The report captures the insights of the Nineteenth Annual Aspen Institute Roundtable on Information Technology, where business leaders, technologists, international politicians, academics and innovators explored how global structures and institutions are being confronted by the 21st century realities of distributed knowledge, crowdsourcing, open platforms and networked environments.

Read the rest here [PDF] »

1. Can you tell the difference between a) a donkey and a horse; and b) a candidate and an applicant? Calling all readers, Sharlyn Lauby — The HR Bartender — needs you!
2. Are recruiters idiots? Candidates say, “Yes,” applicants say, “No.” Suzanne Lucas — Evil HR Lady — says, “Maybe.” And what say you?
3. If 84% of employees are looking to change jobs I think we can safely say that employers’ retention policies may need updating, don’t you? “Fire the manager with the lowest retention” and other let-me-eat-my-arm morsels – in a beautifully bound eBook — courtesy of Ben Eubanks — upstartHR. Whatever…

I spent a good amount of time trying to post what follows to the original post in reply to a rebuff from John.  To no avail. Apparently a plug-in on John’s site may have become unplugged. Feel free to post your comments here or there, at this point it may not matter.

Anyway, reluctant to break the thread, or retire for the night with this undone, here is my closing argument…

John,

I think we can agree that postulating, while helping us work through our thinking on the subject, is unlikely to result in our synthesizing a new paradigm for the industry, let alone rock the world for any employer who might be reading this. So, if you’ll indulge my replying to your comments it is only because I have been reflecting on these things of late and your post provides a safe place for me to fall, not because I want to engage you in a sisyphean debate which will have us both pooped-out before Sunday brunch.

You say, “Sometimes we fall into the trap of confusing sourcing (candidate flow) with recruiting (the right candidates).” That is, indeed, true. I would not split hairs except to say that sourcing is a function of identifying talent while candidate flow is as a result of attraction and engagement. Perhaps it is in the hairline difference between those kinds of thing that has us perplexed.

If research drives sourcing then branding drives attraction and engagement. Clearly, both activities contribute to the volume and quality of candidate flow but attraction and engagement alone carries things to, and beyond, the assessment phase. If qualifying candidates is a function of Sourcing [even up to the point of transitioning a person from candidate to applicant] then it is Recruiting’s responsibility to validate Sourcing’s product through candidate assessment. In other words, Recruiting regulates candidate flow and, ultimately, owns quality control too.

I guess these are the types of distinction some people make describing sourcing [as in talent pool and supply] versus candidate flow [as in talent pipeline/recruiting demand]. No doubt, for others it is yet another source of process-driven befuddlement.  Dare we completely alienate them by distinguishing the difference between recruiting, employer branding, sales and marketing so that at some point those things might be effectively integrated? God, no! What am I thinking!

Perhaps some of our confusion comes about because we don’t have an universal process-speak that describes where and when things like sourcing stop and recruiting kicks in, or how candidate sourcing might be different from sales prospecting, and so on.  Do we argue the toss about what those things mean in effect because we are still undecided on what they mean in practice?

We could split hairs ad infinitum but I sense some may be given to pulling their hair out if I did — or worse kick me in the follicles — and before we resolve other areas of persistent puzzlement. Questions like, “Whose brand is it anyway?” and “How does this brand thing scale/translate?” comes to mind when we talk about RPO and TPR outsourcing for example, if we ever ask those essential questions at all.

I’d like to propose an alternative reading for “the more candidates you have, the more qualification and screening you have to do.” If we can agree that, like it or not, recruiting is hard work can we also agree that, like farmers, it is our process and practice that ultimately decides whether we break our backs whacking weeds or do it reaping a bumper crop. Either way, it’s back breaking work, no less exhausting than changing an employer’s orientation from a reactive to a proactive one.

