WorkPuzzle

The Importance of Engagement…Both For You, and Those Whom You Recruit

If you have been exposed to the consulting that our company provides, then you’ve heard us talk a lot about the importance of being engaged in your work.  We often reference studies performed by the Gallup Organization, which document that a large majority of those in the workforce are languishing in their jobs.

With the increased knowledge we have about work and the proliferation of new technologies that support smarter work habits, you’d think the percentage of people who are languishing in their jobs would start to decrease.  But, this is not happening...

As documented in Tony Schwartz’s new book, "The Way We're Working is Not Working," the global workforce is still struggling to find engagement in their work.

“The consulting firm Towers Perrin’s most recent global workforce study bears this out.  Conducted in 2007-2008, before the worldwide recession, it looked at some 90,000 employees in eighteen countries. Only 20 percent of them felt fully engaged, meaning that they go above and beyond what’s required of them because they have a sense of purpose and passion about what they’re doing.  Forty percent were 'enrolled' meaning capable but not fully committed, and 38 percent were disenchanted or disengaged.

All of that translated directly to the bottom line.  The companies with the most engaged employees reported a 19 percent increase in operating income and a 28 percent growth in earnings per share. Those with the lowest levels of engagement had a 32 percent decline in operating income, and their earnings dropped more than 11 percent.  In the companies with the most engaged employees, 90 percent of the employees had no plans to leave.  In those with the least engaged, 50 percent were considering leaving.  More than 100 studies have demonstrated some correlation between employee engagement and business performance.”

So, 78% of the global workforce is either not fully committed or proactively disengaged in their jobs—and this was before the recession had an impact on these attitudes.  It is probably safe to assume that things have gotten even worse as financial pressures have mounted for those in the workforce.  If the researchers performed the study today (particularly in the real estate industry), they would probably have to create a fourth category below "disengaged" to capture all those people who are despairing!

While this research may seem like bad news, it actually presents quite an opportunity for a recruiter.  Think of it this way:  At least 78% of the people who you meet every day are either not fully committed or are completely disengaged in the relationship they have with their current employer.  If your primary focus is recruiting agents from other real estate companies, that percentage is probably even higher.  As you know, a person has to be experiencing some level of dissatisfaction to make a change.  The happy people stay put.

If you’re responsible for recruiting, the important question becomes: How do you tap this deep level of disengagement and help people find engagement in your organization?  I’ll cover this topic in more detail in our upcoming discussions, but here is a quick summary of what needs to happen:

1. You Need to Be Engaged In Your Work.  You’ll never be able to convince someone they will find engagement and satisfaction in your organization if you’re not personally engaged in your work.  While being in a job that matches your talents is important, researchers are now learning that how you complete your daily tasks has a major impact on how much engagement you’ll experience.
2. Surround Yourself With Those Who are Engaged In Their Work.  Have you ever been on a team that is truly engaged in their task?  If so, then you know that engagement is contagious.  But, lack of engagement is also contagious.  In fact, the negative inertia created by whom you associate with is one of the most significant factors that hinder personal growth.  If a candidate's hope is to better their life by joining your team, they better find support when they get there!
3. Become an Engagement Expert.  With the previous two foundational issues in place, learning to communicate on the topic of engagement is one of the most powerful recruitment tools you can possess.  But to be effective, you’ll have to become more knowledgeable on this topic and be able to speak to others on a new level.  Don’t worry, it is not as hard as it sounds!

I look forward to working through these topics over the next couple of weeks.  For now, see if you can put these three items into practice.   

---

Editor's Note: This article was written by Ben Hess. Ben is the Founding Partner and Managing Director of Tidemark, Inc. and a regular contributor to WorkPuzzle. Comments or questions are welcome. If you're an email subscriber, reply to this WorkPuzzle email. If you read the blog directly from the web, you can click the "comments" link below.

Why Do People Hate to Pick up the Phone to Recruit? Part 2

Last week, I introduced you to Maureen Sharib, one of the few people on the planet who seem to  enjoy recruiting by picking up the phone and calling people.  I know it sounds strange, but such a person actually exists!  And as promised, I’m going to share some of the things I’ve learned from Maureen's insight over the last couple of years.  I can’t guarantee that the information will transform you into an enthusiastic phone recruiter, but it should help to improve your execution of this important fundamental.

Why do we hate to pick up the phone and recruit?

