Tag: HR

Is Your Recruitment Partner Damaging Your Bottom Line??

I was interested to see reports of a survey last week showing that poor treatment of failed job applicants can damage a consumer brand and seriously affect the bottom line. It’s something that I hear candidates talk about and am always amazed at the number of companies who fail to see the connection.

This doesn’t only apply to direct hiring…it can be just as damaging when a company briefs through a 3rd party recruiter. Trust me, when a candidate applies to an agency for a role with Company ABC and gets poor treatment from the agency, they will take this as a negative experience with Company ABC too.

I know it seems hard to believe, but when you brief a 3rd party recruiter you are entrusting them with representing not just your company, but also your brand, values and culture.

How do you know that they will do you justice? Try this recruitment partner health check:

Do they want to meet you?

If they are happy to take a telephone briefing, without coming to your offices to meet you and other key decision makers in person, and to find out about the environment and conditions, or get a feel for the culture and working atmosphere, then they are unlikely to be able to represent this to potential jobseekers. You will be investing a lot of your time in them; they should be investing theirs in you too.

Can you get references?

Your supplier should be happy to let you know all about the good work that they’ve done before. Ask to speak to 2 other companies (not competitors, businesses from different sectors) that they have recruited for and find out how they performed. Check the Linked In profiles of key people within the recruiter’s business and see what recommendations they have…then ask if you can contact them.

Go to their offices – what impression will they give, how do they work?

Most candidates who apply for your role will meet the recruiter at their offices…so go and see them for yourself! Seriously, anyone visiting their offices will be visiting a company that you have chosen to represent you, so you should see what impression they will give. They don’t need to be large, opulent or swanky…just give a welcoming and professional feel. And have a walk around; see the consultants’ working environment, do they look happy and motivated?

How do they build their talent pool?

Your chosen recruiter should be someone who has access to the best talent in the sector that matters to you, so find out how they build their talent network. Do they have a community who they keep in touch with? Will they rely on advertising or headhunting? Ideally you will want to brief someone who can take your spec and immediately think of potential candidates, so how do they keep their finger on the pulse of their marketplace?

How do they work, how are they targeted and rewarded?

Most recruiters are targeted to make placements…and are rewarded for the placements that they make. You will want to work with consultants who are going to go the extra mile to find the very best person for your role…this may take a lot of time and searching. Ask them how they are targeted and rewarded, what their motivators are. An increasing number of recruitment firms have a feedback element in the reward so you should try and use one of those…at least you know that your recruiter will have a strong interest in the way they service you and not just in closing a deal.

You can never be sure that a time-pressured recruiter, working on a number of assignments, and with an eye on their fee targets, will always give their candidates a great impression of your business, but you can certainly do a lot of groundwork to ensure that you have chosen a recruitment partner who do their best to ensure that this never happens.

It’s not just your good name that’s at stake…it’s your bottom line too!

Race For The Prize? What’s Your Hiring Process?

What does your hiring process say about your company?

We talk about culture, employer brands and employee brands…we talk about social recruiting, attraction strategies, talent pipelines and puddles…but what of the process in between?

You can find the talent and onboard the talent but in between you have the hiring process itself…it’s often said ‘you can tell a lot about a company by the way it goes about recruiting its staff’ …is this true?

Let me illustrate the point by talking about a particular client that I recruited for a few years ago. They were mainly a sales led, aspirational business, and many people I approached on their behalf wanted to talk to them. Their process was:

1) First interview with internal recruiter, primarily for fit and motivation

2) Second interview with 2 or 3 different managers to ascertain into which team they may best fit

3) Possibly another couple of managers or more usually a divisional director

4) At this stage there would be one or two teams that they were considered right for so they would come and meet a couple of people from these teams

5) Now is when they would come in and meet the Managing Director who, if he liked them, would suggest which team he thought they should join

6) They would come back and meet most of the rest of that team and, usually, leave with an offer from a Director

Phew! That all took over 12 hours, nearly 2 whole working days spent on interviews!!

Now here’s the thing…they had a high proportion of new employees who didn’t make it and left within 12 months! Discussing it with the MD one day he said…

‘The trouble is they come in thinking the prize is to get a job here…they’re wrong, if they’re good enough we’ll hire them anyway…the REAL prize is to succeed here’

So I explained that maybe, just maybe, having a recruitment process that resembled the Labours of Hercules set an unrealistic expectation, with the securing of a job becoming the prize. The harder you make it to get something, the more that the getting it becomes the goal rather than the starting point.

