The author apologizes for this post, which is both gratuitous and insulting. It adds nothing to the greater conversation, isn’t even well written enough to pass remedial English (or get into Arizona State) and will likely get him in trouble even though he doesn’t much care for it, either. What else is new? Oh, recruiting. Never change. That’s right. You never do.
Employee engagement is one of those perpetual trending topics in HR and recruiting, probably because for years now, pundits and practitioners alike still haven’t figured out how to confront what seems to be a fairly endemic case of malaise and apathy perpetually plaguing our workforce.
I’m not sure why it is that talent leaders and recruiting pros can’t to have a near obsessive fixation on what’s inherently an amorphous and highly ambiguous concept, but I think the primary driver of our engagement fetish is that it seems to be a convenient, categorical catch-all that’s more or less seen as the whipping boy for all of the manifold problems plaguing the HR and recruiting profession today.
Recruiting is never easy, but for some reason, many talent acquisition professionals make it somehow much harder than it really needs to be.
The fact that recruiters inherently work in silos and are largely forced to figure out the intricacies of talent sourcing and screening independently means that we tend to all make the same mistakes.
For the most part, they’re easily avoidable, but again, recruiters don’t really like to focus on what’s not working – after all, there’s too much work to do.
“I attempt these lyrical acrobat stunts while I’m practicing that I’ll still be able to break a motherf-ing table over the back of a couple old ladies and crack it in half, only realized it was ironic … after the fact.” – Eminem, Rap God
One of the most overused and hackneyed clichés in the people business is also a testament to HR’s historic failing to be taken seriously.
The reason that the whole “seat at the table” conversation has become so banal is that the goal of actually becoming a business partner for our businesses has largely been limited to a somewhat oxymoronic job title.
Despite our general apathy about politics, like an Olympic Athlete in some obscure sport, our collective focus gets drawn every 4 years to the race to become the Leader of the Free World – which is one hell of an optimistic job search objective, if you think about it.
This increased interest in politics happens every national election cycle, of course. This year, however, has created the proverbial perfect storm for political debate, through the rise of a certain controversial candidate increasingly looking like a major party’s inevitable nominee, mostly.
I go to a bunch of HR conferences, and all of them, unilaterally, have one common item on their respective agendas: drinking.
Whether that’s in the guise of a “networking event,” a “cocktail reception” or the many ancillary vendor-sponsored parties which inevitably occur with every show, the social component of every conference (and the most valuable takeaway from attendance) is built around booze.
While candidate experience is largely seen in the strategic and process purview, and mobile tends to be seen largely through the lens of recruiting technology, the fact remains that making a meaningful change to candidate experience means first making a meaningful change to their mobile experience.
As outlined in previous posts, customers are consumers, and therefore expect a consumer level experience when searching for and submitting information online. If you’re reading this post, statistically speaking, you’re likely to be doing so on a mobile device.
One of the hottest of hot button issues in human capital these days seems to be the categorization of the recruiting function and whether or not it belongs in HR in the first place.
It may seem superficially pithy, but it’s a dialogue with drastic ramifications for the future of both recruiting and candidate engagement.
That’s because of the dual dialogue seeking to validate and elevate the recruiting function, at least the piss poor public perception of recruiters.
This would be one thing if the negative sentiment against an entire profession was limited to disgruntled job seekers but, the truth is, hiring managers and even HR counterparts don’t think too highly about recruiters at large, even if they’re delighted with their own talent acquisition team.
I’m not generally one to call for austerity, considering I often find myself the beneficiary of vendor largesse. But at last week’s annual HR Technology Conference, I noticed that an industry more or less emerging from macroeconomic famine might be enjoying the bull market feast just a little too much – and are recklessly spending money while ignoring the new realities of recruiting and talent acquisition.
For those of you who didn’t sink tens of thousands of dollars into an ultimately worthless liberal arts degree or aren’t fans of the performing arts genres of the late Renaissance (for $500, Alec), you might not have heard of Commedia Dell’Arte: literally, “The Comedy of the Profession.”
Without getting too deep, it’s basically the Venetian equivalent of “In Living Color,” utilizing stock characters and sweeping stereotypes as the basis for what amounts to a satirical indictment of social mores and cultural values. Kind of like a Tyler Perry movie but without the evangelical undertones and cross-dressing.