Recruiters versus the Applicant Tracking System

So what happens after the battle?

It seems new adjectives and expletives have been created to describe the hiring process in the last 5 – 10 years. Recruiters blame the ATS; hiring managers blame the recruiters; agencies point to the HR team behind their backs. Apparently, the hiring process has taken training from American politics. So where is the pain in all the hiring? Is there an identifiable cause of these issues?

                Why is the number of new hires that quit on their first day so high?

                Why is the same number so high when measure in the first 180 days?

                Why is engagement dropping? Morale dropping?

                Why are applicants frustrated and costing HR a fortune to identify, recruit, and onboard?

Let’s not be fair here, as ideal states don’t exist, and when employees think – “this is perfect” - little change can be made to impact hiring and therefore improve the business. The biggest complaint with the ATS is when there are problems uploading a resume to an ATS. And that’s an HR issue tied to user error. Easily resolved by offering a back-up plan, such as: If you have made every effort to upload your resume and cannot, please email it to…. Problem solved, no more complaints, and the first red flag is raised.

Yes, some ATSs do not work on all browsers, nor do they run on all mobile devices. And, no, you ought not deploy an ATS in a boutique environment where the white glove treatment is mandatory (ie, hiring doctors, c-suite, artists, etc.) But the ATS is here to stay as it is miraculous at doing one thing well: eliminating the least likely applicants to succeed in the phone interview, and ultimately, the job itself.

How’s that? If your applicant cannot fill out an application online, and HR has decided this is how they want to collect resumes and applications, the unsuccessful applicant is unlikely to succeed. Here we have identified the most pervasive complainer of the ATS – the applicant. And that individual, if hired, will destroy morale, complain that the job isn’t perfect, and so on. Thank you ATS for the help.

But, many will say, it’s bad for the brand - publicly complaining on Linkedin, starting conversations on Twitter – too many risks. But isn’t this an opportunity? Sure, the hiring process could be changed: hire more recruiters, throw more hiring managers into the process, and so on. Or the cost of a few complaints could be measured as costs. Realistically, if you can’t get into a company as an applicant, whether through the ATS, networking, or otherwise, you ought to look elsewhere.

Between the ATS and recruiter exists the most common hiring scenario in the world: most American businesses (since 95% of American businesses are small) utilize the hand shake, a paper application, and verbal, “You can start on Monday.” This practice will not be replaced by the ATS nor the recruiter, no matter the threat of EEO or OFCCP audits.

Where the ATS is deployed - it is as much a part of the workflow in the 21^st Century as is the interview process - it’s here to stay, only to get better and qualify applicants better and better. And those HR groups who leverage it best will perform the best, other variables being equal.

How about recruiters? They are the messengers of hiring - period. Like all employees that are measured on performance, they must convert applicants to employees. But as I learned at a recent recruiters meeting comprised of over 100 of the best recruiters in Seattle – longevity on the job is not tracked. If it’s not measured, it’s not important. Imagine selling one of the most important decisions that adults have to make and there’s no warranty, no agreement, apparently little concern for how long this expensive, time-consuming relationship will last.

Epic fail. What does this lead to: checking boxes, smiling faces, and the word: Next! If salespeople had no concern for customer/client satisfaction over time, capitalism would crumble.

I was a recruiter for two years; my experience with internal recruiters is in sales, building houses, technology; my peers in Seattle are involved in technology recruiting. Meaning, I have some experience here. And I can say that one issue is that recruiters do not set the expectation accurately. Unless, cynically, their role is to close business (read hype and persuade.) If the resume looks good, if the candidate looks nice, if s/he can converse – move them on by creating the impression that the work and the environment will make them giddy. That work here is easier and more meaningful than elsewhere.

Unfortunately, for recruiters, most applicants don’t think through to the business need and the disruption caused by having open reqs, or they might accept that recruiters and hiring managers need to get that job filled. It’s not a want to have; the cost of the vacancy is greater than the cost to fill, obviously. Which generally explains the urgency, the hype, the free soda, the un-used ping-pong table, the photos of employees having “fun.” The incorrect expectation, but one that propels the unsuspecting candidate forward.

