November 30, 2023 • 41 mins
Is a prolonged hiring process preventing you from hiring great candidates? In this episode, Pete Newsome and Ricky Baez share tips for speeding up your hiring process. They highlight the delicate balance between practicality and accuracy in hiring. Additionally, they tackle issues like long hiring processes and high hiring costs for companies.
The hosts then discuss how difficult it can be to manage a large number of applications. But thanks to AI, recruiters can sift through resumes more quickly.
Applying to jobs has never been so easy, especially with the one-click apply feature. However, this leads to a lot of applications from unqualified candidates. So, Pete and Ricky propose intriguing questions: Should all applications be considered? Should you raise the entry barrier to ensure only qualified candidates apply?
But hold on, there's more to uncover! Discover their insights into establishing an efficient hiring process and the significance of transparent communication with candidates. Ghosting isn't exclusive to dating—it happens in recruitment too. Newsome and Baez explore methods to circumvent this issue and why managing expectations regarding candidate responses is crucial. Tune in for a captivating discussion encompassing hiring strategies, staffing dilemmas, and recruiting intricacies!
9 Steps for Accelerating Your Hiring Process:
- Refine Your Job Descriptions: Craft precise and concise job descriptions to attract the right candidates.
- Tech Integration: Leverage technology like ATS for efficient candidate sourcing and tracking.
- Internal Process Streamlining: Ensure smooth internal communication and decision-making to expedite hiring.
- Economic Adaptability: Recognize the impact of economic trends on hiring speed and adjust strategies accordingly.
- Effective Interviewer Training: Train interviewers to assess candidates objectively and effectively.
- Employee Referral Program: Implement robust employee referral programs for quality hires and quicker placements.
- Transparent Candidate Communication: Communicate the hiring process clearly to reduce candidate ghosting.
- Third-Party Recruiter Consideration: Carefully assess third-party recruiters for compatibility and efficiency.
- Quality Focus: Prioritize finding the right fit over a rush to fill positions for long-term success.
Additional Resources:
- How to Leverage Recruiting Metrics to Improve Your Hiring Process
- How to Involve Employees in the Hiring Process
- Hiring Hacks to Accelerate Your Recruitment Process
🧠 WANT TO LEARN MORE? Be sure to subscribe and check out 4 Corner Resources at https://www.4cornerresources.com/
👋 FOLLOW PETE NEWSOME ONLINE:
Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/petenewsome/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/petenewsome?lang=en
Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@PeteNewsome
Blog Articles: https://www.4cornerresources.com/blog/
👋 FOLLOW RICKY BAEZ ONLINE:
Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/efrainrickybaez/
Blog Articles: https://www.baezco.com/baezco-blog
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Pete Newsome (00:05):
You're listening to the Hire Calling podcast,
your source for all thingshiring, staffing and recruiting.
I'm Pete Newsome, joined byRicky Baez today.
Ricky, how are you?
I'm doing good, pete.
How about yourself?
I'm doing well, ricky.
At some point I just have tosay it's Pete and Ricky and then
just be done with it.
The introduction yeah, it's thesame thing every time.
Ricky Baez (00:23):
I mean, it's not like we didn't ask how we're
doing before we startedrecording, right?
We just want everybody else toknow that we're cordial with
each other.
Pete Newsome (00:30):
That's true.
If you stop and think about it,there's absolutely no reason
for me to ask how you're doing.
We've already established thatprior to hitting the record
button.
But nonetheless, here we areback for another recording to
talk today about speeding up thehiring process.
That's an important thing.
Ricky Baez (00:49):
Why will we want to speed that up, Pete?
Pete Newsome (00:52):
Lots of reasons, Lots of reasons.
Yeah, one thing I'll tell youis candidates certainly will
appreciate it.
We know that because, boy, youdon't have to spend more than a
couple of minutes on LinkedIn tosee a whole lot of frustrated
candidates out there these dayswho are trying to find a great
job and it just doesn't seem tobe happening quickly for them.
Ricky Baez (01:13):
Well, I mean, it doesn't right.
And then there's a lot ofrecruiters that have a lot of
their mind and a lot of thingsthat they're juggling.
That's not an excuse, butyou're right, You've got
candidates out there who are outthere waiting, and while
they're waiting, other thingscan happen, which that's what
we're going to dive into today.
Right, the importance ofspeeding up the hiring process.
That way you don't lose out ongreat top candidates.
Pete Newsome (01:35):
So let's just start with talking.
What are we talking aboutreally?
The time to hire.
