Today’s mantra of recruiting success is quite a familiar one: If you build it, they will come. (“People will come, Ray.”)
I recall much the same said of career sites only a few years ago. . . and the same of job board resume databases . . . and before that, the same of career fairs. Today, the intoxicating lure of another elegant solution is again at hand; the panacea of recruiting conversation in 2009 — the “community”. As we walk trade show floors and read the cascades of blogs and press releases, we see the word and its many references continually resurface. Naturally, just like last time, the market begins to believe, “[This time] If we build it, they will [really] come.”
So, let’s assume we build it . . . and let’s assume they come. They join our community; our social network of Rock-Star XYZ Programmers. As they’ve done with the other 17 sub-communities they are a part of, they answer a few short profile questions, contribute to a couple discussions, perhaps even upload a photo of their pet and their favorite song. We, as recruiters, then consider the individual behind the profile to be “engaged“.
But are they? How can we measure engagement? Sure, there are scores of metrics, but very little in the way of an accepted standard. Just ask Robert Scoble, or Brian Oberkirch, who likens measuring engagement to “nailing down a shadow.” Does our definition of engagement have anything to do with the community’s receptiveness to listen regarding our opportunity? Further, is it the community itself, or rather the individuals within the community, that are engaged?
My theory is that the juggernauts such as Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter (although not completely apples-to-apples) are the real time-biscuits of the average social-media zombie (circa 2009). That means that there isn’t much time or energy left for many sub-communities, such as our recruiting community. Furthermore, we must ask ourselves whether engagement itself has a lifespan, as modern-day recruiting theory suggests multiple states of interest depending on a candidate’s personal situation (i.e. cold-cold, cold-warm, warm-cold, warm-warm states of candidate interest, etc.)
Despite the rush of individuals to professional networking sites, the lifespan of someone’s ‘engagement’ is typically quite ephemeral because candidates, by their very nature, don’t stay in the job-searching cocoon forever. (Well, some do . . . such as the 10% of the market that is always in flux, ‘actively seeking’ a new opportunity. However, this segment is certainly the exception and not the norm.)
Many suggest that social networking’s new CGM (Consumer Generated Media) tools increase the probability that our talent pool will be more engaged. However, does providing someone the ability to upload a widget or start a discussion engage them any further than if we were to pick up the phone and personally call them? Or can the community itself become a crutch? (in the sense that we begin to hear subtle whispers in our ears that web conversation is the same as live conversation).
Here’s an example: Let’s say a recruiter lets their community know they’re throwing a mixer at a local restaurant later that week. At the mixer, the recruiter physically meets the candidate and buys them a drink – was it the social network that led to a deeper relationship? Or was it the act of kindness and in-person touch of the recruiter? I’d say the latter. Sure, the community enabled another brand touch-point, but the same could have been achieved through an email or text message.
We, in the recruiting world, are quite new to thinking of ‘Recruiting as Marketing’. And doesn’t it have a nice ring to it? For some reason, ‘Recruiting as Sales’ conjures up questionable scenarios and cacophonic sounds in our minds. Marketing, soft-selling, and the notion of communities made up of engaged, loving candidates just seems more palletable than ‘Recruiting as Sales.’ However, the more we sip each flavor of Kool-aid, the more we realize that true recruiting is neither marketing nor sales. At the end of the day, it’s both.
