User Submitted!
647

The Metrics, They Are A Changing

First, I don’t think traditional means of recruiting will ever goaway.  In fact, 10 years from now, name generators and career fairbooth veterans will still be as hot as ever.  As I see it, what’shappening now is the resurgence of the relationship builder recruiter. Except this time, the relationships are virtual … which means theconcept is going to a whole new level in terms of impact, reach … andvolume.

Back when Zoë and I founded JobsBlog, we did it for one simple reason:  Weneeded to hire A LOT of people.  There were just two of us so wecouldn’t start cold calling.  That didn’t scale.   We had no budget sowe couldn’t travel or place an ad.  And our ATS sure wouldn’t let usfind the cream of the crop. 

We were tasked with creating a community of qualified applicants,and leveraging our love of the internet and helping jobseekers, welaunched JobsBlog.  The idea is that it would be a little fishing netthat would scoop up a big tasty catch.  By providing our readers withtips and an inside look, we were able to direct the right fish to ournet and the not-so-right fish somewhere else … like Google. ;-)  Wecould then weed through our catch and route the best of the best to ourline recruiters.

Long story short, it worked.  By the time we left JobsBlog, thateffort alone (which was 1/3 of one resource’s time) was producing morehires per year than the average full-time recruiter at the company. The difference was that I was no longer a traditional recruiter.  Istopped being measured on hires per year, interview to offer ratios,and all that good stuff.  Instead, JobsBlog responsibilities centeredaround improving the candidate experience, changing perceptions aboutthe company, and posting useful content.  Measurements includedreadership numbers (staying steady or increasing), exposure (mentionson recruiting.com among other places), and, most importantly, anecdotalapplicant feedback. 

Sure.  I spent a lot of time responding to email.  I also bufferedin time for “celebrity appearances.”  :)   I attended conferences justto answer candidates’ questions (no resume required!)  I personally metany JobsBlog reader who interviewed in Redmond (and told me they werethere) and gave them their very own JobsBlog Rubiks Cube.  And if anyreader asked – and they did, I gave them a personalized GretchenLedgard tour of Microsoft’s campus, often complete with a trip to thecompany store and all the time they needed to barrage me with requestsfor advice.  I’m pretty sure that every single tour recipient went onto become an employee … how is that for a good “tour to offer” ratio?

As Stephen Rothberg recently commented on recruiting.com,a huge benefit from blogging – and a major reason I did it – is thatthe efforts increased the quality of my incoming applicants.  Yeah, Ihad to sift through my net, but that net sure held some incrediblecatches.   My methods of recruiting were non-traditional, but myresults were not.

Catching my breath … I have a point to this post, and that is ...Let’s forget about what’s traditional and non-traditional, and let’sthink about how we can *support* “less traditional” methods ofrecruiting.  If I were a recruiter goaled with “traditional” metrics,no way would I ever branch out of my comfort zone.  There’s a time andplace for a great internet and job board sourcer.  There’s a time andplace for a great account management recruiter.  And there’s an equallygreat time and place for a relationship builder recruiter. 

When I speak with organizations (my former employer included), Isense a lot of hesitation in allowing a recruiter to spend time on“soft” recruiting.  What’s the ROI?  How does that translate to hires? How do I compare this recruiter against his peers?  As Heather Hamiltoninfamously once said,“My opinion is that if you *know* you are doing something good (andsometimes doing it well), your intent in trying to measure it furtheris what?”  I come from a slightly different mindset here.  I don’tthink there’s any harm in measuring it, and in fact, I think this typeof activity should be measured.  But I don’t think the currentrecruiting industry knows how to measure it.  And that’s much, muchworse.

So, kiddies, that’s your assignment.  Stop worrying about howrecruiting will evolve, and start figuring out how *your* organizationcan support it. The sooner you can switch one or two recruiters over tothis nuevo way of candidate generation (if only on a part time basis),the more innovative and world-class our industry will become.

