Head2Head News Feed

Retail Chains Use 'Mystery Shoppers' - Why Not Try 'Mystery Candidates'?

Fri, 20 Aug 2010, 15:24:00 EST 00:00:00 +0000

A 'Mystery Candidate' could be the missing link in your Candidate Relationship Management implementation.

In the past couple of weeks, I've spoken to a number of Canadian corporate recruiting managers, from different organizations, who've said the same thing: "Our candidate flow is pretty strong, and we seem to be able to get A-list candidates in for an interview - but our closing rates are low and I don't know why."

My suggestion: Maybe it's time to use a couple of Mystery Candidates.

Because let's face it:
When was the last time you got honest feedback from an A-list candidate?

The courtship rituals between candidates and employers tend to be formal, complex, and guarded. The best candidates - the ones who are highly professional, polished, and have a keen awareness that it's a small world - aren't going to give you helpful feedback when they decline your job offer. Quite the reverse, in fact: They're going to say how much they "...appreciated the opportunity and really loved meeting you," but that they needed to take a position "closer to home" or "with a once-in-a-lifetime oportunity" or some other innocuous-sounding reason.

They're not going to tell you that your recruiter was late for the interview and left them waiting in the lobby for 30 minutes, during which time not one single employee greeted them or even made eye contact; that being interviewed in the highly-trafficked, open-concept office kitchenette made them feel like their interview had an audience of 43 people; or that your recruiter's blase attitude about being late and not booking a private interview room made them think, "I can't imagine anything worse than having to spend 40+ hours a week with a whole office full of people like this."

(Possible additional thought: "If this is an indication of how they treat their clients/customers, then I can't see this organization/brand being successful in the long-term. And I definitely don't want to work for a company that's in a downward spiral.")

Your CRM strategy may be fantastic.
Your CRM implementation may not.

You may have a terrific CRM strategy and a well-documented CRM process, including everything from friendly job ads to consistent branding messages. But a great strategy is nothing without great implementation.

If you're a senior recruiting manager (i.e. the person who creates your company's candidate relationship management strategy, but relies on a recruiting team to implement it), it may have been a while since you were on the interviewing front lines.

If you're a recruiter who's worked at the same place for a year or two, you may not be seeing your interviewing process quite as objectively as you used to.

Either way, a fresh perspective can be helpful.

Using Mystery Candidates is easy.
(You'd be surprised what people will do for $50!)

Retailers pay their mystery shoppers a nominal fee for their time and feedback; you can do the same. Your mystery candidates don't need to be senior-level people, so a $50 honorarium or Starbucks gift card will probably be sufficient incentive for your mystery candidate.

Here's all you need to do:

Take a look at the jobs for which your close rate is currently below average
Find a friend who knows something about the role (if it's a junior role, a 15-minute crash-course might be fine) and create a fake resume for them
Create a one-page feedback template listing the various elements you want to measure (initial phone conversation, promptness of interview, tone of interview, impressions of the office, etc.)
Give the fake resume to a member of your recruiting team, and ask them to get the person in for an interview, just as though they were a 'real' candidate
The candidate goes through the interview process, after which s/he fills in the feedback template you've given him/her (and has a debriefing conversation with you, of course)

And voila! For the first time, you have a totally unbiased report about how well your team is implementing CRM around interviews!

Up-close and personal with Head2Head at the 10th anniversary event

Fri, 13 Aug 2010, 02:24:00 EST 00:00:00 +0000

Hard to believe it's been 10 years since we first brought 'recruiting recruiters' to the Canadian marketplace.

As you probably know, 2010 marks Head2Head's 10th anniversary. We've accomplished a lot over the past 10 years, and we owe our success to the fantastic clients, consultants, employees and 'champions', many of whom have been working with us almost since we first opened our doors.

In May we hosted an anniversary party at Lobby Bar in Toronto, and we asked people: "What made you choose to work with Head2Head? What makes Head2Head so different?"

If you've ever wondered what it's like to work with Head2Head, take a look at the video - doesn't it make you want to be part of the Head2Head family?

Do you know what all your top performers have in common? You should.

Fri, 06 Aug 2010, 02:15:00 EST 00:00:00 +0000

Let's say you've got two candidates, Bob and Doug.

Basically, they look the same. Both have:

B.B.A.s (Bachelor of Business Administration)
Been in the working world for about 7 years
Held the title of Procurement Manager for 2 years
Worked for a large retail chain
Great presentation (good resume, strong references, solid track record, etc.)

But then I tell you that Bob spent all 4 weeks of his vacation last year training for a triathlon, where he came in 4th place in his division, while Doug likes work so much that it's also his 'hobby' and he's always writing blogs or speaking at industry events.

The same. But different.

Which one do you want to hire?

More importantly, which one will perform better in your organization?

If you knew more about your current and past top performers, you wouldn't have to guess.

Your organization knows exactly what your ideal customers look like.
Shouldn't you know what your ideal employee looks like, too?

Most successful organizations spend a lot of time profiling their ideal customers: They identify demographics, hobbies, political and spiritual views, education, occupation, the cars they drive, spending habits - heck, they can even give you an hour-by-hour breakdown of what their target market groups do on a daily basis. So when they need to expand (i.e. 'sell more stuff'), they know exactly where to find their audience, how to reach them, and what message(s) will be most successful.

For example, let's say they know that 45% of their most lucrative customer group are 30-something women in urban areas who work out at a gym at least twice a week. Armed with that knowledge, they can spend $50k handing out samples of their product in health clubs in downtown areas - and end up with better results (increased sales, awareness and 'buzz') than if they'd spent $1 million on some big television ad campaign.

Why aren't we doing this in recruiting? (Or even HR, since they're the ones in the best position to collect data on predictors of long-term success in a particular role, department or organization.)

Education, skills and experience aren't enough

You may know some basics about your top performers in a given role (i.e. that people with at least 2 years' experience in your industry will do better, in the first 12 months, than people who don't).

But do you know whether Bob (as a triathlete, he's going to be driven, energetic and detail-oriented; but his commitment to triathlon training means that he rarely stays past 5pm and he always uses his full vacation/lieu time) or Doug (as a type-A overachiever, driven and willing to work 12-hour days; but he gets a little over-invested sometimes and works harder, not smarter) will perform best in the long term?

The commonalities may not be work-related

We recently worked with a software company who conducted an in-depth analysis of their top performers across several high-volume roles at the intermediate (5-10 years' experience) level. They mapped usual metrics (education, skills, experience, etc.) but then went into hobbies, lifestyle, interests and activities.

Their insight? The majority of their top performers in these roles shared a love of jazz music and tended to live in higher-density urban areas (Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver).

So they started recruiting at jazz festivals, by sponsoring and running refreshment tents and booths. They were able to cut through the clutter (as the only 'recruiting sponsor' there, there was no competition for candidates as there would be at a career fair); they were interacting with people in a positive context; and they were sending a powerful message about their employment brand ("Everyone at our company loves jazz as much as you do - wouldn't it be fun to work with us?").

Time-to-hire was cut dramatically (less time wasted on unsuitable candidates); cost-per-hire was cut by 50% - and two years after they started recruiting at jazz festivals, they saw a decrease in turnover for those high-volume roles.

Start profiling star performers

Creating a profile of your top performers doesn't have to turn into an expensive, 6-month enterprise-wide odyssey. Start by choosing one of your most common roles, and map it out (it's helpful to make a one-page template with the appropriate sections):

Talk to managers who supervise the role to identify at least 5 top performers in that role in the past 12-24 months
List their basic characteristics (education, skills, experience, etc.)
Identify their personality traits in some detail (not just whether they're 'self-starters' or not, but whether they're gregarious or reserved, prefer frenetic activity or quiet serenity, serious or jokesters, etc.)
Identify their work styles (whether they're slow and steady or last-minute dynamos, do their best work at 8am or 8pm, prefer to work in teams or independently)
List their hobbies and interests (whether they spend leisure hours socializing or alone, prefer outdoor activities or making craft projects, what music they like, what restaurants they go to, where they shop for clothes, etc.)

Create your 'Ideal Candidate' profile

Look at the one-page summaries you've just filled out. What are the commonalities?

Using a blank template, fill in the information based on the majority of the top performers' profiles: If, say, 4 out of 5 top performers are gregarious morning people, then you know these are traits of your ideal candidate.

And there you are: You have a one-page summary of the ideal candidate!

Now that you know what your ideal candidate looks like, you won't have to guess whether you should hire Bob or Doug - you'll know which one is more likely to become a top-performer in your organization.

Best no-cost professional development? Write a blog post.

Mon, 02 Aug 2010, 00:23:00 EST 00:00:00 +0000

If you've been following Head2Head over the past 10 years or so, you know that when we launched, our specialty was 'recruiting recruiters', and we were the only ones doing it in Canada. Even though we've grown a lot since then, and now deliver a wide range of recruiting 'solutions', we're still known as the 'epicenter' of recruiters in Canada.

In other words: We talk to hundreds of recruiting professionals, from agency and corporate environments, across the country, every week - and we've had 10 years to watch recruiters' career paths.

Here's something we've noticed: The recruiters who make an effort to keep their skills sharp, stay up-to-date on recruiting industry trends and approach recruiting as a profession which requires regular care and feeding are more successful than those who don't.

In other words: Recruiters who make time for professional development almost always make more money, have better titles, work for more prestigious organizations, and are more in-demand than those who don't.

When it comes to professional development, think long-term

Recruiters, by their very nature, tend to like activities which deliver immediate results. Professional development, however, doesn't deliver that instant gratification: It requires a steady, sustained effort over the long-term before it starts paying dividends, so it's easy to let it slide.

But it's sort of like regular exercise: Sure, it's going to take you a couple of months to lose that 15lbs, but in the meantime you're going to feel better, and pretty soon you'll wonder why you were ever reluctant to do it.

Haven't got the time or money for conferences or courses?
No worries - just write a blog post.

Remember all those essays you had to write in high school and university? That's because the best way to really learn about and understand a subject is by having to explain it to someone else.

The same is true for your professional development as a recruiter: Writing a blog post (and including facts and links) forces you to do a little research, acquire some insights, and 'internalize' the subject in a way that just reading an article online can't do. What's more, writing something that will end up in a public forum - where, presumably, you don't want to look like an idiot - gives you more motivation to actually check your facts and understand different points of view.

"But I don't have a blog!"

You don't need your own blog - you can be a 'guest blogger' on someone else's. Your company may have a blog on their website (ask your marketing department if they'd like a blog post about what it's like to work at your company); you can post it as a note or document on your Facebook or LinkedIn profile (even if no one reads it, they'll be impressed that you wrote an 'article'); you can send it to your candidate database; or you can approach someone who does have a recruiting or HR-related blog and ask to be a 'guest blogger'. The internet is voracious when it comes to new content - I promise it won't be difficult to find a home for whatever you write.

Yes, you DO have time to write 250 words.

The great thing about blog posts is that they don't have to be huge long essays - in fact, 250 words (about 1/3 the length of this blog post) is fine. The extra-great thing about blog posts is that they don't have to be literary masterpieces: Just use the casual-but-not-sloppy style that you'd use in day-to-day emails to clients.

Even if you're not a 'natural' writer, a 250-word blog post shouldn't take you more than 6 hours over the course of a week: 2 hours to 'research' (Google your topic and read what other people are saying about it); 2 hours to write a rough draft; and 2 hours a day or two later to edit.

Do this once a month for a year, and you'll be surprised at how much you've learned.

Step-by-step guide to professional development via blog posts

I promise this will be less painful than you think.

Choose a topic. The easiest way to pick a topic is to think about what recruiting-related thing has been bugging you this week. Fees? Clients not responding? Bad candidate applications? Frustrating ATSes? Choosing something you're a bit steamed about is good motivation.
Choose an angle, based on the topic in #1. Candidates driving you nuts because they wear flip-flops to important interviews? Write something about how dress codes are changing.
Do some research. Start by Googling the topic/angle you've picked and see what other people are saying about it. (For example, has anyone done recent research on dress codes and productivity?)
Make point-form notes of 10 things you'd like to say. Include a couple of references to the articles you've read ("Dr Bob Smith says casual dress codes are vital to productivity" and "43% of Canadians wear jeans to work at least once a week") and a couple of opinions/insights ("I've noticed that salaries are higher in offices with strict dress codes").
Turn the point-form notes into sentences. (This is your first draft.)
Wait 24 hours, then edit.
And voila - you have a blog post!

That blog post has just helped your career in 2 ways

During step #3 (research), you've learned some new stuff that you wouldn't otherwise have known (and if you're like most people, you will have followed links to other, related topics, so you probably learned even more than you thought you would).

Plus, by putting it online with your name attached, you've improved your Google rankings and your personal brand!

Second annual Social Media for Recruiting Survey

Mon, 26 Jul 2010, 23:38:00 EST 00:00:00 +0000

We've just launched our second annual Social Media for Recruiting survey!

It'll only take 4 minutes, and you could win a $50 VISA gift card (more importantly, it's the only comprehensive survey of social media for recruiting use in Canada - and we all need those statistics!).

Just click here to get started!

Struggling to create a personal brand? Think of yourself as a chocolate bar.

Mon, 19 Jul 2010, 14:39:00 EST 00:00:00 +0000

Want to build a big personal brand or just raise your profile among recruiters in your field? Start by taking a lesson from candy bar brands.

Four basic ingredients.
Almost infinite positioning.

No industry has done a better job of branding a commoditized product than what the North American confectionery industry has done with chocolate bars (or 'candy bar', if you're in certain parts of the USA).

Fundamentally, 99.9% chocolate bars are exactly the same: 50g of the same four basic ingredients (chocolate, sugar, caramel and peanuts), combined in different ways.

And yet somehow we know that

OHenry's are for when you're really hungry
KitKats are for when you just want a break
MARS bars are a good sporty snack
Smarties provide hours of amusement
Hershey bars are somehow as patriotic as a bottle of Coke (for Americans, anyway)

It's time to start thinking of yourself as a chocolate bar

These days, anyone who takes their career seriously and is even moderately ambitious knows they need to have some kind of personal brand, even if it's just something they use to position themselves in the job market or workforce.

So what's stopping them?

Most of the time, it's that they don't really believe they're all that different or special than everyone else.

"I mean, I'm good at my job and I know I've learned a lot over the years, but I'm not exactly a visionary," they say. "There are lots of other people doing what I do, and I'm not kidding myself that I'm some kind of genius. So what would my brand be about?"

While that thought is admirable - the people most likely to think they're geniuses (and aren't shy about it) are the ones least likely to be geniuses - it misses the point.

Branding is all about turning a commodity product into a special, premium or beloved one.

Sure, there may be 6 billion people on the planet, and quite a number of them may be smarter, harder-working, or just plain better-looking than you are. That doesn't mean you can't stand out from the crowd.

It's just a matter of positioning your professional equivalent of 50g of chocolate, peanuts, sugar and caramel in a way that makes people think: "Whenever I need to solve a [insert business challenge here], I always think of [insert your name here] because s/he is an expert on [insert solution to previous business challenge here]."

For example: "Whenever I need to find top talent in the oil and gas industry, I call Bob Smith because he knows the oil and gas talent marketplace better than anyone else."

It's all about how you combine your 50g of basic ingredients

Whenever I'm looking for insights into interviewing, resume writing, or long-term career management for recruiting professionals, Maureen Carroll is the first person I call.

Is she the only person in North America who knows this stuff? No. Heck, Googling 'resume expert toronto' gets 2.8 million search returns alone.

But that doesn't mean Maureen doesn't have a terrific USP (Unique Selling Proposition).

Her recruiting knowledge and experience is her 50g of basic ingredients - in other words, she's not unique. But her USP lies in the fact that she's the only recruiting professional I know who not only enjoys doing media interviews, but is great at doing them. She can churn out the kind of pithy soundbites mainstream media producers love, with less than 10 minutes lead time.

In other words, she's taken her 50g worth of basic ingredients and combined/packaged them in a unique way. More importantly, that combination is one that solves a business challenge: "Whenever the media calls me looking for a resume/interviewing expert, I think of Maureen because she not only knows her stuff but comes across really well on radio and on-camera."

