Letter from Canada…
Digital recruiting, however, may be contributing to the appearance of a skills shortage – employers can’t find talent because they have changed how they look for it, and the new approach might not be getting the job done. If we can agree that a skills shortage is a supply and demand problem – an inadequate supply (young talent) is reaching those with demand (employers) – then follow this reasoning: • Is there less supply? - No, Canada is producing more grads than ever
• Is the supply of lower quality? - Harder to quantify, but difficult to imagine a systemic decline in the quality of education in half a decade
• Is the demand greater? - Probably not yet, at least not compared to 2007
• Has the way that demand is met changed?
- Yes. Quite significantly.
Put another way, if the number of graduates has actually increased since 2007, and the skills they offer are similar, then this doesn’t look to be a supply side issue. Maybe it’s time to look at the demand side. Is it possible that the problem lies not in who is being recruited, but in how?
Comparing On-Campus Recruiting (OCR) activities from 2007 to 2013, consider this data drawn from CACEE’s annual On- Campus Recruiting Survey: Table 1 On-Campus Recruiting 2007 - 2013
The trends are clear: since 2007, Canadian recruiters have been disengaging from traditional campus recruitment practices, adopting the use of digital recruiting tactics, especially online social networks (initially Facebook, but now LinkedIn and Twitter). ‘Traditional recruiting’ is in decline, and ‘digital recruiting’ is ascending.
But digital recruiting doesn’t work for everyone. Social networks themselves pose one barrier – employers operating
Table 1 On-Campus Recruiting 2007 - 2013
Target Schools Career Fairs % Info Sessions
2007 25 81 67
On-Line Social networks 24
2008 11 81 67 23
in sectors vulnerable to controversy (oil and gas) tend to shy away from engaging in the chaos of social networks. Another problem with social networks relates to how students see them. At a recent CACEE conference we heard from a student panel that they don’t pay much attention to jobs posted on a social network, they ‘don’t feel a connection’ to the opportunity. They preferred to respond to positions posted on their campus electronic job board – they connected better with them.
ATS screening tools can be another barrier. Overly selective criteria can cause too few applicants to get through. In the 2012 book Why Good People Can’t Get Jobs, author Peter Cappelli cites the case of a senior recruiter who came to suspect that they had set their ATS screening too high. To test it, he applied for a position for which he would be qualified within his company, and was screened out.
Recruiters are looking for options, and some of them are trying an approach that is working for them – let’s call it ‘relationship recruiting.’ At first glance, relationship recruiting looks a lot like the ‘traditional’ on-campus recruiting model, but it differs in two ways – timing and outcome. Traditional recruiting is transactional, and outcome based. It happens in a narrow window that opens with the school year in September and ends with accepted offers in November. It hinges on the job – students want them, employers have them, and for 10 intense weeks the two parties engage in a complex ritual to see who gets matched.
Relationship recruiting backs off that short-term outcome based approach,
2009 2010 13 65 53 23
7
63 52 34
2011 8
55 51 37
2012 8
56 44 47
2013 5
58 43 46
requiring employers to spend time on-campus building relationships with students, faculty and staff. Success isn’t measured by headcount alone – it is about building a foundation for next year, and the years beyond. It may involve: • Partnering in experiential learning programs.
• Speaking to second and third year classes about careers in your sector.
• Sponsoring campus activities and scholarships.
• Career fairs and info sessions.
As one recruiter put it, “if we are talking to them for the first time in fourth year, all they are thinking about is whether I have a job to offer – it’s transactional. If I talk to them in second year, I get a chance to talk to them about what a career in my sector might be like – it’s about building a relationship.”
Recruiters who have tried this approach find that it works better than the traditional model but they warn it requires a leadership team committed to the long view. Companies that can’t commit to a two or three year development process will not buy-in to relationship recruiting. And that’s okay, because in a fragmented labour market with a distracted candidate pool, one-size-fits-all doesn’t work. Employers need to determine which of these models works best for them, if any – perhaps a hybrid solution is required. Others will continue to innovate. Meanwhile, we have employers who need people and people who need jobs – let’s get past the debate about shortages, and let’s get productive. n
www.agr.org.uk | Graduate Recruiter 31
www.cacee.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40