Circling back to our last article, we were lamenting the challenges of our dear friend Charlie, the sales exec who lost his job. Even though Charlie has consistently been a top performer, he’s struggled to find a new opportunity. At the same time, companies have struggled to find resources just like Charlie.
We determined that the x-factor in this seemingly straightforward equation is the same tool that has made it so simple to find new jobs and match them with great talent: automated recruitment technology.
This problem is exacerbated even further when sales positions are at stake. Keyword bingo has warped from a party game to a challenge that can have devastating effects: keeping Charlie and great companies from connecting with one another.
So how do we pull the reins on technology when the stagecoach has already left the station?
One of the strengths of technology is the ability to collect metrics, so let’s use them to help improve the overall recruiting process. If you’re implementing recruitment automation, compare the results of recruiting before and after. Has the hiring process shortened or increased? It has to have shortened, right?
But what if the wrong candidates are making it through to the hiring managers, and Charlie’s still waiting on the sidelines?
Either they are requesting additional candidates to interview in search of the right one, or they are hiring the best of the lot and making do.
Depending on the hiring managers’ instruction/incentives, you are likely to see a couple of key indicators that this is a problem.
Either they are requesting additional candidates to interview in search of the right one, or they are hiring the best of the lot and making do. Either scenario could be catastrophic to the bottom line.
If the former, the recruiting process stretches out (from a tool that was supposed to shrink it), and the cost of vacancy rises as the delays in filling the position increase.
If the latter, turnover will likely grow down the road with an even higher cost to the business in lost revenue and market share vulnerability.
Regardless of the scenario, verification of the impact of change has to include the bottom line, not simply recruiting metrics. Exploration of retention and performance should be added to the equation to build a sound understanding of the impacts of the process.
Once you understand the weight of the issue, you’ll be better prepared to resolve it. In either scenario, the hiring manager is at the center of the issue. Use technology to track each hiring manager’s effectiveness, as well as their recruiting decisions, and look for opportunities for training, direction, and improvement. Poll the hiring managers to understand whether their needs are being met by the candidates provided. If they’re critical, ask for suggestions on how it can be improved.
Often, it may simply be a matter of a misalignment between their expectations and how the job is outlined in the job descriptions. Consider modifying the job description to better represent the requirements of the hiring manager. More importantly, open a line of communication between the assigned recruiting resource and the manager. Provide the recruiter the ability to source for candidates that specifically meet the objectives of their hiring manager versus simply providing a stream of keyword matched resumes for the global job description.
Taking this extra step back, providing individual attention, can generate significant results in finding better talent for the job. Oh, and as an added bonus to this process, Charlie’s phone just rang and a win/win is about to take shape.