With our new team now in place, we’ll be moving to two events a month, which is scary, but the appetite for our unique event format seems to be growing in both the delegates and the suppliers, so who are we to say no?  There are a whole lot of other subjects we can’t wait to get our teeth into, and you can help us decide which ones to cover here.

Starting with our next event, we are taking a leaf out of the experienced play book for Louise Triance from UK Recruiter, and will be asking all delegates to submit a £20 deposit for their place, which will be refunded on attendance or donated to Great Ormond Street Hospital if they cancel, in order to make people think a bit more about committing their time before booking their place.  Big thanks to Louise for that tip.

As we approuch the summer months where historically actual recruiting slows down, we are seeing more thought put into the house keeping side of our business, like employer brand and recruitment tech etc.  Our recent round tables have demonstrated a big desire from the employer market to get their house’s in order and upgrade.  Now’s the time to do it.

Jamie

———————————————————————————————————————–

Today’s event focussed on Recruitment Technology that works – and as you might expect, ATS platforms were a serious target.  With a quick round of introductions done (and some applause for the delegate who said “I am our ATS and I’m looking for something more effective!”) we moved into a presentation from Dom Sumners of Online Media Experts. Dom promised a whistle-stop tour of the feedback he gets from the many clients OME work with on digital recruitment strategies.

First up, the ATS question.  Very few firms like what they have, but most are too heavily invested in either time or cash terms to make significant changes. One trend which was very evident from OME clients concerned the safety of the middle ground.  Those firms most unhappy with their ATS were either buyers of Enterprise ATS solutions or those who’d developed something small and light in-house, then found it completely unfit for purpose.  Those who’d purchased mid-range platforms still had gripes, but were much less aggressive about the problems they’d experienced.

In terms of candidate traffic, OME were witnessing a significant shift in terms of mobile interest. More clients are looking for mobile traffic solutions than are looking for social media solutions. Partially, this is a reflection of traffic changes generally (OME sees 28% of jobseeker traffic originating on mobile devices now) and partially a result of the social media market maturing a little.

There are two big challenges Dom identified for mobile. First, audience segmentation is far more difficult – and second, users, on the whole, dislike push notifications. QR codes were briefly mentioned and gained some respect for the level of analytics which can be obtained – far more so than from a regular URL. For example, it’s possible to tell from QR traffic when and where the click originated – so if QR codes are used at a careers fair, it might be possible to also identify which recruiter on your team the candidate was speaking to at the time!

In terms of more traditional web traffic, OME still see a reasonable level of use (and solid returns) from well managed PPC campaigns – so keyword advertising on the search engines is with us for a while to come. We also heard that while job boards come in for a lot of criticism, it’s predominantly from the employer side and actually, very rarely from the candidates.

As the discussion opened up, a heated debate took root on the subject of LinkedIn.  While some felt there was value to the content marketing and curation that LinkedIn support, others pointed to the revenue model and believe this is simply a Trojan horse, disguising the fact that LinkedIn isn’t much more than a CV database and job board. Delegates did largely seem to agree that engagement on LinkedIn is poor and that it didn’t really feel like a “social” platform.

The debate heated up further on the subject of LinkedIn advertising and company profiles – where you may pay to post up your branding and roles, only to see LinkedIn sell the space next to it to your direct competitor. This one split the room more cleanly, some delegates finding this model most distasteful while others accept it as part and parcel of doing business.

One clear statement seemed to resonate widely: “I’ll gladly use the advertising and research facilities, but I wouldn’t put a career site there, I want the traffic back on my turf”.

As the discussion moved to Facebook , the general opinion seemed to be that while it’s good for branding and engagement, there was very little in the way of positive comment about actual hires being made. That said, the table was happy to recognise that good Facebook branding and engagement could be a strong influence on hires actually being tracked through another channel and thus the true benefit of Facebook was tougher to measure.  Graduate / school leaver recruitment got particular attention at this point: “jobseekers continually say they don’t see Facebook as a place for job hunting, but the successful campaign case studies being circulated show this just isn’t true”.

Returning to the ATS topic, one delegate declared the best way to shop for a new ATS was to use a horrible one first!  Made it easier to identify the really crucial aspects to get right. With a dozen delegates round the table, all with considerable ATS experience, a quick poll was taken:

Have you ever used an ATS you actually really liked? Only one was named!