You do have a great USP.
You just don't know what it is (yet).

Here's the thing: If you really are (a) good at what you do; (b) trying to be a little bit smarter today than you were yesterday; (c) looking to be better than just 'average'; and (d) genuinely passionate about your career and your profession, chances are you're already combining your 50g of basic ingredients in some kind of unique way - you just don't realize it.

So ask 5 colleagues for their input:

Ask your boss why s/he hired you. What made you stand out from the other applicants?
Ask your co-workers what they think you're particularly good at
Ask subordinates/direct reports what they've learned from working for you

...and prepare to be surprised by the answers.

Once you know whether you're a moment of bliss or a nice light snack, coming up with your personal brand 'angle' will suddenly get a lot easier. Really.

Getting candidates who don't reflect your brand? Ask these 5 questions.

Sun, 18 Jul 2010, 17:50:00 EST 00:00:00 +0000

You may be getting lots of candidates - from your recruiting agency, recruiting team, or company website - who look great on paper, but if they just aren't a good fit for your company, you're not attracting the right people.

A hamster may fit in the shoes of the previous person in the role, but ultimately he's not going to be able to walk in them very effectively.

Anyone who's worked in recruiting for more than 5 minutes is familiar with the problem: The client - internal or external - gives you a set of criteria for a role (skills, experience, education, etc.); you find candidates who fit the criteria to a tee and send them on interviews, only to have them rejected one after the other.

You ask the client for feedback, and all they can say is "He wasn't a good fit."

After Rejected Candidate #10, you try to pin the client down, but the client's still talking vaguely about 'fit'.

RECRUITER: "But, Ms Client, he had all the criteria you asked for, and I know he presents well in interviews. So can you give me some more specific feedback?"

CLIENT: "I just think we're kind of a dynamic environment here, and he seemed too conservative or something."

RECRUITER: (sigh)

Clients understand about brand personality and how it's expressed through employees.
They just don't always know how to articulate it to recruiters.

Recently, American Apparel generated a lot of negative buzz in the blogosphere when their recruiting and hiring practices were made public. Former employees say that American Apparel only recruits/hires good-looking people, even if they're incompetent; American Apparel says they hire people with a good fashion 'style', and that it's perfectly reasonable to want employees in a retail clothing chain to reflect the spirit of the brand.

Both groups have a point: No one should be rejected out-of-hand simply because they don't conform to some perceived stereotype of 'beauty'; at the same time, we all know that employees are the most effective marketing tools organizations have - so they need to reflect the brand just as consistently and positively as other marketing efforts.

But 95% of clients aren't marketing professionals themselves, so they don't always know how to articulate feedback beyond talking about "fit".

And of course most employers are petrified that if they talk about a candidate's appearance or personality or style, it'll come across as discrimination and they'll be in big trouble. But saying "Our brand is all about being unobtrusive, serious and discreet; an employee with a green mohawk doesn't reflect our corporate values" is the same as "Our brand is all about being unobtrusive, serious and discreet, which is why we require all our client-facing staff to wear suits and ties at all times."

5 questions to help you identify the candidates with the 'fit' the client is looking for

Asking these 5 questions before the sourcing starts will help reduce the amount of candidates rejected on the basis of 'fit'.

In terms of your organization's personality, would you say you're more like Google or more like a big bank?
You've given me the required skillls, experience and education for this role. What about personality and temperament? Do you need someone who thrives on change, deadlines and adrenaline, or someone more slow-and-steady?
If you could choose 3 words to describe the ideal candidate, what would they be? How do these relate to the company's overall brand and positioning?
What kind of personal 'style' seems to be most successful in your office? Quiet and reserved, or outgoing and effusive?
Do new employees get training/guidelines about 'living the brand'? Can I see a copy of these?

These questions not only ensure the client rejects fewer candidates on 'fit' - they'll generate better feedback when they do.

The beach vs the GDP: Climate and workforce productivity

Sun, 11 Jul 2010, 14:51:00 EST 00:00:00 +0000

WORKIDEX (noun; fr. 'humidex'): How much work you aren't getting done because it's too bloody hot

Now that we're into the second week of this brutal heatwave in Toronto, I often find myself wondering: How the heck does anyone in Florida, Louisiana or even South Carolina ever get any work done, especially in the summers? Or maybe it'd be more accurate to ask: "How the heck does anyone without air conditioning get any work done in these places?"

Turns out someone has done a little research on the connection between temperature and productivity. A recent study by Alan Hedge, a human ergonomics researcher at Cornell University, says that once the office temperature dips below 23 degrees Celsius, productivity declines.

Unfortunately, this seems to be another one of those pseudo-scientific 'studies' which end up 'revealing' what we knew already: When workers are comfortable (not too hot, not too cold), they stay at their desks longer, take fewer breaks and are more focused on their work and are therefore, unsurprisingly, more productive.

But this doesn't really address my question, which was more about the effects of weather/climate on the productivity of workers overall.

Do workers in 'extreme' climates work less (and less productively) than workers in more temperate climates?

Now, I'm no statistician, but looking at the productivity indices across 50 countries, here's what I see: The majority of the top-performing countries are 'cold' ones (Iceland, Poland, Finland, etc.); the majority of the less productive countries are 'warm', I'd-like-to-vacation-there ones (Italy, Portugal, Spain).

['Productivity' here is defined as GDP per hours worked.]

Looks like the hot countries work a little less, too.

Hours worked per person per week (average):

Iceland 35
Poland 38
Finland 33

Italy 35
Portugal 34
Spain 31

AVERAGES:
Hot countries 33.33
Cold countries 35.33

My admittedly unscientific conclusion?

You now have the data you need to ensure you get more vacation time this summer: "The thing is, Mr Manager, studies have shown that when it's hot like this, my individual contribution to GDP plummets, and that's not good for the business - or the country! So it's better if I take 2 or 3 weeks off now, and just make up the time in January/February when I can be more productive."

Strange but true: Stories from the recruiting front lines

Fri, 02 Jul 2010, 00:00:00 EST 00:00:00 +0000

The front lines in the war for talent can be as strange as they are rewarding. Get a couple of recruiters together, and the stories - hilarious, heartwarming or horrific - will flow like water.

Our favourite stories – the best stories – and the times that we learned the most are almost invariably the same ones. Just as in any campaign, some of the best recruitment battles are won by situations that force us to think creatively, improvise, and handle sudden changes in tactics -- not to mention take a tough hit or two.

We've seen it all: Attempts to stand out that work a little too well (like the fellow who put his picture and phone number on a billboard by the side of the Gardiner Expressway); ultra-creative applications (like the fellow whose resume was set up as a newspaper article, complete with headlines like "Man spends $210,000 on post-secondary education"); and thank-you-for-the-interview notes spelled out in icing on giant chocolate-chip cookies.

Or great-sounding candidates who show up in biking shorts and Birkenstocks, accompanied by their spouse or mom along for support.

Inappropriate hobbies and interests listed (a href=" http://community.ere.net/groups/strange-but-true-recruiting-horror-stories-and-les/discussions/18307/">really, we don't need to know!).

There are even people like that candidate who decided that he’d had it with being interviewed – and now he was going to control the conversation.

And that's just scratching the surface. Have a great recruiting story? We’re sharing some of our favourites – funny, horrible, triumphant and touching – in our Great Recruiting Stories series on the Head2Head blog throughout July, and would love to hear from you.

All stories will be attributed to their respective authors, complete with links to your site or blog (unless, of course, you’d like to remain anonymous). Post your stories in the comments - and come back to read them on Friday afternoon while you're waiting to leave work early!

Until next month, happy recruiting!

Interview 101 for Supply Chain Professionals

Thu, 01 Jul 2010, 00:00:00 EST 00:00:00 +0000

What supply chain professionals need to know

There's nothing like a new job opportunity to help us take a step up the professional ladder, to give us the chance to acquire new knowledge, or even to reinvigorate our promise and potential.

Whether you're actively looking for a new position, or just 'staying open' to possibilities, here are some important interview guidelines that all Supply Chain professionals should keep in mind:

1. Interviews are your opportunity to sell yourself

In the same way you would communicate with a new client for your company, you communicate with a potential new employer…only the product and the service is you!

2. Create and practice your 'elevator speech' whenever you can
Great salespeople have an 'elevator pitch' prepared at all times. When you're job hunting, you need to have one for yourself, too. That two-sentence script about who you are and what you do shows immediate confidence, competence, and knowledge.

3. Research the company and the interviewer as much as you can before you meet anyone
Web sites, company brochures and, most importantly, professional reputations will tell you how a company works, their position in the industry, and whether it’s a place you want to work.

4. Have a good understanding of your value in the marketplace.
While you’re conducting research online, make use of salary calculators and surveys in your region and industry so that you know how much to ask for. Asking for too much or too little will just make you look deluded or easy to take advantage of.

5. Remember, it’s all about details
Be prepared to talk about the tools and methodologies you use in your day-to-day activities. This is where you will be able to show how your experience and expertise are put to good use in the job…wherever you may work.

6. Don’t be afraid to show your personality
It's easier to build rapport with the interviewer - and to come across as personable and a good team player - if you're genuinely friendly. Revealing your personality in the interview stages will also ensure that when you're offered a job, it'll be the right cultural fit.

7. Know your resume inside and out
Be able to talk to the metrics with confidence, as well as accounting for any gaps or areas that could cause concern.

8. Come prepared with metrics
All organizations are looking for people who have made a demonstrable, measurable difference. In supply chain, this is particularly important, because employers are looking for people who'll help them reduce costs, increase the bottom line, improve efficiencies, etc. Part of the reason you got the interview in the first place is because you included metrics on your resume; make sure you have additional details to talk about in your interview.

Why isn't there more hard data about social media for recruiting?

Sun, 27 Jun 2010, 00:00:00 EST 00:00:00 +0000

From 'anecdotal' to 'fact-based'

The biggest challenge social media for recruiting (and leveraging employees' social media channels for recruiting) is simply lack of hard data.

Sure, everyone's got an anecdote or two ("I found Bob on LinkedIn last year, and he's turned out to be our best new hire in ages!"), and we've got lots of information on the demographics of social media.

But when it comes to drawing a straight line from 'time spent on social media for recruiting' to 'quantitative results' (time-to-hire, cost per hire, quality of hire, web traffic, application volume, etc.)...well, the data just isn't out there.

This is for two reasons:

The mainstreaming of social media is relatively recent
Most organizations have only been using social media for recruiting in any systematic way for the past couple of years. The job market has changed so much during that time that it's been difficult to establish benchmarks.

The results haven't been as spectacular as the evangelists said they'd be
For the past 3 years, social media for recruiting early adopters have been saying that social media would 'transform' the recruiting function. And it is, and it will - just not, perhaps, quite as quickly and dramatically as we thought.

(It's sort of like mobile software applications: In 2001, early-adopter types were saying that mobile applications would transform communications in the next 2 years; the transformation did indeed happen - it just took 7 years instead of 2.)

Until the results look better, no one wants to say too much, lest their organization gets the wrong idea and pulls the plug on social media for recruiting initiatives before they've had a chance to succeed.

Send me your social media for recruiting results.
We'll give you a great case study.

I'm pretty sure some of you have some metrics around social media for recruiting in your organization (or for you personally as a recruiter).

By themselves, they may not be too dramatic. If I combine them with others' metrics in a blog post, however, they'll at least start to create a picture of the real results of social media for recruiting.

Which may prove handy, the next time you walk into a boardroom and have to sell a comprehensive social-media-for-recruiting strategy to the larger organization.

Just how bad is your recruitment brand? Ask IT contractors.

Tue, 15 Jun 2010, 00:00:00 EST 00:00:00 +0000

Contract IT professionals are mobile, connected, and cynical - and they don't mince words. Asking them about how your recruitment brand is perceived could be the first step towards attracting better candidates across the organization.

(I don't think I get this, either. But I'm pretty sure there's an A-list programmer out there who thinks this is hilarious.)

Today I was talking to a senior Java/PHP developer who's in town for the weekend but who lives and works in St Louis, Missouri.

'Missouri' isn't the first place that comes to mind when I think of 'great career opportunities', so we got to talking about the major employers in the area, career paths, etc.

Turns out that St Louis has more businesses than you might think, and is home to some great brand names, including Anheuser-Busch (now owned by InBev, the same group that owns Labatt). Quite a few companies - like Wells Fargo, AT&T, DaimlerChrysler, Monsanto - have midwestern or divisional headquarters in the area, and it's the world headquarters of the Energizer battery brand.

"Wow," I said to the IT contractor. "So you have lots of options if you want a new job, then."

"Well....," he responded, "I don't think I'd work for [insert name of one of the companies above] or [ditto], and apparently [ditto] is a terrible place to work, especially for IT."

"Oh, I didn't know you'd worked at all those places," I said.

"I haven't. Actually, I haven't even interviewed at any of them. I've just heard they're terrible."

"In what ways?"

[ruefully] "You know, now that you ask me, I don't really know. I've heard that a couple of them pay pretty badly, but the truth is that I've never really investigated it. It's just sort of the word on the street."

How many passive candidates are you losing -
without even knowing it?

Now, my IT contractor friend isn't actively looking for a new job. But contractors - especially IT contractors, who often work on projects which have a specific beginning and end - in general tend to be more or less permanently in the job market.

In other words, they're the 'passive candidates' that recruiters like best: The ones who are hard-working, always employed, and willing to consider a new opportunity if the right one comes along.

However, like most A-list IT contractors, my friend gets called by recruiters all the time - scarcely a week goes by in which he doesn't get a voicemail or email from a recruiter, telling him about 'a fabulous opportunity at [some place or other]'.

The problem? As soon as he hears (or even just assumes, given the 'teaser info' in the recruiter's message) that the opportunity is in one of the organizations about which he's heard negative things, he doesn't even bother responding to the message, let alone get to the interview stage.

IT contractors talk to other IT contractors - a LOT

In many organizations, the computer geniuses - the guys actually building the back-end technologies that let the rest of us get on with our jobs - tend to be departments of one or two, or sort of separate from the rest of the organization.

Like scientists, they tend to share information with other people doing similar work in other organizations, because their loyalty is often to the work itself (i.e. solving a difficult problem) rather than to the organization they're doing it for.

So IT contractors - especially the good ones - tend to be involved in online communities and forums where they can interact with other people who actually know the difference between ASP and PHP.

It's in the process of these interactions that they end up sharing a lot of info - sometimes unwittingly - about the organizations they're working for.

All it takes is one guy in one forum ranting for one month about how he's going insane because the project manager at his company doesn't know the difference between a socket and a plug-in, or about the jerky recruiter who lied about the pay rate - and suddenly the 'word on the street' is that Acme Inc. is a terrible place to work.

These contractors have more power than you think

You may be tempted to think that it doesn't really matter what IT contractors think about your recruiting brand - heck, those guys only hang out with each other anyway, right?

But...these guys are also all over the internet and social media - it's what they do for a living. So it's entirely possible that candidates for other roles who are Googling your company prior to applying or accepting an interview, will come across these forum posts (and blogs, and statuses, and websites).

Conversely, IT guys who like where they work and are passionate about it are more likely to talk about that online, too.

A better recruiting brand may start with a conversation with your IT contractors

If your organization has a well-known, relatively strong consumer brand, but you're having trouble attracting great people, it's probably time to talk to the IT department, particularly your IT contractors. They may just have a better, objective grasp on how you're perceived in the marketplace than you think - and they probably won't mince words when they tell you about it.

Put your napkin on your lap - and other ways to ace the interview

Thu, 10 Jun 2010, 00:00:00 EST 00:00:00 +0000

Being a good dinner-party guest teaches you everything you need to know about being an A-list candidate.

(There are times when the 18th century got it right.)

It's inevitable. If you're in the job market, sooner or later someone's going to ask you: "So, where do you see yourself in 5 years? 10?"

Since the truth ("Well, if there's any justice, 10 years from now I'll be lying on a beach drinking mai-tais after having either won the lottery or sold my internet business for billions. Until then, this job will be fine.") is unlikely to appeal to interviewers, it's important to have a creative answer pre-prepared.

Mine?