And I bet you hire a bunch more people, too.

gretchen

Thu, 07/27/2006 - 5:55pm

Great post. Measuring value eventually gets down to are we hiring more people, better people, making the new hires stay longer, or improving our ability to attract certain disciplines.

The metrics behind this can only be built by companies taking the leap and finding out for themselves.

You proved with JobsBlog that it can be done - the question is no longer can it be done, but "will it be done," or "can your company do it?"

Thu, 07/27/2006 - 7:08pm

OK, I am confused (and infamous...whee!). You are concerned about companies' hesitance to allow recruiters to do "soft" recruiting. Yet, if you are advocating measurement of these activities, wouldn't you understand why some organizations would be disenclined to support them given that there are no realiable metrics?

I also said: "Of course, you could change my mind with a good argument on the value of metrics. I just haven't heard it yet.". I also told Jim he could change my mind about whether line recruiters should blog, but still waiting for an answer to the question I posed. I'm just expressing an opinion and I enjoy the dialog when we get past the "we have a problem" stage.

For me, the arguement gets tedious when the people lobbying for metrics don't know what they are. We keep re-hashing the same thing. Yeah, there's a problem with measuring the effectiveness of blogging (in my mind, that means default to the simplest measure and deal with some ambiguity if the minimum benefit justifies the use of resources). If someone comes up with a metric that effectively measures the value of blogging activity, we will all take notice and I will absolutely re-evaluate my opinion on the subject. I'll be waiting here patiently, trying not to disagree with anyone (j/k).

I'm just one gal with an opinion, not the poster child for corporate blogging anarchy ; )

Thu, 07/27/2006 - 7:43pm

Hey Heather - Hold up a sec. I actually agreed with your comment about knowing if you are doing something good then why measure it? You are doing something good, and your management knows that ... so if everyone’s happy, don’t implement metrics. You don’t need them. (I’ve got some other interesting opinions on this ... but you and I can talk off-line about that. I actually need your advice on something.) :)

And, yes, the fact that companies are hesitant because there are no reliable metrics is EXACTLY what I'm saying. That's a huge problem.

What I’m suggesting is that you look at this type of work differently than traditional recruiting. That means creating metrics that aren't necessarily tied to hires. Those metrics can still be "reliable" ... just different.

Case in point … when I left Microsoft, my title was marketing manager - but I was just as invovled in the recruiting process as ever. In the spirit of transparency, below were my goals. Success was measured by on time and within budget execution:

1) Proactively support and mange the marketing needs of the College Recruiting Team and the college core tech candidate profile. Position Microsoft as a top employer of choice for college core tech candidates.

2) Proactively support and mange the marketing needs of the various industry staffing teams and the industry core tech candidate profile. Position Microsoft as a top employer of choice for college core tech candidates.

3) Create, expand, and direct new online targeted marketing initiatives in the core tech space.

4) Track and report trends and recommendations on competitive threats and the core tech candidate marketplace.

Those goals may sound fluffy - but outside of recruiting, that's pretty normal.

What I’m saying is that metrics don’t have to thought of like traditional recruiting metrics ... A recruiter who blogs, for instance, may have slightly different goals than a recruiter who cold calls. It doesn’t mean one is better than the other; it’s just different. Apples and oranges.

I’m not trying to fight with you. :) For real. And I do agree with a previous comment you made that line recruiters probably shouldn’t blog. See, we do agree on things!

Thu, 07/27/2006 - 7:49pm

just noticed had some funny typos in those goals above ... no, i am not giving developers the mange.

Thu, 07/27/2006 - 9:04pm

My comments, both the ones that you linked to and the ones above, pertain to *blog metrics*, not recruiting metrics (there's context there). My team has # metrics and I don't take any issue with that. The business wants to know how many hires we are going to make (short term goal) and how we are going to move the needle on employment brand understanding (long term/hard to measure). None of my comments were meant to imply that recruiting metrics should not exist.

My original comments were posted on my blog. The fact that other people want to comment on them is cool with me but if someone comments on something I say, chances are, I am going to respond. It's not a need to disagree, just to be a part of the dialog. I enjoy learning from people that disagree with me (at least those that keep it professional). Sometimes they change my mind, sometimes they don't.

