Category Archives: Linkedin

The State of the Recruitment Industry

data-point-tuesday_500

I recently ran across this:  Global Staffing Trends 2017:  The State of the Recruitment Industry. This little report from LinkedIn would be easy to dismiss, but I encourage you to take a look. It’s written for search/staffing firms. Not for corporate or in-house talent acquisition folks. So unless you’re a third-party staffing firm, not so interesting, right? Well, I’d encourage you to take a look.

I’ve had issues with LinkedIn’s research before, but this is a pretty straight-forward and easy to consume report. Won’t take you 10 minutes to read. But if you’re an in-house talent acquisition professional, you should read this. The trend information is pretty interesting.

Here are the top 4 takeaways as LinkedIn defines them:

Staffing firms expect to grow in 2017.

68% of staffing firms expect the size

of their firm to increase in 2017. They

intend to hire more recruiters, sourcers,

marketers, and coordinators during the

course of the next year.

 

The volume of placements will increase.

79% of staffing firms will see an increase in

the volume of candidates placed in 2017.

Despite this, an overwhelming number of

recruitment firms say that they still place

candidates in 2 months or less.

 

Budget goes to traditional tactics, but

branding tops investment wish list.

While nearly 50% of budget goes to

traditional sources, if given unlimited

funds, staffing firms would prioritize

business development, branding and

investing in better sourcing tools.

 

Social recruiting, candidate diversity,

and screening automation are the trends

defining the future of recruiting.

Using social and professional networks to

generate new business and recruit more diverse

candidates are on top of recruiters’ wish list.

Another prominent trend is the automation of

the screening and hiring process.

So why should you care?

Well, staffing firms think you’re going to be hiring more people in 2017 and that you’ll use their services more than you did in 2016. That means they think their businesses are going to grow year-over-year. They are staffing up to meet your growing demand for their services and that could mean they’ll have fewer experienced and proven professionals working on your searches. You may need to stay closer to those firms and the assignments you give them to ensure that your brand is being represented well in the talent marketplace.

linkedin-2016-global-staffing-trends-1

While staffing firms think business will grow next year, they still expect to complete their assignments in two months or less. That’s interesting. Even if they do hire additional experienced staff, is it realistic to expect fast, great talent matches in the same period of time? Maybe. Maybe not.

Staffing firms would also really like to beef up their business development investments as a priority. So that means you’ll be called on more frequently by firms you’ve not engaged with previously. Gird yourselves for a sales and marketing onslaught.

And finally, understand what new kinds of technology your third-party recruiting firms are using to ensure that your brand is being cared for appropriately. Are you OK with the most of the steps in the funnel being automated? If you’re not, your search firm needs to know that. And if you are, how automated are those steps? And will they promise to eliminate the black hole in the search process?

If you use third-party recruiters, this report is interesting. How often do you get to see inside the budgets, investments, strategies and business planning of your providers? I think this information will help you manage these relationships and contracts, and help you create a win-win relationship with these mission critical partners. And make no mistake, any provider/partner/vendor who touches your talent is mission critical.

Advertisements

1 Comment

Filed under China Gorman, Data Point Tuesday, Linkedin, Recruiting, Recruiting Technology, Recruiting Trends

Quality of Hire: A Vaguely Valid Metric?

data point tuesday_500

In November I wrote about Linkedin’s 2016 Global Recruiting Trends Report (you can re-read it here) and took them to task about their methodology. Turns out they did a bit of a miscalculation and corrected data that looked askew. Good on them. As I looked at a relatively new infographic about their survey data, I was again intrigued by some of their findings. In a good way.

The infographic, found in Linkedin’s Talent Blog, 4 Recruiting Trends to Watch in 2016, boils the report down to 4 key points – and they are good ones:

  • Quality of Hire is the magic metric
  • Employers are finding quality hires faster through professional networks
  • Employer branding is bouncing back as a top priority
  • Employee retention is growing as a top employer priority

The big question raised in my mind by this infographic is: how should we define quality of hire. Linkedin helps us understand that perhaps we should be talking about this a little more than we are.

Linkedin 2016 Quality of Hire

Linkedin’s data show that around the world, the KPIs that define quality of hire shift between three primary metrics:

  1. New Hire Performance Evaluation
  2. Turnover/Retention
  3. Hiring Manager Satisfaction

These are interesting and good metrics. But are they the correct metrics to use in judging wether a hire was a quality hire?

As more employers shun “labeling” performance and leave traditional performance management systems and their inherent biases in the dust, having fair, accurate and reliable performance evaluation metrics may be harder and harder to obtain – especially for employees new to their jobs.

Turnover and retention data are somewhat valuable in that they measure whether the new employee actually commits to their job and the organization and decide to stay. The challenge with this particular measure is that it is two-sided. Employees can quit their jobs if they don’t like their employee experience more easily than employers can fire new employees who don’t perform. It’s hard to make a case that turnover or retention are valid measures of quality of hire.

