Infographic with some solid advice on how to write a resume that will get noticed.
I’m a huge fan of using “mini-stories” during interviews. When prepping candidates, I strongly encourage them to prepare short stories about their on-the-job successes, especially ones tied to the competencies an employer is looking for. There’s just no better way to demonstrate your ability to be effective in the role. Here’s an excerpt from an article that backs this up:
After a presentation, 63% of attendees remember stories. Only 5% remember statistics.
If you were a candidate looking for a job in recruitment and you read the following two statements in two different job ads, which job would you be more likely to apply to?
- Job ad #1: “You will have responsibility for the identification and hire of 15 new staff.”
- Job ad #2: “We started last year with 6 people. Stephen and Reza then joined us as interns after responding to a Youtube video; no salary, just the will to grow and learn. Lisa trained as a Black Belt 3 years ago in her old job. She called asking us if we were hiring and we snapped her up. Since then we’ve hired Johnny’s brother Graham and his mate Dave. This year, your job will be to scale this to 15 more people. You’ve got your work cut out! ;)”
Both job ads tell us exactly the same thing, but job ad #2 has given us so much more insight into the company looking to hire. We now know the story of how they’ve gotten to where they are now. We feel invested in the people mentioned in this story. We’d love to meet them. And we’re relishing the challenge of putting our skills to the test to find more people like Stephen, Reza, Lisa, Graham and Dave, and adding to this already great team.
As the incredible Chip and Dan Heath said in their book ‘Made to Stick‘, “Credible ideas make people believe. An emotional idea makes people care. The right stories make people act.” And as recruiters, that’s exactly what we need them to do, act! We need to compel the right people to apply for our jobs. And the best way to do that is through storytelling in your job ads. Storytelling grabs attention in a crowded marketplace and makes you memorable.
Probably more useful to people early in their careers, but there’s some good stuff in here for everyone:
Reason #1: Relying on Job Postings is a Passive Strategy
Postings create a reactive recruiting environment because candidates have to see you out. This puts you at a distinct disadvantage compared to competitors who proactively seek out top performers and actively court them. The result? The best people gravitation toward your competitors and you are more likely to miss out on people who can make the most significant impact on your bottom line.
Today’s market for top talent is becoming more competitive than ever. They’re highly sought after and aggressively pursued by competitors with proactive recruiting strategies. Top companies don’t sit and wait for these candidates to come to them.
Reason #2: Job Postings Attract Unqualified Candidates
Replying to job posting requires little time and effort. Anyone who thinks your opening looks interesting can cut and paste their resume into an email. A few seconds later, there it is in your inbox. You wind up being inundated with candidates who think your job looks interesting, regardless of whether they’re even close to what you need.
Attracting and hiring the best talent is just too important to rely on a “spray and pray” strategy.
Reason #3: Job Postings Miss Lots of Qualified Talent
According to studies from LinkedIn and others, only 20-30% of the workforce is actively in looking for a new job.
What about the other 70-80% of the talent pool? First, they’re unlikely to notice your postings because they aren’t actively surfing the web for new jobs. Even if they do, there’s a slim chance they’ll take action, unless the information you provide is compelling and motivates them to take take the next step, something that most postings don’t so very well.
Furthermore, just because a high-impact candidate isn’t ready to make a change right now doesn’t mean they won’t be in the near future. Unless you proactively pursue them on a ongoing basis, you’ll never know about them when openings arise down the road.
My message is this: job postings should only be part of your overall recruiting strategy. Attracting the “best of the best” requires that you regularly talk with top performers, even when you aren’t actively recruiting. That way, you’ll better understand what might motivate them to make a change and have a better chance at bringing them on board when the time is right.
Employers take note. This article from Forbes points to a trend that will only accelerate as the labor market continues to tighten: http://bit.ly/28JECJi
As the labor market continues to tighten, employers that have an unnecessarily slow hiring process will increasing lose out on top talent to companies that move more quickly.
Adapted from: The Top 12 Reasons Why Slow Hiring Severely Damages Recruiting and Business Results by Dr. John Sullivan; posted on ere.net on April 21, 2014. You can find the full article here.
A candidate from a well-known benchmark firm dropped out of our search for a General Manager position because the hiring manager took a week to respond to his interest. He said: “It’s not like I need their job. If it takes them a week to respond to a resume like mine for a job of this importance, they’re not the kind of company I want to work for. I move fast, and I can already see that my style wouldn’t fit their culture.”
You may have noticed that we’ve returned to a highly competitive talent market where the negative impact of a slow hiring process will become more apparent (and costly) for companies that don’t adapt. How will that affect your business? Here’s a list of the 10 most damaging consequences associated with taking too long to hire:
- The best talent will be lost during the latter stages of your recruiting process: When a top performer decides to enter the job market, it’s likely that they’ll be approached by multiple companies and get hired very quickly. Research indicates that the top 10% of candidates are hired within 10 days.
