Take too long to recruit staff and the best candidates will end up
taking a job elsewhere. Computer Weekly explains how to get your
man - or woman
Despite the current economic downturn and subsequent job cuts there
is still a massive skills shortage in the IT industry. Attracting
the right candidates remains as critical as ever. You might think
that companies would be going out of their way to make themselves
as tempting as possible to potential applicants, but, from the
point of view of many , it must seem as if some firms are actively
trying to discourage them from joining.
According to Rick Bacon, managing director of software services
firm Parity, who also runs the company's technology staffing
division, a lot of organisations are failing to attract the right
staff because their recruitment processes are too long. Although he
admits that the quality of the service provided by some recruitment
agencies leaves a lot to be desired, Bacon says many companies use
the agency as a scapegoat when things go wrong when the real
problem is an internal one. "A lot of companies have an eight-step
interview process and that's ridiculous," he says. "It gives the
impression that the company cannot make decisions."
Bacon recommends a three-step interview process. "You should be
able to get people through this process in two weeks," he says.
"You'll get the best candidates that way. If you're still
recruiting after two months you've got a problem." Any decent
candidates will be long gone, he says.
The point is that the skills in question are scarce and the right
candidates will generally be working somewhere else. They have to
be lured away. It is up to the company to make an impression, not
the other way round.
But the length of the recruitment process is not the only issue.
Bacon says interviewers must be good and company Web sites, often
the first port of call for candidates, up to scratch. "You have to
see some of these Web sites to believe them," he says. "They're
horrible. Candidates will ask themselves why on earth they would
want to work there unless it was to build their recruitment Web
site."
Failing to respond to online applications quickly will also result
in companies missing the boat. Another way of cutting down on time
is to make sure that the letter containing the job offer covers all
of the relevant areas and information.
Bacon attributes recruitment problems to the way the IT industry
has evolved. "Because IT has been so dynamic and fast changing it
has never really got its arms around an HR strategy," he says. The
US has realised this and made some progress, with Europe catching
up fast.
For companies the implications go beyond failing to get the right
people. "It's a tremendous cost to the company and most of it could
be avoided," says Bacon. "Costs will be measured in millions, not
tens of thousands." He points to the loss of knowledge, the
projects that don't get started and the loss of continuity.
Furthermore, candidates have long memories. "If you talk to the
candidates who have been burned, they won't work for those
companies any more," he says. "It's a small community. People know
who the slow, disorganised companies are."
However, Bacon's view is far from universal. Ann Swain, chairwoman
of the Association of Technology Staffing Companies, does not
believe the length of the recruitment process is the main problem.
Nor does she feel that the state of a company's recruitment Web
site is a big issue. But she does agree there is often a lack of
internal procedure in companies looking to recruit staff, which can
be frustrating for both the recruitment agency and the candidate.
"Some companies are good and some not so good," she says. "The more
efficient companies have the best chance of getting the best
people."
Swain believes the main problem is that there just aren't enough
candidates with the right skill sets, like Java and C++. And that
availability will shrink further as a result of the current
economic downturn. "In the UK now we seem to be talking ourselves
into a recession," she says. "Very few people will be looking to
move from a secure position."
"It's a buyers' market at the moment," echoes interim IT director
Colin Beveridge, who says that fewer candidates will be willing to
jump ship at the moment. Like Bacon, Beveridge thinks the length of
the recruitment process is a factor. "It is a problem," he says.
"It takes a while to get people in, which is one of the reasons why
there has been a need for the contract market."
However, Beveridge doesn't believe that companies still recruiting
after two months have got a problem. Neither does he believe that
the two-week figure is a possibility outside of the contract
market. "From my experience, in large companies, the start to end
process - from identifying the need to having someone walk through
the door to do the job - is 14 weeks," he says.
First, companies have to get approval to advertise a job
internally, sometimes twice, before they can advertise externally.