And hiring manager satisfaction, while maybe the most influential measure, is the least scientifically valid assessment of the three: every manager has their own performance benchmarks that are shaped by their experience, education and time in the job. Certainly a new employee’s ability to create a positive relationship with their boss is significantly influential in creating a positive impression from a performance evaluation perspective. And that makes it only vaguely valid.

It’s interesting that employers in different parts of the world have developed different steps to develop Linkedin’s “magic metric.” That there is not the emergence of a common standard (SHRM or CIPD anyone? Bueller?) creates opportunities for stakeholders to get confused about what is trying to be accomplished. And that just makes it harder to make a business case for a critical aspect of talent management.

I think Linkedin has pointed out an opportunity for significant value in the talent management game:  unless and until we can develop a relatively standard, valid set of KPIs for Quality of Hire, we can’t really make sense of whether or not we’re hiring the great talent we all need. And since having the right talent available to us when and where we need it will make the difference in whether our businesses survive or not, getting a handle on the magic metric just might be helpful.

5 Comments

Filed under Analytics, Annual Performance Reviews, Big Data and HR, China Gorman, Data Point Tuesday, Global HR, HR Analytics, Linkedin, Performance Management, Quality of Hire

Sometimes it IS about the methodology!

data point tuesday_500

There’s no denying that Linkedin is a 600 pound gorilla in the talent acquisition space. But as I write that, I wonder in what space exactly Linkedin is. Wikipedia says Linkedin is a business-oriented social networking service. Linkedin says it’s the world’s largest professional network with 380 milllion members. Is it the ultimate job board? Is it an employer branding consulting firm? Is it a talent research firm? Is it a recruiting company? Maybe it’s all those things. Maybe it’s none of those things and it’s something else altogether. But whatever it is, I think we’d all agree that it’s big, it seems to be influential, lots of companies in the talent space are afraid of it, and most professionals – all over the world – wouldn’t look for a job without it.

So I read with interest Linkedin’s new report, Global Recruiting Trends 2016. It’s a quick read with some interesting data. The report sections are:

  • Introduction

  • Key takeaways

  • Quality of hire: The magic metric

  • Employee referrals: On the rise

  • Employer brand: A cross-functional priority

  • Retention and internal mobility: Time to align

  • Parting thoughts

  • Methodology

I like simple and straight forward reports like this. They tell you what the headlines are, give you charts and graphs that are easily understood, and then they end with a summary and the description of their methodology.

So the highlights are these:

  • Quality of hire is most important to talent acquisition practitioners, but there isn’t a lot of agreement on how to measure it
  • The use of employee referral programs is continuing to increase
  • Other functions, most notably Marketing, are getting in on the Employer Branding act

That’s about it. Not really surprising. But here is the really interesting part to me: the methodology.

  1. It’s a global survey – 3,894 talent acquisition decision makers in corporate HR departments who have some stake in the recruitment budget took the survey.
  2. Those responders were Linkedin members.
  3. They were from all over the world (see below).

Linkedin 2016 survey footprint

Although the report doesn’t specify that the numbers shown by country represent the number of survey respondents by country, we must assume that is the case. And if it is, I find it fascinating that only 200 U.S. respondents were included. It’s true this is a global survey. And it’s also true that the world of talent does not revolve around the U.S. But when 400 U.K. responses, 300 Australia/New Zealand responses and 231 Brazil responses are included – and only 200 U.S. responses were included – I’m not sure whether this analysis is compelling. The U.S. has ~7 milllion organizations; the U.K. has ~ 4 million; Australia and New Zealad have ~ 2 million; Brazil has ~1 million.

I’m not arguing that there are too many respondents from countries other than the U.S. There are some incredible talent innovations emerging all over the world in countries like India, Brazil and China. I’m positioning, rather, that there are too few respondents utilized from the U.S. I’m pretty sure that if the survey had included 400, or even 500, talent leaders from the U.S. instead of 200, the results would have been different. It’s hard to say how different, but different nonetheless. Having a more representative national sample vis a vis other nations would make the conclusions more compelling.

With a hat tip to Laurie Ruettimann, this raises the issue that we have to be mindful of the results of vendor research analysis. When sample size is too small, or when questions are ambiguous, or when the answer selections are biased (which they almost always are in vendor sponsored research), we really do need to take the results and analysis with a grain of salt.

There are interesting analyses and conclusions here that are worthwhile. But I wouldn’t build my budget from this report if I were a talent leader in the U.S. I appreciate that Linkedin, the world’s largest professional network – or whatever it is, is asking its members questions related to the talent acquisition challenges with which every employer around the world is grappling. And it’s interesting to see the results country by country. I’m just not sure the U.S. data are solid enough on which to build action.

What do you think?

3 Comments

Filed under China Gorman, Data Point Tuesday, HR Data, Laurie Ruettimann, Linkedin, Quality of Hire, Talent Acquisition