1. We’re scared.  Most people are reluctant to recruit by phone because of fear.

“What prevents a [recruiter] from being successful on the phone?  The biggest element is fear.  Have you ever experienced a situation where you just knew the people you need to recruit are on the inside of a particular company’s four walls and the only way to reach them is via the telephone?  In that situation, even though there was a large monetary incentive to reach those people, did you not do anything about them because you were afraid?”

The answer to these questions (for all of us) is “yes.”

Maureen’s advice..

“So, the very first thing you have to do is get over it.  So get over it.  Next be willing to admit that you’d like to fix this troubled aspect of your existence.  The final step is to do something about it.”

Sharib details some well-established techniques for overcoming fear in phone recruiting in her feature article, "20 Calls to Change Your Attitude."

2. We’re great at rationalizing behavior that keeps us off the phone.

For example, some people think it is helpful to research the person (typically on the internet) whom you’re trying to recruit before making a call.  Maureen’s take….

"I personally think this 'cold calling' versus 'warm calling' thing is a red-herring made up by people who find calling a complete and total stranger psychologically difficult.  They somehow believe that if they spend half a day researching each person that they'll be more likely to establish a rapport with them. Perhaps 'warming' themselves up for half a day makes them slightly more effective.  But if they made 10 calls instead they'd get much better results.  At some level it is always a numbers game."

Another example:  Some people think it is unethical to call companies with the intention of stealing their best employees.  Nice try.

“It’s a fact that many people don’t want to call another on the telephone and ask for information much beyond what it takes to order a pizza.  Because this is a basic truth about much of human nature there’s a repugnance that’s developed around the subject of phone [recruiting].  It’s intimated over and over again among individuals that it’s a borderline honest activity.  Bolstering that repugnance are the lofty ministrations that usually emerge over the subject of calling another company’s employees and offering them another opportunity.”

These are just two of many examples.  If you’re not calling, you’re somewhere on the continuum of rationalizing your inactivity.  Maureen’s advice….hold yourself accountable to making the calls.

3. We’re lazy.  Very few people are willing to do the work necessary to be successful at phone recruiting.  The laziness applies to both becoming a student of successful recruiting methodologies and following through on the strategies that work.  

Maureen published a very long article earlier this year that outlines an effective strategy for successfully engaging a passive candidate (i.e. someone who is not looking to change companies) in the first minute of talking to him/her.  She uses a case study of one of her clients who would call passive candidates and leave the following message:

“Hello, my name is ___________.  I located your contact information online and have a very exciting opportunity to discuss with you.  Please reach me at (___) ___ – ____ to learn more about this great opportunity.  I promise not to take more than a couple minutes of your time.  I look forward to speaking with you; have a great day!”

This message was left with more than 200 candidates.  The results?  No callbacks.  No interviews.  No hires.  Phone recruiter who is seriously depressed.

Maureen makes the point that if you’re willing to do some work, the results can be significantly improved.

Rule #1:  Try multiple times to reach the candidate live.  Never leave a message until you’ve called the person at least six times and got their voicemail.

Rule#2:  When you get a candidate on the phone, be ready to answer the following questions/objections quickly:  “How did you get my name?” and “I’m not looking to change companies right now...” while keeping their attention.  One of the ways you could answer the second objection is:

“Nobody said you were looking for a job.  The intent here is to locate and talk to persons who are happy in their positions with the idea that these people are likely to be the most productive.”

Maureen’s advice… become an expert at this stuff.  The ROI on becoming a proficient phone recruiter is worth the time and effort.

Hopefully, I’ve whetted your appetite to learn more about becoming a competent phone recruiter.  Reading Maureen’s writings is a great place to start, but there are many, many more experts who are willing to share their secrets...if you're willing to look.

Keep in mind that many of these experts do not specialize in the real estate industry.  The upside to this reality is that there may be many fresh new ideas that have never been tried in real estate recruiting.  The downside is that you’ll often have to translate their verbiage into something that makes sense for your business, and sometimes modify their methods to match your application.

Let me know what you are learning as you do your own research... 

---

Editor's Note: This article was written by Ben Hess. Ben is the Founding Partner and Managing Director of Tidemark, Inc. and a regular contributor to WorkPuzzle. Comments or questions are welcome. If you're an email subscriber, reply to this WorkPuzzle email. If you read the blog directly from the web, you can click the "comments" link below.

Why Do People Hate to Pick up the Phone to Recruit?