It then takes a couple of weeks to get the external job ad
approved. A couple more weeks are needed to get through the
responses, draw up lists and send out letters before candidates can
be interviewed. By week eight a company should have drawn up a
shortlist and be making offers in week eight or nine. The
successful applicant will then have to give four weeks' notice,
starting the new job around week 14 or 15.
Beveridge believes that the most this could be cut by is about four
weeks. "The only way to short-circuit that is if you took a
'Popstars' approach and invited your long list, asked candidates to
stay over, and then did your second interviews on the same trip,"
he says.
"Anything under three months for a professional position would be
reasonable," says Angela Baron, employee resourcing adviser at the
Chartered Institute of Personnel Development. However, three months
should be the absolute maximum. "Anything longer than that and you
do risk losing people," she says.
Baron says some candidates will have to give three months' notice
and then suddenly you're looking at a six-month wait. Like
Beveridge, Baron says one area where companies could save time is
by getting back to promising candidates soon after the interview.
Baron says a fundamental problem is that some companies embark on
the recruitment process in an ad hoc manner. Careful planning will
help the process go more smoothly and also save time. "Who you
employ is an extremely important decision and it shouldn't be taken
lightly," Baron adds.
One man who does believe the recruitment process is far too long
and a major barrier in attracting the right staff is Christopher
Young, managing director of the Impact Programme. One of the
stories that came out of Impact's War for Talent event in May was
that of a public sector body which admitted it was taking nine
months for it to get to the point where it could offer jobs to
candidates.
Young says companies should cut down on the time taken to recruit
candidates by doing as much work as possible before going to the
market. And when they find someone good who fits, they should
recruit them as soon as possible, before someone else does.
Young also believes too many people from different parts of the
business are involved in the recruitment process. "I don't
understand what an awful lot of them bring to the party," he says.
He suggests that larger companies allow individuals to recruit
their own staff and provide them with a budget to do this.
"As a manager, if you trust your staff, you shouldn't even have to
see the candidate yourself," he says. "It depends how bold you are.
It comes down to empowerment, really." Delegating recruitment
should cut down on the time taken to recruit because fewer people
will be involved in the process.
Companies should look inside more to recruit and cover areas where
there is a skills shortfall, Young suggests. "Develop the people
you've got," he says. Mentors can be used to turn marketing
directors into IT directors, for example, assuming they are
willing. "Organisations are very bad at stretching individuals and
moving them across," he says. Doing so would also help reduce
recruitment fees, which Young describes as "criminal".
There is no single cause for the skills shortage and no magic wand
can be waved to rectify the situation. In the short term, companies
can increase their chances of attracting skilled staff by offering
interesting projects and clear career paths on top of the seemingly
obligatory large salaries and benefits schemes. Strategies such as
cutting the recruitment process cannot hurt, but in the long term
companies should consider internal measures to build their skills
pools, such as mentoring programmes and company training courses.
Until that happens, too many companies will still chase too few
candidates and the whirligig will continue.
When slow brings woe
Rick Bacon of Parity gave two
actual examples of how tardiness had wrecked recruitment processes.
A "big software company" needed eight people. After a recruitment
process it offered positions to four. However, the paperwork had to
be signed by the project cost controller, who was out of the
office. As a result, the offers went out six weeks after the last
interview. By then three of the candidates had accepted jobs
elsewhere.
Then there was the "big US company" that needed 50 network security
staff. The initial response was good. It was whittled down to 100
candidates and letters sent out to 50. So far, so good. What killed
it was the time taken. Some of the decisions had to be made in the
US and the company wanted more than a three-step interview process.
In the end, for all its efforts, it only found six employees.
Keeping applicants sweet
- Respond rapidly. With online applications, applicants expect an
acknowledgement very quickly - within 24 hours - and a follow-up
within a few weeks
- Provide feedback at the various stages of the recruitment
process
- Take a professional approach
- Treat candidates with respect: they spend a lot of time on
their applications and sometimes they never even hear back. This is
unacceptable.
Source: Angela Baron, Chartered Institute of Personnel Development