With the recent shift of companies offering remote/work from home options, organizations have become more competitive when it comes to hiring top talent. However, as the pendulum swings back on this topic, the employees who have been working remotely for the first time in their careers may feel underappreciated comparatively to previously working in an office. Plus, the elephant in the room is working from home is not as sleek and glamorous as portrayed in movies and commercials. You may have limited space, pets chiming in, deliveries at the worst time, children/spouse home sick, Wi-Fi connectivity issues, etc. In fact, data shows that remote employees in general (tenured and newly) are experiencing burn out.
According to a Gallup finding, there is an 8% annualized turnover rate of employees who were both thriving and engaged. Compared to 14% turnover of employees who were engaged but struggling or suffering AND 24% turnover of employees who were neither thriving nor engaged.
The solution is to examine your current employee relations practices. Be proactive and have dialog with your workforce and find ways to enhance/refresh what you are doing. Some questions you can ask include:
· How are you doing?
· What is working and what improvements can be made?
· Do you have a routine?
· Is your home office “set-up” working out or is it lacking?
· Are you in contact often enough with your manager?
· Do the communication/collaboration tools work?
· Do you feel valued or recognized?
· How do you recharge considering you can’t mingle in person with co-workers?
This may feel like extra work but remember, the cost of replacing an employee can be as much as 33% of the employee’s annual salary. Another statistic to consider is it takes an average of 9-12 months to begin an ROI on a new hire. This can be a work in progress and by showing your workforce you are aware of this and care about their wellbeing can be all someone needs to hear to know help is on the way.
A best tactic to secure top talent is once you know who you want to hire, extend the offer letter. Common sense? Yes, but the nuance is, extend the offer right now/same day. There are outliers where an offer can have more complexity and take more time. Such as RSU, commission structure for inherited sales accounts, etc. However, the majority of offer letters are a template. The name, position title, compensation and start date are usually the only items updated.
So, why does it take days or sometimes weeks for an offer letter to be finalized? In my experience it’s because the process is moving too slow or not in in the ideal sequential stages. For example, the requisition/headcount should already be approved as well as the compensation package prior to interviewing. Also, have all the interviews required scheduled as close to one another as possible. If you conduct multiple interviews before making a decision, do them over 1-3 days, not 1-2 weeks. This gives a good impression to the candidate that your company has a structured evaluation process and you are considering they may have other options.
Hiring someone should be viewed as closing a sale. Therefore, when you and your team decide after an interview to hire the candidate, extend the offer letter on the spot or by the end of same day. Take advantage of the momentum of interest with the candidate so they remove themselves from the market. Because, the longer they are interviewing, waiting to hear back, playing ping-pong with counteroffers, etc., they are subject to the competition. Remember the empirical adage, ‘time kills all deals’.
When it comes to reference checks, there are substantial legal restrictions on the use and communication of employment-related information. In my experience it is becoming more challenging to complete references. Some organizations have policies that prohibit providing references or refer the inquirer to human resources or a third-party service like The Work Number. A positive reference is reassuring. It reinforces the experience we’ve had with the candidate during the interview process and sometimes validates our decision to extend an offer. However, let’s pause a moment and reflect on what we are getting by having completed references versus what are we risking.
Take a moment and consider what are we really getting from a reference. How many times have you completed a reference that was negative that made you second guessed the candidate? I’ve done 100’s of references and I can count on one hand how many times I’ve experienced negative feedback. So, does that mean all the candidates I’ve ever worked with are the best? Of course not. It likely means that the candidate is picking people that will give them a good reference. So, to state the obvious, it’s subjective. Not to mention, when a less than excellent reference is provided do we know with certainty the person providing the insight was being objective? Could the person providing the reference dislike the candidate or is possibly interviewing for the same job?
The risk of doing reference checks is each person you contact to conduct a reference could become your competition. In essence, you are alerting someone that your candidate is interviewing and/or reviewing offers. What if the person giving the reference needs to hire someone with the same skill set? What if they have a business partner in a different division or at another company that is hiring? If you had already presumed this reference was credible and you were intending on taking their input seriously, then why wouldn’t they too want to hire the candidate they are vouching for?