 

Hopefully, you’ve had an opportunity to read Dave Mashburn’s recent series on the importance of fundamentals (1,2,3,4).  We’ve received a lot of great feedback from the insight that Dave has shared - It seems he has hit a nerve, identifying some issues with which we all struggle.

This got me thinking... What are some of the specific fundamentals that seem to hinder owners and managers who are responsible for recruiting?  After working with hundreds of different managers and leadership teams over the last few years, there is one fundamental that stands out above all the others:  sourcing candidates by phone.

We seem to universally dread this activity in the real estate industry, and in every industry in the marketplace, for that matter.  Maybe you didn’t know this, but there are professional conferences dedicated to sourcing candidates. They even hold breakout sessions regarding why it is so difficult to pick up the phone and call people!

If everyone hates it so much, why do people keep doing it?  You know the answer to this already—because it works!  And, if you’re specifically trying to hire people away from your competitors, there is nothing that produces a better return on your time and money.  I’ve heard many people try to rationalize this fact away, but it’s true:  there is no substitute for picking up the phone and calling people if you strive to be a successful recruiter.

So, how do you overcome the deep internal resistance you feel toward this activity, and instead grow this fundamental into one of your personal strengths?  There is no quick answer to this question.  But, I’d like to introduce you to someone who can help you find the answer over time.  Her name is Maureen Sharib.

Maureen owns a recruiting company, moderates the MagicMethod business networking site, and writes extensively on various recruiting sites such as the Electronic Recruiting Exchange.  She is a very practical person who writes in a conversational manner.  The only downside to her style is that her articles are very long.  However, I’ve learned to stick with her stories because she ends up sharing some of her best tactics, if you’re willing to hang in there and listen.

In my next discussion, I’ll summarize a few things that I’ve learned from Maureen over the last couple of years.  Until then, you may want to check out an article that weaves some of Mark Twain’s writing on “Pocket Hunting” (a interesting method of prospecting for gold) into the principles needed to be a successful phone recruiter.  Enjoy!     

---

Editor's Note: This article was written by Ben Hess. Ben is the Founding Partner and Managing Director of Tidemark, Inc. and a regular contributor to WorkPuzzle. Comments or questions are welcome. If you're an email subscriber, reply to this WorkPuzzle email. If you read the blog directly from the web, you can click the "comments" link below.

Social Networking: Are You Becoming the Right Kind of Expert?

Earlier this week, I ran across an article written by John Sumser.  John is one of my favorite recruiting columnists because he really makes me think.  He’s a little like the Matt Drudge of recruiting—he seems to get things figured out a little ahead of the rest of us.

The article of interest concerns the time and energy it takes to maintain a social network on the internet.  It is the first time I’ve seen some metrics on this topic.  Any idea how long it takes to stay in touch with a social network of 1,000 people (not an uncommon size for many today)?  Take a guess before you read on...

Through an interesting birthday celebration experiment, John shows that just to maintain the network at the “annual birthday greeting card level” takes five concentrated hours per week!  The article is long, but entertaining, regarding how he reaches this conclusion.

Do you have this kind of time to dedicate to such an effort?  It’s an important question to ask yourself because social networking is the type of activity that can eat up a whole lot of time if it is not controlled by some self-imposed boundaries.

If you are purposefully dedicating this much time, are you likely to get a return?  John goes on to answer this question in a follow-up article.  Here is his perspective:

“There is no correlation between having a big social media presence and:

• being good at what you do
• being smart
• having something useful to say
• being worth the attention
• getting your work done
• making sales
• closing deals
• getting new business
• innovating
• being a good place to work
• getting smart people to work for you

Social media is no different than any other form of [media].  The message and the distribution channels tell you nothing about:

• the biases of the author
• organizational affiliationthe truth or falsity of any claims made
• the accuracy of the material
• whether or not the material is good for you
• the utility of the idea

When new [media] technology takes root, the early adopters appear to have (and in some ways actually do have) more influence and authority than might otherwise be accorded them.  Prowess with new technology can seem like subject matter expertise.  Learning to tell the difference between publishing skills and functional utility is one of the new frontiers of literacy.”

The point:  If you happen to be one of those people who spend the time and effort to master this new form of media, it doesn’t necessarily mean you know what you're talking about.  Mastering the media (at perhaps a very high cost with regard to time and effort) may give you a short-term advantage, however, it will be eventually overwhelmed by those who truly have the subject matter expertise.