Thu, 07/27/2006 - 9:27pm

Heather - If you feel like I was being disrespectful, unprofessional, and taking it to a personal level, I sincerely apologize. It was never my intent to misconstrue your words or insult you. I consider you a friend, and above all else, I respect you as a colleague. Again, I do apologize, and please know my intent was not malicious.

Thu, 07/27/2006 - 10:00pm

Heather,

I just got back to the discussion - and I do have specific line recruiter blog examples.

Let me post them in a place better suited for my rants, my blog, and I'll send you the link tomorrow.

Thu, 07/27/2006 - 10:02pm

I was talking about some of the less-than-polite comments that followed my original post.

Heather
Thu, 07/27/2006 - 11:26pm

Cool, Jim, thanks! We definitely have had some line recruiters here asking about whether they should get into blogging (sadly, none of them marketing recruiters...who don't even want to guest post) and I feel like a puppy kicker for telling them I don't think they should do it. So if there's another way to think about it, I definitely want to consider that.

Fri, 07/28/2006 - 6:39am

I don't get it. If your blogging metrics don't lead to increased recruiting metrics than what is really the point? I realize that Microsoft was specifically trying to beef up their image from unfriendly monopolistic monolith to friendly, human, fun filled place to work but for most companies they are still looking to fill positions. Why would you cease to measure the impact of the blogging on hiring numbers?

Maybe I misunderstood?

Fri, 07/28/2006 - 7:51pm

Hi Beth – Good question. I want to make sure, however, that this post doesn’t become one about blogging efforts as compared to number of hires. (Although I think it already has.) ;-) My original post was meant to discuss various virtual relationship building strategies and why traditional metrics may not be the right way to directly goal success. This type of recruiting is still new, and while it should lead to increased quality and quantity of hires, you sometimes need to create a safety net to allow your recruiters to try risky new things. I used Microsoft’s blog as an example – but I could have used many other examples. Also, one of JobsBlog’s goals is to help move the perception needle, but more than that, it’s to give candidates a direct line to a real recruiter ... And this can be accomplished so many other ways besides blogs. In fact, I don’t think most recruiters and companies should even worry with having their own blog.

That aside, I do think increased number of hires should be the ultimate goal. Of course, it should, because like you said, what’s the point? But since a virtual relationship builder recruiter is so far from the actual “hire,” other metrics may be more appropriate and help encourage recruiters to try to ways to reach talent. For instance, I know many name generation and cold caller recruiters are not measured by hires; they are measured by qualified leads. This is the type of thinking I'm talking about.

I’m not trying to prescribe exact metrics on how an organization should measure this type of recruiter; each company is different. But what I am saying is that, since this is an evolving way to recruit, companies who want to branch out (and many do) should think about what type of encouragement, support, and safety net they are providing their recruiters to experiment. The upside for the organization could be huge, but the risk for the individual recruiter is high. Reexamining metrics is one way to create that safety net. Heck, once an organization discovers what works for them and can predict success, going back to a set number of hires is probably fine.

Fri, 07/28/2006 - 8:36pm

Great explanation and I agree with you 100%. Trying new methods is always a good thing. I'm sure new metrics will evolve along with the methods that are proven to be the most successful.

The only caution I would give is that it's easy for people to end up spending all of their day doing the fun, experimental stuff. It takes a lot of discipline to make sure that you are balancing your day.

On a related time management note -

When I was in recruiting we used to use the analogy of a wallet sitting on the corner of your desk. At every moment of your work day, money is either going into the wallet or coming out of the wallet. You want to spend your time doing things that will be putting the money into the wallet.

Fri, 07/28/2006 - 9:05pm

Yep. Totally agree. In that case, trying these new methods could be something like 10-20% of a recruiter's job. That way money is definitely going into the wallet. :)

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <font> <img> <span> <p> <br> <br/>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
More information about formatting options