“If” your company is firm on completing references then I recommend the following tactic. Make the offer with the contingency of completing references and any other onboarding requirements you have (background, drug testing, credit check, etc.). Once they sign the offer, complete the references ASAP because the longer they take to complete, the more you are at risk of the candidate becoming an interest of another company. Instruct the candidate to inform the references to expect your call on the same day of your offer. Engage the candidate to help expedite the process. Whenever possible, do not begin reference checks before the offer letter has been signed. I was recently on the wrong side of this. My client insisted on conducting references which lead to one of those references swooping in and offering the candidate more money.
One last thought to leave you with. Are references a scapegoat to ineffective interviewing?
The difficulty to secure top talent has become the most challenging it’s ever been. Some of the compounding variables include demand is up, supply is down, increased salaries and remote/work from home is in high demand. Companies based in other regions of the U.S. that can offer higher salaries with work from home models are attracting talent in markets they couldn’t compete in before. The gap between the companies that are adapting and those doing the same thing seems to be widening too. This quote puts it into perspective, “If You Always Do What You've Always Done, You'll Always Get What You've Always Got.” ~ Henry Ford.
Winning organizations are streamlining their hiring process and conducting interviews over a shorter period. You can continue to do the same amount of vetting as before but do it over fewer days. This benefits everyone involved but most importantly the candidate feels their time is being respected and is assured their potential new employer knows who they want and are ready to hire. Here’s an analogy to put this into perspective. On the ABC television show “Shark Tank”, for the first several seasons each Shark took turns conducting a brief interview of the business owner pitching their company. At the end of the interviews there could be 0-5 offers from the Sharks and the business owner would oscillate from Shark to Shark trying to pick the best offer. Several years ago, Mark Cuban adapted his approach. Once his questions are answered and he knows if he wants to invest, he extends an offer on the spot with the following caveat, “My offer is contingent on you accepting right now. If you talk to the other Sharks my offer expires”. Mark continues to vet the opportunity to his standards but doesn’t wait around for the others to jump in.
Consider the following data to help quantify this topic. Over the past 12-months at OnDeck Recruiting the average time-to-offer from the first interview was 5.6 days. Those that received offers in this period accepted. All the offers from my clients that were declined fall into two categories. 1) The offers were extended at 22.6 days (4X longer). 2) The offers were lower than the candidate’s asking salary.
It’s time to listen to the candidates because it’s true they do have multiple offers, their time is valuable, and they know what their worth is. Streamline your interviewing process and extend an offer in six days or less. When you decide to hire, close the deal and put your best offer on the table. Instead of thinking about the extra cost of paying more than you budgeted, consider the lost revenue you’ll begin to recapture by filling the vacancy.
How many licks does it take to reach the center of a Tootsie Pop? That was the question asked in the popular television commercial from 1970. A more recent puzzling question has been, how many applications does it take to get a job interview & job offer? A professional friend of mine was recently laid off and has an excellent work history working at one of the top employers in our area. Generally, you’d expect her resume to get the attention of most any company she applied to. Unfortunately, that was not the case. Over a six-month period (196 days), she applied to approximately 100 jobs. That works out to be almost 1 application every other day. From this she was asked to interview only 5 times. That is a 5% response rate in the current market for someone highly qualified.
If you are perplexed on how it’s possible for 95 applications to be overlooked, consider this:
Of the 5 interview requests, 2 of them originated from the company liking something they saw on her resume. That’s a 2% response! These 2 interviews did not result in a job offer. The other 3 interviews were because she knew someone who worked at those companies, and they recommended her to be interviewed. She ended up taking a job from one of these interviews.
Just like recruiting has changed, so has applying to jobs. Job seekers need to be more tactical and develop a simple strategy that focuses on using their personal/professional network. Ask someone you know at a company that you are interested in working at to introduce you to the hiring manager. Leverage past co-workers, managers, alumni, and family & friends. If there is an industry event or career fair that is convenient to attend, go and try to meet the key people in hiring roles or apply directly at the event. Job seekers need to be strategic and stand out from the crowd of applicants. How will you get to the center?
Are you still wondering how many licks it takes to get to the center? A group of engineering students from Purdue University reported that its licking machine, modeled after a human tongue, took an average of 364 licks to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop. Twenty of the group's volunteers assumed the licking challenge-unassisted by machinery-and averaged 252 licks each to the center.
What is your hiring plan for this year? How is your company finding candidates to interview for your open jobs? What job boards are the most effective? What metrics are you tracking to monitor efficiency and success?
