Salmon says.


Recruiting Recruiters, Finally

Eventually, organizations will become too lean. "Once it gets to that point, companies are going to realize that their people are working 24/7 and are maxed out on productivity," Craighead says. "When people scream and say, ‘I can’t take it anymore,’ they will have to hire."

He adds, however, that businesses are unlikely to rehire experienced recruiters back to pre-recession levels. "Companies will act cautiously in rehiring them," he says.

Finnigan concludes that companies are going to hire recruiters eventually, but not until after a lot of other things happen. "When you see that spike, you’ll know we’re in a recovery," he says.

In recovery, Finnigan predicts, the recession will leave a sharpened emphasis on the bottom line. "Before companies are going to build up recruiting staffs, they’re going to ask for the [return on investment] in doing so. … Before HR will get approval to hire more recruiters, they will have to answer the question, how much money must we spend?"

______________________________________

Steve Taylor’s most recent article for Staffing Management magazine, “Sometimes More Is More,” appeared in the October-December 2009 issue.
______________________________________

Reprinted with permission from the Society of Human Resource Management (SHRM) for inclusion July 15 - September 15, 2010. Taylor, Steve. "The Return of Recruiters". May 5, 2010. Accessed online at http://www.shrm.org/Publications/StaffingManagementMagazine/EditorialContent/Pages/0410taylor.aspx on July 15, 2010.

Does Increasing Interviewing Accuracy Improve Quality of Hire?


Author: Lou Adler | Lou Adler | ERE Articles
Date: C
Views: 1

Picture 6John Sullivan wrote a great piece on ERE a few months ago, titled Five Ugly Numbers You Can't Ignore. John's article pointed out public research indicating fundamental flaws with the interviewing and assessment process used by most companies.


As a result of John's article, I participated in a series of animated discussion on these ERE pages regarding the relative impact of increased interviewing accuracy on improving quality of hire. Now I know the academics among us get excited when they believe that better assessments directly correlate with increasing quality of hire, but according to the Recruiting Roundtable — a well-respected research group — research suggests this is not actually true.


In a recent public report it compared the impact nine variables had on improving quality of hire and time to hire. Interestingly, at least according to their research, accurate interviewing and assessments had no impact on improving quality of hire. Regardless, it is a gate to pass to get into the game. The top three for improving quality of hire were the need for a strong recruiter and hiring manager partnership, a clear understanding of job needs, and the recruiter's ability to convert candidates at every step, from prospect to hire. This last point has to do with keeping the candidate engaged, overcoming concerns, presenting the job as a career move, negotiating offers, and keeping the competition at bay.


Leading some credence to the Recruiting Roundtable results is a report from Leadership IQ documenting a three-year survey it conducted with 5,247 managers covering more than 20,000 hires. The big conclusions — 46% of new hires fail within 18 months, with only 19% totally successful. The biggest surprise of them all was that the interviewing methodology used didn't affect the results. I find this confusing, since I know that conducting an accurate assessment is a necessary, even though it's not a sufficient aspect of improving quality of hire. The report went on to suggest that managers overvalued technical skills instead of evaluating other aspects of on-the-job performance, including motivation, emotional intelligence, coachability, and temperament. This alone indicates that the candidates were not interviewed properly, and to some degree, puts in doubt some of their other conclusions.


So while there is some data out there that contradicts published research from some of the top names in academia, it's hard to believe that accurate assessments aren't important, since without having a qualified and motivated candidate, you'll wind up with a bad hire. Perhaps the problem is associated with curvilinearity, meaning once a threshold level of sufficient capabilities is met, recruiting skills takeover as being far more important in improving quality of hire.


The academic research does suggest that while a validated and structured interview is important, it might not be all not that important in the overall scheme of things. For example, the often-cited Schmidt and Hunter study reports that the combined correlation coefficient for a structured behavioral interview and GMA test is .63. In practical terms this means that only 36% (square of the correlation coefficient) of the candidate's predicted on-the-job performance can be explained by these two factors, leaving 64% of job performance due to other factors. I'm surprised that more has not been made of this critical point. By itself, this might be the explanation as to why the Recruiting Roundtable and the Leadership IQ reports that interviewing accuracy has much less of an impact on quality of hire than would be expected.