Interesting to note, I have seen the shock on recruiters’ faces when they onboard into a new job, into a reality that is much different from the vision. And that’s their world: one could say they ought to know better than to be surprised. For tech pros, sales reps, admins, customer service – it’s quite a shock. Not to be dramatic, but the measured numbers of new hires that would quit early on measure low. Because the number of new hires who want to quit, can’t quit, because their old jobs are not open, or quitting left them on bad terms, or whatever.

So if the ATS is here to stay, if recruiters are measured against filling opens – how will the hiring process improve so that the business improves? Meaning, all around experience improvement: company brand, filled reqs, morale, better culture?

I believe it goes back to the largest expense for businesses: time. The push for productivity, the competition to create more products/solutions, the cost of borrowing – businesses don’t measure longevity relative to “satisfaction.” Whether it’s happy customers, happy employees, happy environment (to carry the thought forward.) Businesses measure immediate. For the majority )not the Zappos.)

Of course, this is not black and white: we know businesses measure customer satisfaction scores and perform employee satisfaction surveys. But we know as employees that there is not just dust under the carpet. The gray area of business will continue to be exploited just defined differently.

For now, turnover will continue to be too high, immediate regret for new hires will be too high, and ultimately, the gap between managers and employees will grow. But this is not a Recruiter versus the ATS battle, and the finger pointing ought to stop, as it’s obfuscating the actually cause. The cause may not ever be addressed, but the ATS/recruiter relationship can then thoughtfully be improved. And as this happens, measured improvements abound. Look at companies that use an average ATS and the recruiters speak to realities and you’ll find more realistic employees who know they are at work. And when this happens, morale improves, attrition drops, time to fill improves, managers are happier, and the business at hand is accomplished.

Great recruiters using applicant tracking systems - understanding them, deploying them where needed - continue to grow better organizations. Everywhere else, there will be battles to hide the potential for improvement. The good news- there is choice.

Clearwater School

Autumn 2013 and the two boys have grown in the 6 weeks of attendance at the Clearwater School. Oliver was already wise and philosophical for an eight year old. He can always be relied upon for advice and sound opinion. He takes an active role in our family meetings and never ceases to impress. His communication style is engaging as he so thoughtful and reflective, giving deep insight into his experiences. As of late, he has become a true leader, opening new conversations, igniting them with his ideas. I attribute his quick growth to the school as he has taken on leadership opportunities there, and in his own way.

As I reflect over his changing behavior I see him becoming better at being Oliver, and less locked up inside. He seems more expansive. While at the public school his opinions were growing flat, and he could not get in touch with his feelings. His scientist, the label for his intuition, was all but dead; then on Halloween night he discovered his scientist was having a renaissance, and he was thrilled. For a parent this evolution is the goal, and we observe the trend daily.

Jordan, the three year old, did not like his previous school. He cried and felt sad there. With Clearwater, he can't get to school fast enough and gets angry when his ride shows up at midday. He has become a lightening bolt. What a force. He is crystal clear in his intentions and his execution. At this point, I do not foresee peer pressure being an issue, but let's see what happens after the hormones kick in. But for now the little Bull cannot be swayed, whether at home or at school. At the playground, he simply does not relent when it comes to the other kids moving in a crowd - he pulls himself away and follows his own voice. And though he loves the company of his friends, I see him very happy when he's alone playing. I attribute this to Clearwater as he has fully integrated into the school's culture.

Tying this back to the school, where the atmosphere is open, the boys are free to expand without constant instruction to sit down, stop this and that, and do this and that. Where's the room for self-exploration in public school? Granted, the Clearwater environment might make the average student feel insecure, but the 30% who appear to be self-forming would certainly be heartened here. Personally, it is deeply satisfying to see so much happiness and excitement around school. I read somewhere that the average child could learn the K-12 curriculum in a year, and it now seems so possible as the boys' minds are expanding like a balloon. Maybe that is the critical first step that is lacking in public schools? Simply allowing kids to set the agenda, set the recess, and be accountable must be empowering. Having all the age groups together is also crucial, as we witnessed at Oliver's Montessori school (adults are less effective teachers.)