It's the time between when youmake a decision that a job needs
to be filled, you have anopening that's new, a
replacement for someone.
You post that job.
How quickly can you get someonein the seat?
How long does it take?
Let's talk about the average,and the average has been going
(01:57):
up.
What do you think you know whatthe average is?
If you're listening to us rightnow, stop and think.
How long do you think it takesfor a company to fill an open
position?
Ricky Baez (02:07):
We'll wait and then we'll answer.
Well, I'm going to go withoutlooking at any stats.
I'm going to go with when I wasleading a team of recruiters
and the KPIs I had for them andwhat I told them on average 30
days beginning to end fromopening to executing a job offer
and accepting that job offer.
(02:28):
Beginning to end four weeks 30days.
Pete Newsome (02:31):
Now we know there's a difference between how
a corporation would measurethat with their internal team
and how a staffing company, athird party, would measure that.
Ricky Baez (02:40):
All very different.
Pete Newsome (02:41):
It can be a long time for some jobs.
The average, according to theSociety for Human Resource
Management, is actually 36 days,but studies have shown 44, or
maybe even 50 days.
Now we think that's changingfor a number of reasons.
Why do you think it's evolvingand going higher?
Ricky Baez (03:02):
Well, I think, wow.
So 36 days, so five weeks.
So I think it's going higherjust because the lower the
unemployment rate as it keepstrending, lower the less able
bodies that are out in theworkforce looking for work and
the less talent that recruitershave to work with, the higher
the time to fill on averagewould come to be, because the
(03:26):
less people that are out there,the more work the recruiter has
to do to fill those positions.
So I'm thinking it'sunemployment you think so.
Pete Newsome (03:33):
I think it's more about companies right now being
hesitant and very cautious inmaking any decisions.
So, even though the hiring needis there, they're not pulling
the trigger as quickly, and thatis something that a lot of
staffing companies areexperiencing right now.
We talk, we share informationand it's very common Companies
(03:54):
are slower to pull the trigger.
Now you're smiling big at that.
Why so?
Ricky Baez (03:59):
I'm smiling big because Pete on this show.
For the past couple of years,we've talked about how
organizations go on thishumongous hiring blitz, only six
months later to figure outthey've overshot their goals and
now they have to lay people off.
So I'm smiling because I'm likedid organizations learn their
lesson?
Are they now being morecautious, instead of following
(04:23):
somebody's trail that theyblazed to hire people left and
right?
What happened?
Pete Newsome (04:28):
I think a lot of it's reactive to your point.
We saw that happening a coupleof years ago, post-covid, and
the hiring craze that washappening, where companies were
paying giant salaries, biggerthan they needed to Now being in
the recruiting space.
We saw that very prevalent inour industry, where recruiters
with very little experience weregetting offered the opportunity
(04:50):
to work remotely giant salaries.
Amazon, facebook at the time,metta, if we're going to call
them that now I guess they werethrowing huge salaries out there
and it flooded the market withnew opportunities in.
A lot of people jump ship andnow the pendulum has swung back.
This happens, the need is nolonger as great as it was, and
(05:11):
so companies are reactingdifferently now, and I think the
economic uncertainty that we'refacing continues to be an issue
where companies just continueto sit on the sidelines with a
lot of things and watch and waitto see what's going to happen,
and hiring is part of that.
That's my perspective on it.
Ricky Baez (05:32):
So, for the sake of everybody listening, because you
and I both know the answer tothis question, but I'm going to
ask anyway, that way they can bea part of the conversation.
Why should we care if we fill aposition quickly?
Shouldn't recruiters andorganizations take the time to
make sure they got the rightcandidate?
Pete Newsome (05:49):
They should, but they have to balance that
against the negatives of waiting.
A prolonged hiring processleads to other problems, so
let's just talk about those.
One is there's a costassociated with a vacancy.
We call it cost of vacancy.
You have to know what that is.
What happens to yourorganization as long as that
(06:11):
position remains unfilled and wehave a recent blog post on
fourcorneresourcescom about it Iencourage everyone to check it
out because it actually liststhe calculation.
I'm not going to try todescribe that verbally, it's a
math.
Verbal math is no fun, but thereis a cost to not filling a
(06:32):
position and there's losses thathappen.
Maybe it's customer servicedeclines, maybe it's a loss of
productivity, of sales, not tomention the true burnout that
happens from your otheremployees who have to share the
load.
So those are the hidden costs,if you will.
Even though they're realnumbers, companies don't stop
(06:53):
and consider those things.
