Doctor's orders
Making the right call
A little while back I did some scientifically validated research, in the form of a LinkedIn poll, to see what candidate communications preferences are.
As I recall, it had quite a few hundred responses, with this order of preference:
Email / DM
Text / Whatsapp
Phone call
Obvs, number 4 was “other (comment below)” for the algorithm, but what it indicated was that readers preferred to have control over communications, and not to be interrupted by a phone call.
I don’t make this analysis from the numbers, more from the discussions in the comments sections.
However, I find the opposite generally true, even for GenZers in my occasional early career roles (I am learning that prompts by text seem more effective than email here).
Phone comes first, then email/DM, then Text, with a hierarchy that culminates in carrier pigeon, if I really want to speak to someone.
I don’t rely solely on one means of contact. If one doesn’t work, I move on to the next.
By contacting across different mediums you quickly find out what a candidate is most responsive to, and can adjust appropriately.
This has proven effective for me time and time again.
One great comment to the poll questioned how I could provide a good candidate experience when I do the opposite of what candidates expect.
My answer was this -
candidate experience serves and is a consequence of the recruitment process.
Unless it’s clear what an individual’s comms preference is, I’ll always run with what’s best for the project, reflecting ideal candidate profiles, based on the best information available.
Whatever medium I use, I try to leave the other with a good and relevant experience.
I know that in a world of white automated noise, a phone call is the best means to stand out (until AI speaks for us).
But I also know two other things -
Most people dislike a cold sales pitch
I don’t know whether these are people to sell to unless I triage them first, and diagnose whether my salve heals pains they have or are unaware of
It isn’t enough to just pick up the phone. The right approach and delivery matters.
Fwiw, I use a modified permission-based opener with a focus on conversational and professional. No gambit like “or you can hang up me”, just how I’d expect to spoken to in kind.
A phone call focuses on information gathering on situations, needs and aspirations. They may not be right or ready for a move, but that doesn’t mean they won’t in future.
While my experience of those calls is consistently positive.
Even a ‘no’ is information to work with - finding out the why of the no can be very valuable (for example if conversations show that the salary on offer is not competitive after all).
These conversations are less viable by text, both for their interactivity and for what happens in the other’s voice. For example, a hesitation can be as telling as an explanation.
Equally, it’s rare that someone is so pissed off after a call that I left them with a bad taste in their mouth.
But, much like the disappearance of faxes and landlines, it would be foolish to think things won’t change. Will the traditional phone call or email look the same in 10 years time?
My point is this, and it’s as relevant for hiring managers and recruiters, as it is for job seekers.
If you make your decisions based on what people widely share on social media, rather than on what is effective for the task at hand, you do yourself a disservice and can even work against yourself.
I’d go into every call expecting disaster when in truth conversations bear little resemblance to online discussions.
It’s much the same for any other process in recruitment.
Part of any recruitment process should diagnose both the problems to be solved, and how to best solve them - and that includes both form and function in communication, as well as the tools, systems and technology available to support any project.
One size fits all rarely gives the best outcome.
Operate on popular opinion you’ll be limited by the beliefs of experts in common desire and frustration, but not in recruitment.
A good Doctor will listen to their patients to help with diagnosis, then use their expertise and available tools to determine the right path forward.
Sometimes establishing that there are common symptoms may lead to an intervention that helps everyone, where the gemba can be so useful.
But if we are only ever led by the patient, how can we be sure to prescribe the right medicine?
Thanks for listening.
Regards,
Greg
p.s. I recently didn’t fill a role. This has played havoc with my fill rate.
p.p.s. If you’d like to suffer a 1.4% chance of not finding your next key hire, drop me a line (email, not 07896 092024).