New MSPB study has gems

A new study out by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), "Attracting the next generation: A look at federal entry-level new hires," while focused on the federal government, has good information for all of us. The study of recent federal hires uses data from over 1,000 survey participants as well as personnel records. Some of the insights include:

- Both those under 30 and those 30+ were most likely to find out about the job through a friend or relative. On the other hand, those 30+ were more likely to use USAJOBs and agency web sites, whereas those under 30 (not surprisingly) were more likely to discover jobs through school job fairs or placement offices. In addition, those under 30 were more likely to use "non-government job sites."

- The most common forms of assessment used were (mostly unstructured) interviews and reviews of transcripts. Narrative statements, written exams, and job simulations were (unfortunately) used much less often--despite evidence of their superior ability to predict job performance.

- Agencies also relied heavily on the "point method" for reviewing training and experience--i.e., the more training/experience you have, the higher your score. This despite evidence that the correlation between experience and performance is complex and peaks fairly quickly, while education does not generally predict performance very well. Not to mention that they make little sense when hiring for entry-level jobs.

- There were very few differences between age groups when it came to what applicants wanted in a job. For both the under 30 and 30+ groups, salary and benefits came out tops. The only significant differences came when looking at pensions (more popular among those 30+) and health insurance and tuition reimbursement (more popular among those under 30). Job security was also mentioned by both groups as a big draw to the federal government.

- Those under 30 were much less likely to predict staying with the feds for their entire career (although still an impressive 45%), and more likely to predict eventually moving to the private sector.

- "Length of the process" was by far the biggest obstacle faced by applicants in their pursuit of a federal job.


MSPB recommends federal agencies make several improvements to their recruiting and assessment efforts, including:

- Use more predictive assessment tools instead of relying on training and experience measures.

- Use a balanced set of recruitment practices to reach all the various segments of the job market. MSPB points out that conducting a proper job analysis and identifying true minimum qualifications can help cut down the number of unqualified applicants.

- Market what is important to applicants. For federal agencies this means job security, benefits, and the ability to make a difference.

- Evaluate the hiring process and remove any obstacles that are unnecessarily lengthening the process.

- Avoid stereotyping based on generational assumptions, since the data indicate substantial similarities between age groups in what they want out of a job.

Again, good information for all of us. There's a lot more information in the report.

Links for June 8, 2007

I don't always like link lists, but frankly there's just too much good stuff out there to blog about...Happy Friday!

USERRA and the Five-Year Rule

Job Branding: Getting Beyond Blah

Court of Appeals Clarifies Summary Judgment Standard on Pretext

Green Recruiting: Building Your Environmental Employment Brand

Breaking the [America's] Job Bank

Targeted Sourcing/Research Techniques

Nuclear Lab in Idaho Using Jobcasts to Recruit

Supreme Court Clarifies FCRA Violations

Good to Great: Business v. Social Sector

No doubt many of you have read Jim Collins' 2001 best seller, Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap...and Others Don't.

What you may not have read is a small monograph that was published four years later, titled Good to Great and the Social Sectors.

The line on the front, "Why business thinking is not the answer" tells part of the story. Collins' basic point is that while some lessons of great businesses can be fruitfully translated from private to social sector organizations (e.g., discipline), others cannot (e.g., financial measures of output).

This point has been made before, but the desire to mold social sector organizations into businesses keeps cropping up, and the HR field seems to be fertile ground for this tempting idea.

Tempting because many people, particularly those in the social sector, often feel (a) frustrated with inefficiencies, and (b) hopeful that lessons from the private sector, if adopted, would transform these organizations into lean, productive stars, garnering praise and respect from constituents.

Measuring greatness in the social sector

Collins gives several good examples of how social sector organizations have dealt with one of the most vexing challenges--how to measure performance:

- The New York Police Department went from focusing on "input variables" such as arrests and cases closed to outputs--namely, crime rate.

- The Cleveland Orchestra measures outputs such as number of standing ovations, number of invitations to prestigious festivals, and influence on other orchestras.

How does this relate to recruitment & selection?

One of Collins' big points from the 2001 book is that hiring the right people comes first--or as he states, "First who--getting the right people on the bus." While I would argue that you need to know some of the "what" before you can get the "who" (e.g., what are you looking for?), he makes some sound arguments in the monograph:

- Once the right people start joining the group/organization in large enough numbers, low performers/poor fits often self-select out, like "viruses surrounded by antibodies." (We'll generously ignore the fact that he's comparing people to viruses)

- "There is no perfect interviewing technique, no ideal hiring method." Can't agree with this one enough, although his solution (focus on a probationary period) is easier said than done. I would argue a reasonable amount of time spent upfront on defining the job and being smart about the hiring methods used saves time and energy down the road on poor fits. You wouldn't buy a house based just on a 30 minute tour--why would you hire someone this way?