Some do, I think most don't.
What's your take on?
Ricky Baez (07:00):
that Most do not.
Most do not.
And I actually got a quickstory on that, pete, because
when I was in corporate Americaand I was working for Searsome
Improvement, we were trying tofigure out look, we're not
offering enough, we are notoffering enough to make sure
that we fill the positions thatwe set out to fill.
And back then I think I had tofill 500 in one calendar year
(07:23):
and that was at a time whenunemployment was really really
low at that time.
So the best way to convincesenior leadership is to
translate that problem intonumbers.
So instead of saying hey, we'renot filling positions and
they're like, well, we're doingthe job with the people you have
, you have to convert thosevacancies into lots of
productivity.
(07:44):
So, long story short, we wereable to figure out for every
empty seat per hour will costthe organization $1,000 per hour
, every empty seat.
So once they per hour.
So once they were able to seethat, like whoa, we're losing
how much, okay, here's a check,what it?
Whatever you need here you goright.
(08:04):
So you have to articulate thatnow as a recruiter, a recruiting
manager.
After you're done articulatingthat and they give you those
funds, you better perform, youbetter perform right.
You better put your theory tothe test.
So yeah, it's the best way toget Executive leaderships.
Attention is to focus on thelots of productivity and how
(08:25):
much that vacancy is costingthem perfect.
Pete Newsome (08:28):
So Pitfalls of a prolonged hiring process.
We know that it adds to the.
There's a cost of the vacancythat has to be considered.
We know that it puts a strainon your other employees.
You're going to lose topcandidates.
Oh dude that's candidates don'tstay available.
We know that too.
So these are things that haveto be considered if you're going
(08:48):
to Take it seriously.
So what else?
So we cover all the bases.
I mean, that's enoughjustification.
Any one of those things, in myopinion, is Justification enough
.
Ricky Baez (09:00):
Well, it is.
It is especially what you justsaid as far as losing top
candidates right, the idea thatcorporate America had 20 years
ago that Candidates should bowdown at the opportunity to
interview for this, for thisposition that that's no longer
relevant now.
Top, especially top talent.
They have options and you knowwhat.
They don't have a lot ofpatients and they're gonna go
(09:23):
somewhere else.
You know who doesn't haveoptions and options and all the
patients in the world, your Dand C level candidates Correct,
that's who you're gonna be stuckwith if you're, if your process
is too long for comfort.
Pete Newsome (09:37):
Well, it comes down to supply and demand.
Yeah so if you're willing tosettle for subpar candidates,
then take as long as you like,but if you want the best
available, I don't knowgovernment sit on that.
And and let me tell you as athird-party recruiter, nothing
is more frustrating than when wehave the ideal candidate, and
you know it when you see it.
You just do anyone who's beenin recruiting for a long time.
(10:00):
When you have that just perfectperson, you know they're going
to get hired.
If they have an opportunity tointerview, they're interested in
the job, the timing is rightmeans the stars are all aligning
.
And then you have a Client onthe other side who's slow to
pull the trigger and has adelayed process.
It is a deal killer and nothingis more frustrating because you
(10:23):
know that this great candidateis not going to sit on the
sidelines very long.
They're going to haveopportunities come their way.
So if if you're listening andyou are someone in a hiring
position, don't delay.
That's right.
Act, delay, act.
Ricky Baez (10:39):
That's a message now that now that's the strain on.
Actually that that's whathappens for external candidates.
But what happens also is, atsome point the job has to be
done right, the vacancy is thereand whatever, whatever duties
needs to be done in that vacancySomebody else has to do is.
So the longer you take andmaking sure you fill that role,
(11:00):
the more strain you put on yourcurrent Resources and guess what
happens.
That creates burnout, and themore burnout employees have, the
bigger job a recruit is goingto have, because turnover is
just going to go up.
If the burnout goes up,turnover goes up.
Pete Newsome (11:15):
So let's start with the.
Let's talk about what you coulddo about it.
Yes, so how can you improveyour hiring processors?
A number of ways to do it.
One is to take advantage ofTechnology that exists.
Now.
I would tell you and I say thisoften that some of the
technology that we use today hasmade us worse as recruiters
(11:35):
collectively, as significantlyworse, because it makes it too
easy, and what I mean by that isyou can post a job and have
Thousands of applicants in avery short time frame.
Now, that sounds great, but thepracticality of that is
something altogether different.
You don't have the ability tothoroughly look at that many,
(11:57):
and I would Say that maybe youdon't have the ability to look
at them at all.