When I read, “The trouble with your argument is that it ignores the cost of discovering the gems in your database,” I am comforted that you don’t point out the other half-dozen flaws in my argument. In my defense, when it comes to the cost of mining gems, it is not something I ignore. As it happens, I’ll be the first to admit I have wasted a hundred-fold and more on “banner ads, reciprocal links, targeted content, search engine placement, keyword development, job board advertising and outright traffic purchases.” Hell, I’ve spent literally millions of other people’s dollars running full-page ads in USA TODAY and still daydream about what I could do with that money now.

Like you, I haven’t found “a tool that effectively does the right level of screening at effectively zero cost,” and I have long since given up looking for one. Experience tells me that “zero cost” in recruiting is a misnomer. Having failed spectacularly on more than one occasion to build databases and tracking systems for next-to-nothing I am persuaded that, like in any other business, in recruiting you get what you pay for.

Moving on, [and just between you and me, John] the only thing “Boolean hay” is good for is finding an occasional needle and elevating straw men to logical beings. What can I tell you about my progress in that department? Suffice it to say, I’m still rollicking, follicles firmly in hand.

As far as databases go, it is true the efficacy of search remains unproven. However, I don’t think failures to deploy enterprise-wide search in recruiting necessarily indicates a shortcoming in the search tools or techniques themselves. Rather it highlights one of the problems of a misaligned sourcing strategy and branding effort. That misalignment leads to enough “garbage in” to guarantee a good measure of “garbage out.” But don’t blame the messenger.

You are also right to point out that dedicated data mining is not something any Tom, Dick or Harriett can do. You say, “That a focused player can sift some crap in or out of the database is not the question,” and again we are agreed. But sifting crap in or out of the database is not the answer to anything either.

Suppose our distraction with perennial problems keeps us from focusing on sustainable solutions, and the resulting systems we implement continue to fall short of what the lowest common denominator needs. How hard would it be then for us to cost justify acquiring the more evolved recruiting skills we obviously need to get the job done? Surely, if we can increase the volumes of crap being sifted in an 8-hour shift, based on the premise of your argument, that would result in our surfacing a gem or two more than before. We might even find success in this department will afford us the development dollars to eventually come up with a dumbed-down search tool for the masses.

Conceding my personal opinion and amnesia-ridden experience is no substitute for hard facts, the issue is not so much how our resume databases are structured, populated and/or what operators we use to run queries, generate reports or surface talent.  And it certainly isn’t about clinging to arcane methods of deductive reasoning either.

While all of the above may help define our present reality, compounding the problems you infer are intractable, I believe we can expect to see changes soon. I imagine things like data visualization and analytics, intuitive data exploration, semantic search, conceptual linking, and AI will start to better facilitate the information needs of our increasingly complex recruiting, and justify, at last, our continued obsession for employing the lowest common denominators to mechanize and staff our mission-critical operations.

I cannot fault your thinking about “limiting your outreach to people who might actually give a crap about a job,” any more than I could defend “employer of choice” aggrandizement in place of that being something that is objectively measured and independently validated.

Demonstrating a workplace environment that is valued by its employees — be that a chicken factory in Arkansas or a Silicon Valley powerhouse — is an altogether different form of branding than the chicanery promulgated by magazine publishers and assorted plaque pushers.  Traditionally aided and abetted by recruitment advertising agencies and boiler-room sales operations, they feed a brand’s vested stakeholders’ addiction to chintzy blog-bling, vacuous press coverage, and hanging adornments.  Like everyone else who profits from selling impressions and delivering eyeballs, they further cloud the real issues ensuring we remain…confused.

Again, John, thanks for providing a safe place for me to fall and indulging my thinking out loud.

In ZPG II Colin Kingsbury makes some valid points relative to population growth and reasons that under favorable conditions – George Bush leaving office,  migration to the U.S. of much needed talent, not patronizing younger employees, squeezing round pegs into square holes and so on –  the projected shortfall in talent may be averted. 

