One of the newest things that is being used as a catch all for saying no to a candidate, is really not new it is just being used a lot more as of late. It is the whole strong personality rational. Now while I agree having a strong personality can be an issue in some companies. But before jumping to that conclusion we must first determine in what ways do they have a strong personality. If their personality is deemed strong because they are confident, but at the same time has no problem admitting when they are wrong, or following directions does it really matter? The answer is probably not. It really depends on the balance between strong and amiable. Despite what some say you can have a strong personality and still be amiable. You can be a leader and a follower. The key is to know the situation and when it is better to lead and when it is good to follow. So just because someone has a “strong” personality does not mean they not a fit, it really depends on other things, like can they get along, can they follow, do they know when to talk and when to listen, and can they change their style of communication when needed. So in other words, like with all things find out more before you write them off. Otherwise you might lose a great candidate.
How we communicate with our coworkers, hiring managers and candidates will impact our ability to do our job. The question is how do we do it, how do we communicate with all those people with all those different personalities and communication styles.
Well it is very simple, You mirror the person you are talking to. Meaning you mimic their rate of speech, and their style of speech. If they talk slower than you normally do, you slow it down, if faster speed it up. You do this and all the while listen to get a feel for their thought style. Meaning are they all about the facts, are they all about touchy/feely. Once you figure it out you know how to talk with them, and life and work become easier. However keep in mind this tip also applied to anyone you speak to, work, play, home or anyplace.
I read an article someplace were a lady in Utah got fired because she was too good looking. Her boss’s wife felt she was too good looking and was worried about her husband who worked there. Now mind you there had been no inappropriate contact or interaction at all. The wife just was worried and did not trust her husband. This ended up in court, of course one would think it was open and shut and this firing would be deemed illegal. However not only was it upheld but a law was passed stating you can fire someone for being too good looking. Now I realize if it goes to the supreme court it will be over turned, but the fact that it even got this far is ridiculous and just plain wrong. I mean what’s next, your too short, to tall, to fat, to skinny, your hair is to short, it’s too long, to dark, to light, see were this can lead? I am not saying that these things do not come into play, I am not that naive, but to actually pass a law allowing such bias is wrong. Something to think about especially if it stands up in the supreme court, what will it say about our society and our supposed equality.
In the advent of social media and social recruiting we need to learn how to be more creative with our job descriptions, advertising and how we communicate with perspective candidates/connections. We need to be creative, and find different exciting ways to get their attention. We need to understand that we need to be social and make sure it is not about what the they can do for us, but what we can do for the candidate/connection. We need to lead with, what we can do for them in a creative way that differentiates us from everyone else. That is the key to social recruiting. Creativity and showing the perspective candidate/connection what we can do for them. Do this or you will fail, it is that simple.
Is the answer to an increase in staffing needs always to add more recruiters, or sourcers? Do we really think the answer is always to add more. Is more really better? The answer is not always more but perhaps better, or perhaps educating what you have, or even breaking apart the Staffing Lifcycle (SLC) into parts and assigning different parts to different people, ie sourcing, calling, etc.
What if you have a team of 4, 2 account management recruiters (AMR) and 2 sourcers. If you are having problems filling your openings perhaps the answer is who is doing what. Perhaps one of the AMR’s would make a better sourcers and vice versa. I was speaking to a friend of mine who manages a staffing team of 6. He was talking to me about the fact they are not filling enough positions fast enough. I asked him what he thought the problem was? He said he was not sure, but the management wanted to add more recruiters. I said okay that is one way to go, but perhaps before you do you should do an analysis, find out were in the SLC the issue is. He agreed and we talked about how he should do it. Long story short after doing it, he discovered the issue was 2 fold. One a lack of training, and 2 not taking advantage of what he had. What he had was 3 strong AMR’s and 3 strong sourcers. However since all were full-cycle, he was not talking advantage of their strengths. So a simple switch to a AMR and sourcer model, and 3 months
later all was good.
The point is before you go adding people look at what you have, look at their skills maybe the answer to your problem is not adding more, but utilizing the skills of what you have.
Helping people connect with their Destiny”