So what does that mean?
It means that you're going to.
You're going to risk having alot of unqualified candidates
Because it's easy for them toapply.
Right easy to get theapplicants, easy to apply, very
low barrier.
People disregard the the jobdescription.
So we can talk about jobdescriptions too, but that only
(12:21):
matters if people pay attentionto it and what happens, is the
the best candidates you know toget buried in that, in that
giant stack.
So that's a, that's a challenge.
But take advantage oftechnology but also understand
its limitations.
Ricky Baez (12:36):
Correct.
So it's especially with AIthese days where I I know a lot
of recruiters are using AI toassist them in the sourcing
process.
Now here's the thing Notice Isaid assist, not take over,
right, ai it's still in itsinfancy stages and you still
need a human being to really goin and make sure that you're
(12:57):
checking for the right Thingsand you have to make sure that
you don't fall into any legalpitfalls, right, that AI just
doesn't take a look at.
So you have to use technologyas a tool to help you source and
recruit, not not as the tool tosource in recruit.
There's a big difference there.
Pete Newsome (13:15):
But let me put you on the spot as an HR
professional.
Talk to me what, how much of anobligation do you believe that
recruiters have to address everyresume that comes in?
Ricky Baez (13:28):
Address every resume that without any kind of of AI
help just in general.
Pete Newsome (13:35):
So, they've put a job posting out.
Can it supply?
What obligation do you believethat that recruiter has to
acknowledge and then addressthose candidates who've applied?
Ricky Baez (13:47):
I think 100%, and here's why.
Here's why, before a recruitercan say this resume doesn't fit
the bill, that's not what I'mlooking for, they have to look
at it.
They cannot say this is notgoing to work without taking a
look at it.
Now, how long they spend on itis something different.
Right, on average, what 6 to 9seconds A recruiter takes a look
(14:09):
at a resume before they put itin the lab again.
It's Friday, it's payday, right,we got to do math, right?
No?
But I mean, here's the thing.
I think, 100%, 100%.
There's no other way arecruiter can make a
determination whether thisresume goes to the next step or
not without taking a look at itfor at least the minimum amount
(14:29):
of time, or maximum amount oftime, which is 9 seconds, to
impress that recruiter.
What?
Pete Newsome (14:33):
do you think?
I think it's unrealistic,because if you run that math out
by the number of applicationsthat comes in, that's all
they'll spend their time doingis looking at resumes.
So what we need and we're notgoing to fix this during this
recording, someone needs to fixthis soon is a bigger barrier to
(14:56):
apply.
I saw a post on LinkedIn theother day I don't support this,
by the way.
I don't think it's practical inany form or fashion but they
said can it have to pay to applyto a job?
Now, that's silly, but what Ido find interesting is if there
was a way to it has so off topic, and I probably just got to cut
this.
It wasn't me, I promise, it wasyou, pete.
(15:21):
So we know that there's bottraffic everywhere if you're on
Twitter, any social mediaaccount, and there's a guy named
Michael Saylor.
Do you know who Michael Sayloris?
I don't.
He's a CEO of MicroStrategy, avery successful company, and
he's a big fan of Bitcoin, andwe know that Bitcoin can be as
divisible by 100 million.
So basically, you can take thesmallest of increments, a
(15:44):
fraction of a penny, and have aBitcoin transaction with it in
theory, and his suggestion wasyou have to have these
microtransactions to prove thatyou're a human.
And so what if someone?
It was almost like amerit-based system where someone
had to do more than just haveone click to apply, where it
(16:04):
wasn't that simple.
That's what I would like to seenot to charge anyone, but to
have a way that you have to stopand pause and decide whether
you really want to apply.
Now LinkedIn has an interestingsystem for in-mails, which
you're familiar with, where theygive you credits and you get
the credit back.
You have a certain number ofcredits a month.
(16:26):
You get the credit back if theperson you send the in-mail to
replies.
Now that to me denotesrelevance.
If you send out a lot of spammessages, no one will apply, but
if you're contacting people fora relevant purpose, then they
will reply at a high rate.
Same goes for job applicants, ifyou only are applying to jobs
(16:49):
where you have a realisticchance at getting it.
I'm not saying your experienceand background has to match word
for word the job description,but it has to be reasonable.
That doesn't exist today onLinkedIn and there's no penalty
for saying, yes, I have a degree.
When you don't.
Yes, I'm qualified for this job.
When you're not, I have Xnumber of years of experience.