It's been heart-warming to watch

The Beautiful Dance – The Job Interview

With all the research being pushed out by marketing and PR teams, one could conclude that the interview is the proverbial crawl that we’ve evolved from as we walk through career growth. On the contrary, the quantity of research is evidence to the fact that we are still crawling.

How can it be in an era of Google Glass and Apple iWatches that interviewers and recruiters screw-up this critical piece of organizational development, and job seekers suffer kludgy interviews while getting moved through the hiring process?

More prevalent than computer programs, more resistant than open APIs, and with as much variance as bars of soap in the market, the interview still stands as one of the greatest performances adults on both sides of the desk will endure in their careers.

Sweaty palms, dry throat, rambling stories, 6 hours of multiple interviewers who behave as though they are crime fighters on a cable network channel, the interview is challenging, and therefore, potentially rewarding, but it also stands in the way of “perceived” career improvement.

I suggest a few strategies to lessen the load for the candidate; on the other hand, the interviewer, unless s/he’s the hiring manager or a seasoned recruiter, is equal in value to someone who provides a restaurant review on Yelp. But a pinch of preparation alleviates a mass of anxiety and creates high performance.

So when faced with an interview that may create meaningful value, I recommend a Taoist strategy:

1.       Get one’s physiology aligned;

2.       Sort one’s talk tracks;

3.       Use a one-two dialog style;

4.       Decide if you would give the person you are speaking to access to your bank account.

Pretty simple, but done with a sense of loss, with the slight feeling of defeat, and from a position of surrender, and the interview becomes a beautiful dance where both parties are engaged, as if in a ballroom dance: slight movements of strength uplift the other unnoticeably, creating a symbiotic relationship of sheer beauty.

Realistically, you likely won’t take the job. Who would want their dance partner, their sparring partner, or their potential boss touching their bank account? But performed sincerely, you’ll have tacit agreement, and if you ask, it will be offered, if an offer has not yet been extended by the end of the performance.

The four steps build on one another, and like the soil that feeds the roots of a tree, on up to the massive crowd of leaves, there’s a certain amount of humility involved where each step builds from the previous, and yet they lean back and work together.

The first, physiology, is so simple: breathe. Set the shoulders back, straighten the torso, open and relax the eyes, and you’re in business. I do this all day long like an athlete, as for some reason, entropy seems to pull me downward into a lump. But lift yourself up and rehearse hourly. Besides, it feels good.

Step two: have some sense of speech that relates to how you got here. Interviewers don’t ask: what’s your favorite tree? Where’s your favorite library? If you’re asked these questions, just say No. I don’t respond to stupid questions. And leave.

But have a picturesque idea of where you worked and why. Classic Ws to your story: who what where when and why. You keep this straight and your physiology stays intact, and your story improves, as do the ensuing steps. If you have some fears around your story it may be best to come clean, unless you hurt one of your previous managers at the company softball game.

It is critical to point out here the need to rectify any areas of your story where you tend to go rogue. Stay away from heart-filled job experiences of triumph; same too with dramatic defeat, even though you may appear heroic. No one cares except the ladies at your bridge club. Not to positive or negative as you don’t want to tip the canoe. Straight-forward, as though you were born with a blue print of your life in hand, and every change was strategically designed with graceful forethought.

Step three takes the form of placing a nice question at the end of your reply in step 2. Because a good answer deserves a good question, and works as a statement of gratitude and an acknowledgement of presence. For example: “Why did you leave the Top 100 Company to Work for in Dubuque?” You give your two sentence answer, then add: “What might you have done in that situation?” Ultimately, this structure gets the spotlight off a recital of your resume, it opens and loosens up the conversation, and it turns the interview into a shoulder-to-shoulder project that the two of you are working on together.