The client reasoned that the process was the best way of letting the candidate see a lot of the business, and the business see a lot if the candidate, which was important to negate any surprises once employment started.

My own opinion is that the longer and more tortuous you make the process then the more likely you are to lose sight of why you started the process. In this client’s case the candidate was focusing on which team/director was right for them and the company was also focusing on which team/director would be the best fit. Which is all well and good if the decision has been made to hire and accept, but as part of a recruitment process this is likely to lead to an assumptive hire rather than a qualified hire…

…the Labours of Hercules is not a talent acquisition strategy that I would recommend!

Not that all clients use a long process. I have also recruited for businesses that like to offer after a first interview…gut instinct is good, the person feels like a fit, hell let’s just get them in before someone else hires them. It won’t be a surprise that this approach also carries a high chance of not succeeding…

…easy to hire, easy to fire is not a talent acquisition method that I would recommend either!

Many companies spend a lot of time designing perfect recruiting processes that deal with the metrics, that provide quantifiable information to management, but how many look to create processes that actually reflect culture, values, expectations, and a picture of what success will look like to both sides?

Talent acquisition strategies and processes tell you a lot about a company…candidates will reasonably expect them to be reflective of the business priorities and principles.

What are the ones that have worked for you?

Work Rate, Vision, Reinvention…Lessons learned from David Bowie

I’ve just spent a week on holiday, mainly chilling in the sun. I love sunbathing holidays, they always give me a chance to catch up on reading and listening and listening to music.

I seem to have been on a bit of a 70s nostalgia binge, reading Andy Beckett’s excellent social & political history of the decade ‘When The Lights Went Out’ and listening to a lot of old Bowie albums – you may have gathered that he’s a bit of a favourite from this blog – both studio and live.

Sometimes it’s easy to forget how hard artists worked then to build their fan base and connect with their audiences, with none of the modern communication platforms that we have to facilitate building a following and keeping them engaged.

Three things stood out for me about Bowie…and they provide lessons that are quite relevant for our more knowing current times.

Workrate

Seems hard to believe now, but in the 70s Bowie released 11 studio albums and 3 live albums in the space of NINE years…seems incredible (as a comparison, U2 have released 12 studio albums in 30 years) not even counting the world tours that accompanied most of them! Such a work rate certainly inspired devotion in a legion of fans.

We all work hard at what we do…but what do we achieve? How much of what we do in HR and Recruiting is visible to our client groups, candidates, directors and managers? I am not looking to advocate work for work’s sake…or just keeping busy to look good…but focused output, using our efforts to create real and meaningful outcomes.

The range and quality of Bowie’s albums really connected with fans…how much of what we do really connects with those people around us.

Vision

There’s little doubt that Bowie looked forward rather than back. From glam to electric soul to avant garde electronics he was usually ahead of the curve…often drawing other bands with him. Whilst most of his peers created a sound and stayed with it, he was restless in his quest for change, development, innovation and creativity. He had a knack for being able to see future trends.

How many of us can say that? Seriously? In both HR and Recruitment the penny is now dropping with a vast majority that yes, social media is going to have a major impact on how we do things. Suddenly the race is on to understand it, use it and create policies for our people…but are we playing catch up with those who could see the potential?

Why so long? Maybe we spend too much time trying to do the same things differently, rather than looking to see what new and different things we could do both now and in the future.

Reinvention

Listen to the 4 live albums that cover the period 72 to 78 (a fourth was released recently) and you will hear not only complete changes in style and performance, but also in interpretation. Some songs appear on all 4 albums but sound different each time, being re-interpreted and re-cast into a new style.

Do we reinvent what we have done? If we create a new policy or process do we look back and see which other policies and processes could be re-interpreted? Do we rest on our back catalogue without looking at how it could be improved or revised to suit different circumstances?

Bowie’s restless work rate, vision and re-invention kept him relevant for many years…he’s still cited as a major influence by new bands over 30 years later.

Maybe it’s time we used some of his inspiration to keep our clients connected and engaged.

Generation Standby…do you Home from Work??

I love a Generational classification. Readers of this blog would have seen me write about Boomers, Generations X, Y and R and even create my own…Generation Bowie.