- "The more selective the process, the more attractive a position becomes." Again, agree with him here. Organizations, whether private or social sector, need to make positions desirable to the highly qualified. Demanding selection procedures haven't kept Microsoft, Toyota, or Google from attracting top talent.

- Last but not least, "the social sectors have one compelling advantage: desparate craving for meaning in our lives. Purity of mission...has the power to ignite passion and commitment." I believe this is what attracts and retains most of the top talent in the social sector, and it's the factor that organizations need to capitalize on.

Social sector organizations aren't making widgets, they're keeping people from having their homes robbed, keeping children from being molested, keeping drinking water safe, etc. Those are powerful outcomes. Use them to recruit and retain the most qualified.

Using social networking sites and video

I just attended another good HCI webinar titled "The Next Generation Resume."

Rather than focusing on resumes per se, the presenters covered two main topics:

-Steven Rothberg, President and founder of CollegeRecruiter.com presented on "Facebook, MySpace, and Other Social Networking Sites: Are They Dangerous, Opportunities, or Both?"

- Peter Altieri, Founder and CEO of RecruiTV/wetjello, presented on "Video Resumes/eprofiles...Fad or Reality?"

Major take-aways

1. There are big generational differences in what is perceived as "acceptable" content. What may seem questionable or offensive to a Boomer (e.g., someone in their underwear posted on MySpace) may seem perfectly normal to a Gen Y'r.

2. Evaluating user-generated content on social networking sites (e.g., as part of a background check) may be perceived as offensive and may do you more harm than good.

3. Because of these issues as well as some potential legal complications (e.g., you can never be sure who posted the content), social networking sites are probably best used for sourcing rather than screening out. George Lenard has posted extensively about this on his site. If you do find some negative content, give the candidate an opportunity to explain.

4. You probably already know this, but of the social networking sites, MySpace dwarfs the competition with an 80% share. Even Facebook, which has been getting a lot of press, only has an 8% share.

5. For an example of how to use something like MySpace for recruiting, check out the page the Marines have created, which has been very successful.

6. Job search engines and social networking sites are hookin' up. MySpace and LinkedIn use SimplyHired, Facebook just hooked up with Jobster, etc.

7. There's no case law on misuse of social networking site information (that the speakers knew about), but it may be coming...

8. If you're recruiting for college folk, Facebook is the way to go, with 90% of students using it. For general recruitments, MySpace is superior, with an average user age of 35.

9. If you're interested in posting video to job search pages (I hope that's a big YES), both Jobster and CollegeRecruiter welcome videos from employers. Vault is another popular option.

10. Great suggestion from Altieri for introducing video into your recruiting process: Ask a supervisor what sort of person they're looking for. Get it on video. Share with second round candidates. Or: Ask them to ID a star player. Interview said player. Share with potentials.

While the presentations are available only to "professional" HCI members, Rothberg's presentation was similar (if not identical) to the one he gave at last year's Onrec conference that Joel Cheesman generously posted.

Employer branding made easy

There's been a lot of discussion over at ERE these days about employer branding, so it was nice to see IPMA-HR get into the swing of things in its most recent edition of IPMA-HR News (unfortunately not available to non-members but keep reading).

There were several good articles in this edition, including:

"Can HR Have a Brand Image, and If So, How Can One Determine HR's Current Reputation?"

"Attracting Talent to Government: Marketing the Mission"

Another article that really stood out was Mark Hornung's, titled "The Benefits of Employer Branding for Government Agencies: What Reglators May View as a Luxury Is a Necessity in Today's Tight Labor Market."

Mark did a great job summarizing the challenges organizations face when thinking about branding, how to assess your current brand, how to communicate it, and playing to your strengths. Targeted at the public sector, but applicable to any organization.

Although this publication isn't available to non-members (although if you join you get access to the newsletter back to November '04), Mark's employer, the Bernard Hodes Group, has some great information on their website, including a branding game (!) and an interview with Mark.

----

...By the way, feel free to let me know what you're interested in by responding to the survey posted on my main page. I had been running a similar survey using Sparklit but switched to PollDaddy after seeing how easily Joel Cheesman integrated it into his blog postings.