At OnDeck Recruiting we track several metrics. One is the number of days-to-offer from first interview. Another is the initial salary offer compared to the candidate’s requirement. Over the last 12-months at OnDeck Recruiting the average time-to-offer from the first interview was 5.6 days. Those that received offers in this period accepted and started the job. All the offers from our clients that were declined were extended at 22.6 days (4X longer) and/or the offers were lower than the candidate’s asking salary.
We all need to get better at listening to the candidates because it’s true they do have multiple offers, their time is valuable, and they know what their worth is. Streamline the interviewing process and extend an offer in six days or less. When you decide to hire, close the deal, and put your best offer on the table. Instead of thinking about the extra cost of paying more than you budgeted, consider the lost revenue you’ll begin to recapture by filling the vacancy.
We are also seeing an increased difficulty of candidates deciding to engage because they are vetting the recruiter and opportunity more than they ever have before. It’s analogous to a realtor requiring a potential buyer to show proof of pre-qualification for funds prior to showing them a house they represent. When you factor this on top of the supply shortage, it’s getting tricky. At OnDeck Recruiting to earn the trust of candidates, we vouch for our clients, their jobs, and set the expectation that the interview process is defined and timely. The opportunity is to continue with the same amount of time to vet a candidate, just compress the number of days over which this process occurs.
A personal acquaintance of mine applied for the same job with four different competing companies. All four companies have these jobs listed as accepting applications on their website. The results over the first week were: Company 1) Phone call requesting an in-person interview. Company 2) Radio silence. Company 3) Electronic notification that the resume is in the system, and you will need to log in for ongoing status updates. Company 4) Radio silence.
After the second week the results were: Company 1) In-person interview completed and possibly two branches are interested to move forward. Company 2) After using a direct email follow up tactic (to someone they haven’t met but research indicated was involved with hiring), they received a reply email indicating they are not moving forward due to being short staffed. Company 3) No status change. Company 4) After using a LinkedIn connect + note tactic to a hiring manager to point out a broken hyperlink on the company’s website, they received a reply in LinkedIn acknowledging the broken link but nothing about the part of their message that they recently applied for an open job.
I’ve had multiple conversations with this person over the past two weeks. Here’s what I’ve heard, with strong opinion.
I postulate Company 1 has a culture of accountability and follows policy & procedure to maximize first impression and brand consistency. If Company 1 hires this person, they will be elated and most likely refer people they know to apply too. If Company 1 decides not to move forward, the residual mindshare will be positive. It will resonate with something like, “I almost got hired and hope they consider me down the road”. The ripple affect effect anytime the company comes up in future conversation will be brand endorsement. The other three companies will receive varying degrees of poor impression with something like, “I wouldn’t work there. Don’t waste your time applying. You should apply to Company 1 instead.”
My latest recollection on how many people share negative experiences with others compared to positive experiences is double. On average someone shares the positive event six times and the negative event 13 times. Finding high-performing talent is already difficult. If you are not behaving like Company 1, review your hiring process and find opportunities to bridge the communication gaps that lead to an excellent candidate experience.
When I first encountered the 30/20/50 theory, I was just starting my career in management. It quickly became a cornerstone of my personal management philosophy.
Here’s how the theory breaks down:
The challenge for management lies in concentrating on the 30% who are driving success, rather than expending energy trying to change the 20% who are resistant. Focusing too much on the 20% can be detrimental; it can cause the 50% to take notice of the attention being given to the negative group, potentially leading them to adopt similar attitudes and behaviors. This shift can result in an unhealthy environment where up to 70% of your workforce becomes disengaged. If this negativity persists, not only does your business suffer, but your top performers (the 30%) may feel undervalued and start looking elsewhere for opportunities.
On the other hand, by focusing on and rewarding the efforts of your star performers, the 50% group is more likely to emulate their positive behavior. A common question arises: "Why not simply eliminate the 20% and create a perfect team?" The theory suggests that this balance is inevitable—if you remove the 20%, someone from the 50% may disagree with the decision, eventually becoming disillusioned and sliding into the 20% group. Over time, they may even recruit others to their negative viewpoint.
This doesn't mean you should ignore the concerns of the 20%. It's important to be fair, consider their feedback, and make necessary changes when justified. However, the key takeaway is to focus on what is working and the people who make it work, rather than getting bogged down by negativity.
Lastly, this can apply to any group of people—whether in communities, teams, families, or organizations.