Of the main bugbears, we heard mobile accessibility for candidates was typically terrible; implementation times were so long the business had changed beyond recognition by the time the system was live; reporting and analytics were unwieldy; while most have search functionality, it was still very difficult to go back and find candidates who applied for a similar role previously.

Finally, video interviewing got some attention. Generally agreed that the technology is improving, but that care must be taken. The main area of concern seemed to be that of discrimination – but that opportunity always exists anyway and sensible process and checks can ensure the risk is managed. While probably not suitable for all roles, the concept got strong support from those who recruited retail/front line staff, and from those who recruited sales people.

Rather a lively debate and most enjoyable – see you at a Reconverse event soon!

Would you like to experience the worlds greatest cheese board?

Can you help Reconverse identify what are the most topical industry discussions/ problems?

Do you hate leading questions?

For future events, click here. (Idiots falling over is not guaranteed)

To be a part of future events, click here.

An interesting event to try and run, as the ownership of onboarding seems to jump around in different organisations.  Those around the table mostly leaned towards HR ownership of the actual process, but with significant input required from recruiters, HR, L&D teams and the line managers themselves.

Our first presentation was a solid piece of work from Silk Road, offering some interesting case studies of where onboarding had a significant impact of the bottom line – both in positive and negative ways. Matt Alder followed up with a look at where social and mobile technology can impact onboarding, covering a range of options and again, some interesting case studies, including use of his brother’s recent job move!

Initially, the discussion opened by addressing the challenges facing those in the room.  Some had induction material on huge corporate sites that once found was subsequently very difficult to find again unless bookmarked. Another firm had 26 separate sites and found the easiest way to get onboarding material made available was to go build yet another site.  When asked what “good” might look like, one respondent offered the view that getting anything signed off and across the line would constitute a win!

On the statistics side, a report was offered up claiming only 22% of hires get contacted between offer acceptance and actual start date, yet all around the table agreed ongoing communication during this period should be viewed as crucial. Workload pressures do not necessarily allow this, so maybe increasing use of social technology or community platforms could provide some of the solution here. Line managers are often particularly reluctant to involve themselves in this aspect, yet offer the best route to ensuring the candidate can be effective quickly when they actually start with the firm.

Of particular note were professional services industries (legal, banking etc.) where it’s not unusual for entire teams to be brought across from a competitor. In such circumstances, the wholesale import of another firm’s culture can be hugely damaging to existing employees. The table also acknowledged that times are changing quickly – we’re used to using apps such as Hailo or Spotify, which work simply and deliver easily – yet onboarding is often a very different experience and so massively frustrating. Too many firms view onboarding as a back office function rather than an issue with significant business impact.

Many organisations fail to ask the simple question: What do new employees need to make them effective quickly? Of those doing a good job of onboarding, Google came up smelling of roses on two separate occasions – but not every organisation has such budgets or such availability of technology.

Finally, an IDC report worked to identify the cost to US and UK businesses of employees not understanding their jobs properly. The resulting figure was $37billion.

Of the main discussion points, the following aspects were all largely supported:

• If you use an internal comms tool, such as Yammer, consider created a limited-use area for new hires – allowing them to gradually get a feel for culture and key topics before they start work.
• In the tech and media industries, many employees have blogs, twitter accounts etc. Make some introductions between existing team and the incoming hire – a great way to socialise the incumbent in the virtual world.
• PC/Laptop sales are plummeting, tabs and smartphone sales are soaring. As with all aspects of recruitment technology, make sure your onboarding process considers mobile accessibility.
• Onboarding technology is changing, fast. It’s no longer just about the paperwork and providing the phone – companies such as MindTickle provide solutions which support pre-start learning and gamify the process too!
• Solid feedback around the table that those at the lower end of the pay-scale get less attention than more senior hires during onboarding. However, charities with volunteers often run excellent induction processes as engagement is the ONLY way to keep those volunteers – pay and budget are not factors.
• Hard costs of onboarding seem to vary, but largely in the range of £1-2000 per head.
• Consider your long term employees, or those based out on client sites.  Is there a benefit in bringing those people back through some aspects of your onboarding process from time to time?

