By FIRST, AN APOLOGY: I’ve been writing a lot about recruiting and hiring recently.
I’m really sorry for that.
My intent was NOT to make this a talent management blog, and that’s easy for me since I worked and wrote about it for so damn long at so many places.
But, I still see many things in the talent management space that not only grab my attention but make me want to add my 2 cents to the debate.
That’s how it was last week with my post titled Be thankful more recruiters are saying this: Requiring 4-5 interviews is simply abusive. The good news is this: that recruiting and hiring is something that people can identify with because just about everyone is a job candidate at some point in their life.
Today’s insight is from Robynn Storey, a very sharp lady who has helped a lot of people dramatically improve their resumes so they can find and land a better job.
Hiring tit for tat
IT’S A NOBLE CAUSE that’s greatly needed — and she does it REALLY well.
She also writes a lot about it, on LinkedIn, and her insights are always spot on. This one is no exception.
“Tit for tat.
Want a candidate to give you 3 references? Give them the names/phone numbers of 3 employees of yours they can talk to.
Want to see the candidates w-2 from last year? Be prepared to show them yours.
Want a candidate to take a personality test? Be prepared to show them the results of the personality test of the person who will be their boss. (This should be interesting).
Want a candidate to prepare a business, marketing or sales plan? Be prepared to share your vision for that candidate’s professional growth, career plan and how YOU will ensure their success.
Hiring is a two-way street. Knowing everything about the candidate is your requirement.
Shouldn’t they, in turn, know everything about you? I think that’s fair.”
“The power dynamic … needs to shift”
Robynn Storey’s point is a good one — that all too often, recruiting and hiring is a terribly one-sided process.
Candidates are expected to jump through a lot of hoops, including a never-ending series of interviews, and all too often, it’s an unfair, one-sided process.
Over 300 comments were posted to Robynn’s LinkedIn post, and that’s not surprising since so many people seem to feel that a tit-for-tat hiring process benefits everyone. Here’s just one reader comment that perfectly captured what Robynn Storey was trying to say:
“The power dynamic is real and needs to shift. Any good career/job coach (heck, even a dating coach) would offer advice such as: ‘you’re interviewing/vetting the company as much as they are vetting you. Own your value.’ “
A great many organizations — and their recruiters/hiring managers — seem to forget that candidates really NEED to do some vetting of the company considering them in the same manner that the company is vetting them.
The problem is that so many companies don’t believe they need to do that — and the best candidates will figure that out and go elsewhere.
A big push to get people back in the office
ONE MORE THING: Robynn Storey also weighed in recently on the debate over where employees work — remotely, in a hybrid arrangement, or back full-time in the office. Here’s what she shared about that:
“I am seeing an uptick in people getting new jobs that are 100% in office … 5 days a week.
I had a client who took a new role as a Chief of Staff for an Advertising Agency. She was shocked to find out that while she was required to be in the office 5 days a week, 90% of the staff was still working from home.
She went to her new boss and asked, “why am I here 5 days a week, when everyone else is working from home?”
He told her that all new employees will be required to be onsite, 100% of the time. And existing staff will be required to return to the office with varying levels of office mandates until they reach 100% participation.
She got the impression that those who refuse to cooperate with the 100% in office requirements would be let go and replaced.”
So did I.
I think things are about to get rough…. Don’t think for one second that employers care about the benefits of remote work, better balance, increased family time and shorter work days (no commutes). Everything has always been about money/control/power/oversight.
We are in for a wild ride.”
Gallup finds a growing disconnect with remote workers
HERE’S MY TAKE: Robynn is right; we ARE in for a wild ride.
The Wall Street Journal just published a story on this very issue titled The Disconnect Between Remote Workers and Their Companies Is Getting Bigger.
It’s based on data from a new Gallup survey that found that, “the share of remote workers who said they felt a connection to the purpose of their organizations fell to 28% from 32% in 2022 — the lowest level since before the pandemic. The findings are from a survey this spring and summer of nearly 9,000 U.S. workers whose jobs can be done remotely.”
This is a story worth reading because it speaks to the big changes in workplace dynamics that started with the global lockdown and continue now in the post-pandemic world.
But here is the critical issue that both organizations and employees are struggling with: employee engagement. Yes, it’s an old issue that has never gone away but is now popping up in the debate over remote-hybrid work. The WSJ story points out that:
“Despite the lack of connection, the Gallup survey showed 38% of people who work remotely full- or part-time are engaged, or enthused about their work, compared with 34% of in-office workers.
The conflicting metrics show bosses don’t have any easy answers as they try to provide flexible working arrangements yet fret about worker productivity. Nearly 30% of U.S. workers in remote-capable jobs work exclusively at home, according to Gallup, a share that hasn’t wavered much in the past year. One reason they score higher in Gallup’s engagement metrics than their office peers is that they say they have a clear idea of what’s expected of them.
Many managers are unsatisfied with the current setup. In a Federal Reserve Bank of New York survey of business leaders released this month, the majority said remote work helped in recruiting employees yet worsened workplace culture, team cohesion and mentorship.”
This is a HUGE issue that needs to be sorted out. Simply demanding that people to return to the office just isn’t going to cut it.
Companies need to get in front of this issue, but we’ve know that since the global lockdown ended. Let’s hope they figure it out soon, and that they don’t handle it the way so many of them handle their job candidates.
Yes, a tit-for-tat solution makes sense here too, but I’m not holding my breath that organizations actually figure that out.