Not to mention, it softens your physiology and opens you up to your talk tracks, thereby reducing the mental digging and strain an interview generally causes (caused by reciting one’s resume and the growing awareness that this job will be as monotonous and boring as the current one.)

It also keeps you answering step 4 – do I want this person to have access to my money? And my family. And my golf game? All of these will be impacted by the person you are facing. They will be intimately involved with many things on and off the field. You may frequent the company happy hour, conceive a child as a result, and be held ransom for a private education because of the person opposite you.

This is key, as it is likely you ought to walk away from most interviews with a thank you, beat it, attitude. You are too good for most jobs, except the job you’re in. Your current dance partner may have caused a rut, a fuss, and you’ve hit a wall. So you go looking. But look hard at your interviewer and your new manager. Notice the phony posture, the lack of grace and experience, the clumsiness – is this person really going to get you to that magical place of Meaningful Work?

The beautiful dance is easy to be good at with a few minutes of rehearsal on a daily basis before jumping out of bed. A few deep breaths and physical openness, some kind words in the mirror, acceptance that it’s just a conversation, and an engaging dialog by being inconclusive and asking questions. All these lead to an ability to ask over and over – is this the one?

Then, before leaving, ask for the referral. Because truthfully, now that the job has been offered, you out-danced the interviewer and might as well reach for the next rung, albeit, the stars.

Engage virtually everyone

I like this piece from IDC because it talks about the PEOPLE who run the organizations. The Princess is a simple girl who can be developed with intent. Companies don't have to be hell bent on finding "great" candidates. They can, but they can also develop their employees into the Princess/Prince.

I hope you like where people like Cushing, companies like Silkroad, and how some organizations are committed to their employees' development.

The author is passionate and an expert: Cushing Anderson is program vice president for IDC's Project-Based Services research. In this role, Mr. Anderson is responsible for managing the research agenda, field research, and custom research projects for IDC's Business Consulting, Human Resources and Learning research programs.

Several opinions, same result: Increased value of high skilled tech workers
Cushing Anderson
December 06, 2012

