Hito Labs

83% of companies say AI is a top priority - are you ready?

Contingency recruiting (when the recruiter is paid ONLY at a hire) usually means a loss of control over candidate quality and candidate experience. It also limits the opportunity to improve process. Contingency incentivizes getting a candidate hired quickly - period. It does not prompt a recruiter to release a candidate who isn't great. It does not inspire a recruiter to give candidates the right experience. There is little opportunity to improve process. Hiring is important. Invest your time and money accordingly.

Interviewers manage to discriminate all the time without even knowing it. ‘Winging it’ and similar to-me effects opens the door to bias. Treating all candidates consistently, by using the same interview agenda and questions, reduces biased decision-making, limits legal risks and increases objective decisions. Check other simple hiring tips at https://lnkd.in/gdQ2qSfW

The job application process intensifies! There are the ghost postings companies post to give ... impressions. There are also rogue fake postings to scam and get people's personal info. And a normal real job posting is usually overloaded with candidates or/and overseen by a swamped recruiter - and a candidate typically hears nothing back. Still, there are less roles than there are candidates. And applying to a posting is the Go-To for most job seekers. Makes sense they would lean on AI tools to easily customize and apply to 100s of roles at a time. Meanwhile, employers are swamped in an increasing number of applications! It's often impossible to even look at them all - let alone fairly evaluate or respond back. And b/c of AI, candidates are looking more qualified and more like each other. One frequent approach is take down the job post, and stop the flood. More recently, time to turn to AI to parse through and pull out the most qualified candidates. It's a race to dig holes and fill them back up.

Beware the hidden costs of a slow hire! I rarely see these costs ever being considered. They become particularly painful the longer your search takes! #1) Lost Revenue Due to Vacancy Will this be role be managing others or any essential operations? Will the be building new features? Generating revenue? What is the loss of productivity without having this person in place? How much does it cost if this search goes one month longer? Two months? #2) Interviewers’ Time Every hour spent interviewing is an hour not spent on their primary job, and other potentially revenue-contributing activities. How many people are involved in the interview process? How senior are they? #3) Morale of Team Even when not on the interview team, a vacancy can mean increased workload and stress, and resentment - “does the company support me?". It can lead to reduced motivation, job insecurity and increased turnover. This one is super hard to measure but can be very real and very expensive.

The Source of your hire has a key impact on how long it will take to fill the role. Some sources represent better matches, or candidates that are more ready and prepared, than others. This Breezy Report snapshot shows 55 days-ish from someone from a LinkedIn source vs well over 300 days from Indeed! Really? Wow. This certainly doesn't tell a whole story, but is a nice and loud example. Different sources offer different quality, different noise in your interview process, and a different time to hire... Think through and revisit the source of your recruiting pipelines! Or ask us here at Hito Labs to strategize with you! Breezy Hiring Time & Source Report -> https://lnkd.in/eFM-v5r

What kind of behavior does the 'no win, no fee' payment model of contingency recruiting incentivize? Quantity over quality? Rather than jeopardize the fee, does it make sense to withhold potentially negative information about candidates? Maybe. The contingency model shifts the risk from the hiring organization to the recruiting firm. This makes it more palatable, but often comes at a price. There is some loss of control, lose of long term accountability, and loss of added value beyond the placement (like improving the process). This isn't always the case! But I'd argue it's one thing that stinks up the recruiting industry. We at www.hitolabs.com avoid contingency. We want to paid for our work, we want to do the right things, spend time to treat candidates right, and improve the process. And get a great hire. It's much harder to get business when not offering an easy contingency model - and it asks clients for more attention, and more trust. I think it's worth it.

Matt Cholerton is the host of Feed Learning's 30-minute webinar this month! -> "How to Work with Recruiters (When to Engage, How to Measure Success, and Manage Costs)." This will be offered on Wednesday, April 17, 2024 @ 12:00 PM - 12:30 PM ET. If you oversee a recruiting project, if you need some easy tips, if you love recruiting, if you hate recruiting - then this is the webinar for you! Get your spot now -> https://lnkd.in/gztT8est

Bold take: Experienced, and strong, hiring managers can get to a HIRE or NO HIRE decision without comparing candidates. They compare the candidate to the role and skills needed. Is this something you feel you can do?

I wouldn’t be sad if Glassdoor became all the way irrelevant. Lots of users left when they published the real names behind anonymous reviews -> (https://lnkd.in/g-2SCqMj) It's just not doing the trick anymore. I’ve heard Founders very disappointed and dismissive of Glassdoor - not even wanting to consider it in any sort of recruiting strategy. I thought, well, maybe you need to improve things over there! You can’t just ‘ignore’ it. But, my tune is changing. I *think* its also changing for many job seekers. Even before the names of anonymous were leaked. “Really is as bad as yelp” “I mean look, if you like a particular chicken rice store, would you take the effort to write a good review? Some do, most don’t. But if the chicken rice got cockroaches, 99.9% will definitely take the time and effort to write a review. That is the basic human psychology when comes to giving feedback.” When an employee leaves a company, there is often some sort of ‘cockroach’ feeling - maybe it's a co-worker they didn’t like or a bad taste after a layoff. Maybe it’s just an underperforming employee leaving a bad review. There are a lot of cases where those Glassdoor reviews just aren’t really representative or objective. Employers should care about providing glimpses of what work is like themselves. It starts very early in a recruitment process - at first contact and every time thereafter. Share real bits of info about the team, environment and work. Give opportunities for prospects to talk 1:1 to on the ground team mates. Care as much about this as you do assessing candidates.