Finding Value in Social Networks

Like prospectors during the gold rush, recruiters everywhere are flocking to social networks in search of hires. But like the experience of many during the gold rush, getting results in not easy. Reaping the benefits of social networking requires engaging with those networks. There's plenty being written about how to do so, but to know if what you're doing is working, consider the following metric:

EE = (1-N) X (R/P)

Where:

EE = Effectiveness of Engagement, expressed as a percentage

Engagement, in this context, means getting ready access to employees' networks, regardless of the mechanism for doing so. Virtually 100% of employees have social networks and connect to them using different means (networking sites are not the only way to do so), but only a certain proportion of employees may be willing to give an employer access, by either making the contacts available or agreeing to forward job postings to them.

N = The proportion (%) of employee networks that an employer or recruiter has engaged with.
R = The average number of qualified referrals received per month per employee
P = The average number of postings accepted by employees to their networks per month

So if an employer is engaged with 10% (N) of employees' social networks, and on average each employee accepts 3 (P) postings per month, and produces 2 (R) qualified referrals:

EE = (1-10%) X (2/3) = 60%

If the same results are achieved by engaging with 50% of employee networks, EE = 33%

Engagement is more effective the larger the number of qualified referrals received for the same proportion of employee networks an employer is engaged with. However, this is not a bottomless pit. Research shows that beyond a certain threshold of postings, the volume of qualified referrals starts to flatten out and even reduce.

Reality Meets Hype

All that's being claimed about the potential of social networks as sourcing tools hinges on being able to increase N. But engagement takes time and effort and there are no shortcuts, which is why many of the claims being made about how social networks can revolutionize recruiting border on the ludicrous.

Take the buzz around Twitter as an example. Originally conceived as an answer to the prayers of narcissists and stalkers — okay, "to support the idea that people should enjoy an 'always on virtual omnipresence'" — it's now being touted as a critical tool for recruiters interested in social networking. The conventional wisdom is contradicted by a recent study from Harvard that shows it to be just a broadcast mechanism. Ninety-percent of tweets are generated by 10% of users. Across all Twitter, users the median number of lifetime tweets is one!

Social networking is about communities, where there's sharing of information, give and take, etc. for the members to stay connected with each other. Twitter is a one-way street — there's no evidence to show that it supports social networking. A recent interview with Twitter cofounder Biz Stone has him talking about companies using Twitter to sell pies, warm cookies, and respond to customer service requests. There's no social networking going on here, unless the pie eaters are sitting around the same table.

Some would claim that having a broadcast mechanism is precisely the point. A recruiter can broadcast jobs. That requires candidates to follow them or the employer. In which case, just how is this different than an e-mail alert? Job postings don't have the same shelf life as warm cookies, and a quick response usually doesn't alter the outcome.

Increasing N

Research on communities by the Pew Foundation and others shows that engagement requires starting in and participating in conversations. The main reasons people share are:

• To help someone who would benefit (81%)
• To give back, after benefiting from sharing (42%)
• To show enthusiasm (39%)
• To show dissatisfaction (19%)

Interestingly, only 5% of people share to be seen as experts.

However, to state the obvious, starting and participating in a conversation requires having something interesting to say that the community cares about. An excellent example of this is Elevenmoms on Wal-Mart's website. They have 20 moms blogging here. The blog is focused on a specific demographic with a very clear mandate of the type of community it supports. Try engaging with that one if you're not a mom. The point being, in case it still isn't clear, is that increasing N takes a lot of focused effort. As a recruiter involved in social networking, you need to figure out the engagement profile of your audience:

1. Where do they interact (or not interact)?
2. What topics get them excited?
3. What do they share?

Technology is the least useful thing here. Using Twitter is not going to help much, as the usage patterns show. There isn't a person on the face of the planet who has enough interesting things to say on a regular basis that they deserve to be followed. Any pronouncements people make, including what they have to say about their place of work or jobs, can always be searched for the few nuggets of useful information buried in the mountains of drivel. To increase N focus on a few communities you can engage with and forget toys like Twitter. Face it, unless your last name is Spacey or Kutcher you're not likely to have much of a following. And even if you get some, they won't stay: Nielsen Media estimates that 60% of Twitter users stop using it after a month.