I cannot argue that Colin Kingsbury’s point of view is not compelling. It is. I cannot argue that he is wrong. I don’t know. What I can say is this: his hypothesis cannot be tested against alternate points of view or current trends because he offers no data or research to support it. Maybe there isn’t data out there. Who knows?

And, how will Colin Kingsbury’s speculation be put to the test without a debate of the issues? Again, John Sumser leaves the dim-wits hyperventilating for the ability to post a comment and develop the thread to engage his elevated readership – beyond the reach of the recruiting blogosphere – in a more involved process of thought-leadership? Don’t ERN’s readers deserve an answer to the types of question that could be posed to help develop Colin Kingsbury’s optimism and our own understanding of the issues? For example:

1. How are we going to reconcile the increased levels of U.S. xenophobia and racism arising form the threats of “Islamofascism” with the possible migration of teaching, healthcare, technical, scientific and engineering talent from countries like India, Pakistan and the Philippines? Is it as simple as waiting for President Bush to leave office in 2008? Will everyone stop hating Americans then? Will all veiled and bearded olive complexions suddenly morph from potential terrorists to potential hires? Or will their negative image persist, impede progress?

2. As over half of the U.S. government’s civilian workforce and C-level baby boomers are projected to retire in the next five years on their lucrative pensions – perhaps the last generation to have the option of a lifetimes investment in work to draw on – who is going to lead us? If it is the round pegs in the square holes, at what point are we going to address failed succession and workforce planning and social systems – like education – that have in large part contributed to the types of problems we face today? And who is to say employers are ready for a “misfit” workforce that anyway? Not me.

3. The job-hopping trend continues. 74% of workers are not “happy” at work, open to new and “better” opportunities. The trends continue to disadvantage the majority of employers. So, at what point does retention becomes a key issue for an organization’s continued prosperity in the face of ongoing talent shortages? Are we ready as a society to deal with the underlying issues that continue to threaten the U.S. economic engine like our insatiable appetite for everything on-demand including fulfillment at work and for career? How are Colin Kingsbury’s views of the talent shortage positively or negatively impacted by these types of workforce dynamics?

Addressing the issues of talent shortages and zero population growth and potential fixes obviously transcends a couple of posts on a couple of blogs. But I don’t hear the conversation being advanced anywhere else online. Points of view are easy to come by. A debate of the issues is a tougher thing to find, like a good conversation I guess. Another reason, Mr. Sumser, as to why we blog.  And why – long weekends aside – Recruitomatic applauds your posting of Colin Kingsbury’s post.

I quote Dave quoting from the original article:

“A recruitment poster on the FBI’s Web site tells a new story, with a picture of a black woman and the words: Jericka Robinson. Mother, computer engineer, FBI special agent. Today’s FBI. It’s for you. Visit FBIjobs.com.”

Well, I have it from a reliable source from within law enforcement circles that Ms. Robinson was – until recently at least – Supervisory Special Agent Jericka Robinson of the FBI’s Personnel Resources Unit. In other words, Ms. Robinson is literally a poster child for the FBI’s diversity program and not necessarily a result of it. Of course, it is possible that Ms. Robinson has been reassigned from an elite group of Glock-toting recruiters to an equally elite group of key-tapping computer engineers. Why not? It seems like a natural transition for a black working mother working her way round the Beltway, doesn’t it? If this extraordinary reassignment is for real, the FBI would be better served promoting itself as a champion of talent management. If they are capable of leveraging their human capital at a time when recruitment funding is being held at levels that would cripple any employer in the private sector, then there are lessons there we could all learn from.

Let’s look beyond Dave’s post for the real lessons here:

1. Metrics: We do not have enough data to draw any meaningful conclusions. However, I would submit that if only 18.8% of Special Agents are women, then the numbers do not support the notion that the FBI’s outreach is working. A spokeswoman for the FBI quoted in Dave’s post (who for all we know could be white) says: “There are no targets or quotas.” Then performance metrics for the FBI, like gender, is a “non-issue.” Good. No harm done.