"My goal over the next 5-10 years is to continue to be a good dinner-party guest."

Dinner party guest vs job-seeker:
The required skills are virtually the same

Let's face it: Having a required degree or experience only accounts for about 10% of successful job-hunting. The remaining 90% is all about presentation, communication and good manners - the same skills required to be a good dinner party guest.

Here's how:

Knowing the sort of people who host dinner parties.
In order to get invited to dinner parties, you have to know people who have dinner parties. Especially people who have dining rooms, decent china, and a wide circle of friends. In the job-hunting world, knowing people who are smart and successful enough to know the difference between a butter knife and a fish fork translates into a valuable network. And we all know how important networking is to finding a job.
Building relationships.
It's not enough to know people who host dinner parties; they have to like you enough to invite you to their house for dinner. In other words, building relationships with people is crucial to job-hunting success.

Knowing when to show up.
A good dinner party guest never shows up awkwardly early or inconveniently late. Similarly, the desirable candidate never arrives so early as to look desperate, nor so late as to create a bad impression. (And good dinner party guests, like good candidates, always phone to alert the host of any unforeseen delays.)

Knowing when to leave.
A good dinner party guest never outstays his/her welcome. The attractive potential employee realizes when s/he has answered all the questions, says what s/he's come to say, and runs the risk of scuppering his chances by taking up any more of the interviewer's valuable time or blurting out something stupid.

A good rule of thumb for both dinner party guests and job-seekers: It's always best to leave when everyone's still glad you came!

Knowing what to wear.
A Mexican feast at Bob and Jane's? Dark-wash jeans and a clean shirt are perfect. A catered 7-course dinner at Estelle and Louis'? Black tie, of course. The welcome dinner party guest just wants to fit in, look good, and avoid causing any embarrassment to the host or other guests. (It goes without saying that all his clothes are good quality, clean, and in good taste.)

All of this holds true for the job-seeker as well: Dress appropriately for the interview, and if in doubt, ask in advance.

Knowing when to say no.
Even the best dinner party guest occasionally declines an invitation for one reason or another; so it is for job-seekers. Sometimes, you'll be invited to a dinner - or job -that just isn't the right fit. It's okay to acknowledge this and move on.

Knowing what to bring.
Whether it's a six-pack of Mexican beer for Bob and Jane or a bottle of 15-year-old tawny port for Estelle and Louis, the good dinner party guest doesn't show up empty-handed. Likewise, the A-list job-seeker also comes prepared with thoughtful answers, contact info for references, and having done some research on the organization for which s/he is interviewing.

Having good manners.
Remember, 'good manners' aren't about following an arbitrary set of ridiculous rules. Good manners are designed to help everyone feel comfortable and reduce distractions in social situations.

At dinner parties, this may mean avoiding chewing with your mouth open; in interviews, this may mean turning off your phone. Either way, it's less about knowing the difference between a butter knife and a fish fork, and more about making sure that the interaction is a positive one.

Knowing when to speak (and speaking intelligently on a wide range of topics).
A good rule of thumb for both dinner parties and interviews: If you can't think of anything intelligent to say, don't say anything at all.

Not everything you say, at a dinner party or to a potential employer, has to be unremittingly positive. In fact, some of the most desirable dinner party guests are the ones who can tantalize and scandalize with a well-placed morsel of malicious gossip.

(As a job-seeker, however, 'malicious gossip' should be replaced with 'evidence of critical thinking'.)

In both cases, a touch of polymathism never goes amiss: Demonstrating your knowledge of, and interest in, current events, pop culture, history, politics, literature and even sports is the best way to make someone think, "S/he's so interesting/smart/funny/up-to-date/connected - we've got to have him/her back!"

Knowing when to listen.
As Dale Carnegie can tell you, the best way to make other people like you is to listen to them talk about themselves.

Dinner party guests who listen attentively to their host and fellow guests are guaranteed to get good post-party reviews; job-seekers who listen attentively to the interviewer - whether the interviewer is talking about the company or just about the bad day they've been having - are guaranteed to leave the interviewer with the kind of good impression that makes the difference between getting a callback or never hearing from them again.

Knowing when to use flattery and sincerity.
Nobody likes a kiss-up; on the other hand, very few people want to hear the truth about themselves all the time.

The good dinner party guest is free with compliments when it comes to the hostess and food, but stops short of ingratiation and doesn't attempt to make every other guest his/her new best friend.

Similarly, interviewers appreciate (and expect) enthusiastic statements about the job and the company, but don't respond well to blatant insincerity: The guy who says that he's wanted to work for Acme Inc. since he was 5 years old, even though Acme has only been in business for 10 years, just looks like (a) a guy who'll say anything to get a job, regardless of truthiness and (b) a guy who hasn't done his pre-interview research.

It's all about being a person that other people want to spend time with

Consider: Everyone needs to eat dinner, and almost everyone needs to work.

So why is it that some people stay home, eating alone every night, while others have invitations to dinner coming out their ears? And why do some people leap from fantastic job to fantastic job, while others are un- or under-employed?

The answer is simple: Good dinner party guests, like good candidates, are the sort of people that other people want to spend time with. In other words, it's all about ensuring that the answer to questions like "Would I want to spend 5 hours at a party with this person?" and "Would I want to spend 8 hours a day working with this person?" is a resounding "Yes!"

HEAD2HEAD IN PERSON: IPM Conference, May 12 2010

Thu, 22 Apr 2010, 00:00:00 EST 00:00:00 +0000

"Recruiting Smarter - and More Creatively"

Paul Dodd and Sarah Welstead are featured speakers at the Institute of Professional Management's annual full-day conference in Toronto on May 12, 2010.

Now that the economy is picking up and organizations are hiring again, employers are faced with two challenges: how to make their recruiting budget work harder - while still getting the best people. With many industries continuing to experience talent shortages, how can organizations attract and secure A-list candidates without breaking the bank? Discover new alternatives to traditional recruiting methods for small, mid-size and large organizations.

Gain new insights about building referral programs that work. Learn how to better leverage your organization and make everyone a recruiter. Review the best ways to use social media for recruiting. Discuss how to “insource” your recruiting function.

Participants will take away five vital strategies which they can implement immediately to help their organization win the war for top talent.

To learn more about the conference, and how to register, click here.

In a recovering economy, RPO matters more than ever

Tue, 20 Apr 2010, 00:00:00 EST 00:00:00 +0000

At the best of times - i.e. 2 years ago, when we were all obsessed with 'the talent crisis' - RPO (Recruitment Process Outsourcing) has been one of those topics that seems to engender more discussion than actual action: there are hundreds of articles, blog posts, white papers and god knows what else out there about RPO, but actual examples of fully outsourced recruiting solutions were rare.

Now that the economy is picking up, organizations are beginning to increase hiring volume again - but cautiously.

This is a great time to take another look at RPO.

SIDEBAR: Part of the reason that 'RPO' stayed more of a 'buzzword' than 'something everyone is doing' is that the early definition of RPO - outsourcing an organization's entire recruitment function to a third party - was just too darn big, especially for Canadian organizations. That kind of full-scale RPO really only makes sense for large organizations who are making hundreds or thousands of hires every year, and for whom the potential savings run into 6 or 7 figures. Only in those situations is it worth the huge enterprise-wide changes involved in full RPO.

However, in the past year or so, we've seen a real change in how people are talking about 'RPO'. According to Aberdeen Group, which has just released a comprehensive study, "...73% of organizations viewed RPO as a selective model...." in which they outsource parts of the recruitment lifecycle, not the whole thing.

(At Head2Head, we call this RPO LITE: All the benefits of RPO, but without the headache of a stem-to-stern enterprise transition or commitment.)

This 'RPO Lite' model is relevant now for 2 reasons:

It delivers against the bottom line. In the Aberdeen Group study, respondents reported an average savings on cost-per-hire of 48%. At Head2Head, we've seen a typical savings of about 35% when organizations outsource key parts of their recruitment function.
When you're hiring fewer people, every one of them has to be a keeper. In a good economy, an organization can carry some 'deadwood' employees; in a bad economy, there's no room for dud employees, and even the A-listers have to try a little harder. So when an organization does make a hire, quality is even more important. RPO solutions tend to involve better metrics around quality of hire, quality of sources, retention rate and other indicators of long-term recruitment success. Which contributes to #1, above.

I know, I know - everyone blathers on about 'outsourcing' but doesn't actually get specific about how it could help you, and help your organization today.

Well, here's something: yesterday I spoke with a client (a mid-sized financial services firm, which is feeling the pinch as much as anyone) who said that outsourcing their research/talent mapping portion of the recruitment lifecycle saved them $14,000 in January - which meant they didn't have to lay off one of their employees.

These small things can make a big difference.

SHAMELESS SELF-PROMOTION: If you're a smaller organization, or only need to make one or two hires, you might want to check out our 60 HOURS SOLUTION. Think of it as a 'recruiter by the hour': You pay only for the recruiting time you use, which makes it less than half the cost of traditional contingency-fee-based recruiting.

5 Creative Sourcing Tactics for $500 or Less

Sat, 17 Apr 2010, 00:00:00 EST 00:00:00 +0000

Remember when having a job to fill meant spending $500 to post it on a job board somewhere?

Well, these days, $500 (or less) can buy you a lot of sourcing - and without having to wade through the masses of unsuitable candidates that job boards can deliver. Here are 5 you may not have thought of.

1. Hire a student for a week's worth of talent pooling

We may roll our eyes at the internet savvy of today's youth, but let's face it: Give an 18-year-old a set of parameters, and in a week they can probably assemble a list of 100 great candidates - including contact information - that meet your criteria.

2. Offer rewards for referrals from employees

Recruiters know that employee referrals are one of the top sources of A-list candidates. So send an email to your co-workers offering Starbucks gift cards for referrals ("5 great names for $10" is a good way to generate higher volume; "$250 if we hire the person you referred this month" is a good way to get more specialized referrals).

3. Do a 1-day status update blitz

If you're chronically short of candidates for a particular role, take advantage of your employees' LinkedIn/Facebook/Twitter status updates to do a one-day blitz asking for candidates. Send everyone an email with a pre-written status update and a link to (a really well-written) job post and ask them to post it on a specific day. (You might want to try this in conjunction with #2.)

4. Post an announcement to your company website's NEWS section

Tap into all the passive candidates visiting your corporate website - the ones who never actually click on the 'CAREERS' tab - by posting a news item about how you're looking for great candidates for specific positions. You never know whose eye(s) it might catch - and who they may tell about it.

5. Get your marketing department to rewrite one of your job postings - and make it funny!

Don't be afraid of offbeat/hilarious job ads - they'll increase your response rate by as much as 250%. A line like "We're looking for a salesperson with the tenacity of Jason Bourne looking for his true identity..." will not only attract better candidates, but it'll get forwarded/retweeted/noticed - and that's good for your employment brand.

Also interesting: Recruiters tell their own 'true tales' of creative sourcing.

If you're so concerned about 'quality of hire', how come you're ignoring your employment brand?

Tue, 30 Mar 2010, 00:00:00 EST 00:00:00 +0000

You can't attract the best and brightest if people would be embarrassed to tell their friends they work at your organization.

If you live in Toronto - or even in southern Ontario - you probably know that the TTC (the Toronto Transit Commission, Toronto's public transit authority) has had a lot of bad press lately: Whether it's residents launching class-action lawsuits, riders posting photos of TTC workers sleeping on the job, TTC workers driving drunk, crashing vehicles, or just a good old-fashioned sex scandal, sometimes it feels like the TTC is just one long Saturday Night Live sketch, not a huge, serious operation with an annual budget of $1.2 billion.

The result? Sooner or later, every Torontonian turns to their spouse/friend/colleague/random strangers on the subway and says: "What the heck is going on over there? Why don't they get rid of these idiots and hire some people with actual business skills? I feel like a half-witted 12-year-old could run the TTC better than whoever's doing it right now."

Because we all know that sometimes, hiring just one person in a key position can transform a whole organization.

If people hate your brand, it doesn't matter what your comp package looks like - they still won't apply to your jobs

Here's the thing: If you examined the compensation plans for junior/intermediate TTC employees, you'd probably find that the combination of mandated vacation time, sick leave, personal days, pension plans, health benefits, education reimbursement and basically 100% total job security means that working for the TTC (especially over 5 years or more) is way more lucrative - and offers a better work/life balance - than working at, say, Google.

However, ask people to complete the phrase "Oh, I've always wanted to work at...", and exactly none of them will say "...the TTC." (Whereas I'm pretty sure that a random sample of any demographic population would see 25% of respondents saying "...Google.")

The result? Even if the TTC did decide to get rid of some underperformers at the management level, it's unlikely they'd be able to attract enough A-list overachievers to replace them.

Better employment branding =
Better candidates =
Better hires.

So how come 95% of companies don't even think about employment branding, let alone make it a priority?

Don't get me wrong - I'm just using the TTC as a particularly egregious example here, but they are definitely not unique.

Think of all the companies you've worked with/for in the past 5 years. How many of them have an employment branding strategy? How many of them are even thinking about it, outside of the recruiting department? How many of them say that "improving quality of hire" is one of their top priorities - but don't have a strategy specifically to attract A-listers?

1? 2? I'll bet you didn't need more than one hand to count them up, did you?

So why is employment branding such a low priority, even within companies who know the value of branding and spend a lot of time and money building their consumer brand?

Well, as I've said before, I think we're in the midst of a huge paradigm shift, and organizations just haven't caught up yet.

Most people in management roles (i.e. the 35+ crowd who came of age in the early 1990s, when jobs were scarce and job-seekers were plentiful), who are, after all, the ones most in a position to drive employment branding initiatives, still think that if you post a job ad, you'll get lots and lots of great applicants from which you can take your pick.

However, with the economy recovering, and StatsCan saying that by 2015 there'll be more jobs than job-seekers to fill them, maybe employment branding will finally get the attention it deserves.

I have a tattoo of the Head2Head logo. Am I a brand champion - or just nuts?

Wed, 24 Mar 2010, 00:00:00 EST 00:00:00 +0000

So I noticed John Zappe's article about the guy who has the company logo tattooed on his arm. Apparently John was unable to speak to the Rackspace guy who has the tattoo, so I thought I'd respond.

Because I have the Head2Head logo tattooed on my back.

(No, there isn't a photo. But visit the Head2Head website - see that orange head in the logo? That's my tattoo.)

So what happened?

A couple of years ago, we held a networking event at a downtown club called the Tattoo Rock Parlour. As the name suggests, it's a club with a tattoo parlour attached.

As it happened, Nike had hosted an event there the night before, and had offered free tattoos to anyone who wanted the swoosh permanently attached to their body. When Paul - Paul Dodd, president of Head2Head - heard this, he offered to pay for Head2Head tattoos.

An hour later - and yes, I was sober - I had the orange head on my back and was calling my poor husband, who just sighed and said "Why am I not surprised?"

(I wasn't the only one, by the way - one of our senior salespeople, Jesse Ryan, also got a H2H head, on his foot.)

I've never really thought of myself as a tattoo person - in fact, the H2H one is the first and only tattoo I've ever had. So how do I feel about it now?

Absolutely no regrets.

I've been involved with Head2Head practically since the beginning - I think I first started working with them in 2002, and became the Director of User Experience (that's Marketing Director, for those of us disenchanted with fancy titles) in 2005. Building the Head2Head brand has been a big part of my life for a long time, and I'm proud of what we've accomplished.

Sure, in my cynical moments I think, "I'll never get H2H off my back..." (see the clever pun there?) but it's definitely a more meaningful tattoo (to me, at least) than some random Chinese character or a star or sun or whatever.

I do get a kick out of the reactions of new employees when I'm doing orientation and show them the tattoo. I think they wonder what kind of brand cult they've just joined, but there's also something kind of inspirational in knowing that more than one person who works at this company you've just joined loves it enough to make the relationship permanent.

I also happen to think that work is only enjoyable when you really commit to it - even if I left Head2Head tomorrow, I'd never regret the tattoo, because it'll always represent a body of work that I'm proud of, and a time in my life that I was part of a great team. I don't see a cluster of logo tattoos blossoming across my back as I move through the rest of my career - but I hope I always feel as invested in the companies I work for.