What is the take away here?  Don’t aspire to become a social networking expert.  Instead, aspire to become a real estate expert who is proficient with social networking.

---

Editor's Note:  This article was written by Ben Hess.  Ben is the Founding Partner and Managing Director of Tidemark, Inc. and a regular contributor to WorkPuzzle.  Comments or questions are welcome.  If you're an email subscriber, reply to this WorkPuzzle email.  If you read the blog directly from the web, you can click the "comments" link below. 

Building Consistency and Linkage Into Your Recruiting Message

 

Earlier this week, I encouraged you to develop a believable recruiting message and then stick to it—even under the pressure of competitors who are touting discounts and shortcuts.  Recruiting guru, Peter Weddle, weighed in on this topic a couple of months ago.  I think his perspective is worth sharing:

“Consistency involves the creation of a single message that is used in every candidate channel.  It could be your employment brand or a more aggressive 'sales pitch' to ramp up your hiring for a new product launch or facility opening.  Whatever it is, the central idea you convey and even the choice of words you use must be the same in every single channel.

Such consistency is difficult to achieve in any of a number of different situations.  But despite those challenges, it is critical that your organization achieve and maintain this goal.  Differing messages or different expressions of the same message across multiple channels will confuse candidates and diminish your ability to influence their behavior. In the past, we told ourselves that we only got one chance to make a good first impression; today, we have hundreds of chances to make one good impression, and it's just as important that we do.”

Any idea what he is referring to in that last sentence?  It is an acknowledgement that because people are exposed to so many different media channels, there is a chance that a person may see your messages from many different angles.  When there are inconsistencies, your candidates become confused about who you really are.

What makes the State Farm billboard I referenced yesterday so damaging is that I viewed a commercial in my hotel room just ten minutes earlier featuring a man with a deep voice reassuring me that “like a good neighbor” State Farm would be there for me if I got into trouble.  I walk outside, and the State Farm rep is shouting “Discount!” When the messages collide like this, something doesn’t feel right.  I don’t believe either message.

Likewise, your candidates won’t believe you if you’re not consistent in your messaging.  How do you keep this sort of mixed messaging from occuring in your organization?  You create what media experts call linkage.

"The propensity of candidates to move among [media] channels presents us with a choice.  We can accept that such movement exists and simply react to it, or we can endeavor to exert some control over that movement so that it better serves our purpose.  Linkage is the way you accomplish the latter goal.  You create 'stepping stones' among the various channels to make it easy for candidates to follow a path you have laid out.

In effect, no matter where a candidate goes, they are led back to the one place online where you have the best opportunity to sell them on your organization.  That's the purpose of linkage-to amplify the impact of your message by eliminating or at least lowering the randomness of how candidates will see it. We can't, of course, stop them from moving around, but we can try and move them to where we can make our best impression on them, and it's important that we do that, as well.

A consistent and well linked pattern of messages enables you to create a clear and more impactful portrait of your organization.  Its repetition across multiple channels ensures that everyone sees the organization in the same way and sees it everywhere they look."

Do the recruiting messages you’re presenting to the public have this kind of linkage?  If not, you need to rethink your approach -- you're not getting the maximum benefit for your advertising, and the end result is a less powerful impact on potential candidates...

Also, remember that the recruiting process doesn’t end with marketing - once a candidate agrees to an interview, the hiring manager should be supporting and reiterating the marketing message to which the candidate responded.  The most successful recruiting companies create a link from beginning to end. 

---

Editor's Note:  This article was written by Ben Hess.  Ben is the Founding Partner and Managing Director of Tidemark, Inc. and a regular contributor to WorkPuzzle.  Comments or questions are welcome.  If you're an email subscriber, reply to this WorkPuzzle email.  If you read the blog directly from the web, you can click the "comments" link below. 

Recruiting Messaging and Branding: Are Your Competitors Causing You to Act Stupidly?

 

A couple of weeks ago, I spent some time with a client in Richmond, VA.  My meetings did not begin until late morning, so I had the opportunity to go for a run before my day started.  The hotel where I stayed was on a frontage road, just off one of the major interstates in Richmond.

This frontage road contains a number of billboards that are visible from the main road.  One of these billboards caught my eye and I couldn’t help but snap a picture.  (If you’re not able to read the text on this picture, click on the image to enlarge it.  If you’re an email subscriber, you may need to click through to the WorkPuzzle site to see the image.)   
 