(17:10):
You're just going to answerwith no penalty today, and my
contention is that that messesup the system for everyone else
and, by the way, I'm not alonein thinking that but there's no
barrier.
I think we need a barrier,don't you?
Ricky Baez (17:24):
I just think it's funny that I know it's a meme
and I know you don't subscribeto it, but just the rationale of
the meme that people should payto apply and I think that's
hilarious.
If I'm applying for a job, it'sbecause I don't have money.
Pete Newsome (17:41):
Absolutely.
I don't have money, I agree100%, but we have to go up with
something.
It's not going to be to pay foror apply.
That's silly.
But it used to take effort.
It used to take writing aletter, sending a resume in the
mail, even faxing it.
I would argue that evenemailing takes effort.
(18:03):
One click apply takes no effortat all.
That's cool.
That's the part of the systemthat's broken, so let's move on
from that, because that's notspeeding up anything, let alone
the hiring process.
It's actually along the podcastyeah, we just dragged it out.
So take advantage of technology, but also understand its
limitations.
That's my message there.
Have a job description that isconcise and spells out exactly
(18:29):
what you need to the minimumyou'll consider.
Now we've just spent fiveunnecessary minutes talking
about how people ignore the jobdescription anyway, but I still
think it's something you shouldstrive to do by bees as clear as
possible, and I like sharingthe bad news too.
(18:49):
Right, say, the worst part ofthe job.
If you know you're going to getflooded with candidates, try to
eliminate that as much aspossible.
I don't know how much it helpsin the current market, but you
need to spell out the details onthe job description to increase
your chances of accuracy.
Ricky Baez (19:05):
Well, I like that strategy, Pete, and the reason I
like that strategy and you andI have talked about this before
is because look, what's going tohappen if you don't spill that
out.
Is the person you're going togo through the trouble of hiring
that person, go through theprocess, only to find that six
months later they're not a goodfit?
You wasted your time, youwasted your money.
It's better for you to find outas quickly as possible whether
this person is going to be a fit.
(19:27):
You've said it on this showplenty of times Bad news early
is good news.
So you might as well talk themout of the job.
That's why I like thatrationale.
You talk them out of it and thepeople who are still there,
they're going to be there forthe right reasons.
So I agree with that 100%.
Now, is that streamlining, ordoes that?
Because I don't know if thatstreamlines the recruiting
(19:47):
process.
I know it helps you hiresomebody who's going to stick
around you for the long haul.
Pete Newsome (19:54):
Well, I hope that.
My hope, although unrealisticin many respects, is that
candidates will see a jobdescription and acknowledge that
there's just not a realisticchance that they'll be
considered for that role andwill stop applying.
So in the not too distant past,just two years ago, when the
(20:15):
market it was very much anemployee's market you may write
a looser job description to tryto cast a poll in a lot of
candidates.
Now I'd say go the oppositeMake it as concise as you can.
So while you could argue thatthat doesn't streamline the
hiring process if you need togather a lot of candidates, it
does when it comes to matchingthe quality of candidate with
(20:39):
the job that you're hiring for.
Ricky Baez (20:41):
No, agreed.
So, and coming from an HRconsultant there, pete, I see so
many times that jobdescriptions are 10, 15, someone
that was 30 years old about twomonths ago and I'm like this is
before email people.
We need to be able I thinkthere was something in there
about a Daisy printer.
(21:01):
If you don't know what that is,look it up, google it.
So, yes, you need to havereally clear, really concise,
straight to the point jobdescription.
Now, here's what that's going todo.
It's going to attract the rightpeople and the people who are
looking for a job but they maynot qualify and they may be, oh,
I don't know.
They're going to jump ship,right?
They're not going to waste yourtime, they're not going to be
(21:22):
in your process, right?
They're like oh, that's toomuch for me, I'm not going to do
it.
You're going to have thosefolks that are like the go
getters either the fake it tillyou make it kind of people.
You got to watch out for them,right, because you got to make
sure that you test them alongthe way to make sure that they
are able to do what they saythey're able to do, and that's
what you can figure out throughthe interview process.
Pete Newsome (21:44):
So start to touch off, but that you know.
So it doesn't matter what theysay on paper.
That may get them in the door.
But then you have to getthrough that and I think most
candidates are pretty accuratein what they have on the resume.
You think so.
Ricky Baez (21:59):
You don't think there's a little bit of a, a
little bit of a a a, a, a a aliberties in expanding on skill
set.
That happens in a regularresume.
Pete Newsome (22:08):
I think it exists.
