HRevolution

Do you know me?

I had an email chiding me about my criticism of job boards. (From a job board employee, perhaps?). Whether replying to her email or on this forum, my response is the same:

What’s wrong with job boards? Are you kidding? Have you ever used one? Not as an advertiser, but as a job hunter. It’s a totally different experience from that angle. It’s just awful. Searches either turn up too much, or nothing. So you end up setting wide search parameters and have to sort through a bunch of chaff (the search technology stinks).

So the user spends all kinds of time reading through garbage that has nothing to do with what they want. They do it on board after board. Nice use of time - especially when you’re unemployed and stressed out. Most job hunters spend a lot of time online because it feels like they’re doing something. Reaching out to companies online feels like an efficient use of time. Sadly, more jobs are found through referrals – making networking a better use of time. But they’re unemployed and running scared. They don’t seem to know this.

Why does the job board experience suck – especially when technology is available that would solve this problem? Because it’s not about the technology. It’s about the business model. Job boards are newspaper classifieds online. Ads are sold based on how much traffic frequents the site. More traffic equals more valuable space. And if you can get those users to stay a long time, you make more money. More time spent on the site ‘proves’ the sites value. Basically, if you can get people to come to your board, then drag them through a lot of muck, you make more money. In this business model, giving the job hunter efficient tools erodes ‘value’ (using the term loosely).

That’s why I said they treat users poorly. They do.
What a waste of interactive media.

Spoke with a colleague about technologies in the ATS/job board space. We were trying to figure out what the next big technology would be. We arrived at the conclusion that the evolution needed most wasn't a technology, but an applicant-centered approach.

ATSs are built on outdated recruiting processes. Basically, the employer controls the process from start to finish and the candidate's experience is not considered at all. This is how it's always been; now it's automated. Same deal with the job boards - they waste a lot of candidate time with crappy search technology. There it is - two industries in our sphere that built systems in order to attract candidates, yet treat them poorly.

The big opportunity is to deploy technologies that take the candidate into account instead of treating them like meat. A company doing that (and measuring the right things) will have a much better chance of getting the talent they want.

At a glance, the last entry is silly. Beyond the first impression though, there are interesting implications. Loyalty is a rare commodity. Quietly leaving a company and telling your employer where to get off are the same thing - just different levels of courtesy.

With the Internet came predictions of people moving about as though human capital were a liquid commodity. Didn’t happen. Despite the proliferation of job board/auction houses, liquidity didn’t happen in human capital markets for very human reasons. It takes more than a technical advancement for this to happen. It takes a socio-cultural adjustment. A modicum of human insight tells us that people don’t like change. Changing a job is a big change. People seek regularity - in habit and paychecks. This is why disengaged employees stay. Initiating a job search is the last resort because we simply don’t like change. A known evil is better than uncertainty. And when that evil is your job, you find all kinds of rationalizations to keep doing the same dance. You need the paycheck, you like your coworkers, you’re doing good, the commute isn’t bad, the benefits are okay, etc.. It’s a lot easier to build a household with a steady job. Looking for a job is hard - it is uncertain. It takes you out of your comfort zone and brings all kinds of questions about what should be done with your life. Those are hard questions and most want to avoid them. Most people won’t look for a job until their back is against the wall - despite knowing the best time to jobhunt is when you are employed. A steady job is what we aspire to.

Despite this desire to stay in one place, employee attrition will be a concern again - not based on technological advancements, but on cultural shifts. Remember when having too many jobs on your resume was stigmatized? It isn’t anymore - shift. Leaving companies, voluntarily or not, politely or not, is an ongoing cultural shift with employees increasingly independent of companies. Baby boomers have been shocked into shifting. Generations X and Y are inoculated against corporate loyalty. So, people stay in jobs because they fear change. Put another way, inertia keeps people in place. Inertia: your organization’s primary retention tool. The present cultural shift will change this.

What are the implications? Loyalty is out of fashion. Attrition will be a bigger problem going forward as it gets easier to tell your employer where to get off. Inertia is the big retention tool. Retention techniques used in the ‘90s pale in comparison. The opportunity for HR to add value is a tremendous. However, the challenge is just as big. Located in the heart of an organization, HR is positioned to make an impact. But being there doesn’t make them effective. To put it bluntly, HR, is involved because they’re there, not because they’re good.

Historical mediocrity notwithstanding, opportunities keep coming. Continued underperformance makes outsourcing an attractive alternative. The choice is to get good or get out(sourced).

Telling your employer to F*#^ OFF! can be habit forming.