As I read this billboard, I couldn’t help but think that this poor guy has been driven to distraction by his low cost competitors.  I think the “15 minutes could save you 15% or more in car insurance…” must be what he hears when goes to sleep at night!  To combat this messaging, he does the marketing equivalent of standing in a crowded room and yelling “Discount!  Discount!  Discount…!”  And while he is yelling, the rest of us are wondering what creative thing the little gecko is going to do next.

Before we get too critical, we have to give Geico and some of the other low-cost insurance companies credit for running effective marketing campaigns - They are good competitors.  But, to try to compete in such a reactionary way does not seem very effective.  Most people perceive State Farm as a full service insurance company that is able to offer their customers a higher level of service.  This is not a bad position to have in the marketplace—pay a little more and receive an outstanding level of service.  From a branding perspective, it would be more effective to reinforce their core strengths than to blatantly publish a “me too” message in response to their low-cost competitors.

We’re all great armchair quarterbacks when it comes to evaluating someone else’s problems, but does this type of thing happen in the real estate industry?  When it comes to recruiting, it happens every day.  Many of the most prominent real estate companies in the country are competing for agents against companies who have low cost or alternate business models.  When the competitors start to have even limited success, it is amazing how quickly even successful companies will succumb to the temptation of watering down their recruiting message (and sometimes even their business model) to compete.

How do you keep from making this mistake in your company?  Here are some guidelines that will help:

1. Make Sure Your Branding/Message is Believable.  What is the value proposition that you offer the candidates who interface with your organization?  You should be able to articulate this in several sentences.  Now ask yourself:  Would you be engaged by this proposition if you were a candidate?  Would you encourage one of your kids to accept this proposition for their career?  If not, you need to adjust your message until it passes this test.  If you do change your message, do so based on what candidates think, not what competitors are pushing you towards.
2. Stick to Your Core Message.  Why does everyone know the Geico marketing proposition?  Because it has been repeated so many times that it is ingrained in all of our minds.  You don’t have to run an enormous, multi-year marketing campaign to take advantage of this principle.  For example, we have one client who has boiled down their recruiting message to the following:  “We’ll take you by the hand and show you how to do it.”  They repeat this message many times during the recruiting process, especially when they face objections.
3. Be Willing to Say No to Some Candidates.  When you know who you are and what you stand for, you are going to find some people at odds with your message.  When this happens, don’t be afraid to say, “You may not be a good fit for our organization,” and then suggest they go see one of your competitors.  By doing this, you’ll not only avoid making some bad hires, but you’ll also cause the most talented candidates to respect your position.  Some of those candidates will be intrigued by your clarity and reengage.  Others will remember who they can trust to tell them the truth when their low-cost alternative lets them down.

Maintaining a consistent message and staying true to your recruitment brand takes courage--especially in today's economic climate.  But, it's an investment that will produce a return and help you maintain your dignity.  Without this focus, you could be the next person figuratively shouting "Discount!" in a crowded room. 

---

Editor's Note:  This article was written by Ben Hess.  Ben is the Founding Partner and Managing Director of Tidemark, Inc. and a regular contributor to WorkPuzzle.  Comments or questions are welcome.  If you're an email subscriber, reply to this WorkPuzzle email.  If you read the blog directly from the web, you can click the "comments" link below. 

Spotting a Psychopath in Your Network of Business Contacts - Part 2

Last week I wrote about a topic that is typically outside the range of our more applicable subjects: How to recognize a psychopath when you encounter one in business...and knowing what to do about it.

As you may recall, my advice around this topic is to not lose sleep over it, and certainly to not start any rumors around who you suspect may be one.  The point of this discussion is to help you gain an awareness of how to recognize these people so that you can keep your distance from them.  You can’t be harmed if you don’t take their bait. 

I promised to share the characteristics of psychopaths so you can recognize them in action.  Remember, very few are serial killers, like Hannibal.  On the contrary, most high-functioning psychopaths are smart enough to stay out of jail, are often successful in business, and appear to fit in.  To help you identify red flags, know that psychopaths typically:

• are prone to boredom and require more constant stimulation
• lead a parasitic lifestyle
• practice sexual promiscuity
• lack realistic long-term goals
• display extreme impulsivity
• are glib
• possess a grandiose sense of self-worth
• are pathological liars
• con and manipulate
• lack remorse
• have shallow emotions
• lack empathy
• fail to accept responsibility
• And finally, and unfortunately, they carry the appearance of normalcy despite being guilty of the most destructive behavior. 

