Click on a Topic to Go There.
JOB VACANCY RATE DIMINISHING
Project SAVE survey shows recruiters are catching up with some of the demand.
GET THE SPEC
The secret to a quick and successful search is starting with a complete spec.
EMPLOYER OF CHOICE
What does it take to become an employer of choice in this market?
SCREENING RATIO REVELATIONS
What does your screening ratio reveal about your recruiting effectiveness?
Project S.A.V.E., the Staffing Alliance of Virginia Employers, conducted its
second annual vacancy rate survey of its membership in an effort to determine
the current demand for new and replacement hires. Compared to 1998, the average
number of job vacancies dropped almost 50 percent from 84 per company to 45
per company in 1999.
Among the various industry segments represented in this year's survey, the
IT segment was second only to Health Care in vacancies. The Health Care employers
had an average of 7.84 percent of their jobs vacant, while IT companies had
a rate of 6.78 percent. Telecom providers averaged 4.83 percent, while Hospitality
was at 4.36 percent and Financial firms came in at 3.3 percent.
For IT, that means one out of fifteen positions is currently vacant. In 1998,
that ratio was one out of twelve. From a global perspective, that would seem
to indicate that employers are finding greater success in recruiting and retaining
the required resources than just one year ago.
It is hard to credit any one action for the improvement in vacancy rates.
With the local unemployment rate at a record low and a booming economy, it
is unlikely that demand has diminished nor that supply has increased. Some
pundits suggest that, due to shrinking profits, many companies are freezing
or slow-rolling their hiring activities. If that is the case, we can expect
equal or greater vacancy rates when the freeze is lifted.
There are a number of employment managers who claim that this progress is
the result of their recruiting process reengineering and expanded internet
recruiting efforts. Certainly, both of these explanations have merit in some
organizations, but there are a plethora of other explanations that may apply
to specific organizations. For instance, we know that some companies merged
in the last twelve months in part to solve labor shortages. Still others have
had recent layoffs and have not yet determined the nature and number of their
needs going forward.
All things considered, we do not believe that the significant drop in vacancy
rates this year is a sign that the labor shortage is about to end. We think
it is more likely to be a temporary lull.
One of the most common errors recruiters make is starting a search without
checking the specs with the client manager. Too often, we assume the hiring
manager has included everything we need to know in the job order or staffing
requisition. As a result, we waste a lot of time learning what the real specs
are by trial and error.
Ideally, every time we get a new assignment, even if it is for a manager we
have worked with before, we should insist on a meeting with the manager to
clarify the specs and agree on the plan and process to be used to satisfy
them. In some cases, when the manager already has the candidate identified,
it can eliminate a lot of unnecessary effort and embarrassment for the recruiter.
Meeting with the manager at the start of the process can be very educational
for both parties. The recruiter can learn more about the desired fit - - the
variables, the trade-offs, the factors that will lead to success and/or failure.
The manager may come to see the value the recruiter can bring to the process
in terms of competitive issues, sourcing strategies, and process efficiencies.
The primary goal of this meeting should be to create a clear and realistic
agreement or contract of the goal and the process.
The ultimate value of this collaborative approach to a search is the quality
of the fit. A well-planned and efficiently conducted search usually results
in a satisfied customer and a hire of quality. Hires who have the skills and
interests that closely match the job, and the values that align with the manager,
will be job satisfied, productive and probably stay longer.
In a job market which offers job seekers thousands of new opportunities every
day, recruiters are constantly challenged to find new and better ways to make
their companies more attractive than their competition. The problem is not
unique to high tech employers. From restaurants to real estate, telemarketing
to transportation, recruiting demand exceeds labor supply.
Applicants are now in the driver's seat, and they know it. They are demanding
more information, faster and friendlier processes, and more flexibility in
the offer packages most companies present to them. Clearly, old advertising
strategies are no longer appropriate or effective. Seemingly, the new rules
of engagement are being written as the game is played.
Becoming an employer of choice is not an overnight proposition. A corporate
image is akin to the corporate culture in many ways, including the time it
takes to create it. It is easy to tell people how great you are, but it is
far more difficult to get people to believe it and tell others the same thing.
The most important ingredient in the employer of choice recipe is employee
satisfaction. Your existing and former employees must rate your company as
a great place to work. They must sing the praises of the nature of the work,
the relationships and communications between employees and managers, the developmental
opportunities, salaries, benefits, rewards and recognition, family friendliness
and the work space and environment.
The external public relations image of the company should be represented by
a unified theme nd image in all forms of advertising - - recruitment, product
and general image. This also includes the corporate web site. Today, most
job applicants research potential employers before they apply. And, what they
see is what they believe they will get.
Another important aspect is the image your employment process projects to
candidates who come in for interviews. It is often said that there is only
one chance to make a good first impression, and the on-site interview is a
perfect example.
Today's savvy job seekers expect to have the VIP treatment when they are visiting
a potential employer's facility. The manner in which applicants are treated
sets their expectations for how they will be treated as employees. For this
reason, the process must be customer-focused, anticipating needs and exceeding
expectations at every turn.
Common mistakes companies make in recruiting new employees include the assignment
of untrained, inexperienced interviewers on the selection team, poorly coordinated
or overly redundant interview schedules, and slow and indecisive follow up.
Candidates who are wowwed by a favorable public image can be turned off very
easily by just one unprofessional or insensitive manager. Don't leave the
selection of new employees who can earn you millions to chance. Use your star
employees, your first stringers, your very best managers and recruiters to
deliver the message that your firm is an employer of choice.
In this age of metrics, it is remarkable how few employers compute their screening
ratios. The screening ratio is one of the easiest metrics to track, and often
it can be the most revealing about one's recruiting effectiveness.
In its simplest form, the screening ratio is the number of resumes, interviews,
and offers it takes to get one hire. For example, many recruiters will tell
you that they have to see 100 resumes to get 4 interviews and 2 offers to
net 1 hire.
Some organizations will add other components to the ratio to measure specific
aspects of their employment processes. To measure a recruiter's effectiveness,
they might add the number of prescreened candidates referred to the hiring
manager in comparison to those invited for interviews by the manager and then
given offers. A good hit rate might look like this: 3 recommends, 3 invites,
2 offers, 1 hire. On the other hand, a ratio of 12 to 5 to 2 to 1 may indicate
the recruiter is not adding much value.
Tracking applicants through each step of your process does not require the
most sophisticated applicant tracking system available. Many companies accomplish
this with a basic spreadsheet used to record the date each step was completed
for each candidate.
It may also be useful to analyze the screening ratio for each recruitment
source you utilize. This can help you plan future recruiting strategies. For
example, if you know you have to interview 18 students on campus to net 1
college hire, you will be able to size your college recruitment effort to
match your new graduate hiring targets.
Most of us don't need a screening ratio to tell us that a particular manager
or department is ill-equipped to interview and select new staff members. However,
when we are able to quantify that manager's ratio and compare it to best practices
or corporate goals, we may have more leverage in gaining cooperation to fix
the problem.
One of our clients had a goal of 4 interviews to 1.5 offers to 1 hire. They
had one department that was experiencing 14 interviews to 3 offers to 1 hire.
When the manager consented to explore the problem with the recruiting manager,
it was quickly determined that each of the interviewers on the selection team
was using their own set of selection criteria and couldn't agree on what was
a qualified candidate. A brief, pre-interview meeting was initiated to attain
a consensus on the specs, leading to an almost immediate reduction of the
screening ratio to 4 to 2 to 1.
What does your screening ratio reveal about your effectiveness?