So I couldn’t resist the chance to write about Generation Standby…not least because this one has little to do with when you were born. It probably covers many of us.

This is the generation of workers who are socially and technologically never disconnected. They never fully switch off from either home or work and expect flexibility from employers in return for longer working hours.

They don’t have a problem with this, because they balance it with ‘homing’ from work – performing personal tasks such as checking social networks, e-mail, shopping online.

Sound familiar? Can anyone identify with this?

I read this mainly from a survey by software security company Clearswift, and some findings that interested me are:

–        66% of all employees who ‘home from work’ say they make the time up by working later or through lunch

–        Men are more likely than Women to ‘home from work’…higher percentages for checking social networking, dealing with personal e-mails and shopping online

–        79% said over and above the role and salary, the most important thing in a job was being trusted to manage their own time, and being trusted to use the internet as they wish

I’ve often thought that companies need to give employees more flexibility and trust, whether it’s how they use social media for work (primarily blogging) or how they manage their time whilst at work, so was not surprised that almost 4 out of 5 want that flexibility.

I did read a blog late last year (sorry there’s no link, but I can’t remember where I read it, maybe someone can post a link) where one of the predictions for social media this year was that employees will begin to expect ‘Social Media Breaks’ for a few minutes 3 or 4 times during a day…a bit like ‘Cigarette Breaks’ used to be. Grab a coffee and take 5/10 minutes out to see what people are saying…

…it would certainly require a leap of faith from employers.

What is clear is that technology has offered us a completely new way of working…longer hours maybe, flexible locations definitely, but it’s also a different kind of work where we are socially and technologically always connected.

I’m interested to know how employers are going to adapt to this…any ideas?

Controlling The Message??

I’ve noticed a lot of concern voiced recently over the possibility of employees saying negative things through social media which may affect their employer’s brand or image. There’s a neat summary on this blog by Michael Carty and I was involved in at least 2 group discussions at HRevolution on the subject.

HR clearly feels that they will have to pick up the pieces. I’ve heard talk of controlling the message, of laying down ground rules and guidelines for staff who want to blog, tweet or go on Facebook fan pages.

Yet I wonder what damage is done when a senior person in an organisation voices something, either planned or spontaneously, that gives a negative impression of the business. And why are there no controls, guidelines or ground rules for them?

Surely an employer being indiscrete does more damage than an employee?

Some readers will remember the entrepreneur Gerald Ratner. For those unfamiliar, he was CEO of a large high street jewellery group. He once commented in a speech:

“People say, “How can you sell this for such a low price?”, I say, “because it’s total crap”.

When commenting on the earrings that his shops sold, he said that they were:

“cheaper than a Marks & Spencers prawn sandwich but probably wouldn’t last as long”

Needless to say there was an immediate negative impact on the business …the value of the group plummeted £500million with loss of custom and jobs. Clearly customers don’t like to taken for granted, but then neither do employees. Who wants to work for a company whose goods can be dismissed so lightly by the CEO? Negative employees don’t always put shoppers off, but a CEO dismissing his products will.

Most of my regular followers will know that I’m a supporter of Arsenal Football Club. Well this weekend I received my season ticket renewal application. It’s not cheap supporting a football team, particularly if you go to matches every week, and Arsenal is one of the more expensive clubs to follow, yet loyal supporters’ passions are not normally subject to cost criteria. They do, however, go into each new season with an expectation of seeing some success.

Football followers will know that Arsenal haven’t won a trophy for 5 years and that, whilst they may play some exciting football, supporters begin to get restless.

So it was a bit disconcerting to see the manager, Arsene Wenger, say last week that finishing 3rd in the Premiership, and therefore qualifying for the Champions League, is like winning a trophy. The rationale for this I believe is that if you don’t win the 2 main trophies (Champions League or Premiership) then automatic qualification for the Champions League will net you about £20,000,000 whilst winning the FA Cup will net you £1,800,000.

Which makes great commercial sense…yet will hardly quicken the pulse or heart rate of a supporter about to hand over a lot of money for their entertainment next season who desperately want to see their team win. Hardly the best sales pitch…come and watch us finish 3rd.