WEBINAR: To Tweet or Not to Tweet? Twitter 101 for Recruiting

Fri, 12 Mar 2010, 00:00:00 EST 00:00:00 +0000

Still on the fence about whether to use Twitter? Wondering how it could work for your recruiting challenges in your organization?

Join Head2Head for a free webinar!
THURSDAY, APRIL 1, 2010
12-1pm MDT

CLICK HERE to register.

Topics include:

Twitter 101: From setting up an account to growing your list of followers, we'll show you how to get started
Real-world Twitter recruiting success stories
How social media can play an active role in your recruitment process

What participants said about our last Twitter webinar:

"Thank you for bringing Twitter to my attention. It's more powerful than I thought and I will start tweeting!"

"Well researched and presented - thank you"

"Refreshing format, not too long, straight to the point"

"This session answered so many of our questions about Twitter - I finally feel like I 'get it'!"

After registering, you'll receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the Webinar.

System Requirements
PC-based attendees
Required: Windows® 7, Vista, XP, 2003 Server or 2000

Macintosh®-based attendees
Required: Mac OS® X 10.4.11 (Tiger®) or newer

Where to find diversity candidates? 44% of Canadian orgs don't know where to start.

Sat, 06 Mar 2010, 00:00:00 EST 00:00:00 +0000

So today, Talent Oyster - North America's first job board in 11 languages simultaneously - reported the results of their first 'diversity recruiting' survey.

The bad news? 44% said that their biggest challenge in diversity recruiting is that they simply don't know where to look. If they needed, say, 10 Arabic-speaking mining engineers for a project in northern Alberta that's starting in 3 weeks, they wouldn't know how to target and reach the Arabic-speaking community - at least not at short notice.

The good news? 71% of Canadian recruiting/HR professionals said their organizations would be increasing diversity hiring initiatives in 2010. More than 40% said that diversity recruiting/hiring was one of their organization's top priorities for this year.

The really good news? Statistics Canada predicts that by 2031, at least one in four Canadians will have been born outside Canada - the term 'visible minority' may become obsolete in the new mainstream.

I think this is great: Maybe, 5 or 10 or 20 years from now, the term 'diversity candidates' will also be obsolete, and we can just talk about 'candidates', regardless of their country of origin, language, or faith.

The 8 questions that cost you the job

Tue, 16 Feb 2010, 00:00:00 EST 00:00:00 +0000

(Are you a recruiter/hiring manager who often has to follow up with candidates, post-interview? Bookmark this link - you may find it handy to send to unsuccessful candidates.)

If you're like me, scarcely a week goes by without receiving an email or phone call from a job-seeker saying something along the lines of, "I've been looking for a job for months, and I keep getting interviews but I don't get the job. I have no idea why - the recruiters and hiring managers never give me any feedback."

Whether a recruiter/hiring manager should provide detailed feedback, and whether that feedback would ever actually change a candidate's behaviour is something we've talked about before.

Some recruiters/hiring managers think that they have a responsibility to provide feedback; others not so much.

So I asked one of the best recruiters I know, Maureen Carroll, for her expert opinion.

"Of course recruiters should provide feedback to candidates who have gone through a first interview and haven't been selected," she says. "It's just part of delivering a good candidate experience."

But when candidates - especially those who have been in the workforce for more than a couple of years - make common interview mistakes, it's not surprising that the recruiter/hiring manager doesn't want to spend a whole lot of time providing feedback.

"Googling 'job interview tips' delivers 39 million search returns, and most of them contain the same basic guidelines," remarks Maureen. "So when candidates demonstrate they don't even know these basics, they're really saying that they don't care enough to learn about them - so the recruiter thinks it may be fruitless to say anything."

So what interview gaffes do candidates make? "Eight basic questions cause 90% of first-interview disasters," she says. "Avoid asking them, and you'll probably cut your job-hunt time by 50%."

8 QUESTIONS THAT'LL COST YOU THE JOB
Ask these questions in the first interview, and you're unlikely to get a second.

"Before we go any further, I need to know: How much does this position pay? Because there's no point in this interview if you're not going to pay me enough."
"How much vacation is there?"
"How many sick days and lieu time days can I use/accumulate in a year?"
"I need to leave by 3:30pm every day to pick up my kid/go to counselling/walk my dog. Is that a problem?"
"When do the benefits start? I need my prescriptions refilled."
"How much can I work from home? Will you be giving me a good laptop to use from home?"
"Can you hang on a minute? My cell's ringing and I really have to take this call - my sister had her court case today."
"How much do you monitor emails and internet use? What about outside of work hours?"

(As always, I'm interested to hear your interview disaster stories in the comments!)

Bringing dogs to work: cool, fun -- or just really freaking annoying?

Sat, 13 Feb 2010, 00:00:00 EST 00:00:00 +0000

As many of you know, I have recently become a dog person.

This is our cocker spaniel, Lady. (This photo - and quite a number of other really fantastic shots - was taken by a friend of ours named Lee Harkness, whose Flickr account is full of great pictures.)

I've never had a dog before, and we've only had Lady for a year, so I'm still in the 'gushing' stage. I'll bore you with anecdotes about Lady's adventures at the park, her relationships with other dogs, my disapproval of other dog parents - all I have to say is that it's a good thing I'm already married, because if I wasn't I'd be in danger of turning into one of those 'Lowered Expectations' women whose dog is their whole life.

I love to take Lady with me everywhere - I take her when I run errands or do grocery shopping, we take the subway all over town, we walk in the Toronto underground system (like other big cities, Toronto has a huge underground network connecting train/subway stations, stores and office buildings), and it's not unusual for her to sit at my feet in an office-building food court while I eat lunch.

(No one seems bothered by this - Lady's well-behaved, well-groomed, and ever since celebrities started bringing their dogs along in little Louis Vuitton handbags, the rules about having dogs indoors seem a little fuzzier than they used to.)

So of course it's natural for me to want to bring Lady to the office, and I do. (I'm not the only one: both of the co-founders of Head2Head have dogs that visit the office, and a couple of employees also have little dogs who they bring in from time to time.)

Even before I became a dog person, I thought that the idea of dogs in the office was cool - that as long as the dogs were well-behaved and calm, there was no downside to having them in the office, and that it clearly communicated 'coolness' to visitors.

I mean, whenever anyone talks about how great it'd be to work at, say, Google, they always mention the "You can bring your dog to work!" factor (usually right after the "Free snacks!" perq).

As it turns out, however, not everyone agrees with me on this.

There are a couple of people at Head2Head, for example, who are really quite frightened of dogs. Sure, they acknowledge that it's not an entirely rational fear (it's usually related to a bad experience in childhood), but, like a fear of heights, it's not necessarily something they can control. So knowing there's a dog around means they can't concentrate on their work.

And as a couple of commenters noted in response to the dog question in one of my January blogs, if you've got clients or candidates visiting the office, and they're afraid of dogs, you run the risk of losing business as a result of a dog running around.

Here's what I'm wondering, however: Some of your clients will really love the fact that you allow dogs in the office, because to them it's an indicator that you're edgy, modern, friendly, etc. (again, it's that 'shades of Google' halo). Will the incremental business you gain from that brand image more than offset the business you might lose because a client/potential client is put off by dogs?

I have a feeling the answer is 'yes'.

RECRUITING: Saving the world, one hire at a time

Mon, 08 Feb 2010, 00:00:00 EST 00:00:00 +0000

When was the last time you got a call like this:

"Oh, I'm so excited! We need to hire a new Manager of Widgets for our Mississauga office and I can't wait to interview candidates! This is a great opportunity to transform the organization!"

Pretty sure the answer is a big fat 'never'.

Whether you're an agency recruiter with external clients, a corporate recruiter with internal clients, or a hiring manager doing double-duty as a recruiter, the calls usually sound more like this:

"Well, I just found out that our Manager of Widgets is leaving at the end of next week. We're kind of screwed because we've got our new Widgeteroo launch next month and I know the comp plan is $10k below market. Can you dig up some candidates by tomorrow?"

Recruiting as opportunity - not headache

We all know that putting the right person in the right position at the right time can transform a company. Heck, just one great hire, even in a large company, can deliver dramatic, demonstrable results which are clearly reflected on the bottom line.

You know that feeling you get after you've just bought the computer of your dreams? You can't wait to get home and set it up, because you're thinking of all the great stuff you're going to do now that you've got the right capacity and capability.

That's how we should feel about recruiting. That every 'vacancy' is an opportunity to inject the right capacity and capability into an organization - which in turn will help the organization do 'great stuff'.

Don't let the 'process' obscure the 'opportunity'

I know, I know - recruiting would be a lot more fun if it wasn't for those pesky people running around all the time.

'People' tend to beget 'process', and before you know it you're selecting a recruitment supplier based solely on whether their account managers drive you nuts or not.

In other B2B professional services, companies sell their wares on a positive "Look what you'll be able to do if you engage our services...", end-result-oriented basis. In recruiting, it's more of a negative, process-driven sell: "Look at the hassles you won't have any more," and "Look at the money you'll save."

Hey, we're changing lives over here!

The right hire can transform an organization. The right job can transform an individual's whole life. Thinking about it that way might just make your next recruiting call start with "Oh, I'm so excited!"

Egregiously Bad Candidates V: The

Fri, 29 Jan 2010, 00:00:00 EST 00:00:00 +0000

It's hard to believe that it's been a YEAR since the last Egregiously Bad Candidates blog post (don't forget to check out the October 2008 post that started it all).

I think it's probably because in the abysmal economy of 2009, being out of work and/or looking for a job wasn't actually all that funny - contrary to popular belief, 99% of recruiters really do care about their candidates, and it doesn't seem right to laugh at the very people who suffer the most (i.e. the Egregiously Bad Candidates who have a tough time finding a job in a strong economy fare even less well in a poor one).

But now that the economy is (supposedly) on the upswing, and the turnover increase predicted by John Sullivan is starting to happen, I think our sense of humour is coming back.

So here's EBC Part V.

Why am I calling it 'The "Whoops!" Edition'?

Because deep down, we all know the truth: Sometimes even the best of us say something so unbelievably dumb/inappropriate/wrong that 5 years later, just thinking about it can cause our faces to redden with embarrassment. I know I'm an A-list candidate - doesn't mean I haven't said some D-list stuff in my time.

And sometimes, the funniest EBC items aren't the big bold disasters (like the guy who offered a $1000 reward to anyone who found him a job). The ones that still have you shaking your head, 5 years later, are the WTF?! statements inserted into an otherwise apparently rational conversation, and you're left wondering: "Is this person really a nutjob, or was it just an unfortunate foot-in-mouth episode that can be put down to nerves?"

Real quotes from candidates (as heard by me in the past 12 months)

(Guess which one was actually said by me, circa 1998!)

"Before I apply for that job on your website, I need to know if it pays enough to cover my current debt load."

"I had to wear my running clothes for this interview because I broke up with my girlfriend and she changed the locks and I can't get my suit."

"Sorry I'm 40 minutes late. I went to your old office - I didn't know you'd moved in 2005. You should have told people."

"Sure, I hit [my co-worker]. But you would have, too - everyone agreed she wasn't productive. The lawyers made them fire me, but I know they didn't want to, really."

"I just really think I need to work in a Christian environment. Nothing against Kwaanzaa or whatever, but I don't think Muslims have the same work ethic."

"Do you have a projector? You can't get the full effect just by looking at my resume on your computer screen."

"Don't think I'm weird or anything, but I have my dead cat's ashes in my handbag. Now I can take her everywhere!"

"I don't agree. I think it's absolutely appropriate to include, in my covering email, my stance against getting coffee for my manager. If you don't think getting coffee is degrading, you may not be the headhunter for me. I can take my assets elsewhere."

[voicemail] "Um, I'm just calling back because I realized that in my previous automated phone screen process - that I just did 2 minutes ago - I didn't tell you what my name was. Ha! Ha! I promise I'm not normally that dumb. Hopefully you'll call me for an interview."

"Really? I didn't realize you could actually have a career in headhunting. I mean, isn't it really just, like, talking to people all day long? I wish I could have an easy job like that."

"Nah - let's just end the interview. The job sounds nice and all, but I don't want to work that hard."

What's your best real-life candidate quote?

The best part of the Egregiously Bad Candidates series is the comments!

(Did you figure out which one was said by me?)

Your 2 cents invited: 6 burning questions of 2010

Sat, 16 Jan 2010, 00:00:00 EST 00:00:00 +0000

The truth is out there...

Social media devotees - especially the Twitterverse - are always extolling the information-gathering benefits of a networked lifestyle. "It's fantastic," they say. "You can post a question about anything, and within minutes you'll have all kinds of answers, insight, research, etc."

"Ha!", I say to that.

Everyone's so busy using social media to build their personal brand in 140-character installments that they don't have time to stop and send a 140-word email to some random Twitter follower that they've never met. Heck, it's hard enough to get people to click on a one-question poll.

The people who do have the time (i.e. the ones who are using social media primarily as a sales tool) usually have an agenda (i.e. they want to sell you something). Don't believe me? Try tweeting something about Applicant Tracking Systems, and within 12 hours you'll suddenly get 20+ new followers - all of whom are ATS vendors.

[Of course, sometimes the answer is that no one actually knows the answer. Even Slate.com's 'Explainer' column - which has a whole lot more readers than I'll ever have - is left with unanswered questions.]

But I have faith in the Head2Head community!
I invite you to share your genius regarding the 6 questions I've been thinking about most often in the past 2 weeks:

Are video resumes the next big thing, or just hype?
Will video-based screening become commonplace in the next 2-5 years?
When it comes to selling B2B professional services at a price point of $1000 and up, do clients ever make a purchasing decision as a result of the website? Or are websites just brochureware for credibility?
Are e-newsletters dead?
If the online version of the content is password protected or otherwise non-searchable online, is there really much point in trying to get media coverage in national newspapers any more?
What do clients really think when they visit your office and see that people have brought their dogs to work?

Feel free, by the way, to post any of your own burning questions in the comments.

Ignoring Feedback: In marketing, not all opinions are equal

Mon, 04 Jan 2010, 00:00:00 EST 00:00:00 +0000

So, a few weeks ago we launched a new video [embedded below - just scroll down].

'Irreverent' videos like ours are old hat in the B2C marketplace, but relatively new for B2B/professional services, and there aren't yet a whole lot of established best practices in this area, especially around recruiting.

With that in mind, here's some follow-up - if you've been thinking about doing a video in the coming months, you may find the following post helpful.

Ah, the feedback...

To me, the most interesting part of making a video like this is hearing what people feel/think/say about it. For example:

John Zappe loved the video.

Eric Shannon, on the other hand, did not.

John says it could be the "....most honest career video ever made" and that it "....[nails] recruiting."

Eric, however, says that it has "...crappy message and positioning" and that it "Does more damage to the brand than the attention will benefit."

I've done my share of tv commercials and videos over the past 15 years, so these two extremes aren't surprising to me - in fact, it's been my experience that the more polarizing a video is, the more effective it's likely to be, overall.

Don't confuse 'total audience' with 'target audience'

Eric wasn't the only one who thought the video was entertaining but totally misguided. Since the video was completed, scarcely a day has gone by without me having some version of the following conversation:

NON-MARKETING PERSON: "Sarah, I've got some feedback about the video. People don't understand it at all. They think it's funny and everything, but it's too confusing - they had no idea what the 60 hours thing was."

ME: "Hhmmm...how many people have you shown it to?"

NMP: "Well, 3. But two of them said it was confusing."

ME: "Who were they? Clients? Candidates? HR people?"

NMP: "Actually, it was my mother, and my aunt who lives in New Zealand. They're retired now but they were both teachers."

ME: (sigh)

NMP: "Well, don't you care?"

ME: "Not really. They aren't the target - we wanted to reach recruiting decision-makers. As long as the video didn't engender your mother's undying revulsion, I'm not really concerned with whether she understood the message."

NMP: (secretly thinking that I probably don't know as much about marketing as I think I do) "Harumph!"

We all feel like marketing experts.
We're not.