Build or buy, it’s the same story. Should CIOs hire the best talent (and subject themselves to market rates), or train their high-potential employees on the new and emerging technologies the company needs to compete. I think the logic is clear: technology workers are becoming more valuable and demand for advanced technology skills makes them less available in the marketplace, so CIOs should build their own talent, as opposed to buy it from the marketplace. Here are several opinions which expose the many ways in which business thinkers think about skills:
McKinsey estimated in a recent report that there could be an 18 million person shortage in the supply of high skill, college-educated workers by 2020. And that's just advanced economies. If you add China, the shortfall could be as high as 35 million. 
The reason is quite simple: Technology replaces low skill workers.
In other research, McKinsey breaks down type of work into three categories: Transaction work, interaction work and production work. Jobs and industries that have been relatively untouched by outsourcing and automation are those that require extensive human contact, particularly "knowledge jobs" like medicine, engineering, finance, management and education, those considered "interaction workers". These are also the workers who are most highly trained and more valuable to both their employers, and to their own bank account.
That trend plus huge demographic pressures in Europe, China and Japan, and increasing demand in developing countries will likely lead to a shortage of those types of workers in the future.
Skilled workers are becoming more valuable.
Another point of view is that productivity is failing to improve (decline in the rate of increase) precisely because we are moving to a more service oriented society. Jeremy Grantham, co-founder and chief investment strategist of the investment management firm GMO (GMO is "global investment management firm committed to providing sophisticated clients with superior asset management solutions ") recently released his quarterly letter to GMO clients. Titled "On The Road To Zero Growth." In it, Grantham says, "Services, though, are another matter…The productivity [increases] of services has declined to a fairly dismal 1.2 percent in recent decades. Why does it do so poorly? ... Services are mostly about luxuries or, shall we say, non-essentials, the desirability or perceived quality of which often increases with the number of attendants and personal face-to-face time." While many may debate that characterization, reading Mr Grantham's note, he is complaining about the shift toward services workers, where the unit of work is difficult to compress. And as a result, what an enterprise or organization can charge for that unit of work also doesn't change very much for the same employee. However, as that employee becomes more capable, more skilled, the rate that can be charged for that employee (or the value she brings to the enterprise) increases, because the value she delivers increases, think of a doctor, lawyer or high tech worker. This again suggests that if productivity or profit margins are important to your business, increasing skills matter.
Highly skilled workers are becoming more valuable.
At the same time, the respected investor Peter Thiel of PayPal fame, is paying young "entrepreneurs" not to go to college. While his real reasons may be more complicated and be based on some future value calculation, his stated reasons are to allow those entrepreneurs an opportunity to get their ideas into the marketplace faster. They don't need college, he is arguing. Others, too, think it’s reasonable to debate the comparative value of a college education.
To me, the argument that college isn't worth the cost is a non-starter.
Regardless of the chances that one of Thiel's entrepreneur's will strike it rich, it's illustrative to compare college to alternative investments: On average, the benefits of a four-year college degree are equivalent to an investment that returns 15.2 percent per year. This is more than double the average return to stock market investments since 1950, and more than five times the returns to corporate bonds, gold, long-term government bonds, or home ownership. From any investment perspective, college is a great deal.
A Pew Research Center analysis, using Census Bureau data, estimates that the typical adult with a bachelor’s degree (but no further education) will earn $1.42 million over a 40-year career, compared with $770,000 for a typical high school graduate. That 84% improvement narrows somewhat after factoring in the expenses of going to college and the four years of lost potential earnings that college graduates give up while they are in school, but remains a whopping difference.
Additionally, lifetime earnings tend to be even higher for undergraduate majors requiring numerical competencies (computers and engineering) than other fields of study (education and liberal arts).
Thus highly technically skilled workers are becoming more valuable.
IBM recently released its 2012 Tech Trends study that found only one in ten organizations has all the IT skills it needs in mobile, analytics, cloud or social business. The research found that "within each area, roughly one-quarter [of enterprises] report major skill gaps, and 60 percent or more report moderate to major shortfalls." It concludes, "for mature market companies that can effectively tap into available skills in other parts of the world, it could be a way to bridge gaps."
The concept of a "skill gap" has benefit when thinking in long, broad terms. But it is less useful in describing both the cause and response of a specific organizational need – like an IT worker with specific cloud or analytics skills. When considering a specific case, it is more relevant to consider how an enterprise can remediate that particular shortage of candidates such as

• Cast a wider net, as IBM suggests,
• Arrange to train the selected under-skilled candidate or
• Be prepared to pay more to lure a qualified candidate from another opportunity.

For skills in new technologies, like cloud or analytics, there may be a near absence of skills in the marketplace, suggesting IBM's conclusion may be moot. Enterprises and CIOs in particular, shouldn't lament the fact that there aren't qualified technologists sitting in their parent's basement waiting to be called.
It is more economical to identify the specific mix of skills needed by a particular employee and seek the best training possible to provide those skills to that employee. In the long run, training an under-skilled employee with potential is far less expensive than hiring a fully-skilled/experienced worker. In addition to the recruiting costs, standard on-boarding and ramp-up time resulting in underutilization and lower capability, there is the salary premium for highly skilled technical workers caused by demographics and advancing technology.
Warren Buffet has long believed in the increased demand for skilled workers will result in great opportunities. As far back as 2009, Buffet told an audience of Columbia Business School students, "Right now, I would pay $100,000 for 10 percent of the future earnings of any of you." Maybe this is where Peter Thiel got his idea... Either way, I bet Buffet would pay more for the future earning of technology graduates. But since nearly all of us are neither Warren Buffet or Peter Thiel, it may be best to train (and certify) our best employees to take advantage of the technologies coming down the pike than to complain that the talent isn't available or to hope one of many will strike it rich on our behalf.