Never mind the customers (like me) what about the current and future employees?? A top club employs, and hires, players who want to be the best and win…yet what if your boss effectively tells you that not winning will be OK? That finishing 3rd is like winning? Can I be confident that when I turn up next season I will be watching players who want to win trophies…or just finish 3rd?

We football fans are used to seeing players moan about their clubs, and openly tout themselves as available for transfer, and none of this dims the supporters’ enthusiasm…yet a negative message from the manager (the voice of the club in terms of exposure) can achieve this instantly.

I can understand concern over employees voicing negative thoughts…but will a policy to counter this also cover comments from managers and owners?

What are the most damning comments you have come across…and what effect did they have?

Is The Key To Social Learning in The ‘Social’ not The ‘Learning’?

Learning…what is it? How do we do it?

If people say ‘I didn’t learn anything’ what do they mean?

There’s a debate going on now in the UK started by a blog from Michael Carty on why e-learning is seen as ineffective…seems that studies from CIPD and XpertHR showed that whilst e-learning is on the increase, not many think that it’s effective.

Why?

Are we so conditioned to the classroom style teaching of our youth that learning is something we do when we’re sat in rows taking notes whilst someone tells stuff we don’t know?

Are we saying, in the words of Kurt Cobain…Here We Are Now, Entertain Us (or rather,  Enlighten Us)

Unconferences such as HRevolution are one aspect of Social Learning, and for a lot of us they are the one of choice at the moment.

And I’m wondering about this because I’ve been reading some post–HRevolution blogs and realize that from a learning viewpoint maybe this event didn’t completely work for everyone, some writers didn’t really learn and in some cases didn’t hear anything new.

I’ve also read that some of the topics tend to get covered at other HR/Recruiting unconference type events now…as we become more regular attendees will we need constantly new topics to engage us, or just different people to discuss them with?

So far in my relatively short time attending unconferences, I have certainly:

–  Picked up information that I didn’t know before

–  Heard people’s views on subjects/topics/issues that made me think about them slightly differently (the topics, not the people)

–  Been able to talk, discuss and debate within small groups in a way in which I have gained information, knowledge and wisdom, as well as (I hope) passing on some of my own thoughts

Yet most of this has come when I have been part of a small group, or a break out group of 2 or 3…a bit like focus groups really. When there’s been a larger track, with many attendees, I’ve noticed a tendency to look to the track leaders to inform, direct, answer questions and provide commentary and insight…yet shouldn’t they be facilitators helping to keep the conversation flowing and on track? A bit like focus group moderators who ensure that everyone gets to join in the conversation and get heard.

Maybe if we are to get maximum benefit from Social Learning, especially from our unconferences, networking and crowd sourcing then…the answer may well lie in getting Social before you can get to the Learning…

…I’d love to know what you think?

Recruiters vs HR…It’s Tom & Jerry Time!!!

Recruiters vs HR…it’s as old as, well…the recruitment industry! Like cats and dogs, Tom & Jerry, there seems to be, in the UK certainly, this automatic default position of mistrust.

It’s reared its head again, with blogs appearing, including Bill Boorman’s guest post on Punk Rock HR, and no doubt discussions will be had at HRevolution.

Well I’ll let you in to a secret…it’s always been like this! Seriously, on my first day in recruitment, over 20 years ago, amongst the advice and on-job training I received about interviewing, cold calling and selling in candidates, I was told…

…ignore personnel; you don’t want to speak to them. They’ll ask you to send the CV through, then they’ll question you, and if you say that your candidate should to be interviewed, they’ll challenge you…

And it’s not changed!

As you read this there will be a rookie recruiter somewhere being told…don’t speak to HR, they’ll want an e-mail with reasons to justify the candidate, they’ll negotiate fees and keep you waiting…forget it, you’ve got targets to meet and you need to get your candidates on interview NOW!

In fact recruitment companies spend lots of money on training their consultants how to AVOID HR!

They’ll deny it of course, but the transactional sales model, which has been favoured by the majority of the recruitment industry for over 50 years, usually dictates that there isn’t time to follow PROCESS…

…which is what it’s all about in my opinion…HR makes recruiters justify what they are doing, asks them to follow a process, whilst the average recruiter ideally wants to phone a harassed, time-pressured line manager, with a candidate that they’ve found who they think is a perfect match, book an interview over the phone, push back on feedback and try to CLOSE THAT DEAL!

