Click to read.

http://thephysicianrecruitmentblog.blogspot.com/

There was an interesting article recently in the Globe and Mail looking at some of the possible long-term effects of the current recession on employment, company cultures, job development and other areas. I found the changes for young workers (the oft-discussed Gen Y) particularly of note.

[M]any young people I talk to have significantly, and resentfully, lowered their expectations. They didn't imagine themselves in this situation in their wildest dreams.

Nor did many others. Generation Y will be most affected by the cutbacks, downsizings and marked change in organizational cultures over the past few months, but the recession will take its toll on every generation's attitudes and expectations. The question is how long-lasting the reverberations will be in reshaping the way people think, feel and act toward work and their careers.

Over the last year I have been a regular commentator on my views of how the recession has changed the market, and in particular how clients are now seeking value and something different from their suppliers. Value being the key factor in decisions on who to use and what they are willing to pay for it. When facing this challenge, it is easy to forget that the needs of the candidates have also changed in line with the market. In the first of a series of blogs, I'm considering this and giving you my views.

In my view, in an applicant rich market, it's harder to find the right people.  Might seem strange, and the clients need to be convinced of this, but you have to look at a lot more CV's on order to identify the right people to submit and those that are suitable need a lot more hand holding before they are willing to take the leap and change employers.  This is why the decision making lead time is taking longer on both the applicant and client side.  Our research indicates that the average lead time between vacancy and placement has doubled from 3 weeks to 6 weeks over the last twelve months.  (Some sectors may take even longer).

This requires a new approach to candidate take on, vacancy take on, response handling and offer management that is much more involved and personal. A lot like we used to do it in the B.C. days. (Before Computers!) The key trends to consider here are:

• High volume of candidate flow
• Increase in "speculative" applications
• Falling quality and relevance in ad response
• Candidate need for on going communication and relationship
• Candidate need for feedback and guidance
• Longer candidate decision making time
• Working candidates cautious and risk averse
• Skilled candidates in "war for talent" sectors harder to find and move
• Financial stability being the key factor in any move over reward

Considering these trends, recruitment businesses are having to review their applicant strategy and approach (on the basis that they have one in the first place!). My top 10 tips to consider in this are listed below. They may not all work for you, but if they don't, come up with your own:

1: Search your data-base before you advertise anything. You will probably already have what you need with a bit of work.

2: Prepare a "rejection" pack that gives applicants more than a no thanks. A well crafted letter with some additional tips on things like CV writing, useful job sites, other agencies, advice on identifying transferable skills etc. This will protect your applicant brand particularly as these applicants may become useful down the line.

3: Align your sales strategy around the candidates you have. Target companies that are likely to have vacancies in the areas you have candidates. This will open doors and ensure the vacancies you win will be the vacancies you can fill.

4: Register candidates by interview. Face to face or on the phone should have little difference over the process. Dedicate part of the interview to identifying exactly what they want, why and what concerns they have. This is invaluable for matching and for reinforcing why a position is right.

5: Take full Job Specs (Not descriptions.) This means understanding exactly what the company can offer and in particular why they will provide a secure home. Essential information up to offer stage.

6: Get to know your candidates. Focus your time and effort on "hot" candidates who are marketable or a good source of referrals. Have regular conversations, offer opportunities and give regular feedback. A small number - 20 - 30 are manageable, and the relationship of trust will become key during the interview process.

7: Brief both your candidate and client at every stage. Continually check for reservations or curve balls. Make sure the client reinforces why they are the right choice and that the candidate has discussed the opportunity with all their family.

8: Talk to clients about the difficult to find skills essential to them, target these areas via headhunting, networking, blogging etc. This will enable you to open doors to new business by having candidates that clients actually want and need.

9: make the phone and face to face your favored method of communication. Use e-mail as a back up only when you can't reach someone or you want to confirm a conversation. This is where relationships are built and you get a real feel for the emotion.

10: Engage with your inactive candidates. The easiest way to do this is to run a weekly conference call. You can update on the market, ask for referrals and ask questions. Much appreciated by candidates.

This is by no means exhaustive, but hopefully has got you thinking about what the candidates as well as the clients want in the current market.

I will be discussing this with Allan Whitford and other guests on the internet radio  talk show ready for lift off at 12.00 - 1.00 GMT and the international edition between 6.00 - 7.00 on Monday 3^rd July.

You can listen in during or after the show on http://www.blogtalkradio.com/Bill-Boorman

You can take part by calling 01-646-727-3988

Hope to see you there!

Bill

My eyelids droop when I hear lawyers or Phds explaining anything. And when they explain something legal, my head hurts. And when they explain the legality of testing, my head droops, hits the desk and I hurt even more.

(There are exceptions and among them I happen to love Charles Handler who recently wrote an ERE article on this subject)

However, while I think staffing leaders want to understand what is going on in all relevant corners of their world the recent Supreme Court decision on the Ricci case (which may eventually have some bearing on testing) is confusing.

The problem is that it is a complex finding and, while it will certainly be dissected for the next few months offering lawyers, EEO experts and psychologists extra exposure on webinars, my simplified [and arguable biased] take in a few somewhat declarative sentences follows:

- The City of New Haven uses a written test to determine whether to promote firefighters to a "command" position.

- The test adversely affects minorities i.e. they do significantly poorer.

- The City refused to accept the results of their own test because the results were "discriminatory". (The guys and gals who took the test and came out on top were upset and cried foul.

- The Supreme Court refused to accept the city's argument. The results stand.

- In sustaining the original results, the Supreme Court said that the City gave the test and now they need to live with the results.

-The Supreme Court also said that the City poorly argued that the test wasn't valid in the first place and so they had to assume it was valid until it was proven that it wasn't. (Lots of experts support the notion that the written test in question aka the "book learning" approach lacks any connection to the reality of what it takes to lead firefighters. Unfortunately, the [so called] experts argue among themselves about the best way to measure validity and ended up confusing the court.)

- Bottom line, the Supreme Court supports scientific selection which on its face cannot be ignored simply because a specifc group does poorly. The Supreme Court however is not saying that you can get away with a test that discriminates if it is NOT truly valid.

- However, the ruling was close and a minority [no pun intended] decision by Ginsburg championed a new notion- that "diversity" is a "primary objective in staffing". This has a lot of folks up in arms who think (as most of us do) that hiring candidates who will perform well is the primary objective..and that doing it fairly to ensure the successful candidates are, in fact, diverse is what we are talking about.

In the short run, if you validate against performance, you will have fewer problems. If you recruit against criteria you've validated, simply make sure your diverse candidates all meet the same bar. Tom Janz sent me this link to SIOP content and a few notes which prompted my blog. Thanks Tom (another PhD I can understand)