I think it's at a candidate'sinterest to put themselves in
the best possible light, ofcourse, but I think blatant
dishonesty on a resume is prettyrare.
Only because it's going to comeout and it's.
You'd have to be a crazy personto want to get an interview,
(22:28):
take your time for the interviewonly to know that if you can't
code and they're interviewingyou as a coder, it's going to.
It's going to not end well.
So for the most part, candidatesare savvy enough to realize
what their limitations are, butI would encourage everyone, of
course, to put yourself in thebest possible light.
(22:50):
If you're not going to to yourown whore, no one else will do
it for you, no it's going to doit for you, You're right.
Ricky Baez (22:54):
And then, and then speaking about interviews from a
recruited perspective, anotherway that you're able to really
streamline that process is toschedule the interviews as
frequently as possible.
Now, I'm not going to go as faras saying back to back
interviews, because then there'sthat delicate dance, right,
Because you have to understandthe time that it takes for the
hiring authority to interview aswell.
(23:16):
So if you do back to back toback interviews I mean if you,
if you take a hiring authoritythe entire day on just
interviewing, right, it's, youhave to understand the time it
takes away from those folks aswell.
So it's got to be a delicatedance.
Schedule interviewsconsistently, not back to back,
but in my opinion it should befrequent enough that you have a
(23:37):
steady flow of candidates tomake a decision in a reasonable
amount of time.
Pete Newsome (23:41):
So let's let's identify the difference in high
volume hiring versus hiring forone position.
And maybe that would helpexplain when it's appropriate
and when it's not so.
If you are hiring for oneposition, I believe the
recruiter's job is to only sendone candidate at a time.
Send the hiring manager, theperson they're going to hire.
(24:04):
You won't be able to do thatwith a hundred percent accuracy,
certainly not over time, butthat's recruiting when it's done
right.
In my opinion.
Now that means there has to bea really solid exchange of
information upfront.
The recruiter has to fullyunderstand the, the hiring need,
what the manager's looking for,the culture, all of the hard
and soft skills that go involvedin making that hiring decision.
(24:27):
But you don't have to have alot of back to back interviews
if it's done right.
You shouldn't Now high volume.
I would support it fully to sayif I need to hire 10 positions,
I do want to book that extendedperiod of time for the hiring
manager or whoever's going tomake the decision, to be able to
(24:47):
do it rapidly.
That to me, is efficient andspeeds up the process.
Ricky Baez (24:53):
So that makes sense, right, because you know, for
the time for your exchange ofcourse, I'm talking about the
internal leadership for yourexchange of time for interview,
you're going to yield like 10candidates, right, that you
definitely need, especially likein a calls, in a situation, or
even Amazon, right, becauseAmazon, it's November, it's
about to be you, you know whatyour parents, even your parents,
(25:15):
pass away.
You're not going to take sometime off, right, because we are
no joke with that.
So, yeah, so there has to be abalance.
But there's another one here,pete, that I really want to jump
on.
That.
I think it's crucial.
Folks, recruiters, you have totrain your interviewers, make
sure your interviewers knowexactly what they're looking for
(25:36):
.
They have to, you have to, youhave to.
Let me, I'm sorry, oh,technology, I put a thumbs up
and a little emoji came up.
What a time to be alive.
Sorry, squirrel, no.
So you want to make sure thatyour hiring authorities know
exactly who they're looking for.
And you got to make sure,especially if you do back to
(25:57):
back interviews, you got to makesure that interview number one
still has the same attention,the same desire, the same energy
as interview number 10, right?
So you got to make sure thatthe interviewers know that.
Also, make sure that theinterviewers only take notes.
That has to do with theperson's skills and whether they
can or cannot do the job.
(26:17):
So appropriate documentationshould be in that training.
The difference types of, of,not not discrimination is.
It's escaping me right now whenyou relate to somebody of a
specific say, if, if, ifsomebody did answer a question
really really really well andthen, because the answer that
question really really well, theother question, the answer
(26:39):
wrong.
It's not relevant becauseyou're so high on how well this
question I.
Pete Newsome (26:43):
I.
You're talking about anemotional connection of sorts.
Ricky Baez (26:46):
Yeah, it's, it's, it's something and it's escaping
me right now.
I can't believe it's escapingme right now.
Yeah, so you've got to makesure that you train the people
who are interviewing to makesure they know exactly what
they're looking for and theyavoid any legal pitfalls.
Pete Newsome (27:00):
So set clear, objective criteria.