Since most of us have absorbed hundreds of thousands of marketing messages in our lifetimes, and we've been absorbing them practically since birth, it's not surprising that most of us think that we have some level of marketing expertise.

But when your doctor puts a cast on your broken arm, you don't say, "Well, that looks okay for a first draft - just let me run this by 10 people in the sales and supply chain department to get their insight, and then I'll let you know the revisions."

It's really all about the results.

Ultimately, the goal of marketing is simple: To sell more stuff.

It's not about whether people like the video; it's about whether it's effective. It's not about how many people see the video; it's about how many of those people then do something as a result of seeing it.

So what have our stakeholders done as a result of this video?

Several past clients called to re-engage us, citing the video as a positive reminder of how much they like working with us
Several potential clients requested meetings with us, because they wanted to hear more about our alternatives to contingency recruiting
Increased web traffic by about 20%
Increased average PPV (pages per visit) by about 33%
About 25 of our 'brand champions' reported referring us to a boss, friend or colleague ("I sent Bob at Acme Ltd. the link to the video and told him he should call you guys in the new year.")

So far, our ROI on this video (measured solely on short-term revenue) is so high that it almost seems fake - in excess of 500% - and we expect to see more in 2010. And that's the most important feedback the marketplace can give you.

WATCH THE VIDEO:

You're aiding economic recovery just by reading this!

Thu, 31 Dec 2009, 00:00:00 EST 00:00:00 +0000

So it's the last day of 2009 and, like most people, I'm spending the day reflecting on the year that's passed and the year to come.

I think 2009 was pretty much the 13th floor of our lives: Sure, we all know it's there, but the elevator buttons skip from 12 to 14, as though not labelling the 13th floor will somehow keep us safe from the bad luck it supposedly brings.

However, I have to say I was surprised by our collective resiliency this year. The media in the first few months of 2009 was a non-stop deluge of economic disaster stories.

But there's only so much of that doom and gloom a body can stand, and by August it felt like, as a society, we put our collective foot down and said, "Enough with this paralyzing economic stasis! Let's start moving forward again!"

In other words, barely a year after the Bear Stearns collapse that started it all, we were able to pick ourselves up, shake off the dust, and get back on the road, as it were. Maybe we're not yet running down the road, but we're definitely striding briskly, and possibly whistling.

But I found myself wondering..

The 2008/09 recession was more sudden, dramatic, and global than any other economic downturn since the Great Depression. So how come we seem to be recovering - in spirit, if not yet in actual dollars - so much faster?

(Remember the real estate tumble in the late 1980s? Not only did house prices take ages to recover, but everyone was just so depressed for so long. If I had a nickel for every time one of my friends, family or university profs told me that graduating in 1991 with a BA in English Lit basically qualified me for a life on the breadlines, I'd have been able to bail out Bear Stearns myself. Now that 'content is king', however, us English grads are looking remarkably prescientient.)

Social media: The #1 factor in the optimism that leads to economic recovery

Back in May, I wrote that social media was saving the economy, and I still think it's true.

Our connections to people far outside our previously circumscribed little worlds have given us all more of a sense of 'team spirit'. Personal economic disasters - losing a job, losing retirement investments, etc. - can be alienating and isolating. But these days, instead of holing up at home, quietly falling off the grid into an alcoholic slough of despond, we're taking to blogs, vlogs, status updates, discussion groups - and finding that not only are we not alone in our own circumstances, but there are plenty of people in far worse circumstances, so maybe we should stop moaning about how we can't afford that 52" flatscreen any more.

(All of this also puts me in mind of the whitepaper we published this year on grassroots corporate philanthropy and its effect on the bottom line, actually.)

Anyhow, I guess that's my Big Deep Thought for 2010: Spending so much time connecting with people via social media isn't 'wasting time' - it's these connections, which are driving the optimism that, ultimately, drives economies.

Are you diversity-aware? Use this checklist to find out!

Mon, 21 Dec 2009, 00:00:00 EST 00:00:00 +0000

I don't know about you, but this time of year always gets me thinking about diversity-related issues - it's important to remember that not everyone is taking 'Christmas' holidays.

We all know we need to be more aware of diversity-related issues. But are we really doing anything about it?

This self-test will help you determine whether your organization is really doing all it can to support/improve diversity in your organization.

Has your organization:

Sought out more information to enhance awareness and understanding of racism by talking with others, reading or listening?
Examined your attitudes and behaviours as they contribute to or combat racism, ageism, sexism, or other forms of discrimination?
Re-evaluated your use of terms or phrases to see whether they may be perceived as degrading, hurtful, or in poor taste?
Suggested or initiated workshops or discussions with friends, colleagues, social clubs or religious groups about cultural diversity?
Openly disagreed with a racist comment, action or joke?
Talked with co-workers about the racial/cultural climate in your organization?
Made a commitment to learn more about a culture different from your own, through reading, study and listening?
Initiated or participated in at least one multicultural celebration or observation in your workplace?
Taken a positive action to include/reflect a minority culture in a work-related function?

I know, sometimes all this 'diversity' stuff can seem onerous, but think about it this way: The more you know about other cultures' celebrations, the more you can incorporate them into yours! (I myself like the Moon Festival and Chinese New Year - the food alone is worth it!)

IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING TIMESHEET DEADLINES

Tue, 15 Dec 2009, 00:00:00 EST 00:00:00 +0000

In order to ensure timely payment throughout the holiday season – please note the following timesheet deadlines.

For the pay period December 6 to 19, 2009, your pay will be deposited Thursday December 31, 2009. Timesheets must therefore be submitted no later than 5pm, Thursday, December 17, 2009. LATE SUBMISSIONS will be paid in the following run on Jan. 15th, 2010.

Please refer to the schedule for the remainder of the year on our microsite: Head2Head Contractors

Should you have any questions please email timesheets@head2head.ca

"Dear Sarah IV: Can I work with more than one recruiter at a time?"

Mon, 30 Nov 2009, 00:00:00 EST 00:00:00 +0000

A BIT OF HOUSEKEEPING: A number of readers in the past couple of weeks have asked if they can reprint/reproduce these "Dear Sarah" pieces for use with their own candidates. The answer: Yes, absolutely - as long as they are properly credited, with a link to this blog and my email address (sarah@head2head.ca). Dropping me a line to let me know you're using it would be great, too - I appreciate a good ego-stroke as much as the next person.

In the last "Dear Sarah" post, we talked about what happens when more than one recruiter submits your profile to a client, and how it can make everyone look bad.

But does that mean you should never work with more than one recruiter?

Well...no. But.

Some recruiters will tell you that unless you (as a job-seeker) work exclusively with them, they won't represent you or present you to clients.

Here's why: Good recruiters will tell you when they're submitting your profile to a client; the best recruiters will ask your permission in advance. But the not-so-great recruiters just submit lots of candidates to lots of clients and hope that something sticks.

At the same time, many clients will engage several recruiting agencies to fill a given role, so they're getting candidates submitted to them from multiple sources.

That means that your profile could currently be in front of a whole bunch of clients, and the new recruiter doesn't want to look like an idiot by submitting a profile of a candidate that their client saw 2 weeks ago from some other recruiter.

Going to 8 zillion different recruiters increases the chance of your profile being submitted to a particular client, and after a while it's not just the recruiter who looks like an idiot: Once a client has been given your profile from 4+ different recruiters over a couple of months, they start to wonder just how desperate/unemployable you really are.

However, putting all your eggs in one basket with one recruiter isn't wise, either, especially if you don't know how successful/connected that recruiter is in your field.

Some guidelines for working with more than one recruiter:

Be honest and up-front. If you're already working with a couple of recruiters, let the new recruiter know. If you know you've been submitted to an opportunity, tell them about it.
Depending on your career stage and profession, you probably shouldn't work with more than 5 recruiters at a time. (If you're quite junior and trying to get a foot in the door, it's probably okay to talk to a whole bunch of recruiters; if you're more senior and working in a field where 'word gets around', you probably shouldn't work with more than 2 or 3 recruiters at a time.)
A recruiter who refuses to work with you because you've spoken to another recruiter either thinks you're not a particularly good candidate ("I can't trust this person to tell me about the other positions s/he has been submitted to") or doesn't do his/her homework ("I just submit all my candidates to all kinds of clients - I can't be bothered to call you to double-check to see if you've already been submitted").

Either way, s/he probably isn't the best recruiter for you, anyway, so don't feel too badly about walking away.

(NB: There are exceptions to this, especially in industries in which the talent pool is very small and where there may be only a handful of qualified candidates for a given role. In these situations it's appropriate to work with a single recruiter.)
Try to build long-term relationships with a couple of recruiters who specialize in recruiting people in your field. A recruiter who's known you for 5+ years is more likely to 'sell you' into a potential employer than someone you just met yesterday.

Again, if you're a junior just into your first or second job, it's worthwhile to make the rounds of lots of recruiters - it'll help you get a feel for what's out there, who has the best opportunities, and who might be a great long-term contact. As you become more senior, you'll be able to leverage these long-term relationships to make your job search much easier - and more painless.

The View From Here: Recruiting in Canada (excerpt from CRL Journal)

Thu, 26 Nov 2009, 00:00:00 EST 00:00:00 +0000

While the Canadian economy has suffered less than that of the US in the past 18 months (and the recession was declared 'officially' over by June), almost 85% of Canadian organizations report they froze or reduced hiring plans throughout most of late 2008 and the first 9 months of 2009.

The result, for corporate recruiting professionals, was that after more than 2 years of steady increases (5-20% in 2007; 5-15% in 2008), recruiting salaries remained largely unchanged in 2009.

Average salaries for corporate recruiting professionals working in industries hardest hit by the recession, such as manufacturing and consumer goods, have declined by 2-5%, while salaries for those working in more 'recession-proof' industries, such as energy and utilities and healthcare, have seen similarly modest increases of 2-6%.

The biggest surprise? Recruiters working in the retail/leisure industry saw their average salaries increase by 5% - the top of the range, and equal to salary increases for healthcare recruiters. Canadian retailers had a better Q4 2008 than anticipated, so they maintained hiring levels well into 2009. But the economic uncertainty drove them to become increasingly strategic about their recruiting efforts, which meant they were prepared to pay a premium for recruiting professionals with specific retail experience.

For more on the Canadian recruiting industry - and how recruiting salaries have changed in the past year - read more in the December 2009/January 2010 issue of the Journal of Corporate Recruiting Leadership, out now.

And look for Head2Head's 2010 Recruiting Salary Report, released in late December, with full details on recruiting salaries for all recruiting roles, across all industry groups, in Canada!

"Dear Sarah III: What's the difference between a 'headhunter' and a 'recruiter'?" Recruiting lexicon tips for job-seekers.

Sun, 22 Nov 2009, 00:00:00 EST 00:00:00 +0000

A BIT OF HOUSEKEEPING: A number of readers have asked if they can reprint/reproduce these "Dear Sarah" pieces for use with their own candidates. The answer: Yes, absolutely - as long as they are properly credited, with a link to this blog and my email address (sarah@head2head.ca). Dropping me a line to let me know you're using it would be great, too - I appreciate a good ego-stroke as much as the next person.

Note to recruiters (job-seekers, just scroll down to the next bolded heading!)

This week, Jeff Lipschultz and I were guests on Daisy Wright's Blog Talk Radio show.

At first I wondered how we'd fill in a whole hour, but I needn't have worried: As I said in the first "Dear Sarah" post, those of us who work in recruiting - and spend most of our time talking about, thinking about, and writing about recruiting - would do well to remember that for the average person, recruiting is something they only think about once every few years. Information that we think of as common knowledge - and therefore not worth even talking about - is definitely not common knowledge for the average person.

(Speaking with Jeff after the show, we agreed the lack of recruiting knowledge is particularly evident in Gen Ys, even among the best-and-brightest. Given that Jeff's in Dallas and I'm in Toronto, I wonder how many A-listers North American recruiters are missing out on, simply because these candidates don't know how to get our attention.)

If you're a job-seeker - or a recruiter/hiring manager who frequently interacts with candidates who are new to working with recruiters - you might want to send them a link to the podcast of the show.

HALF THE BATTLE IS LEARNING THE LINGO

The first question in the show was about the difference between a 'headhunter' and a 'recruiter' - and in fact it's a question I get probably once a week. Like any other profession, recruiting has its own lexicon that isn't necessarily well understood by the average job-seeker.

So below, you'll find explanations for some of the most common recruiting terms. It's definitely not exhaustive, but it's a good start. (Remember: Being familiar with the terminology tells recruiters that you've done your homework and 'get it'.)

What's the difference between a 'recruiter' and a 'headhunter'?

The short answer is: Nothing. The only reason anyone gets confused is that recruiters never use the word 'headhunter' to describe themselves, and among recruitment professionals it's considered a slightly derogatory term. (It's sort of how real estate peole always call themselves 'real estate salesperson' or 'realtor', but the rest of the world calls them 'real estate agents'.)

However, while all headhunters are recruiters, not all recruiters are headhunters. 'Headhunter' is a term used to refer to agency recruiters, who typically work on commission or retained search on behalf of a client, and are the ones most likely to call you up at your current job to 'headhunt' you for another position.

'Recruiter', on the other hand, is used to describe anyone who recruits candidates. This includes headhunters, but also includes corporate recruiters who work within organizations, are less likely to 'headhunt' candidates, and who are more involved in recruitment strategy.

When do I go from being a 'job-seeker' to a 'candidate'?

Recruiters use the term 'candidate' to refer to any person who may be a potential applicant, interviewee, or hire. Like 'headhunter', 'job-seeker' or 'job-hunter' aren't terms recruiters use very often. (Personally, I've always wondered why they don't use those terms, but so far no one's explained it to me.)

Here are some of the most common ways in which you'll see yourself described as a candidate:

Potential candidate:
This is any person who is part of the talent pool for a given role and/or meets the parameters (of skills/experience/geographical location/education, etc.) for that role, whether or not they are interested in or have applied to particular job.

For example, a job board may say it has "30,000 potential candidates" in accounting. What that means is there are 30,000 people registered in their database who have indicated 'accounting' as part of their skills/experience, and who may be interested in an accounting-related role.

Passive candidate:
'Passive candidates' are people who aren't actively looking for a new job, but who may be interested in making a move if the right opportunity came along.

Among recruiters looking to fill intermediate and senior roles, passive candidates are considered the most valuable, because they tend to be high-performing achievers who are too busy making a contribution to, and moving up within, their current organization to become sufficiently dissatisfied to embark on an active job search.

(When you hear recruiters talk about using social media for recruiting, it's usually about using social media to establish and maintain long-term relationships with passive candidates. A-list overachievers, especially at the Director-level and above, aren't likely to respond to some recruiter who calls them out of the blue to try to sell them on a new job; it may take months of 'wooing' the passive candidate to get them interested in considering a move.)

Pre-screened candidate:
The process of going from "5000 applications" to "a short-list of the top candidates" as the 'screening process'.

Depending on the role and number of applicants, there may be several stages to the screening process, including 'paper screen' (a review of all the resumes/applications, discarding any that are obviously unsuitable or incorrect); 'phone screen' (the recruiter makes a 5-minute phone call to the candidates who passed the paper screen, and again discards any who are obviously unsuitable); 'detailed phone screen' (a second phone call, longer and more detailed). At each screening stage, the candidate pool is whittled down.

A pre-screened candidate refers to an applicant who has passed one or more screening stages.

Submitted to client:
Once the screening process is complete, the recruiter will submit a shortlist of the top candidates to the client (i.e. the potential employer) so that they can select the ones they'd like to interview.

What that submission contains depends on the client: Some clients want to see a brief summary of 10+ different candidates; others want more detailed info on just the top 3 candidates. Depending on the relationship between the recruiter and his/her client, your name may be included with your profile, or it may be hidden.

This is why recruiters always ask you if you're working with another recruiter, and, if so, to whom that recruiter has already submitted your profile. Employers often engage more than one recruiting agency to fill a given role; when two or more recruiters submit the profile of the same candidate, it makes everyone - including you - look bad.

It can be even more sticky if the client ends up hiring you. Remember, recruiters get paid only when the employer makes a hire. If two or more recruiters submit you, either one of them goes unpaid, or they have to split the commission. Either way, the recruiters are going to be cheesed off, and won't be in a hurry to take your call the next time you're looking for a job.