The Hub and Spoke Model for Passive Candidate Sourcing

Over the past few months I’ve been making some not-so-bold predictions about the demise of job boards and the rise of the “hub and spoke” sourcing model for finding a better class of active candidates. Rather than repeat the prognostication here, I’d suggest that despite the shift to this new and improved sourcing model, in the long run it might not really matter.

Here’s why: from a practical standpoint, only 20 to 25% of candidates are actively looking at any one time. This is a high-end estimate, with 15 to 20% more likely, and in normal economic times probably around 15%. This means that 80% of most candidates aren’t looking.

So despite my current fondness for monster.com, and the possibility that TalentSeekr and First Advantage’s HireEngine will become powerful talent hubs, I’m concerned that too many recruiting managers are aiming at the wrong target. It doesn’t take a lot of brain power to prove the case that there are more top-10-15% performers among those people who aren’t looking than those who are. So why are we spending so much effort to find candidates we don’t want to hire, even if we’re doing it more efficiently?

The quick counter to this is that even if you don’t hire the precious few good ones you find, you’ll be able to pipeline these prospects into a talent pool and keep them warm for future positions. As long as there are sufficient numbers of A-level candidates in the active pool, this makes good sense, but this has yet to be proven for companies that don’t have a great employer brand. The other counter to this active/passive argument is that corporate recruiters have too many reqs to handle, and the hub and spoke model is the only way to productively deal with filling positions. This is a valid point, since the hub will be seen by far more people than an individual req, especially if you drive traffic here through dynamic spokes, like Twitter, niche sites, and Facebook pages.

Yet while valid, it’s a bit shortsighted to rely on one basket to put your talent eggs in. An ROI case can easily be made that B+ or A-level candidates outperform their less-competent counterparts by at least two to five times, so that any additional cost to acquire these people is insignificant.

While many corporate recruiters are successfully using LinkedIn, ZoomInfo, and Broadlook to identify passive candidates, their productivity metrics are far below their external agency counterparts. The “too much work to do” excuse is part of the problem here, and this is a valid point. It does take more time to contact, persuade, and recruit passive candidates into the fold. However, from what I’ve seen, even with enough time, most corporate recruiters would still fall short. In my opinion, this is totally due to the use of unsophisticated recruiting techniques. This is where the use of the hub and spoke model for passive candidate sourcing can have a significant impact on both productivity and quality.

First, let’s put the metrics of passive candidate recruiting on the table. As a minimum, you need to track outbound return call rates, the percent of prospects agreeing to talk about the job, the percent of these calls resulting in qualified applicants to send out for interviews, and the number of high quality referrals per call. (Here’s a link to a recorded webinar I prepared for LinkedIn with these metrics described.) It turns out that if you don’t get at least 50 percent of your outbound calls returned, the end results are pretty dismal. For example, if you get 50 return calls out of 100 people randomly contacted based on their titles, it’s unlikely that more than six to eight would be interested in your job, fully qualified (considering location, comp, ability, and availability), and ready to go out for an interview. While pretty good, this number would drop to two to three people if the initial callback rate is around 20%, which is a number we’ve found to be about average for most corporate recruiters. This is not so good.

In my mind, these kind of results are no better than any “dial for dollars” process and are what’s preventing corporate recruiters from competing effectively with their external agency counterparts. A hub and spoke approach to sourcing passive candidates changes the underlying rules here by leveling the playing field.

As pointed out in the LinkedIn webinar, if you consider the names of passive candidates not as prospects but as hubs in a network with dozens or hundreds of spokes of other possible contacts, you’ll be able to reap untold rewards. The secret of passive candidate recruiting, known by all the best third-party recruiters on the planet, is getting these initial contacts to give you the names of better contacts. The reason they’re better is that they’re dead-on hits for your job, they’ll call you back 80 to 90% of the time, and everyone will agree to consider your job opportunity. This means if you contact, recruit, and network properly with this hub and spoke mindset, you’ll get 20 to 30 sendouts for every 50 names called!