Lesson learned: Speed of hire is absolutely critical when you are competing against other firms for high-impact talent. If you don’t move quickly, your competitors will take this top talent off the market before you can react.
- You will experience a decline in the quality of the people you hire: It’s a mistake to think that a methodical interviewing process will result in better hires—it actually has the opposite effect. The longer you take, the lower the quality (i.e. the “on-the-job performance” of new hires) will be. As mentioned in item #1, an extended hiring process causes the top candidates to withdraw and thus diminishes the quality of your overall talent pool.
Lesson learned: Instead of improving quality of hire, a slow process may actually increase the likelihood that you will hire mediocre talent.
- Vacancies that remain open for longer than necessary will cost you money:While some hiring managers mistakenly believe that vacancies will save on salaries, the economic damage caused by having a revenue-generating position vacant longer than necessary results in lost revenue and productivity that will be difficult to recover.
Lesson learned: Unnecessary vacancies have a significant dollar impact on productivity, innovation, and revenue generation.
- Your salary costs will increase because you’ll wind up in bidding wars for top talent: When a high-impact candidate enters the job market they are less likely to know their true value right way. If you offer them a position before other companies have had a chance to bid on them, you are more likely to hire them with little or no haggling. A candidate’s salary demands will invariably increase once they realize their true market value.
Lesson learned:Fast decisions save money. Slow decisions will cause you to pay as much as 25% more for the same talent.
- You’ll acquire an image of being a slow decision-maker which will hurt your “employer brand” and cause you to lose many top prospects: Candidates will gauge their interactions with your company during the recruiting process as an indicator of what it’ll be like to work there. A slow interviewing process will be lead candidates to believe your company is indecisive. Top performers tend to be fast and accurate decision-makers, so they’ll be much more likely to gravitate toward companies that do the same.
Lesson learned: Slow hiring hurts your brand image, which in turn will reduce the number and quality of candidates who want to work at your company.
- Slow decisions will cause you to lose a high percentage of “head-to-head” talent battles for top candidates: Winning a disproportionately high number of head-to-head talent battles with your top competitors builds a competitive edge. The inability to make fast hiring decisions on highly sought-after candidates leaves the door open for them to go elsewhere. Companies that react quickly will likely find that their productivity and innovation rates rise at a faster rate than those who don’t.
Lesson learned:By acting quickly, not only will you capture a higher percentage of top performers, but you’ll simultaneously keep them away from your competitors.
- Candidates will lose interest:Slow hiring dramatically reduces candidate excitement and increases your exposure to hiring freezes, layoffs, or budget cuts: When you’re trying to recruit a top performer away from another company, keeping them engaged and excited about your opportunity to vital to your recruiting success. The longer you take to get through your interviewing process, the more likely they are to lose interest or be courted by your competitors.
Lesson learned: With “passive” job seekers–those who are open to a change but aren’t actively looking to do so–a slow and bureaucratic hiring process exposes your risk that something out of your control will impact the candidate’s interest–they might be offered a promotion or raise, increased fear of change, more opportunity for them to hear negative comments about your company from others in your industry.
- Unfilled positions will be viewed negatively by your customers and employees: Positions that are vacant for long periods of time are often viewed negatively by customers and increase your risk of degraded and slower service. Likewise, a drop in the morale of employees who have to do double duty leads to lower retention. People who came from other faster-hiring firms will get frustrated because they know that these extended vacancies aren’t necessary.
Lesson learned:Long-term vacancies impact multiple stakeholders and are bad for business.
- Less success recruiting “passive” job seekers: Based on the premise that most desirable top performers are well-treated and currently employed, successfully recruiting them requires a different approach from hiring “active” job seekers. Once a “passive” candidate expresses an interest in making a change, they usually aren’t on in the job market for very long—often less than 3 weeks–because other companies find out and jump into the fray. Thus, you’ll face a much greater risk of losing them to a competitor, and increase the possibility that the candidate will receive and accept a counteroffer.
Lesson learned:To successfully recruit high-potential, “passive” candidates, you need a faster hiring process than you use with active job seekers.
- Increased hiring costs:A lengthy hiring process (more than four interviews over more than 3 weeks) eats up more time of everyone involved. The “hidden cost” of this extra time significantly increases your recruiting costs (cost-per-hire) and takes people away from other revenue generating activities.
Lesson learned: You’ll save money and increase quality of hire by reducing unnecessary steps and enable your employees to spend more time on high-value activities.
Final Thoughts You certainly won’t impress anyone with a slow and cumbersome hiring process that routinely misses top talent. On the surface, the need for hiring fast might seem like an easy concept to understand, but can be very challenging to implement. If you don’t yet understand the impact of slow hiring, perhaps an analogy will help. Remember your high school prom? It’s common for most students to ask the most desirable prospects to be their prom date within a week or two of the prom announcement. But what happens to those who wait for 47 days (the average time it takes a corporation to make a hiring decision) to ask for a date? What would the probability be that your top three choices would still be available?