Have a recruiting-related lexicon question?

Send it to sarah@head2head.ca.

Head2Head on the radio: Tips for job-seekers about working with recruiters

Wed, 18 Nov 2009, 00:00:00 EST 00:00:00 +0000

The more you know about working with recruiters, the more successful your job search will be.

Today, Sarah Welstead, the Director, User Experience at Head2Head was a panelist on Career Coach Daisy Wright's radio show for jobseekers.

We answered questions from real job-seekers about how to get the most out of working with recruiters.

Click here to listen to the show!

"Dear Sarah: Who pays recruiters and how do I get one?"

Tue, 17 Nov 2009, 00:00:00 EST 00:00:00 +0000

Think this blog post is 100% wrong?
Tell me why on the "I totally disagree with Sarah" page.

If you're new to the job market - and even if you're not - your biggest source of confusion about recruiters (aka 'headhunters') is probably a simple one: Who the heck pays them?

(Yes, if you're a recruiter here on ERE, you - presumably - know all about headhunters and how they get paid. But as I explained in the first "Dear Sarah" post, this series was created so that the next time you get a question from a non-recruiting friend or relation, you can just send them this link rather than having to spend too much time explaining.)

First, a word on lexicon: Though you and your friends may talk about 'headhunters' - i.e. the people who call you and try to sell you on a Fabulous New Job Opportunity - that's not a word used by headhunters themselves. It's sort of like how real estate salespeople never call themselves real estate 'agents', even though the rest of the world does.

There's a fair amount of recruiting-industry lexicon with which you may not be familiar, actually. The more you know about the lexicon, the more 'in the know' you'll seem to recruiters, so I've provided brief descriptions below.

Anyway, it's the client - i.e. the company who makes the hire - who pays the recruiter, not the job-seeker.

Here's how it (typically) works:

The client decides they need to fill a position (also called a 'role')
They send their requirements (also called a 'job requisition' or 'job req') to a recruiting agency. In most cases, the client will send their job reqs to more than one agency at a time
The job requisition will be assigned to one or more recruiters, who will then look through their database, make calls to their network of contacts, and/or search online to find potential candidates. It's at this stage that they might call or email you to see if you're (a) interested and/or (b) meet the skills/experience parameters of the position
If they think you're a good potential candidate, the recruiter may arrange to interview you
If the interview with the recruiter goes well, s/he will send your profile (which could include your resume, a summary of your strengths/weaknesses, and recommendations) to the client
The client is likely receiving profiles of potential candidates from several other recruiting agencies at the same time
The client reviews your information. If they think you might be a good fit, they tell the recruiter to schedule an interview with you
When the client makes a hire, they pay the recruiting agency a fee. This fee is typically 16-20% of the new hire's annual salary
The client pays the fee only to the recruiting agency who sent the successful candidate (i.e. the one who got hired). The other recruiting agencies receive nothing.

This is called contingency fee-based recruiting, because the fee is contingent upon a hire being made.

(There are other recruiting models, and fees can vary - such as much lower fees for junior/high volume roles and higher fees for very senior/executive roles - but this is the basic contingency model and the one you're most likely to encounter if you're working with a recruiting agency.)

Typically, recruiters are paid a base salary by the agency they work for, plus a commission based on the contingency fees they generate for the agency. So when you're hired through an agency, the recruiter you've been working with gets a piece of the 20% of your starting annual salary that the client pays to the agency.

I know it sounds like a lot of money - if your starting salary is, say, $60k, then the client pays $12,000 for the privilege of hiring you - but keep in mind that a typical agency recruiter will interview 25+ candidates per week, but only a handful of them will ultimately be hired.

So how do I connect with a recruiter?

Well, this is a big topic and one we'll revisit in future posts, but the first step is to do some research to find out which recruiting agencies specialize in your profession/field/industry. Though some larger recruiting agencies recruit for all positions, you'll do better if you hook up with a recruiting agency - or even a recruiter - which specializes in one or two fields/roles, such as IT positions, supply chain positions or clerical positions.

However, just Googling may not be enough here. For example, if you look at the website of Canadian recruiting company Mandrake Management Consultants, you wouldn't know that they've long had a specialty in recruiting for advertising/marketing jobs - but they do. So your best bet is to ask around: Ask friends and colleagues which recruiting agencies they've worked with recently, and which ones specialized in your field.

While you're at it, ask your friends/colleagues for the names (and contact info!) of the recruiter(s) they've worked with. There's nothing more pointless - and more guaranteed to generate rejection - than randomly calling recruitment agencies and asking to speak to 'anyone'. Recruiting agencies get hundreds, if not thousands, of unsolicited calls and emails every day - they're very good at screening. Getting the direct email/phone number of a specific person, and being able to reference someone they've successfully placed, will put you miles ahead.

BONUS TIP: When you're asking your friends and colleagues for referrals to recruiters, don't specify that you want the names of recruiters they liked; ask for the names of the recruiters who seemed to have jobs. Because you don't have to like the recruiter, as long as they can actually connect you to great opportunities.

"Dear Sarah: Recruiters are driving me nuts. What should I do?"

Sat, 14 Nov 2009, 00:00:00 EST 00:00:00 +0000

Think this blog post is 100% wrong?
Tell me why on the "I totally disagree with Sarah" page.

Because I've worked in the recruiting industry for a while now, but am not actually a recruiter myself, scarcely a week goes by that I don't get an email from someone - a friend-of-a-friend, a spouse-of-a-friend, a child-of-a-friend - telling me that they're having unsatisfactory interactions with recruiters, and asking what they should do about it.

The fundamental problem, of course - outside of the current economy, which is making job hunting tougher for everyone - is simply that most job-seekers don't really understand the recruiting process.

(I know I'm not alone here: If you've worked in recruiting or HR for more than 5 minutes, you get emails like this, too.)

It doesn't mean the people sending the emails are dumb, either. (Ask 10 of your smartest friends - even ones who've been in the workforce for 10+ years - and I guarantee that at least 7 of them will have only the haziest notion of how 'headhunters' and contingency fees work.) They just need a little education on how to work with recruiters.

But there are only so many hours in a day - who has time to conduct personalized Working With Recruiters 101 courses tutorials every time your father's best-friend-from-highschool's kid's cousin sends you a desperate email?

(Actually, I shouldn't be so glib, because it's sometimes heartbreaking. In contrast to the infamous Egregiously Bad Candidates, I know many of these email writers are good people, and hard workers who bring valuable skills and experience to the table. And even the best of us start to get a little desperate round about Week 8 of a job search.)

Welcome to the 'Dear Sarah' series!

...in which we offer advice, tips and general how-to-ish-ness to job-seekers who want to have more satisfactory interactions with recruiters.

So the next time you get a desperate email from a friend-of-a-friend, just send them here!

(All the questions here are from actual emails I've received in the past 6 months.)

FIRST QUESTION:
"Dear Sarah:

I have been dealing with a couple of recruiters recently and I wanted your opinion.

In one case, the interview went really well and I was told that I would hear back within 1 to 3 days. It was 4 weeks before I heard anything back and the recruiter said that they planned to make an offer, but were working out details. The last contact I had with him was in August and I interviewed in July. I've been calling once a month since then, but he's not taking my calls so I leave voicemails asking him to give me a call. Is it worth keeping up with that? Or is he not calling me back for a reason?"

When interviews go well (and it must have, if the recruiter started to talk about offers) but then you don't hear anything, one of two things has happened:

The employer changed their mind/plan/requirements and didn't hire anyone in the end
The job was filled by a candidate from another recruiting agency, and the recruiter doesn't want to tell you that

This one sounds like a classic case of #1. In this economy, employers are wary of making new hires so they take ages to make decisions - and sometimes that decision is that they don't need to fill a role after all.

It's entirely possible that the employer has kept the recruiter dangling since July, too.

Yes, the recruiter should have followed up with you, even to tell you he hadn't heard anything. (But you can take some comfort in the fact that in another couple of years, when the talent crisis really heats up, recruiters who don't build long-term relationships with candidates are going to find they don't have any candidates!)

In the meantime, don't waste any more time calling this recruiter. You can bet he'll find you pretty darn quick if/when the employer is ready to make an offer - and you can spend your time seeking out other opportunities.

Head2Head Partners With Talent Oyster!

Fri, 06 Nov 2009, 00:00:00 EST 00:00:00 +0000

As the talent crisis heats up again, tapping into diverse talent pools is crucial to winning the war for top talent. This is particularly true for Canada, which has one of the most diverse populations in the world.

Thanks to "Talent Oyster", tapping into these candidates just got a lot easier.

Talent Oyster is the first job board + online community to be launched simultaneously in 10 languages (including Arabic, Punjabi, Mandarin and Tagalog). It helps diverse Canadians connect with potential employers and resources in their communities, and connects employers with the skills, knowledge and experience this group represents.

So we're very excited to announce that Head2Head is partnering with Talent Oyster to deliver recruiting solutions designed to help organizations improve their diversity recruiting programs.

Talent Oyster doesn't officially launch until later this year, but in the meantime check out the "Early Adopters Program"!

(For more information about how Head2Head and Talent Oyster can help your organization improve your diversity recruiting programs, call Kim Benedict, Director Sales and Operations, at 416.440.2057.)

So you want to switch from 'agency' to 'corporate' recruiting? 7 tips to make it easier.

Wed, 04 Nov 2009, 00:00:00 EST 00:00:00 +0000

Another fantastic guest blog by Maureen Carroll, Manager of Recruiting at Head2Head!

Since Head2Head places more recruiters, with more organizations, than anyone else in Canada, we're often asked for advice on how to move from agency (i.e. full desk, contingency-fee) recruiting to corporate (i.e. working in-house for a client as an employee or on contract) recruiting. This week, Maureen - who's been recruiting recruiters for almost 10 years now - offers her insights about how to make the switch.

So you want to be a corporate recruiter...

Anyone who's ever worked in a recruiting agency will tell you that agency recruiting can be exciting, action-packed, lucrative - and a whole lot of fun. But it's also unpredictable, highly sales-oriented, and transactional. So we hear from a lot of agency recruiters who are thinking about making a move 'client-side', where they'll get more experience with long-term strategic recruiting programs.

However, recruiters who have spent several years working in an agency environment may find it difficult to make the move to corporate - they may find themselves perceived as fast-talking 'salesmen' who are more focused on putting 'bums in seats' rather than building strategic recruiting solutions.

How can you overcome the stereotypes and demonstrate you'd make a great corporate recruiter?

These 7 tips will go a long way towards impressing a potential employer that you're ready to make the move to corporate recruiting:

Think - and speak! - like a corporate recruiter
Corporate recruiting has a different lexicon than agency recruiting, and using the right terminology demonstrates that you know the difference. For example, don't talk about 'fills' or 'fill rates' - those aren't internal terms. Instead, talk about 'hires'. This indicates you know that corporate recruiting is less about meeting numbers and more about getting the right people.
Be focused
Most organizations with strong recruiting functions - i.e. the kinds of organizations you'd most like to work as a corporate recruiter - are looking for recruiting specialists in specific areas most relevant to their business. You'll have better success if you position yourself as an expert in one or two key areas. (This is where a little research can go a long way: If you can speak to the organization's most pressing recruitment challenges, you're sending a message that you understand how recruiting can deliver against the organization's business goals.)
Demonstrate you can work with internal clients
A big factor in the success of any corporate recruiter is how well they work with 'internal clients'. In other words, how well they work with managers from other departments when they engage the recruitment department to fill a role.

As an agency recruiter, it's important to have ready examples of working directly with line managers - especially managers outside of HR. Evidence that you can successfully build long-term relationships with a variety of stakeholders, even if they know little or nothing about recruiting, is a good way to demonstrate you can make the transition from agency to corporate recruiting.
Gain experience with full-lifecycle recruiting
Most corporate recruiting is full-lifecycle, from identifying and articulating the opportunity, through to sourcing, making the offer, doing the paperwork, and even onboarding.

While you're working in an agency environment, try to work on a project that will allow you to manage full-lifecycle recruiting - including the administration!
Build relationships with candidates
For 99% of organizations, building positive, long-term relationships with candidates is one of their Top 3 priorities. And let's face it: One of the reasons agency recruiters get a bad rep is the perception that agency recruiters only call candidates when they need them, don't follow up, and don't respond to applications.

So you need to highlight your commitment to building candidate relationships. Talk about candidates with whom you've kept in touch over time, before and after you've placed them; speak to the fact that your network thrives on the referrals you get as a result of long-term relationship-building; indicate that you've participated in industry events; point out your participation in relevant LinkedIn groups, etc.

(One good example we heard recently from an agency recruiter in an interview for a corporate recruiting position: "Since 2007, I have used autoresponder emails for my job postings, to ensure that every candidate who applies receives an immediate acknowledgment. Every time I send a candidate to an interview, I call them to follow up within 24 hours. I call or email every active candidate in my network at least once a month, and call or email the inactive ones at least once every 6 months."
Then she produced the Excel spreadsheet to prove it!

And yes - she got the job.)
Get some training in Behavioural Interviewing
Being able to accurately, reliably assess candidates is crucial for corporate recruiters, so being able to demonstrate you understand and have experience with behavioural interviewing is one of the most important factors in making the switch from agency.

Having some formal training in BBI is best, but if that's not possible, there are plenty of online resources to consult, and you could start using BBI techniques in your current interviews. That demonstrates you know how important BBI is in a corporate recruiting setting.
Don't dwell on your sales skills
As a full-desk agency recruiter, great sales skills are a big advantage. In a corporate recruiting setting, they'll only make you look like the fast-talking, annoying Ari Gold type who confirms all their worst fears about agency recruiters.

Go ahead and speak to your ability to deliver results - but focus on the results most relevant to organizations: Improving quality of hire, reducing time-to-hire, and making recruiting budgets work more efficiently.

HOW TO ACE THE INTERVIEW: Guest blog

Fri, 16 Oct 2009, 00:00:00 EST 00:00:00 +0000

Editor's note: As you know, from time to time we spotlight guest bloggers. This week we're featuring a team of 3 new Head2Head-ites:

Emma Scott, Senior Client Relationship Manager

Matt Moloney, Senior Client Relationship Manager, IT

Sachin Sama, Business Development Specialist

As recent interviewees themselves, Emma, Matt and Sachin have some helpful words of advice for candidates. I know ERE isn't really for candidates, but you'd be surprised how many of them hang out here looking for tips...

ACING THE INTERVIEW:
Interviewing tips by Emma Scott, Matt Moloney and Sachin Sama

As newbies here at Head2Head, one of the things we found ourselves discussing was the fact that no matter how old - or how successful - you get, you can still remember that cringe-inducing interview for which you didn't properly prepare, had the wrong information, went off into a digression about model airplanes that left the interviewers goggle-eyed looking at their watches...

But it doesn't have to happen to you!

Following, some tips to ensure you ace the interview:

RESEARCH, RESEARCH, RESEARCH: We've put this in all caps because it's the most important thing you can do to ensure you have a great interview. Make sure you know as much as possible about the company, the individuals you'll be meeting with, the type of role you're interviewing for. The internet is your best friend here, of course, but it never hurts to ask around, too. You never know who you know who might know not-so-public info.

Try to find out who you'll be meeting with, their titles, and how they would interact with you in the role if you were to get the job. This isn't always possible, especially if you're interviewing for junior roles, but there's nothing wrong with calling the recruiter or hiring manager back to 'double-confirm' names. Then let your fingers do the walking right on over to Google, LinkedIn and Twitter to see what you can glean about them. Remember, everyone likes to be flattered: It never hurts to be able to mention a blog or article they wrote, a funny tweet they twittered...and it shows you're a keener.

Bring a copy of your CV - and, ideally, copies for yourself (to refer to) and for the people interviewing you.

Ensure you know your resume inside-out - if you look like you've forgotten bits, or can't account for gaps ("I went to Europe for 6 months, I took some time off to go to school..."), you run the risk of looking like you're not being truthful - which is an interview-killer.