I think that's that's whatwe're looking for here.
Ricky Baez (27:07):
You don't want to add a lot of subjectivity, yeah
just to the hiring process.
Pete Newsome (27:13):
You want to be concise and look if you you
should.
As a company, you should trainyour interviewers to know what
to, how to handle it, what tolook for.
That's a that's the best routeto take.
Don't just send people inhoping for the best.
That's.
That's not a good approach.
Ricky Baez (27:28):
And another approach is and I'm going to look both
sides, so make sure people hearme clear communication when the
candidate Folks, I guarantee I'malmost guarantee recruiters,
that you will dramaticallyreduce the amount of ghosting
that you get from a candidate ifyou communicate exactly what
(27:51):
the recruit, the candidate, canexpect, from the beginning of
the interview all the way to thevery end, whether they get the
job or not.
Right, you lay out the map.
Let them know where they are onthat map.
Let them know where they are onthat, on that game board, right
, a monopoly.
And the more they know that,the more invested they are and
the less likely they're going toghost you.
They're going to see it throughthe end.
Pete Newsome (28:13):
Can we talk about ghosting just for a second,
because I feel like that word ismorphed into something that I
don't believe that it is.
If you look on LinkedIn now,candidates are complaining that
recruiters are ghosting thembecause they didn't respond to
their job application.
I don't think that's ghosting.
Ricky Baez (28:30):
No, that's not ghosting.
Pete Newsome (28:32):
Yeah, for a ghost to exist, they had to be alive
at some point.
So for ghosting in thisscenario to exist, there had to
be a relationship or aconnection at some point.
Sending a one-click applicationdoes not establish rapport,
that does not establish arelationship, and so to consider
that ghosting, I think, is anunrealistic expectation and it
(28:52):
really confuses.
The good reason that word isused is to discourage people
from not following up and notcommunicating once they've been
engaged, because that's reallywhat we're talking about here is
giving candidate feedback in atimely matter, but by sending a
one-click application, thatdoesn't make you a candidate,
(29:14):
maybe in your mind as a personwho sends it, but not in the
company's mind.
Back to the point we talkedabout earlier if you're
receiving 2,000 applications,you're not building
relationships with 2,000 people.
It's just not going to happenand it's an unfortunate aspect
of the job search process.
It sounds harsh, but it isrealistic and it would apply in
(29:37):
any scenario in life.
So just because you reach out,doesn't obligate the individual
to respond.
Ricky Baez (29:43):
I agree, and yes, pete, that is not called
ghosting.
Actually, there's a scientificterm for that.
When you apply, when you as acandidate apply, and you get no
response back, hold on, let melook it up.
The scientific term or yourcredentials suck.
That's what Google said.
Your credentials suck.
Pete Newsome (30:01):
Well, maybe, okay, I know you said that in.
Just they're not appropriatefor the job.
And so look, if, if, yeah,michael Jordan as the best
basketball player of all time.
Yes, I said that.
I.
Ricky Baez (30:17):
Agree with me.
Pete Newsome (30:18):
I agree with it.
If he applies to be aneurosurgeon, his credentials
aren't good to be a neurosurgeon.
It doesn't take away from hisgreatness as a basketball player
, but I'm not gonna let himoperate on me.
So that's what we're talkingabout here and so can't.
It's need to know that when youare eager to find a job and,
(30:40):
and, and you're on the clock,you're gonna be, a lot of people
will just take that shot andthen try to apply.
And there's a lot of careercoaches out there who are
encouraging people to apply toany and every job just to
increase their odds.
And I'll tell you Definitively,it just lowers the odds
collectively for everyone oftheir resume getting pulled out
(31:00):
of the pile.
So that's a different soapbox.
I'll get off that now actuallycan.
Ricky Baez (31:04):
It's, it's.
I really think that candidatesneed to hear this piece.
They really do.
I know this is higher calling,but this is a piece that
candidates need to hear.
At the beginning of my career, Iused to subscribe to the notion
that apply to every job, evenif you don't qualify, just so
you can get to meet the hiringauthority, right.
I used to subscribe to thatright and then shake some hands,
(31:25):
make friends with them and thenlater on I'll get something
else.
When it came my turn tointerview and I found out that's
what people were doing, it gota.
It made me mad.
I'm like you're wasting my timeso I no longer subscribe to
that notion.
So, yes, it's.
It don't apply to every singlejob that's out there and I get
it if you're out there.