One of the most common complaints I hear about recruiters is, “I had one call or interview, and then I never heard from them again.” I’d like to shed some light on what’s happening behind the scenes to help manage job seekers’ expectations.
To start, let’s clarify the roles of different types of recruiters: Corporate Recruiters: These professionals work directly for the company they’re hiring for, usually as part of the human resources department. If you’re hired, they become your colleagues. Agency Recruiters (3rd Party): These recruiters work for staffing agencies or recruiting firms. They act as vendors or partners to companies, like how a business might outsource IT services or tax preparation.
Recruiting is a fast-paced, deadline-driven job that requires constant multitasking and prioritization. During the busiest periods, it’s akin to a real estate agent trying to sell multiple properties in a speed-dating scenario. Here are some key points to consider:
The prioritization is influenced by several factors, including the potential margin, job order age, competition, internal expertise, client relationship (existing vs. new), payment terms, job requirements, and the interviewing process.
Understanding these dynamics can help recalibrate expectations and provide insight into why you might not hear back immediately—or at all. It’s not always a reflection of your candidacy but rather a result of the complex and competitive nature of the recruiting process.
Do you repost job seekers that are open to work with:
~Sharing for reach
~Reposting for visibility
~Know anyone who might be interested
Is it helping them get an interview or meet a hiring authority?
I realize the gesture is coming from a place of wanting to help but there is a potential drawback to everyone reposting the job seeker’s availability. Eventually it isn’t noticed, and people scroll right past it. Afterall, they are looking for a job and although the support (emojis) is encouraging, it’s not the result they desire. Plus, they are likely inundated with recruiter inquires that mostly result in “I don’t have anything for you now but in the future…”.
Consider making a connection rather than just spreading the love. Refer or introduce them to someone in their field whom you’d consult with, seek advice from, or consider a mentor, manager, or respected colleague. Help them build connections and gather market insight to better identify potential matches. Look through your network and directly introduce/connect them (a pioneering feature* of LinkedIn) to a hiring authority you know who can possibly help them today.
Lastly, if you see a job post in your feed, tag the person you know that is open to work in the comments. This alerts both the person you tagged and the author of the post.
*Go to messaging, create a new message, add the job seeker and the person you are introducing them to, type your introduction note, and send.
During one of my visits to Seattle, WA a local friend took me to the Zig Zag Cafe. At the time, the Zig Zag Café was regarded as having the best bartenders in Seattle. In fact, becoming a head bartender was really an apprenticeship that comes to age with mentoring and patience - not rushed and no shortcuts. Those familiar with Zig Zag Café will likely recognize the name Murray. Murray earned the recognition as one of America's Top 10 Bartenders. I heard that the #2 bartender in Seattle who worked at a competing bar, and was revered by local cocktail connoisseurs, quit to join the team at Zig Zag Cafe. He did not pour a cocktail the first year he worked there. Unfortunately, I was not able to meet Murray or observe his craft during my visit. Instead, I had the pleasure of meeting Eric who was tending bar the evening I stopped by. Eric was one of Murray's apprentices.
From the moment we entered the busy cafe, Eric was aware of our presence while he was preparing someone else’s drink. A quick look up to acknowledge me and my friend. As the host escorted us to the bar my friend mentioned to me that it had been over a year since he had stopped into the Zig Zag Cafe. The moment we sat down Eric had placed a glass of ice water with napkin in front of each of us and said, "Good evening gentlemen. It's been a while since we've seen you sir [referring to my friend by name]." Eric and my friend exchanged pleasantries, and I was introduced. Eric asked, "What would you like this evening?" My friend replied, "I'll have the usual." - testing Eric's memory. Eric did not miss a beat and confirmed, "Ketel One Martini straight up." While this impressive display of memory was playing out, the wait staff were coming up to the bar from three different locations and placing orders with Eric for the dozens of full tables they were serving. The coming and going of the wait staff was like watching traffic on I-5 flowing perfectly. Eric was also calmly looking to his left and right to ensure the patrons sitting at the bar had a beverage and were happy.