Dress one level up. In other words: Dress for what you want to be, not for what you are. Even in this age of flip-flops, it's always better to be overdressed than underdressed.

When you're asked for real-life examples from previous positions, remember to include your whole career. Many people, when asked for examples of projects, situations, challenges, etc., focus on their current or immediately previous position. If you accomplished something great 2 positions ago, include it! (It's always a good idea to think of these success stories in advance, by the way, so they're top-of-mind in the interview.)

Make sure you understand the question - and the competency they're looking for. The questions you're being asked are designed to elicit information about your competencies, so take a moment to figure out what they're trying to get at - and how you can best answer it.

Use the STAR formula to answer questions concisely and completely. STAR = Situation, Task, Action, Result. The biggest mistake interviewees make? They talk about a situation and what they did - but forget to talk about the result they achieved. It's the most crucial part of the STAR formula - especially in this market when everyone is looking for people who are going to deliver real results to their organization - but the one most often left out. (Wouldn't hurt to practice your STAR stories with a friend before the interview, either!)

Make a list of the questions you want to ask - if you've done your research, you should have a number of questions about the organization and/or the role. Write the questions down - you probably don't want to pull out a sweaty piece of notepaper in your interview, of course, but writing them down will help you remember them when you're 'in the room'. Keep in mind: We've seen people turned down for roles simply because they had no questions for the interviewers. The reason? "How can they make day-to-day decisions without asking for more information?"

Be positive! Even if you hated your last job/boss/everything about every day at work, don't talk about it. How you handled your last position, good or bad, and how you speak about it now gives the interviewer insight into how you will speak about him/her and their organization when you leave. (This is a big one in fields like IT where the turnover rates are 2.5 years - or less - per role.)

Know your audience. Using jargon or acronyms when you're talking to the HR gatekeeper isn't going to make you look like you're an expert - it's just going to make you look like you can't communicate appropriately. The person you'll report to, heads of departments and business stakeholders will all expect a slightly different vocabulary; using it will demonstrate you can communicate across the organization.

At the end of the interview, make sure you ask when you can expect to hear from them and/or what the next stage will be. This will allow you to gauge interest and timelines - and without it, you won't be able to judge how to approach other opportunities.

The employment market - at least in Canada - is getting a little better, but organizations are still looking for individuals who will hit the ground running and deliver results. And you'd be surprised: A great interview can ensure that, when you're hired, you enjoy a fantastic honeymoon period, too...

HR Business Partner, Dartmouth

Thu, 15 Oct 2009, 00:00:00 EST 00:00:00 +0000

We're looking for an HR Business Partner for a client in Dartmouth (near Halifax), Nova Scotia. Know someone, or are interested yourself? Email Maureen Carroll at maureen@head2head.ca.

Remember, referring someone could earn you a $250 VISA gift card!

RESISTANCE IS FERTILE, Part 2: Can bad writing ruin your personal brand?

Tue, 13 Oct 2009, 00:00:00 EST 00:00:00 +0000

In this Era of Social Media, the written word is more important than ever.

Part II of our 2-part series. Click here to read Part I.

PART II: Social media, personal branding, and yes people really do notice

For all the Chicken Littles who lament that our kids are being made stupid by the internet, the truth is that the average person today is reading and writing a whole lot more than ever before, both online and off.

Thanks to Oprah, we're reading more books; thanks to email, we're writing more letters; thanks to social media, we're reading and writing more words - blogs, status updates, online comments, forum discussions, text messages, chat rooms, MMPORGs - than we ever have.

Has text messaging and microblogging had an effect on language? Sure - 20 years ago no one had heard of the term 'LOL'. Have some of those effects become a little annoying? Sure - see 'LOL'. Is there a whole lexicon being used by the younger generation ("Plz fone me l8r 2 C if we R goin 2nite") that is both annoying and incomprehensible to those of us over 35? Sure - but they said the same thing about the Beat Generation 50 years ago; now we think Jack Kerouac was some kind of visionary who transformed the modern novel.

There isn't some Platonic 'ideal English language' sitting out there in stasis. Language evolves, and the 'correct' usage isn't about 'what we used to do when I was in school' but 'what the majority of users agree is most effective in communicating what they want to communicate.'

However.

The question is: Does this mean you can continue to spell 'commitment' with three Ts, use 'discreet' when you mean 'discrete', and be oblivious to the difference between 'renumeration' and 'remuneration'?

(Or, to put it another way: Would you pay money to send your kid to a Montessori school that had this many spelling mistakes on the homepage alone?)

YOU'RE DOING A LOT MORE WRITING THAN YOU THINK

We're all creating more content than ever: Technorati's 2008 State of the Blogosphere report says that there are more than 900,000 new blog posts created every 24 hours http://technorati.com/blogging/state-of-the-blogosphere/ . That's almost a million blog posts every single day.

You may not realize it, but even if you're not blogging, you're still doing more writing than you did 5 years ago: You're sending emails instead of having meetings; you're texting your friends instead of phoning them; and you're updating your Facebook/LinkedIn/Twitter status instead of going to networking events.

What's more, you're reaching more eyeballs every time you do: Emails get forwarded; texting is faster than phoning so you keep in touch with more people.

Your status updates alone are probably delivering 2000 'impressions' (as they say in media planning and buying) per day (assuming you have 200 Facebook friends, 300 LinkedIn contacts, and a modest 500 Twitter followers, and that you update your status twice a day, you're reaching 1000 eyeballs x 2 messages = 2000 impressions).

Do you still think no one will notice that you don't know when to use an apostrophe? More importantly, what happens to your personal brand when 1000 people are seeing your spelling and grammar mistakes every day?

CONSCIOUSLY OR UNCONSCIOUSLY, BAD WRITING CREATES BAD EXPERIENCES

We know that people read differently online than offline - we're more likely to skim online text, and formatting (bolding, bullet points, whitespace, etc.) makes a huge difference in how well we can absorb what we're reading on a screen.

(My blogs, for example, aren't ideal - they're too long, the paragraphs contain too many sentences, and I don't use nearly enough headings. However, I try to make up for it withclever use of whitespace!)

Studies on reading for pleasure - known as 'ludic reading' (PDF) - have demonstrated that when we read well-written text, reading becomes like an "effortless trance": we read more slowly, skim less, and absorb more information.

When we encounter typos, spelling mistakes, grammar mistakes, awkward sentence construction or weird formatting, however, our minds are sort of 'jolted', impeding or interrupting the 'effortless trance'.

For the Group #1 people (the spelling and grammar fanatics like me), the 'jolt' registers consciously and we're aware of being annoyed by it. What's interesting is that the jolt is also registering with the Group #2 people (the 85% of the population who don't freak out over spelling mistakes) - subconsciously. They don't engage with the material, they do more skimming, and are more likely to abandon the article/piece before finishing it. Most importantly, they come away feeling that what they've read isn't credible and that it hasn't delivered a positive experience.

In other words, it all comes back to user experience!

So let us sum up with some handy equations:

Bad writing leads to

Lack of credibility + bad experiences = lack of brand equity

RESULT: You work harder for less revenue

Good writing leads to

Enhanced credibility + positive experiences = brand equity

RESULT: More revenue for less work

Want to learn more about how to write better? Start here.

RESISTANCE IS FERTILE, Part 1: Can bad writing ruin your personal brand?

Mon, 12 Oct 2009, 00:00:00 EST 00:00:00 +0000

In this Era of Social Media, the written word is more important than ever.

Special two-part series!

PART I: On old English, etymology, and annoying co-workers

The world, it seems, is divided into two groups:

Those who think spelling (and grammar, and good sentence structure) counts and are a little fanatical about it
Those who think the people in Group #1 need to calm down, because it's not, like, life-threatening or anything

Anyone who's ever read one of my blog posts - or been the victim of one of my late-night Proustian emails - knows which group I belong to. I'm the annoying co-worker who gives you lectures on correct apostrophe use, criticizes your PowerPoint slides because you didn't use parallel sentence structure, and tries to impose an office-wide ban on Dan Brown novels on the basis that reading them will drive down the average IQ of our employees.

As I've gotten older - and, perhaps, more fatalistic - I've tried to curb my tendencies in this direction. As Stephen Fry points out in his excellent podcast, Language, no language is static: It's constantly evolving, and it's common usage, not rulebooks, which define meaning. The crochety old woman ranting about how 'prioritize' isn't a real word (because it didn't exist until c. 1978) isn't demonstrating superior intellect; she's only revealing herself to be hidebound, resistant to change, and ignorant of how language actually works.

[CLICK HERE for an interesting sidebar about the evolution of language among all creatures.]

[CLICK HERE for a sidebar on Old English proununciation and the move from an oral to written tradition.]

The 13th-century poem, 'Sumer is Acumen In', is a great example of how language changes dramatically over time. One of the first recorded poems in 'English', it looks almost like a foreign language to us now.

However, technologic advances - from the invention of the printing press to the rise of the internet - mean that more people are communicating more information across more channels than ever before. If we hope to be able to understand each other, some formal structure must be imposed.

Just as money only works if we all agree that this piece of paper represents X value, language only works if we all agree that X symbol or X combination of letters means the same thing to both of us.

THE SAME 5 WORDS CAN DELIVER 5 DIFFERENT MESSAGES
Take, for example, the following sentences. Same words; different punctuation - and the meaning changes dramatically:

(a) He eats, shoots and leaves.

(b) He eats shoots and leaves.

(d) He eats; shoots; leaves.

(e) Heats, shoots and leaves.

In (a), our subject ('he') performs 3 actions (eating, shooting, leaving).

In (b), our subject performs one action (eating) on two nouns (shoots and leaves).

In (c), our subject performs 2 actions (eating, shooting) in succession, then suddenly performs a third (leaving).

In (d), our subject performs 3 actions (eating, shooting, leaving) in succession, completing each one, then pausing before moving on to the next.

In (e), a minor typo causes us to lose our subject entirely while adding a new action (heating).

In other words: The placement of a single comma can completely change the meaning of a sentence. The use of more sophisticated punctuation - like semi-colons - delivers a more nuanced text. In an era where we're more often communicating in writing with people we'll never meet, both meaning and nuance are more important than ever.

And that's why spelling and grammar are important.

Click here to read Part 2, which demonstrates the link between bad writing, bad experiences - and bad branding.

WEBINAR: Twitter 101 for Recruiting

Fri, 02 Oct 2009, 00:00:00 EST 00:00:00 +0000

COMPLIMENTARY WEBINAR!

Due to popular demand we're doing an encore webinar for Twitter 101: Does it work for recruiting?

Please join us for this complimentary webinar! Topics We Will Cover:

•Twitter 101 – From setting up an account to growing your network of followers
•Twitter recruiting success stories from the real world
•How social networking can play an active role in your recruitment process

Space is limited.

Reserve your Webinar seat now at:
Twitter 101.

Dear Candidate: This is why you didn't get the job

Wed, 23 Sep 2009, 00:00:00 EST 00:00:00 +0000

As you know, Mike Stearns, the MyHusbandNeedsAJob.com guy, sent me an email in response to my blog posts about him. He wasn't particularly happy about the posts, of course - he used words like "angry", "presumptuous", "outlandish and unfair" and capped it with the popular accusatory "people like you" statement.

48 hours later, the original MyHusbandNeedsAJob.com site turned into a blog, ostensibly so that Mike can capitalize on the traffic his site has generated to create a community of job-seekers. However, never one to run when he can walk, Mike hasn't yet actually populated the site with any content other than the introductory paragraph.

The whole thing got me thinking.

I initially followed Mike's story because I thought it was kind of interesting - sure, it was a gimmick, but in terms of personal branding, it was a good try. As time went on and Mike still didn't seem to have a job, I kind of felt sorry for him: It's gotta suck when you get all kinds of media attention but it doesn't actually deliver the results you want.

But I'm not feeling so sorry for him any more. And I'm thinking that fellow ERE member Matt Cheek had it right when he wrote "Some people find ways to stay unemployed...." in response to my post.

Do job-seekers like Mike really know how they're sabotaging themselves? Do they even realize they're doing it?

I suppose the real answers to these questions are more the purview of my sister, the therapist, than me. For those chronic job-seekers disinclined to months of therapy, however, I offer the following helpful insights:

WHY YOU'RE STILL UNEMPLOYED

You're a little delusional about the message you're sending
One of the most telling comments Mike made in his email to me was "You know nothing of how or why I came up with the idea and set up the site."

Um...what? Have you seen the homepage of your website? It says how and why you and your wife came up with the site. WHY: "This site was born out of frustration with the job market." HOW: "I decided to take matters into my own hands and help him stand out in a sea of unemployed."

This defensive disconnect is probably the #1 problem among chronically unsuccessful job-seekers, who seem to think that potential employers should be telepaths or transformational grammarians . You're right that recruiters and potential employers don't know you: At the initial contact stage, all they've got to go on are the messages you're sending them (resume, cover letter, website, whatever).

Which leads us to #2...

You're blaming the wrong people
If, say, Nike makes a tv commercial for running shoes that leaves me with the impression that their shoes are overpriced and unappealing, Nike doesn't blame me for not buying the shoes. They go back to the drawing board to try to come up with an ad that communicates their message (that their shoes are well-priced and appealing) more effectively.

If your resume - or website, for that matter - is giving your target audience (i.e. recruiters, employers) the wrong impression, stop blaming the target audience. Go change the message.

You're not being objective about yourself
Anyone who's ever said "But seriously, do I really look like that?" after seeing a particularly bad photo of themselves knows that achieving true objectivity about oneself is about as attainable as finding the magical ferry boat to Avalon.

But that's what friends are for: Get them to take a look at your resume, cover letter - even your interview outfit - and give you some honest feedback. Then, for good measure, ask someone who doesn't know you for their feedback, too. There's a reason that advertisers like Nike use focus groups to avoid issues like #2, above.

Sure, even constructive criticism can sting. But the soothing balm of employment is remarkably effective at taking away the pain.

BONUS TIP: If one person gives you 'negative' feedback that you don't agree with, you can probably ignore it as the ravings of a madman. If, on the other hand, 12 people say the same thing, you might want to at leastconsider revising your approach.

You're taking it too personally
One of the comments Mike made in his email was that I was being "outlandish and unfair" to "judge" him without "ever having met [me]."

Um...what? As a job-seeker, everything you put out there in the course of your job search - resume, email, voicemail, or, in Mike's case, a website - is an advertisement for you and your services. Employers and recruiters use these 'advertisements' to make judgements about who to contact for an interview. In fact, if they weren't using them to make judgements, there'd be no need for them - because everyone would get an interview.

BONUS TIP: You may be surprised to learn that recruiters and hiring managers are not, in fact, soulless evil automatons whose only goal is to make you feel like an unemployable halfwit. They're just busy.

Recruiters are better than dogs at reading non-verbal cues
Remember the candidate whose nail-biting made recruiters reluctant to present her to the client, even though she was smart, articulate, and well-qualified?

It's not just about the content of your resume or the actual words you say in an interview. Great recruiters have an almost uncanny ability to make accurate assessments based on little details that may not even occur to you: Phone the recruiter even though the job ad specifically says 'no phone calls'? You're demonstrating that you think rules don't apply to you or you can't follow directions. Screaming baby in the background while you're doing a pre-scheduled phone interview? You're demonstrating you're not all that interested in the job on offer - because if you were, you'd have found someone to look after the baby for an hour.

Here's another little thought to leave you with: Ever noticed that the people you'd most like to be friends with - i.e. the ones who aren't delusional, prone to blaming others, have a sense of humour about themselves, don't take everything so personally, and just have a good 'vibe' about them - are the ones least likely to be unemployed for any length of time?

Just saying.

We're looking for great HR professionals!

Tue, 22 Sep 2009, 00:00:00 EST 00:00:00 +0000

If you're an HR professional, have we got a job for you!

Here are just some of the opportunities for HR specialists and generalists we're currently recruiting for:

HR Business Partners:
Education industry, downtown Toronto,up to $80k
Insurance industry, Waterloo, up to $80k

AVP Shared Service
Retail industry
Downtown Toronto
up to $150k

Director of HR
Healthcare business services industry
Niagara-on-the-Lake
up to $120k

Director of Disability and Wellness
Retail industry
Mississauga
up to $75k

Senior HR Consultant
Mechanical/electrical home services industry
Scarborough
up to $75k plus bonus

For more information or to apply for any of these positions, CLICK HERE.

