applicants need careful handling in twitter era
TRANSCRIPT
Applicants need carefulhandling in Twitter eraRecruitingCandidates can hit back if treated badly, says SharmilaDevi
The rising fear of a bad Twitter orFacebook review is promptingcompanies to treat their job appli-cants as well as they do their cus-tomers.
Increasing numbers of companies areextending to their job candidates image andbrand protection strategies that alreadycover their consumers.Neil Griffiths, a senior executive at
Futurestep, the recruiter, believes that thesaying “what happens in the recruitmentprocess, stays in the recruitment process”no longer holds true.“I’ve talked with clients about this for
quite a while and they all want a positiverecruitment process because if it’s negative,people will talk about it online,” he says.He points to a US survey by Career-
Builder, the online job site, that showedabout 78 per cent of respondents said a badexperience with a potential employer wouldprompt them to talk about it with friendsand family; 17 per cent said they wouldpost a comment on social media and 6 percent said they would blog about it.“A dialogue might happen anyway on
social media so companies should not justlet it happen,” says Mr Griffiths.Richard Mosley, global senior vice-presi-
dent at People in Business, the employerbrand consulting company, says that send-ing job candidates mixed signals can bedamaging. Service companies that stresscertain characteristics to their customers,in particular, need to ensure these alsohold true for job candidates.Some companies say they are warm and
responsive while others claim attention todetail or say they are quick to respond. Butif they ignore candidates, get their nameswrong, or wait weeks to get back to them,their image will suffer, says Mr Mosley.
James Martin, who leads the London-based human resources practice at EgonZehnder, the executive search firm, sayscompanies need to remember that rejectedcandidates outnumber those who get a joband that their interaction with the com-pany can be influenced by everything fromthe most trivial details to more substantialproblems.The trivial can include whether the meet-
ing room is clean and quiet, or how thereceptionist greets people. More weightyissues include whether the interviewershave the right training and experience.“Sometimes candidates tell me their
experience was awful, but that’s extreme.More typical is when they say they won-dered if the interviewer had other things ontheir mind and [that] they got the signalthere was something else more importantat the time,” he says.Senior executives need to realise they
have to “sell” a position to the candidate,says Chloe Watts, head of the humanresources practice at Alium Partners, theinterim management provider.She recalls a client that had a shortlist of
three candidates, but found that by thetime it got around to inviting them to inter-view, two had already found other roles.“Both candidates and clients are selling.
But clients don’t necessarily appreciatethat it works both ways,” she says.The balance of power is shifting back
towards the candidates, she says, warningthat the good ones will vote with their feet.“Discourteous behaviour will not stand.
Clients are realising it’s an issue but theyneed to go beyond this and invest thetime,” she says.Ken Lahti, a vice-president at CEB, a
member-based advisory company, warnsthat companies are relying too heavily on
The Financial Times Limited 2014. You may share using our article tools.Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.© FT and 'Financial Times' are trademarks of The Financial Times Ltd.
Date: Wednesday March 26, 2014
Page: 9
Region: UK
Edition: 01
Copyright
automation as they scale back on humanresources staff.“Without enough of a human touch, com-
panies can frustrate people, affect theirbrand and create an impact on their reve-nues,” he says. “The number one thingcompanies get wrong is not enough com-munication with candidates.”There is a potential extra bonus to get-
ting the dialogue with job candidates righteven when it does not result in an appoint-ment, says Mr Griffiths of Futurestep.“Too often organisations invite people’s
CVs but once they’re in and these peopledon’t get a role, they’re forgotten,” he says,suggesting that companies instead use thenew relationship to stay in touch withunsuccessful candidates through marketingefforts, such as sending out samples.It is a way not only to avoid a negative
Facebook or Twitter review about the can-didate’s job interview experience, but alsoto turn that applicant into the company’snewest customer.
War for talent Money is not everythingas big brands rely on their reputations
Flexibility, socialresponsibility, and brandreputation are crucial toattracting the best jobcandidates, making it moredifficult for small companiesto compete in the war fortalent, say recruitmentexperts.
“It’s not necessarilymoney,” says Dina Pyron,global human capital leaderat Ernst & Young, theprofessional services firm.
Estelle James, director atrecruiter Robert Half in theUK, says big companies,such as Google or Apple,can rely more easily on theirwell-known brands, butsmaller companies need totry much harder.
“With the goodcompanies, candidatesapproach us because they’veheard they’re really greatplaces to work,” she says,adding: “The next two orthree years are going to get
harder for companies andthe best ones are alreadythinking about how tocompete.”
Some companies aretaking a hard look at howthey are perceived from theoutside and whether thatperception aligns with howthey see themselves. Doingthis improves the chancethat successful candidatesaccept their job offers andbecome valuable contributorsto the company.
Neil Griffiths, global leaderfor recruiter Futurestep’stalent communications andemployment brandingpractice, says a companyshould be “very clear aboutwhat it stands for and whatinnovations it has.”
Often, especially in retail,a company’s brand will bethe same for employees as itis for consumers.
But in some cases acompany’s employee branddiffers from its consumerbrand, says Richard Mosleyof People in Business, theemployer brand consultingcompany. He says somecompanies still have “a longway to go” in understandingthe divergence.
“The distinction wasn’t allthat well understood untilrecently but it still varies
hugely how companiesmanage their employee valueproposition,” he says.“Companies need toconsider all the touch points[interactions] just as theywould for a customer orconsumer,” he adds.
Technology can help,allowing companies to usephotos, audio, video andanimation to give potentialemployees a sense of whatit would be like to work forthem.
This enables candidates todecide to withdraw. “It might
The Financial Times Limited 2014. You may share using our article tools.Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.© FT and 'Financial Times' are trademarks of The Financial Times Ltd.
Date: Wednesday March 26, 2014
Page: 9
Region: UK
Edition: 01
Copyright
seem counter-intuitive butit’s the quality, not quantityof candidates that isimportant,” says Ken Lahti,vice-president at CEB, anadvisory company.
“Having people removethemselves can be veryeffective as it allowscandidates to retain theirdignity and gives them a
If a company has agood image, it islikelier thatcandidates willaccept job offers
s
t
more positive reaction totheir experience of thecompany,” he says, notingthis helps the company avoidlosing the candidate as acustomer.
Many people still thinkmoney matters most to jobapplicants. But a US surveyby CareerBuilder, the jobswebsite, suggests otherwise.
It found location to be theprimary reason candidatessubmit an application,followed by the desirability ofthe industry and then thereputation of the company.Competitive compensationranked sixth.
The rankings suggest thatprojecting the right image isnot only important forattracting consumers, butalso for getting desirable jobcandidates to apply for a joband then to accept the offer.
Sharmila Devi
‘Both candidatesand clients areselling. But clientsdon’t necessarilyappreciate that itworks both ways’
Mixed messages can damage perceptions Richard Baker/Alamy
The Financial Times Limited 2014. You may share using our article tools.Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.© FT and 'Financial Times' are trademarks of The Financial Times Ltd.
Date: Wednesday March 26, 2014
Page: 9
Region: UK
Edition: 01
Copyright
Question time: rejectedcandidates outnumber thosewho get a job and their viewof the company can changeif things go wrong
Gregg Vignal/Alamy
The Financial Times Limited 2014. You may share using our article tools.Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.© FT and 'Financial Times' are trademarks of The Financial Times Ltd.
Date: Wednesday March 26, 2014
Page: 9
Region: UK
Edition: 01
Copyright