Too good to be true?

Not really, but there is a lot of technique and skill required to pull it off. For one, you need to leave very compelling voicemails to get the initial group of people to call you back. For another, you have to be someone worth knowing. This is the only way people you don’t know will give you two to three great referrals every time. My favorite technique here is to recruit them first, get them to give you a 10-minute overview of their background before telling them much about the job, and during this screening process build a 360° network of their connections. Then if the person is not qualified, I go back and ask about some of the people in this extended network. As part of this, you must be persistent and not hang up until you get at least 2-3 great names. This is obviously the critical step in the process, but if you’re worth knowing, these first level prospects will go out their way to help you.

While not easy, learning these passive candidate recruiting and networking techniques are much more productive than calling 100 people at random and hoping one becomes a candidate. This is equivalent to writing boring job descriptions and posting them on a big board where no one talented will find it.

Third-party recruiters practice this stuff and constantly hone their techniques on getting better referrals. Since 80% of the market is not looking, getting to these people first is the difference in being a good recruiter and a great one. It also represents the difference between hiring good people and great people. Companies are investing a great deal in becoming more efficient finding these good people. Surprisingly, few companies consider investing similar resources to find the best.

Jerks bought over my company - Now what?

Dear Stanley,

I work in a big financial institution. My company was taken over recently by another big bank, and now we have all new bosses. A lot of people were fired, most of my friends. Our department is smaller and everything is different. Everybody from my old company is now sort of a second-class citizen, and all the people from the company who took us over are really obnoxious and act like they're better than we are. My new boss doesn't really talk to any of us and has no idea how things are done around here. Obviously, I'm lucky to still have a job, but I'm having trouble adjusting. Do you have any ideas?

Lost in Space

Dear Space Cadet,

Yeah, things are bad all over. No, seriously. They are. We pretty much all have a choice. We can remember the way things were before everything came crashing down and allow ourselves to be swept up in bitterness and nostalgia, or we can do what business warriors do: Assess the situation, develop a strategy, and execute against it. Or we can do a bit of both. The times we are living in are very scary. We may be at the bottom, or we may not. If we're not, it's hard to imagine what might be around the corner. The trick, obviously, is to avoid looking around the corner. That's okay. We have plenty on our plate right here, don't we?

The key to living in times of change in business is to take it a day at a time, a challenge at a time. You are in a pretty classic situation, even though the situation is more dire: You've been taken over. Being the acquired guys has never been easy, but there is an established approach that has worked for many over the years. First, if you live through the initial purges, you maintain. Do your job. Begin to make friends with the conquering Martians. Listen very hard to your new management, and attempt to figure out what the frig they want from you. Second, as you do so, you observe very carefully the way the conquering mutants dress, what time they like to feed, what drinks they favor, where they like to hunker down and socialize. And you emulate them. If they like to wear funny hats on the way to work, you get yourself one. If they part their hair on the wrong side, do you so as well. If they arrive for work at 7 a.m., as bright and frisky as coked-up beavers, that's your ticket, too. Monkey see, monkey do. After a while, you will become all-but indistinguishable from the invaders, and like magic they will begin to see you as a "good guy," i.e. one of them.

When my company was taken over by the former entity known as Westinghouse, we all suddenly had to go out and buy a bunch of pinstripe — men and women alike — and big, R. Crumb-like shoes with tiny pinholes in them. In the evenings, we all had to learn how to drink Sambuca Romano. They ate lunch at 11:30 in the morning. They carpeted themselves with memos and conducted constant meetings to establish consensus, like ants. Their leaders were old and very, very square. All this was a new deal for the majority of us, and some couldn't change. Those who couldn't lost their early lunch. So observe. Be flexible. Listen, and then listen harder. And become that which you fear and loathe. You'll be all right. In any event, you'll stand a better chance than those who are married to the old ways of life.