Not all Recruiters are like that, clearly…but then not all Recruiters dislike HR!! I have always developed relationships with HR, treating them as much my client as any line or hiring manager. One of the reasons I moved into HR recruitment was because of the strong relationships I had built.

We’ve all had times though when we don’t think HR gets it…a marketing recruitment colleague said to me the other day…”HR wasn’t sure, said they didn’t think the person was a good fit, but I persuaded them to send the candidate along to see the hiring manager who loved him and hired” …but I’m sure that HR would point to hasty hires by line managers who didn’t really follow a true recruitment process, offering little selection and engagement. In my colleague’s example HR did set aside their initial view for the wider good of the business.

Let’s face it, HR want to get the best talent, the best fit for their organisations, the people that will add value and be part of the company’s growth, whilst Recruiters are looking to place candidates.

HR are usually measured by many deliverables, of which talent acquisition and retention is just is one, whereas the vast majority of Recruiters are measured and judged by the number of deals they close.

It’s a bit apples and pears…cats and dogs…it can work, but in many cases that’s not always the same thing, not always the basis for a mutually beneficial relationship.

Many Recruiters have always tried to bypass HR (hate is a very strong word) and many HR professionals have always had a mistrust of recruiters who think they’ve found the most outstanding candidate that needs to be hired NOW before they disappear to another company.

I think it’s straightforward…HR like recruiters who make their job easier, who respect the role they play in their companies talent process and want to help them find the best talent. Likewise Recruiters like HR who value what they do, who give them the information that they need to identify the talent that companies want. A lot of the time this works fine, but then pressures of budgets, targets, misinformation and miscommunication sometimes kick in.

So rather than Recruiters thinking like HR and HR thinking like Recruiters why not try seeing each other’s point of view…why don’t HR spend time in their recruitment supplier’s offices, seeing how they work, how the consultants are managed, measured and rewarded, what the values and culture are…and why don’t recruiters spend some time in an HR department and find out what the talent proposition is, the engagement and the vision, what the budgets are, what pressures and priorities they work with, and get some feel for all the other things HR does.

Maybe, just maybe, they may even learn…to LOVE each other!!

Reasons To Be Cheerful…I’m Chicago Bound!!

I am so excited! I’m going to Chicago for HRevolution!!! And I can’t wait!

I’m honoured to have got a scholarship from Nobscot, a company whose products and services, and vision and values are genuinely impressive. Getting the chance to meet their CEO Beth Carvin, and spend time with her finding out more about what they do, will be an absolute highlight.

The whole buzz surrounding the event is electric…and I’m still 3,000 miles away! Seriously, some of the blogs I’ve already read have already created a real sense of anticipation, with the range of topics, track leaders and attendees truly awesome.

My introduction will be simple…

I’m Mervyn

I’m from England

I’m here to learn and to share

I’m a Recruiter

And I LOVE HR!!

(That’s right…I don’t want to scrap it, I don’t hate it…and as I’m an HR recruiter, they tend not to hate me either!)

With that out of the way I can’t wait to meet all my US HR Twitter pals and talk, engage, debate and learn about some really important and vibrant topics. Vicariously I think and talk about these issues every day, so the opportunity to listen and learn more from thought leaders, bloggers, futurologists and some really great, clued up HR pros is too good to miss!

Big, Big shout of thanks to:

Nobscot…for generosity and a mission to make the world a better place to work

The HR Evolution Team…for tirelessly putting this all together and making it happen

and

Twitter…hell, none of you would have known who I was otherwise!

See you Friday!!

It’s All About Me!….No It’s Not!

When I was a kid, and my dad took me to watch football, there was always etiquette if you wanted to leave your seat during the game. Whether you wanted to use the toilet, or get a coffee (in those days you could even go get a beer and bring it back to your seat to drink it!), you may be coming back to your seat late from the half time interval, or just leaving early. Whatever your reason, you waited for a break in play before asking the other people in your row to stand up. Could be a free kick, goal kick, maybe treatment for an injury, no matter what as long you didn’t inconvenience other people whilst they were watching the game.

It was courteous, it was polite and it showed respect.

I was thinking of those innocent times on Saturday whilst in my seat at the Emirates (home of Arsenal FC, for those who don’t know) as I stood up for the fifth time during the first few minutes of the second half to let a latecomer back to their seat. If I was lucky someone said ‘excuse me’ but in the main I was just expected to stand, even if I was concentrating on a particularly good passage of play. My enjoyment, which I had paid a lot for, was secondary to someone who couldn’t manage to get back to their seat in time for the re-start of the match.