What makes dealing with psychopaths frustrating is that they lack a conscience when it comes to inflicting harm on others.  Research has found that they also have no fear of pain or of the consequences of their behavior.  Please beware that these people are incredibly capable of assessing your needs and exploiting them for their own purposes.

For the two people who asked me about this subject matter recently....I hope this answers your questions.  For the rest of you, I hope you’ll never need to refer back to this information. ...

---

Editor's Note:  This article was written by Dr. David Mashburn.  Dave is a Clinical and Consulting Psychologist, Partner at Tidemark, Inc. and a regular contributor to WorkPuzzle.  Comments or questions are welcome.  If you're an email subscriber, reply to this WorkPuzzle email.  If you read the blog directly from the web, you can click the "comments" link below.  

3 Labor Statistics That Could Help Save the Real Estate Industry

One complaint we commonly hear from hiring managers and company owners is that it’s now very difficult to attract new talent to the real estate industry.  And since the real estate industry has received so much negative press over the last few years, there are certainly some elements of truth to these claims.

But difficult does not mean impossible, and the difficult often needs to be done to stay competitive.  The remaining productive agents who make up the ranks of the companies who have survived the downturn continue to age.  Failure to bring in “new blood” will significantly diminish a company’s prospects for long-term success.  There are no shortcuts around this reality.

Before you sink into depression, I’d like to share a few interesting labor statistics that may help brighten your perspective.  These labor statistics were compiled by Peter Weddle in his most recent recruiting newsletter.

1. There is a common perception in business today that the individuals who have jobs are not willing to give up those jobs to try something new (such as starting a real estate business).  Not true.

“According to the U.S. Labor Department, between February and April of this year, more people resigned from their jobs (2 million) than were laid off (1.7 million).  They had the courage to take their career into their own hands and chart a course that made more sense for them.”

If someone is laid off, they often do not have the resources to take on the expense of starting a real estate business.  But, those who voluntarily leave often do so from a position of strength and confidence in their new prospects.  Are you able to compete in the employment marketplace at large for this talent?

2. There is a common perception that those who have jobs are “hunkering down” and not investing in the future.  Not true.

“According to the U.S. Department of Education, 92 million American adults are now enrolled in an education program.  That's over half of the workforce.  These working men and women are brave enough to take personal responsibility for their own development.”

Why are all these people pursuing education at this point?  Because many do not like their current jobs and they want to be prepared for opportunities in the future.  Of course, these numbers are skewed towards younger demographics, but aren't those the candidates you need to start focusing on?  Do you have a way of getting your message in front of these 92 million people?

3. There is a common perception that those who have employable skills are not willing to take risks to make use of those skills.  Not true.

“According to Time magazine, 40 million Americans move each year and 20 percent of them do so in order to take a new job.  They are courageous enough to head off into the frontier of a new locale in order to stake their claim to a better future for themselves and their family.”

Moving yourself and your family to a new area is one the biggest risks a person can take.  Eight million people are doing so each year for job related reasons.  If people are willing to take this risk, are they willing to take the risk of working for your company?

Add all these numbers up and you have quite a few people who are willing to sacrifice to build their careers, take risks to potentially realize something better, and dedicate resources (both time and money) to better their chances of success in the future.  The challenge for any real estate company who wants to successfully engage these people is to develop employment value propositions that are compelling.  Are you up for this challenge?

---

Editor's Note:  This article was written by Ben Hess.  Ben is the Founding Partner and Managing Director of Tidemark, Inc. and a regular contributor to WorkPuzzle.  Comments or questions are welcome.  If you're an email subscriber, reply to this WorkPuzzle email.  If you read the blog directly from the web, you can click the "comments" link below. 

Looking in Your Neighbor’s Windows: How Much Effort Does it Take to Produce a Hire?

Comparing ourselves to others is something human beings have been doing since the beginning of time.  At some level, we all need validation that our efforts are on par with those who have similar jobs and responsibilities.

If you are responsible for recruiting agents, have you ever sought to compare yourself to other offices within your company?  Is your company doing as well as your competitors?  How does your recruiting performance stack up to companies in other markets?  These are all important questions.  Hopefully you’ve spent some time contemplating and researching this issue.