SMARTREWARDS: Refer a friend and you could receive $250!

Know someone who'd be perfect for one of these positions? Refer them to us and you could receive a VISA gift card worth $250.

Learn more about the SmartRewards referral program.

We look forward to hearing from you!

Follow us on Twitter!

Sun, 20 Sep 2009, 00:00:00 EST 00:00:00 +0000

If you're on Twitter, don't forget to follow us at @RecruitingH2H!

51 new sales jobs!

Sun, 20 Sep 2009, 00:00:00 EST 00:00:00 +0000

Head2Head has just partnered with Shred-It - the leading records management and document destruction firm - to fill more than 50 roles. To learn more and apply, CLICK HERE.

WEBINAR: Twitter 101

Fri, 18 Sep 2009, 00:00:00 EST 00:00:00 +0000

Twitter 101: To tweet or not to tweet? Does it work for recruiting?

FREE WEBINAR: If you've been wondering whether to join the Twitter-for-recruiting bandwagon, this is the webinar for you.

We'll review Twitter basics - how to set up an account, how to tweet, etc. - and real-world recruiting success stories.

Wednesday, September 23
12pm-1pm

To register, CLICK HERE. (Webinar is free but space is limited!)

Great networking lasts a lifetime. That's why Facebook is more important to your career than you think.

Fri, 18 Sep 2009, 00:00:00 EST 00:00:00 +0000

In a lot of ways, you've been social networking since you were a kid. Facebook helps you leverage those relationships.

Social media has gone mainstream, and the 30+ demographic has stopped dismissing it as 'some fad for the kids' and are ready to start using social media tools a little more enthusiastically. But given that the average 30- or 40-something is in their peak work/family years, the last thing they need is to get sucked into a social media vortex.

Just because it's 'fun' doesn't mean it's not 'productive'

One of the questions I'm often asked is: "Why should I bother with Facebook? What's the point of reconnecting with people I knew in high school and haven't spoken to for years? I mean, it's not like LinkedIn, which can help me with my professional career - right?"

Wrong.

Facebook can be a lot of fun: Anyone who's joined Facebook can recall those first couple of weeks, when you reconnect with your best friend from high school or that guy you had a crush on during frosh week; share photos from summer camp circa 1982; come across a discussion group for some indie band you thought no one else knew about; or even just catch up with former colleagues to see what they're doing now.

The trouble is, for all of Richard Branson's protestations to the contrary, we're taught to think that if something is 'fun', it can't possibly be 'productive', work-wise.

Think again.

Still a 'sphere of influence' - just a different sphere

The #1 piece of advice we give to candidates first entering the workforce is "Network, network, network!" We tell kids who've just graduated to tell everyone they know - friends, family, casual acquaintances they've met at the gym - that they're job-hunting, because we know that ultimately it's a numbers game: The more people who know you're in the market for a new job, the more likely they are to think of you when they hear about a job opportunity.

But that's good advice for all of us at any age or career stage.

Your school friends have grown up into successful people - who'll make great business contacts!

Remember, people tend to move in peer groups: That means that if you're ambitious and successful now, the kids you hung with in high school or university, and the friends you made in your first career jobs in your early 20s, have probably gone on to be successful and ambitious, too. In other words, they're worth knowing for professional reasons.

That's why Facebook can be just as powerful a tool as LinkedIn when it comes to networking - it's all about the way you use it.

[PLEASE NOTE: While Facebook is a great networking tool for most professions, I'm focusing on the value for HR and recruiting professionals here, since if you're reading ERE, you probably work in HR/recruiting.]

Why you should be using Facebook
There are a whole lot of reasons why Facebook can be an excellent professional networking tool. Here are just some of them:

The 'fun' value will help you stay motivated

If I had a nickel for every time someone looked guilty and said to me "I know I should be updating my LinkedIn profie more often, but...", I would not need to write this blog, because I'd have been able to purchase a home on Mustique, where I would be right now, blissfully unconcerned with building my personal brand or improving my Google ranking.

About Facebook, on the other hand, people most often look guilty and say "I spent two hours on Facebook yesterday, just kicking around..."

If you're already on Facebook, it's way easy to use it for building your professional profile!
Facebook delivers better-quality relationships

Because Facebook facilitates conversations, it's easier to build deeper relationships with people than it is on 'business networking' sites like LinkedIn.

You may have a smaller network on Facebook - in fact, the BBC says that 150 is the ideal number of Facebook friends, though I think for recruiters the number is more like 200-250 - but because you're able to have more meaningful interactions, with more people, on a daily basis, those 200 contacts are likely to deliver more ROI in the long run than 1000+ LinkedIn connections.

Bonus tip: People are always more likely to trust someone they've known since Grade 8 than someone they've met at work, even if they haven't talked to them since high school. So rekindling an old relationship will always be easier than forging a new one.

At least 50% of your contacts aren't using LinkedIn
You know the kids who went to school with who have great careers - and therefore could be great professional contacts - but who have to keep a low profile or tend not to do a whole lot of networking? They're not on LinkedIn - they're on Facebook. If all you use is LinkedIn, you'll miss them.
Facebook is a better ice-breaker
Reach out to that guy from your Grade 10 class who you haven't seen in 15 years but is now the Senior VP of some Fortune 500 through LinkedIn, and he'll either not remember you or figure that you just want something.

Ping him through Facebook with a message like "Hey Bob, heard from Cindy you guys just had a baby - congratulations!", on the other hand, and you've just opened a non-sales-related dialogue - which is, as you know, a crucial building block of any great relationship.

Bonus tip: Facebook's model allows you to leverage your spouse's network, too, because you can see (even just from wall posts) what his/her network is up to.

Facebook helps you stay top-of-mind with the people who are most invested in you and your career

Friends and family are the ones most motivated to refer/recommend you. The News Feed - where your friends can see your status updates and other activities - ensures your friends are seeing your name regularly, which increases the chances they'll remember to recommend/refer you.

Well, this turned into a rather longer blog than I had expected - it's long even for me - but I found the more I thought about Facebook, the more I realized that it's been an excellent tool for me over the past couple of years.

Not only has it allowed me to reconnect and stay in more regular touch with friends, family and former co-workers, it's also had demonstrable ROI: It's helped me to build my personal brand; it's helped me to build the Head2Head and RetiredWorker brands; it's helped my friends and family understand more about what I do for a living (which has in turn helped them to recommend/refer me for business stuff); it's helped me learn a lot (from the links, notes and discussions of my friends); it's connected me with great candidates - and most importantly, I've had a lot of fun doing it.

Which begs the question: Can you afford not to be on Facebook?

Remember the MyHusbandNeedsAJob.com guy? He's still looking.

Fri, 11 Sep 2009, 00:00:00 EST 00:00:00 +0000

UPDATE September 12: I received an email last night from Mike Stearns regarding my blog posts about him and his site. Needless to say he wasn't best pleased with some of my comments. But as I've said before on several occasions, I think a more open dialogue between recruiters and candidates - with recruiters providing more constructive feedback - would deliver benefits to everyone involved. So I've invited Mike to post his comments here in response to my blog. I hope he does...

ORIGINAL POST:

Regular readers will recall my blog post of July 31 about Mike Stearns, the unemployed MBA grad who was having such a frustrating time with his job search that his wife launched a website called MyHusbandNeedsAJob.com. It was a creative idea and it generated quite a bit of media attention for Mike - but 5 months later he was still unemployed, which begged the question: Are stunts and gimmicks really, in the end, the best way to get a job?

Thanks to the paparazzi culture of the past 5 or 10 years, many of us think there's no such thing as bad PR: If you're getting on Oprah or a page in People, success (and money!) are sure to follow (heck, there are still plenty of people happy to pay Jon and/or Kate Gosselin $25k to show up at a launch party for some new product, even though every time either one of them open their mouths, they reveal themselves to be just as vapid, unkind, and greedy as any Hilton/Kardashian/Jenner in the market).

But when you're looking for a 'serious' job in a 'serious' industry - like Mike, who, with his MBA, probably hoped to get some kind of analyst position at a Big 5 consulting firm - telling Oprah's 11 million viewers that you were so desperate to find a job (and so incapable of finding it yourself) that your wife had to take matters into her own hands, isn't really going to get the attention of serious recruiters at serious companies. Every recruiter I talked to about MyHusbandNeedsAJob.com said, "There must be something wrong with him as a candidate. Otherwise he'd have found a job by now."

So what's wrong with Mike?

Well, here we are in mid-September, and according to Mike's blog (last updated August 19th), he's still unemployed. Only now he's talking about job boards and turning MyHusbandNeedsAJob.com into some kind of website for job-seekers, like a "...sweet spot in there between Craigslist and LinkedIn."

Except...

That blog post tells me everything I need to know about why Mike doesn't have a job yet: He acknowledges up-front that job boards don't work, yet he thinks he'd like to set one up; he recognizes that LinkedIn helps to connect you with people, but obviously hasn't used it to build a proper network, because if he had, he wouldn't still be submitting resumes "into the black hole of corporate HR". He'd be expanding his network (he only has 198 connections - I checked); participating in groups and discussions; and raising his profile so that "corporate HR" would find him, not the other way around.

It also tells me that he hasn't used the past 6+ months to build relationships with recruiters, because if he had, they'd have told him that the world needs another job board/social networking site like a hole in the head, and that it's virtually impossible to monetize a site like that within the first 5 years, even if it does take off.

For me, though, the most telling thing is how infrequently he's updating the site or posting blogs. If you were out of work, but had a website that was getting a fair amount of traction and which had given you the beginnings of a personal brand, wouldn't you be on there every single day, blogging about job-hunting, resume tips, resources for job-seekers, the employment market, and amusing anecdotes about your own job search and interview process? Wouldn't you add a 'comments' section to your blog so that you could engage in dialogue with other job-seekers or even potential employers who came to visit your site?

I don't know why I've got such a bee in my bonnet about this - I mean, did I really need to write two blog posts about this guy? Did you really need to read two blog posts about him?

I think it's bugging me because, as an entrepreneur (RetiredWorker.ca) and consultant, I know the value of national exposure on an Oprah-like scale - I know that it can transform your business and your life, if only you're able to grab the opportunity and run with it. So I guess it's hard for me to see someone receive the golden ticket, but then just sort of put it in his pocket and wander away....

5 Things You Don't Know About Gen Ys. But Should.

Fri, 04 Sep 2009, 00:00:00 EST 00:00:00 +0000

First off, the usual writer's apology for a 2-week absence. Not a day goes by that I don't wish for a technological advance that would allow me to dictate blogs from my brain to my computer telepathically. This would make my shower time much more productive, since I currently waste that 7 minutes of my day singing old Mental as Anything songs (from the seminal Creatures of Leisure album, in case you're interested).

I'd probably blog more if I weren't so bloody verbose. Thank you, grade 9 typing!

Anyway.

The other week I was asked to take part in a focus group about a new website aimed at Gen Y-aged job-seekers. (About which I should probably not go into too much detail. They didn't make any of us sign an NDA or anything - though they probably should have - but I'll probably run into the organizers again one day and they won't thank me for giving away all their ideas. Anyway, it's not really important for the purposes of this blog.)

For part of the session, I was alone in a room with 8 or 10 Gen Yers. Some were in their last year of university; some were freshly graduated (a couple had both BAs and MBAs); some were a year or two out of school. All of them were the kind of Type A Overachievers who'd been in student government (probably in high school as well as university); written for the university paper; and started a website and/or a business during school.

(You know, the sort you either hate (because they're just so darn popular and overachieving) or kind of like (because they're The Leaders of Tomorrow and have gobs of charisma) or recognize and feel sympathetic towards (because you yourself were in student government and a frosh leader and worked on the paper and you know just how paper-thin the confidence can be). I'll let you guess where I sit on that continuum.)

I've participated in and facilitated a fair amount of focus groups in my time, and I'll say this about a roomful of Type-A Overachievers: They may drive the wallflowers nuts, but they're good at articulating their thoughts (and they have a lot to say, so you get a lot of their thoughts in an hour).

Like most people in recruitment marketing - and as a Douglas Coupland-raised Gen Xer - I've read a lot about Gen Ys in the past few years (and I've even written about their effect on corporate philanthropy), but this was the first time in a while that I'd seen a group of them up-close and personal, and listened to their answers about what it's like to be entering the workforce or taking the first tentative steps towards a career.

(Now, before you say anything, I'll admit: I know a roomful of overachievers with BAs and MBAs isn't a representative sample of the larger Gen Y workforce. But let's be honest for a second here: When most of us are thinking about/blogging about/talking about recruiting and retaining Gen Ys, aren't we mostly talking about how to get hold of exactly these candidates? The ones with post-secondary educations, who are most likely to be A-list employees in the long-term? And here in Canada, where more than 40% of Gen Ys engage in post-secondary education, it's not like university grads are an elite minority. Though to be honest when I looked up that stat, I was a little surprised - I was sure that the post-secondary education levels were significantly higher than 40%. Weren't you?)

THE SURPRISING THINGS I LEARNED ABOUT GEN Ys:

They are desperate for mentors
These are kids who were friends with their parents in ways that we (Gen X and older) never were. They're used to having an adult they like helping them navigate the world. But now that they're out of school and choosing careers - about which their parents may know nothing and therefore can't help - they're kind of lost for guidance. We aren't reaching out to them because they seem so confident that we think they don't need (or want) us. But they do.

They're scared to fail
These are kids whose every word, step, poop and dance recital was applauded, announced, videographed and trumpeted as the Second Coming. Now that they're adults, they're beginning to realize - and accept - that the world isn't going to congratulate them for successfully wearing matching socks. But they have so little experience of failure that they're scared to death of it.

The peer pressure is brutal
For those of us who graduated in, say, 1991 with an English degree, just getting a job was enough. The recession had been going on seemingly for ages, we were all working for peanuts at crap jobs, and we really only knew what our own circle of friends was doing, so peer pressure was minimal.

These kids have been hearing stories from older siblings about getting $80k-a-year jobs (which did exist a couple of years ago), the internet gives them access to a huge network of people at their lifestage (some of whom are still snagging great jobs or making huge salaries), and the media has filled their heads with stories of other 22-year-olds who invent some social networking site that they sell 3 years later for $1.9 billion. So when all they see in front of them is a $40k-a-year job as an Assistant-Something, they begin to think that they're the only one their age who's 'sucking'.

They don't realize that the marketplace has negative stereotypes about them
When I mentioned that recruiters and employers often think that Gen Ys have a sense of entitlement, don't work beyond 9-to-5, and come into a job expecting to be running the company within a year, there was shocked - and nervous - laughter around the table.

Not only do they not think of themselves this way, they were surprised to learn that potential employers might see them this way. They think of themselves as hard workers who are just waiting for the opportunity to prove themselves - in other words, they think of themselves the way every new-to-the-workforce generation has thought of themselves since the dawn of time.

In some ways, they're just as green as we ever were
We tend to believe that this internet generation is more savvy than we were - that they're entering the workforce with more knowledge and confidence or something. And sure, they have more access to information than we ever did: They can find and apply to more jobs (via the internet), they can better prepare for interviews by Googling a potential employer, and the internet is awash in resume templates.

But in some very basic ways, they're still as ignorant as we were: Remember when you didn't know how 'headhunters' worked, or who paid them? Remember when you didn't have a 'network'? Remember thinking, in the first year of your first job, that you hated it but now you were 'stuck' in this career forever? Gen Ys may have a superficial confidence and swagger, but it's often masking #2 and #3, above.

Which brings us right back to #1.

You know, I learned something else from the focus group: I learned I kinda liked these kids. (I'm also a bit shocked that I think of them as 'kids', because I clearly remember that at age 22 I totally thought I was a fully-formed adult. And now I can't believe my parents didn't laugh their heads off at some of my 20-something pronouncements about life.)

A couple of them approached me after the focus group to talk about their careers, and said they'd follow up by email or phone - and I hope they do, because I find myself much more interested in helping them start/advance their careers than I used to be.