I’ve had this one in draft mode for a couple of weeks, then got inspired by a twitter convo with JLee and John Hollon. The question is this – is it easier to recruit in a slow economy?
My answer is "yes", if you work internal for a company (note – if you are running your own recruiting business, the answer is probably a h*@* NO). I think recruiting does get easier in a slow economy for companies, mainly because it’s a supply
and demand issue. Here’s the flow as I’ve experienced it:
-As the economy slows, companies get conservative about hiring. They hold off on posting budgeted positions AND backfills. The result? The number of jobs openly posted and active in the marketplace drops 50-60%. Need proof? Compare the Help Wanted ads in your Sunday paper. I know if you are reading this, you’re probably not into the newspaper as a primary candidate source, but it’s the easiest place to see the difference. When the column inches for help wanted ads are down 60% (as well as online), there’s less supply out there.
-When supply goes down, the competition for candidates is relaxed. Fewer jobs posted means fewer opportunities for candidates.
-As a result, when you do have an opening, you’re going up against half the competition you normally do. As a result, you’ll find candidates more open to talking to you, more responsive when you call, and easier to close when you offer the job.
It’s supply and demand, a walk in the economics section of your bookstore. Nobody wants a slowing economy, but it’s good to know that if you’re fortunate to have open positions, you can close business more quickly. Think of it as one of the good things that happens to you as a recruiter/HR pro in a down economy.
You just have to make sure you’re part of an organization that has jobs….
I am sure you have taken this into account, and perhaps discarded it but I have to say that for me this is missing some other important things that run contrary to what I see as your point here.
Yes there is less competition for candidates, no question. BUT how about teh number of candidates, or the quality?
In a slow moving economy, or even worse in a recession, many cadidates who might be tempted to move jobs in ‘sunnier times’ might well hunker down in their current role for safeties sake.
In an economy where companies are making lay offs, often under the ‘last in, first out’ rule and job move will take risks, especially for candidates that have job security where they are.
So often those candidates actively seeking positions are those that are either out of work currently or those that are fearful of their own job security as they may not be that well established.
Now amongst that lot I am sure there are some very good candidates, but are you confident that you can find them, or that they are good candidates for your particular role?
I would suspect not. truely quality candidates would be staying put, riding out the storm in companies that are glad to have them. It is still teh role of recruitment consultants to find these candidates and energise them into finding better positions.
So consultancies that rely on job boards and their databases for talent are likely to struggle, but find a consultant who is intouch with top candidates and has access to the best people in the industry and in these challenging times they could be worth the weight in gold.
Give me a top candidate currently working an excellent role that needs convincing over a candidate that ‘can do a job’ and has applied any day of the week.
Nick -
Good comments. I’ve got a post on the other site(www.hrcapitalist.com) coming out next week titled “Is Retention easier in a down economy” that includes some of the considerations you note.
I guess my bottom line that if I have to face a free for all in a good economy or find talent in a thinner crop of competition in a down economy, the latter is the easier one.
Here’s a snippet from the future post over at the capitalist, which is a refernce to an Ann Bares post at Compensation Force. It suggests those that hunker down in a bad economy are your worst perfomers. That’s been my sense as well, although I laugh when I see that everyone DID NOT label themselves as a high performer:
“Other sources claim your employees are still actively looking to jump. Ann Bares throws up a study that says your best talent is still actively looking:
A new study by Leadership IQ reports that 47% of the high performers surveyed are actively seeking another job. But the news gets worse: Only 18% of low performers and 25% of middle performers are actively looking.
Begs the question: Are we doing enough to retain our high performers, or are we assuming that the slow economy and job market preempt this concern?
The results come from research where Leadership IQ surveyed 16,237 employees on a range of workplace issues, then divided them into high, middle and low performers based on their annual appraisal scores. In what I find to be an interesting (and somewhat ironic) side note, there were 3,896 self-identified high performers, 8,607 middle performers and 3,734 low performers. A nearly perfectly balanced bell shaped performance curve – how often do we see that in real organizational life?”
K
A couple more thoughts:
* Candidates that are thought leaders, immediate-revenue impacting will continue to be sought after. * The questions is how is your company, that you recruit for, doing? Even if it is easier to find and engage them you’re story could still lacks luster making it tougher. Just offering “a job” may not cut it.
* Relocation is hurting everyone: companies and candidates. The risks are bigger as well as the costs.
* …and about Retention is still a problem. Problem people may still stay. The good performers still go. Changes in budgets, smaller stock/bonus pools to distribute, new, interesting projects being sidelined etc. Motivating the right ones to stay and the right ones to go is easier said than done. Yes, management does, but cannot afford to, take their eyes off retention.
KD,
Some very interesting, and surprising to me, stats. My gut reaction, and talking to other consultants, is that although the top candidates are still out there it is more and more essential to hunt them rather than let them come to you. The job applications are still mostly made up by average to lower standard candidates.
William makes a good point. With regards top performers they are still in demand, still being hunted and in troubled times perhaps even more so, with recruiters who may not usually turn down the headhunting/cherry picking route having to look at alternative sourcing grounds to get companies to use them as opposed to other agencies who are also desperately seeking new business to guide them through the troubled waters of the credit crunch.
All in all though interesting statistics and something I shall be giving a fair amount of thought to. Do you have any links to these figures I can check out?
Nick -
Thanks for checking back in. It’s suprising to me too in a couple of ways… First, I agree with the concept the the lowest performers are the ones that are going to hunker down and stay. Good point also that you bring up regarding if recruiting is easier (whenever that is), you can’t simply accept what applies – have to hunt out those who aren’t looking.
Here’s the link that I orignally found with Ann Bares. I haven’t dug into it, and you may blow it up if you dig in. The reason I say that? I’m leery of any study when self-reported performance comes out like a bell curve – everyone really thinks they’re a star – it’s human nature…
http://www.leadershipiq.com/quitting.html
Kris, great post and comments.
You may have already see this but I thought it was an interesting take on things: Recruiting Passive Candidates in Tough Economic Times by Lou Adler… http://is.gd/YvR