As we sat enjoying our martini's and took in the ambiance, Eric prepared dozens and dozens of drinks with a precision I have never witnessed before. Every, literally every, drink prepared was taste tested at least once before leaving the bar. Eric would dip a cocktail straw into the beverage and cap the end with his fingertip (trapping the liquid) then remove it from the drink to taste the contents. He would then approve the drink and pass it to the waiter for delivery or he would make an adjustment to the drink, so it tasted perfect. Most of the time the adjustment was only a drop, or two, of one of the ingredients that was required to accomplish the perfect balance. After each adjustment he would place a new cocktail straw into the drink and test it again. On rare occasion he would pour the drink out and start over (of the 100+ drinks I watched him make he did this once). Again, as Eric's attention to the smallest detail would appear all consuming, he still would converse with the patrons. Looking up at us, "Sir (again call my friend by name), I don't think anyone's order Louis since you last visited." At this moment someone from behind the bar needed Eric's attention and pulled him away for a brief conversation. When Eric returned my buddy said, "My friend's visiting from out of town so let's have two." Eric grabbed two cognac snifters and began prepping our glasses that would contain the Louis cognac. First, he filled two tumbler glasses with hot water and then set the snifters of cognac on their side on top of the tumbler so the Louis would warm up. As he was doing this my friend asked Eric if they have any Port Ellen. In a blink, Eric had grabbed a bottle (8th Release) from the shelf and placed it in front of us while continuing to prepare our glasses of Louis. Eric asked me if I had previously enjoyed the Port Ellen, and I answered no to which he poured me a complimentary taste of the $400 bottle of scotch. As I enjoyed the Port Ellen, I watched Eric complete the heating ritual and then present our glasses of Louis cognac.
What inspired me the most about Eric was watching someone who is dedicated to their craft. He clearly aspired to demonstrate perfection. His awareness, memory, attention to detail, multitasking, focus, and passion were astonishing to watch. It truly was like watching a professional athlete competing in their element.
If you are developing your craft, or need inspiration, seek out opportunities to observe others who are performing at a high level. Not just athletes. Perhaps a barista, hairdresser, chef, makeup artist, or graphic designer. Make someone’s day by tagging them in this article and acknowledging their expertise!
I had the opportunity to hear Bob Young speak in person. Bob is the former CEO of Red Hat and Lulu. He did a great job of mixing in his successful business experiences with a sense of humility and humor. Bob's advice to everyone was simply stated as A - B - C.
Job seeker frustration does not appear to be on the decline when it comes to their experience applying to job postings. Depending on where you begin with this topic, it’s difficult to avoid a circular argument. Considering this, I’ll focus on the main complaint I hear from job seekers – being ghosted. Here is my root analysis of why that is and a recommended actionable improvement.
Anyone who has ever received an automated “thank you for applying but you will not be interviewing” is usually disappointed because they believe (or know) they are qualified for the job according to the job description. Why is the void between candidates applying to jobs and live contact follow-up from the employer expanding? In part, this is due to technology systems & their features outpacing the practical use of these systems. For example, businesses using these to begin their screening during the application process disqualifies viable candidates. This can occur because the initial screening process is unable to match “requirements”. This is a variation of GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out) – poorly chosen screening criteria meets poorly written resume. When a filter is “required” vs. “preferred”, the resume has “degree” vs. “ bachelor’s degree”, or a certification is required, and the applicant forgot to update their resume - the outcome is a “screen out” vs. “screen in” result.
Side note: This link is to a previous article I posted about a related cautionary observation. Using AI as a recruiter bot will compound the problem and expand the void. Although AI has a place in helping improve the recruiting workflow, it cannot outperform people recruiting people. Just like Zillow did not replace real estate agents.
There is a better process between employers and job seekers that can eliminate ghosting frustration. Get back to the basics with direct communication and adopt a “screen in” philosophy. When I was in operations and management, I hired several hundreds of FTEs and interviewed thousands of applicants. The system I used was to schedule blocks of time and conduct back-to-back 15-miunte information exchanges with individual applicants. When there was an exceptionally high number of applicants, I would set up group sessions. During the first meeting I would share a company overview, team/environment insight, job function snapshot, schedule, and pay range. Then I informed them to think this over for a day and after that if you are still interested email me to schedule an interview. This process ensured nobody that applied was overlooked and ghosting frustration was non-existent. It also allowed people to self-deselect themselves.
The difference between these approaches are job seekers feeling overlooked vs. having a tryout for your team. The later offers closure/understanding that someone else better matched the requirements and that is why they didn’t make the cut. One is respectable and leaves a good brand impression with the job seeker, the other creates resentment and poor word of mouth about your organization.
In summary, my analysis advocates for the employer to make the time and interview people that apply to their company.
We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.