Taking a different perspective entirely, in some cases, an accurate assessment can actually be counterproductive, especially when good people refuse to move forward until they make the determination the job offers a career move. This is why I suggest putting the necessary assessment process later in the hiring process to maximize the end-to-end conversion rate without compromising quality. Of course, this is a moot point when the supply of quality candidates exceeds demand, a rare situation in normal economic times.


Adding to the supply shortage dilemma, many of the best people — especially those with significant upside potential — are looking for career moves and learning opportunities. In these cases they might not have the requisite skills, knowledge, and abilities, and could be excluded for the wrong reasons. This relates to the classic potential vs. experience trade-off problem.


On another level, the relationship between interviewing accuracy and quality of hire is further distorted since they are separate and unequal tasks. If you are using the lens of maximizing selection accuracy as your primary objective, you might overlook the bigger challenge of hiring the best people possible including those who aren't looking, those who have more potential than experience, those who have a different mix of skills, and those who have multiple offers. Each of these factors requires a rebalancing of the sourcing, recruiting, and selection process in order to maximize quality of hire. This is pretty much what the Recruiting Roundtable results indicated.


When supply is less than demand, a myopic maximize-assessment-accuracy objective leads to the potential for sub-optimization, or sacrificing the whole for the sake of one its parts. I experienced this problem firsthand early in my pre-recruiter career. Many, many years ago, in a place far, far away, I was involved with negotiating company transfer prices with a brake plant that wanted to sell spare parts to Ford and GM, rather than to an internal axle assembly plant, since it got a better prices by going rogue (external). This caused corporate earnings problems since the parent company not only made more money selling completed products, but worse, never had enough brakes to meet the demand for completed axles. It took six months to figure out the problem and develop an internal transfer pricing system to make sure the brake plant did the right thing. This is similar to having accurate assessments, but not enough good people to be interviewed. As a result, you're left with assessing a population of people without any top performers in it, making the conclusions suspect. Some of the research mentions this as a potential problem with their data.


The way I see it, this apparent assessment vs. quality of hire controversy involves three big issues:



  1. The fact that most assessments - even good ones - don't cover the complete range of factors involved in measuring top performance. Some of these include subordinate and managerial fit, intrinsic motivation to do the work required, achievement of comparable results, trend and consistency of performance over time, and the ability to work with and influence teams of comparable size, level, and functional makeup. Measuring these multiple times and in multiple ways can increase assessment accuracy.

  2. Ignoring the idea that the assessment is only a subset of the hiring process, not the complete hiring process, and that the linkages are not generally seamless. Just because someone is judged a top performer doesn't mean the person will be hired. Problems here relate to recruiting skills, the hiring manager's ability to attract a strong person, the career aspects of the job in comparison to competing opportunities, and the compensation.

  3. Fundamental problems with how the interview and assessment process is implemented and how hiring decisions are made. Problems here generally involve lack of clarity with respect to the actual performance needs of the job, lack of hiring manager training, the use of a yes/no "add up the votes" decision-making process, not using evidence to make the decision, using a narrow band of selection criteria, and over-valuing presentation skills, affability, and intuition when making the decision, among others. Eliminating these is an essential aspect of the hiring process.


Given all of the survey evidence, the academic research, and my own personal experience of dealing with top performers and also-rans over the past 40 years, I would not discredit the necessity of a thorough interviewing and vetting process. However, I do believe that the traditional behavioral interview is far from the perfect solution, and could be a contributing factor preventing companies from improving quality of hire. There are interviewing and assessment solutions available that have been proven to be more accurate, but without better sourcing, a great recruiter, a clear understanding of job needs, and a strong recruiter/hiring manager partnership, you won't be much better off. In this case, you'll just be more confident you're hiring someone in the half that makes the top-half possible.


URL: http://www.mntrn.org/modules/planet/view.article.php/2635
Trackback: http://www.mntrn.org/modules/planet/trackback.php/2635

Job Listings / Resumes
Login
Username:

Password:


Lost Password?

Register now!
Current Weather
Minneapolis
Conditions as of
20 minutes ago
overcast
Temp: 70 °F (21 °C)
Rel hum: 78 %
Dewpt: 63 °F (17 °C)
29.97 inHg (1015 hPa) 
Wind increasing
SE at 9.2 mph (4.1 mps)
view forecast