One of the things you may not have studied is how your recruiting efforts compare to other industries.  Is it possible that the real estate industry operates at one level, but the insurance industry operates on a higher performance plane?  On the other hand, you could be pleasantly surprised to learn that your hiring systems and performance far surpass typical performance in the medical industry.

Of course, this type of data is very difficult to collect and analyze.  So, when I came across the question below and subsequent answer on this topic in the Electronic Recruiting Exchange (ERE), I thought it was worth sharing.  The contributor is Richard Newsom, the VP of Recruiting Operations for Fifth Third Bank, and the question is shared by an anonymous reader who works for a publically-traded company.  Here is the exchange:

"Question:

I manage our company’s recruiting organization.  We are a four billion dollar company, publicly traded, and employ 4,000+ employees.  I have a team of seven full-time recruiters and just recently brought on two contract recruiters.  Here is my challenge:

I am being asked to show that my team is at capacity, and what it would take to complete the recruiting team to address the business needs (requisitions).  When I joined the company two years ago, we had 15 recruiters.  In the last two years we have had three reductions in force, hiring freezes, etc.  It made sense for the company to decide that we could downsize the recruiting organization.  Last year with seven recruiters, we filled 774 requisitions.  Is there anyone who could help me build a business case that we are working at capacity?

Answer:

There are many different ways to approach this, and not every solution works for every company.  I’d like to discuss one particular approach….  Using your example of 774 hires (and making some broad assumptions that you’ll need to validate)…

Assumptions:

• We need to hire 774 people in 2011
• 90% of the offers extended result in a hire
• 25% of the interviews conducted result in an offer
• 80% of the candidates submitted to a hiring manager get interviewed
• It takes 1.5 hours to source a candidate worthy of submitting to a hiring manager
• Each recruiter has 2.5 hours per day dedicated to sourcing candidates for submission
• There are seven recruiters dedicated to recruiting throughout 2011 — thus seven recruiters X 2.5 hours per day for sourcing = 17.5 sourcing hours per day total

Calculations:

• 774 hires needed/90% acceptance rate = 860 offers need to be extended
• 860 offers/25% offer rate = 3,440 candidates need to be interviewed
• 3,440 interviews/80% interview rate = 4,300 candidates who need to be submitted to hiring managers
• 4,300 submissions X 1.5 hours per candidate = 6,450 sourcing hours needed
• 6,450 sourcing hours needed/17.5 hours per day = 369 business days to source all candidates (516 calendar days)

Using these assumptions, it would take your team of seven recruiters nearly a year and a half to fill all 774 positions….”

Hopefully, this recruiter will be able to take this information and fend off another reduction of staff among her recruiting group. Even if she maintains here current staffing level, I’m not sure I’d want to work there—it sounds like a death march!

But, that’s not the point.  Through his assumptions, Richard Newsom has given us some insight into hiring practices in the banking industry.  In essence, we have the opportunity to look in his office window and see the recruiting conversion metrics of one of the most prominent companies in the financial industry.

How do these benchmarks compare to what you experience in your company?  For high performing companies in the real estate industry, we commonly see an interview-to-hire ratio of 25% to 35%.  While this is similar to Newsom's bank, their candidate-to-interview ratio is very high compared to most real estate companies.  To secure 3,440 interviews, most real estate companies would need to source 15,000 to 20,000 candidates.  Analyzing the hours dedicated to each task is even more interesting, but I’ll leave that for you to consider on your own...

The bottom line is that we all need goals in order to exceed.  If these goals are set with a limited exposure to what others are accomplishing, we may not reach high enough.  I encourage you to use all the information you can possibly collect to establish your personal expectations, and then push yourself to succeed.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Editor's Note:  This article was written by Ben Hess.  Ben is the Founding Partner and Managing Director of Tidemark, Inc. and a regular contributor to WorkPuzzle.  Comments or questions are welcome.  If you're an email subscriber, reply to this WorkPuzzle email.  If you read the blog directly from the web, you can click the "comments" link below. 

What Can You Learn from the Jet Blue Flight Attendant’s Tirade?