2. Diversity Recruiting: The FBI used to be highly visible in print – even dominant. As far as I can see, they have gone undercover. I have long lauded LawEnforcmentJobs.com and the diversity sites that that engine powers as the best destinations for recruiters looking to attract qualified diversity candidates. Nada. On DiversityInc.com, another old stomping ground, the only sign of the FBI is the moonlighting it does for Fortune 500 companies. I found the CIA and NSA on LatPro, but, again, no FBI. Will the Men (or Women) in Black please stand up!

3. Employer Branding: Employer branding is not like product branding. It’s something that exists in the minds of stakeholders and constituents. It cannot be manufactured or even manipulated as such. Your brand exists – like it or not. If effectively managed, employer branding can be a tremendous contributing factor to optimizing the return on all recruitment marketing, including, of course, diversity. 9/11 did more to change the perception of law enforcement as a career prospect than years of trying by the FBI, NYPD, LAPD to transform a less than glamorous image. And the FBI, like all the agencies who saw demand for specialized talent skyrocket, missed a golden opportunity. Unfortunately, the whistleblowers will be remembered long after the FBI’s horn-tooting for an inclusive workforce. I say the FBI has really blown it. They should have looked to the gal next door and taken a page out of Condi’s book.

4. Sourcing Strategies: I know from past experience recruiting talent fluent in Pashto, Farsi, Swahili, Arabic and all dialects of Chinese is a cake walk. Russian and Chechen – old hat. You just run a few 4×6 ads in the Boston Globe (preferably with half of that ad taken up with a photo of a real diversity phenom.) and hey-presto! Yiddish-speaking mashuganas start clogging up your ATS. Today, the only ads you’re likely to see are band-aids put out by the field in support of their local initiatives comprised mostly of career fairs for students.

5. Screening and assessment: Here the agency scores big time. If you have the hard skills, can pass the physical and have never been caught chopping down cherry trees, you’ll get put through the FBI grinder. It doesn’t matter if you are a white male lawyer, accountant or cop, black working mother or Jewish Rastafarian, get this far in the process and the FBI does not discriminate. Scientifically developed staffing assessments to guide employee selection decisions – what a concept. For those of you who recruit salespeople, another lesson learned: polygraph your applicants.

6. The Special-Special Agent: You can train a man or woman to withstand psychological and physical torture. You can train them in the ways of the Ninja. You can arm them with sophisticated weaponry and state of the art surveillance equipment. But that doesn’t mean you can expect that person, however well-intentioned, to be an effective recruiter. When recruiting is relegated to being a second-rate desk-job, it’s not recruiting anymore. Sorry.

7. Retention: I used to see huge ads for Special Agents run in national papers with a TTY number as one of the response mechanisms. This is true. Polygraph me. I’m told that the prognosis for an Agent who can’t hear the words, “Incoming!” and “Duck!” is not good. Otherwise, the FBI could be a job for life. If you don’t meet the rigorous requirements for work in the field, you can join as a recruiter and end up in programming, or forensics, or business management. That kind of career progression speaks volumes, even to the hard of hearing.

But hold on! Hold on for just one cotton-pickin’ minute… Could it be? None of this is the FBI’s fault?

The FBI does a stand-up job under extraordinarily difficult (staffing) circumstances. That is an irrefutable fact. They should be commended for not giving up however tough the going gets. But, if there is one agency that should be held to account for the FBI’s failed diversity recruiting, it should be the Bernard Hodes Group. In my opinion – and no, I don’t know it all, and yes, there are always two sides to a story – in recent years Hodes has squandered what little money the FBI did have and left their diversity recruiting efforts – even on a continuing resolution (read: no commissions) – wasted. What’ll be next? Pawning the jewels in the FBI’s crown – the real gems like Jericka Robinson? You guys really rock.