Your greatest enemy in this regard is your heart, the feelings you have for the old bosses, the old colleagues, the old offices, the old letterhead, the old way of life. Have you noticed that the people without too much emotional baggage do best in business? The ones who, like sharks, move forward, cold-blooded and hungry, eating as they go? Be one of them. You'll do better.

One final thing to consider: What's different about takeovers these days is that, unlike the glorious days of yesteryear, your acquiring party is almost as messed up as you were before your company collapsed into the arms of the other. Previously, conquering entities were strong, superior in some way, and in a good position to take the helm and steer the newly merged ship. These days the guys taking you over might very well be the next ones to take the hose. This means your new bosses are probably as stressed out, crazed, terrified and woozy as you are. This is both a liability and an opportunity. Yes, they're nuts already. But they also need more help than the average Roman. Provide that assistance, and you just might have a chance. Good luck.

Happy New Year!

Hi There,

Wishing you and your Family a Very Happy New Year (2009). God bless this year of the Bull with peace & prosperity to your Kith and Kin and everybody around the globe.

Regards,
Viral Thaker

P Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.

The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments contained in it. Contact your Administrator for further information.

The Top 25 Signs of a Dysfunctional Workplace

Throughout time, people everywhere have engaged in the great tradition of complaining about the workplace. But as a boss or an HR manager, how do you know when job complaints are general venting and when there is really something wrong? Part of your job is to make sure that employees are happy and productive, and that can't happen in a dysfunctional environment.

If you're having a hard time separating hyperbole from legitimate complaints, it may be worth reviewing the top 25 signs of a dysfunctional workplace. Note that all the examples below — listed in no particular order — are taken from my recent real-world work experiences and situations, no matter how unlikely they might seem.

1. Nothing can get done without the boss's approval. Sure, the boss has the final say, but work should be delegated, with employees taking responsibility for tasks that do not require the boss's personal time and attention. The organization will be much more productive and empowered if the top dog doesn't have to sign off on every little thing.

2. Nothing can get done unless employees go behind the boss's back. It's one thing if the boss is overly involved, but it's a serious problem if the boss is actually a roadblock to getting work done. It may be time to call in the consultants.

3. No one is sure who the boss really is. The titles may be clear, but so many people are jostling for the top post that employees aren't sure who actually makes the final decisions. This can cause more than a little frustration.

4. No one is getting paid on time — or at all. This is very obvious sign that things are going poorly. Even at startups, employees need to be clear about their pay schedule to feel secure.

5. Cubicle mates IM (instant message) each other but never talk. It's nice to have a quiet office, but some topics require face-to-face discussion. As with email, it's difficult to express tone via IM, opening the door to misunderstandings.

6. No one contributes in meeting because everyone is busy IM-ing or giving a "YES" chorus to boss's ideas. Meetings are for brainstorming ideas and discussing important topics, not for secret, snarky IM conversations about how boring the meeting is. Pull the plug.

7. Too many pointless meetings/concalls are being held. If a meeting has no set agenda or is just being held to rehash previous discussions, axe it.

8. There's more than one "secret couple" on staff. It makes sense that a lot of couples meet each other at work because that's where they spend a lot of their time. However, having "secret" couples on staff (some of which involve people that may be having an extramarital affair) can lead to workplace tension and drama.

9. Attorneys outnumber staff. Perhaps your business practices should be re-examined?

10. Reward system? What reward system? You can't have a stick and no carrot.

11. The IT head gets arrested for hosting porn on company servers. This is a clear case of lack of supervision and not being in tune with what's going on with the staff.

12. IT rules are so strict that you're not allowed to know your own computer login. It's important to have IT security policies, but if the rules are too strict, employees can feel distrusted.

13. Your boss — an eccentric Internet millionaire — offers to pay your monthly salary in gold coins because "gold is more stable than the dollar." Although management and entry-level employees rarely live the same lifestyle, management should at least show some understanding about employees' financial needs.