Unless you've been vacationing on a remote island with no contact with the outside world, you’ve no doubt heard about the bizarre behavior of Steven Slater last week.  He is the now infamous Jet Blue flight attendant who decided to grab two beers and take the short cut home from work.  (If you need a quick refresher on what happened, here is a quick video:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mNRhlrBqOc )

Since his arrest, something strange has happened.  Slater has become a hero.  Take a look at this partial summary from Yahoo News:

“And as is the case with anyone who stumbles upon sudden infamy in the digital age, Slater has been the subject of much discussion in the past week.  As David Allan Coe advocated in song, he took that job and shoved it.  Here's a random sampling of reactions from around the Web:

• Gawker's Maureen O'Connor labeled him a 'hero' for 'doing that which everyone who has traveled by airplane dreams.'  She added, 'Unfortunately, his heroism may result in criminal mischief and trespassing charges.'
• New York magazine's Chris Rovzar predicted that hero status for Slater is imminent:  'You know, it's amazing you don't read stories like this more frequently.  You'd assume that, just as passengers periodically go berserk, so would flight attendants.  Prediction:  This guy becomes some sort of folk hero.'
• The New York Daily News' Joanna Molloy sympathized with Slater's plight, which she thinks is 'part of the frustration all over the country as employees take pay cuts and have to do double the workload as they take on the responsibilities of their laid-off co-workers.'
• The Awl's Alex Balk is ready to raise a glass in celebration of Slater, writing, 'I think even the most airline-phobic among us can sort of look at his great escape and offer a silent cheer.'
• In a recent issue of the New Yorker, essayist David Sedaris wrote about air travel and the tendency for humans to behave at their worst on planes and in airports.  'We're forever blaming the airline industry for turning us into monsters,' Sedaris wrote.  'But what if this is who we truly are, and the airport's just a forum that allows us to be our real selves, not just hateful but gloriously so?' "

(To read the summary with all the links to the original articles, please visit:  http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100810/bs_yblog_upshot/rogue-jetblue-flight-attendant-being-hailed-as-a-modern-american-working-class-hero )

Why is it that so many people have connected with Slater’s outburst?  As I’ve read the articles mentioned above and others, the consensus seems to be that there are many employees who are very frustrated with their jobs.  While most individuals cannot afford to abandon their posts like Slater did, they can cheer on someone who publically demonstrated the angst they feel every day.

Digging deeper...it appears the frustration is most intense in the service industries (i.e. those jobs that involve directly serving the public).  In the U.S, there are a total of 150 million people with jobs, and 107 million of these individuals work in the service industry.  That’s a huge amount of collective frustration and it’s not hard to see why it occasionally bubbles over into the media when a focal point presents itself.

So, what can you learn from Slater’s tantrum to increase your recruiting effectiveness?  Here are some quick thoughts:

1. Connect with the Frustration People Feel in Their Jobs.  As you know, change is painful.  People do not make changes in their employment status unless the change of remaining in their current situation exceeds the pain of trying something new.  So, spend time asking questions about a candidate’s current situation to bring the pain to the surface.  What bothers them about their current job?  What other options have they tried in the past that have not worked out?  Where do they see themselves in five years if they remain on the same course?  Etc.
2. Tone Down the “Opportunity Speak.”  Managers are often too eager and thorough in describing the benefits of becoming a real estate agent. If there is too much of this opportunity speak too quickly in the conversation, the walls go up.  You’re talking, but the candidates are no longer listening because they feel like they are being sold something.  It is better to admit that being a real estate agent has its own set of struggles.  Realistic hope is kindled when the new struggles seem more bearable than the ones they’re experiencing right now.
3. Encourage Candidates to Take Small Steps.  As you find points of pain in the discussion, encourage the candidate to take small steps to remedy the pain.  For example, one of the common frustrations people feel in a dead-end job is boredom.  If a candidate is considering real estate for the first time, enrolling in a real estate school is a great way to learn if the new career has the potential to be more interesting and engaging. In most states, this is a small step (low cost, flexible) towards answering the question:  Does the topic of real estate really capture my interest? If the answer is yes, the next step will be even easier.

Like most people who grab their 15 minutes of fame, Steven Slater will soon be forgotten.  But, the frustration that many employees feel in their current situations will remain.  Tap into that frustration and you’ll gain an advantage over the competition and ultimately become a more savvy recruiter.

---

Editor's Note:  This article was written by Ben Hess.  Ben is the Founding Partner and Managing Director of Tidemark, Inc. and a regular contributor to WorkPuzzle.  Comments or questions are welcome.  If you're an email subscriber, reply to this WorkPuzzle email.  If you read the blog directly from the web, you can click the "comments" link below.