Root canal
No problem, pt 2
Previously on your mileage may vary:
Greg postulates that ‘problem awareness’ is a better measure of candidate intent than ‘passive’ and ‘active’ and can be the crux of your candidate attraction messaging.
In tonight’s exciting episode let’s look at it from the other angle.
If you accept that speaking to the potential problems of the people you want to engage is a good strategy, then it goes to follow that you don’t want to create any problems that push them away.
Attraction is only one, early step, in the process.
Engagement is an ongoing process that carries through every stage of recruitment, even into employment.
Yes, bring your candidates forward, in part by showing how you solve their career problems.
But, don’t throw up unnecessary problems that undo your good work.
Listening to the consequences of your recruitment process is an opportunity.
Why did that candidate proceed? Why did another withdraw? What raised concern?
What about the potential candidates we don’t even know about? What influenced their decisions?
I’ve spoken to tens of thousands of candidates, prospects, applicants, and everything else, during my career.
Out of curiosity, I’m always interested in what influences their decisions in their pursuit of a new career.
What fascinates me is that these are the Gemba, the unknown unknowns that we can extrapolate into our own recruitment processes.
What problems do they encounter elsewhere, that discourage them from applying, that encourage them to withdraw, and why?
And how might we be guilty of the same?
While if we are guilty, how can we fix these problems, so that the objection never comes up?
Imagine that - the reader that might have walked away, who instead chooses to engage.
Because we fixed that problem, and their hackles were never raised.
Quite the sliding door opportunity.
And it comes back to accountability.
We can’t control the behaviour of candidates.
But we can be accountable for our actions, attitudes, philosophy and even thoughts.
And through that we can influence, for the right reasons, the people we want to engage.
What are we accountable for that might present a problem for a candidate we want to employ?
Especially when, in normal life, moving jobs is one of our biggest stresses?
How might we unnecessarily cause scepticism or anxiety?
Auditing your own recruitment process as a mystery candidate is one opportunity.
As is surveying your staff for their experience - with the caveat they are happy to be working for you, skewing their perception. Do they really want to rock the boat with criticism?
But it’s the candidates who withdraw, who hesitate, who object that can be the source of the biggest improvements.
What would you say their common complaints are?
You can look to LinkedIn for the answer, in their high-engagement posts. High engagement for a reason. (Or ask me)
Salary on the job description (they mean the advert)
ATS data duplication
Responsiveness and transparency
Tardy, bloated and unnecessary recruitment processes
And many more, of course.
Which becomes your choice. Do you look within and challenge yourself with 5 Why, to see how you can improve?
Do you take away problems before they can occur?
Saving your candidates unnecessary toothache?
Or do you lay blame on the areas you can’t control?
Those are the questions.
Regards,
Greg
p.s. some people read these post scripts. It’s the only selling I do. I’m available for interesting project work - difficult vacancies, recruitment overhauls, process upgrades.
We can talk if you like.