One case receiving much attention was Red Bull.  They took people offsite for a few days to run onboarding, but forbade those present to reveal job titles.  It levels the playing field and allows for different connections to be made which otherwise might not occur.

Finally, the table ran through a round-up session.  Here’s a graphical summary:

Check out #rcnvs for all the tweets from yesterday and register for a future event here to be part of the conversation.

For future events, click here.

His presentation can be found here.

To be part of future roundtable discussion, register for a future event here.

“I went to a Reconverse ………… and it rocked!”

These are some of the suggestions we have had on Twitter.  Please vote on your favorite or comment any new ideas below.

Thank you.

Colin Minto (G4S)         Stephen Buchanan (Research Europe)         Sue Brooks (Ochre House)

************************************************

This month’s edition of Reconverse focused on building in-house search capability.  Lead sponsor Research Europe showed some context in terms of deliverable benefits available, going on to share some interesting views on how a blended approach can really deliver benefits for a firm:  mixing external search firms where brokerage is needed, in-house knowledge to manage the process and research firms to undertake talent mapping and similar projects. For those looking to change the game, it was certainly a good presentation to get those around the table to consider the various angles available.

From here though, we were taken on a deep dive into one man’s DIY crusade!  Colin Minto, by his own admission, likes to challenge the status quo. Can things be improved, is there a better way? Having questioned the regular use (and cost!) of external search agencies at G4S, Colin wanted to explore alternatives. With minimal budget, negligible resource and no management mandate, challenge awaited.

G4S had sufficient scale to make the effort VERY worthwhile in cost terms – but the concept still had to be proven.  Colin turned to a hourly-rate freelance model to buy in the bare minimum of resource needed to start research for one senior role. Subsequently successful, one must then prove it was indeed something other than luck, so a repeat is required.

Going through the cycle numerous times over an eighteen month period, Colin was able to build substantial support from hiring managers who used the new internal service and a breakdown of phenomenal cost savings which clearly appealed to senior management.  He was further able to quantify the fee equivalent based on all costs for his new service versus an external head-hunter, provided a real wake-up call to those round the table.

The final presenter of the day, Sue Brooks, looked at the issues of building such a team. Identifying drivers, defining what would good look like to a customer (hiring manager), what blend of skills and roles are required, and so forth.  Sue leveraged immediate support around the table by identifying that the most expensive roles in terms of salary or fee are not necessarily the most business critical. Further, she dispensed with some of the more recent buzzwords in the industry and focused on some solid common sense – forward planning and identification of scarce skills.

The round-table debate kicked off in earnest from here. Some of the tweets from the debate can be found over on this summary – and I particularly wanted to explore the profit centre aspect. During Colin’s presentation, he went through approximately 20 roles. Using his internal service, total cost to deliver was less than £50,000 – yet he calculated search firm fees (based on existing relationships) would have cost around £490,000.

G4S is a company which focuses on providing services to other firms – so if this model is truly scaleable, there’s no reason the service couldn’t be offered to other companies, at a cost significantly lower than traditional headhunters, thus covering both the cost of the service for internal users and leaving profit for future reinvestment.  In principle, the suggestion received support at the table. However, G4S is a business of considerable size and whilst a small firm would view this as a profitable expansion, it’s unlikely to be large enough (at the outset at least) to gain support.

It wouldn’t surprise me to see this coming to market from another firm in the months ahead!

************************************************

To be a part of future events, register your interest today.

If you’re at #TruLondon, come and join in the fun.

We are pleased to announce the launch of HR-Converse, a brand extension of Reconverse.

Having now hosted 26 Reconverse events over 19 months, the demand for our event format, outside of candidate attraction, has become very apparent and this move sees us go somewhat beyond our comfort zone and into the HR and L&D markets. The first question I’m sure we will be asked is “What do we know about HR and L&D?” and the honest answer is not very much at the moment.  However, we know a lot about hosting great events and also how to bring the right people together, and that has been at the heart of what has made Reconverse the success it is today.  The introduction of a number key new hires into Reconverse, that will be announced in the months come, will free up time for myself to focus on these developing market, while also managing the day to day running of Reconverse.

For now, please check out our new site and our first HR-Converse event, Empowering Employees for Success with Social Onboarding.