14. Your manager was hired because she listed "whiskey" as a hobby on her résumé. Sure, having quirky staff members can liven up the workplace, but it's not a good idea to hire someone just because they'd make a good drinking buddy or golf partner.

15. Your co-worker decides to show, not tell, the visiting U.K. executive what a "wedgie" is at an office holiday party. Even at office parties, there should be some sense of workplace propriety. Getting drunk at an office event and misusing the photocopy machine is a similar sign of workplace dysfunction.

16. The boss takes pride in his "wall of shame," where employee mistakes are posted and circled in red for the entire world to see. Rewards can be public, but chastisement should be kept private.

17. The boss screams at the assistant when there's skim milk instead of half-and-half in the coffee. Just because the boss is in a position of authority doesn't mean that he or she can use that power to bully or intimidate employees.

18. Emergency drills are conducted without employees being told that it's a drill. In general, the more information you share with your staff, the more they will feel like a contributing member of a team. Hiding crucial information can lead to distrust and a depleted sense of value.

19. At least once per week, you hear quiet sobbing from an adjacent cubicle. One unhappy employee can ruin the morale of the entire office. Try to immediately address any employee issues before they spread.

20. Entire departments go to lunch together every day, leaving parts of the company completely unmanned for hours at a time. Workplace camaraderie is great, except when the network goes down and there's no one left in the IT department to fix it.

21. What matters is not what you've accomplished in a day, but how many hours you were seen "working." We all know at least one person who hangs around until everyone else goes home or shows up at 7 a.m. just to make a good impression with the boss. However, odds are they are only working seven hours of their eight-hour day. Reward productivity, not time spent at the office.

22. The accounting department has accumulated 23 weeks of paid vacation because no one there has ever taken a day off. People are not machines. Encourage staff to take vacations, or they just might walk out one day.

23. Managers are CCd on every company email, even when it's just about where to order lunch. This is called covering your back, and it usually happens when employees are not empowered enough to make decisions within their scope of authority.

24. The only way someone can get promoted is if a senior staff member dies. Hope is a powerful incentive to keep employees motivated and on task. If there is no hope of advancement, quality of work and enthusiasm will suffer.

Happy Diwali.

 

Regards,
Viral Thaker
Join me on LinkedIn - http://www.linkedin.com/in/vrlthaker
Visit my blog The Alchemist

This e-mail and any/all files transmitted may contain confidential and privileged information and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email or any action taken in reliance on this e-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.

Logica introduces new facility at Chennai to expand operations

Chennai: UK-based Logica strengthens its foothold in India, by establishing a new facility in the country at Chennai. After rooting itself in Bangalore which houses its first facility in the country, the IT and management consultancy establishes the new facility to accelerate its global delivery model.

The new Chennai center will support the company's future offshore growth providing services in the areas of Business Process Outsourcing, Remote Infrastructure Management, and Application Services. It is spread across 120,000 sq ft with the capacity for 1,500 employees. The company has earmarked an investment of around eight million pounds to accelerate blended delivery and grow its offshore and nearshore centres. It plans to have 8,000 employees in these centers by the end of 2009.

The company expects to expand the facility, to which Abhay Gupte, CEO, Logica India, commented, "Our plan to double the headcount in our offshore and nearshore facilities by the year 2009 reiterates our commitment and dedication to strengthening our operations in India. We aim to partner with the city to ensure we are a good corporate citizen here in Chennai." Andy Green, Global Chief Executive, Logica, also adds on to it saying, "As the centre grows we will build specific competency areas based on client requirements. The investment climate, facilities and talent available in Chennai are excellent."

Currently the Logica facility in Bangalore houses about 3000 employees and provides the full spectrum of system integration and outsourcing services, including System Design, Applications and Product Development, Applications Management, Infrastructure Management and Business Process Outsourcing. India also plays a pivotal role in leading a comprehensive program to design and implement a group-wide innovation strategy.

U.S. based Logica has 39,000 people across 36 countries. It is listed on both the London Stock Exchange and Euronext (Amsterdam)