And before I get smart answers, it’s not just at Arsenal this happens!…from cinemas to theatres to concert halls it’s the same story.

It used to be that it was the person who was being inconvenienced who was the important one in the situation, whereas now it’s the person doing the inconveniencing who takes control.

I guess it’s another example of an ‘it’s all about me’ kind of attitude which now seems to spill over into the workplace.

A snap poll of people around me:

How many people call and start talking, never ask if you’re free, just talk because it suits them?

How many people turn up for meetings really early…and expect to get seen then?

How many CVs get sent to clients without their owners being asked?

How many interviewers/interviewees don’t bother to give proper, meaningful feedback?

Meetings postponed at the last minute…

People not turning up for interview or appointments…

I’ll get back to you later…

IT’S ALL ABOUT ME!!! No courtesy, no politeness, no respect…

Go on…how many can you think of? Don’t want a grumpy old man/woman style rant…

…but let me know what inconsiderateness really bugs you in your day to day working life…

Simply The Best?…What Makes a Great Recruiter

Years ago I worked in sales recruitment. Every Friday we finished at 5pm and then sat in a circle and took it in turns to review our week. We gave ourselves a score out of 10 and then we each voted for our ‘Consultant of the Week’. Inevitably the most votes always went to the consultant who had made the most fees. Very occasionally the group would recognise the closing of a particularly difficult assignment, or the winning of a retainer against the odds, but those occasions were rare.

The biggest biller was always the best recruiter.

If someone said ‘he’s a good recruiter’ you knew they meant ‘he’s a big biller’

Times change…my sales recruitment experience was before e-mail, job boards, unprecedented boom and bust, and social media… so now I wonder

What makes a good recruiter in 2010?

Maybe it’s still the biggest biller? Other recruiters, managers and directors will still recognise the bottom line, the recruiter that not just hits their targets but surpasses them. During my years in recruitment to recruitment I often heard these people referred to as ‘billing machines’. I always found this an odd description, somehow dehumanised as if great recruiters are mechanical without compassion or emotion.

How about the most contacts or the biggest network…the Largest Community? Making placements historically pays the bills, but moving forward might we need to find other ways to monetise our networks? Great recruiters should build great relationships and it may well be that focusing on closing individual deals somehow turns attention away from the value of the wider network. A lot of effort goes in to developing relationships that may or may not result in a deal…information, knowledge, ideas, networking, introductions and referrals. If we cling to the traditional billing model are we in danger of giving away what we should monetize and trying to monetize what we should give away?

Perhaps it will be the best feedback, which should give rise to the most referrals? I’ve written at length how I am rewarded on feedback, and it would appear that a number of other recruitment businesses are adopting an element of client/candidate feedback in their incentive schemes. There’s little doubt that giving a consultative, positively different experience to candidates and clients, transparent and honest, managing expectations and delivering what you promise to the timescale you agreed, will result in recommendations and referrals…and there is no better client or candidate than one that has been recommended to you.

So who would you now salute now as being a great recruiter…?

The big biller….

The networking community builder….

The deliverer who gets the best referrals and recommendations…

There are those who would say that all 3 go together, that big billers will automatically be good networkers and deliverers, but I’m not so sure. During my time working in recruitment, especially when placing recruiters, I have met and worked with quite a few contingency ‘big billers’ and I have to say that often they aren’t the most engaging of people. Usually they are motivated by the deal, the commission, and their methodology can be quite transactional…many times I have referenced someone to be told that their relationship skills are somewhat lacking but they display a determination that pulls them through, often to the detriment of colleagues.

Interestingly, the recruiters who make the best matches, whose candidates succeed most in their new roles, aren’t always the biggest billers precisely because their placements stick. They get recommendations and referrals but their success often negates recurring business.

My view is that networking, community building and reputation will drive success in the future, as the traditional transactional sales model gets squeezed. For now, we still monetise what we do in the same way we always have however I believe that this will change.

Let me know what you think? Shoot me down or give me your own view…as recruiters and HR professional one thing I know we aren’t is shy!!

(This post originally appeared on RecruitingBlogs)