(31:45):
On unemployment Part of you knowit depending what state you're
in, if you're gonna getunemployment, you have to show
that you applied and I get,since that's what people do, but
it try to have an intentionalapplication.
Try to have a Reason why you'reapplying, because you have to
remember other people are, are,are setting their time from the
business schedule aside To makesure they meet with you.
(32:07):
So yeah, I changed tune on thatabout five years into my career
.
Pete Newsome (32:11):
Okay, fair enough fair enough so, but communicate
with your candidates.
Let them, let them know what'sgoing on.
That that's an important aspectof this right.
So here's a couple other things.
Let's touch on having anemployee referral program.
That's a great way to speed upyour hiring process.
No one knows your culture betterthan your internal employees.
Take advantage of them.
(32:31):
Give them a reason to refercandidates to you.
There's every reason to do it.
None that I'm aware of not to.
I can't think of a downside toit.
So that is something that willnot only speed up your process
but Increase your retentionrates as well, because your
employer employees Know who'sgoing to be a good fit.
(32:52):
If, especially if it's apersonal referral, someone
they've worked with in the past,they know that person's work
habits.
Those things are really hard topick out during an interview
process.
You can ask questions, you cancheck references, but I've
always said you don't reallyknow what someone's like until
you live with them.
So Go with the person who'slived with that person in the in
(33:13):
the past.
Take advantage of of what theyknow that you won't be able to
Accurately determine in theinterview process.
Ricky Baez (33:21):
I wasn't, so I agree with that a hundred percent.
I agree that that employeeReferrals if you put a good
process in place you know it'sagain.
Who knows better about theintricacies of the job and the
good, the bad and the ugly thanthe people who work there?
But I had that backfire, I meanone time one time.
Every organization, everybusiness has that one employee
(33:41):
that they're like I just wishthey'll just leave or go
somewhere else.
And then that one employee itmight in.
About three jobs ago, yeah, Igave a referral.
I'm like, ah, do we wantanother one of this person?
That kind of backfired?
Yeah, the person didn't evenbother interviewing.
But, yeah, it's you.
You have, you have walking,living, breathing marketing
(34:03):
campaigns in your organizationleverage that leverage.
That, trust me folks, you willget much better candidates From
people who were referred fromother people who know the ins
and outs of that job.
So that is a great way to makesure you got the right talent
for the for the job.
There's an HR piece, but that'sa whole nother show to to be
(34:24):
careful with.
But I don't want to do real usright.
Pete Newsome (34:27):
So that we do that enough, as I'm definitely gonna
cut out the Bitcoin partearlier.
Ricky Baez (34:31):
Oh, come on.
Pete Newsome (34:34):
That was.
That was five minutes ofunnecessary conversation.
But we of course have to bringup the value of hiring a third
party, hire a recruiting firm tospeed up your hiring process.
Why?
Because that's all we do.
We have blinders on.
We are not a corporate talentacquisition Department that
inevitably gets pulled intoother things a staffing company,
(34:57):
a recruiting firm, a headhunteruse whatever words you like.
Third parties are on a missionbecause they don't get paid,
they don't eat unless theydeliver.
Now what better motivation fora fast and efficient hiring
process is to leverage someonewho only gets rewarded when they
produce results.
And we're measured on adifferent timeline internally.
(35:20):
When you, when we talk aboutthe average of 30, 40, maybe
even 50 days For a hiringprocess, my eyes glaze over that
sounds.
That sounds unrealistic to me,because I'll go out of business
if it takes that long to find agreat candidate.
So we're incited and highlymotivated to produce not just a
(35:42):
candidate or candidates, but theright candidate as fast as
possible.
Ricky Baez (35:47):
So for every recruiter out there listening,
especially recruiters incorporate America, police
understand, yes, it's a greatidea to go with a third party
recruiter Agency.
That way they because they'rethe experts, but they work fast.
They work really really fast.
So they're there be careful.
Pete Newsome (36:04):
What you wish for.
Is that what you're saying?
Ricky Baez (36:06):
Well, no, because what happens is, you know, some
organizations are not used tohow quick these organizations
work.
And then they bring all thesegreat candidates and they take
their time in selecting, but thetop, the the clock is ticking
for that candidate, right?
If they're a top tier candidate, I guarantee that's five of the
office on the table, five ofthe offers, and if you drag your
(36:27):
feet and making a Selection,your competitor is gonna take
them.
So bring in a third-partystaffing firm, but also
understand that they work reallyfast and whatever they put in
front of you, go ahead, take thetime, make make the effort to
make sure you do what you needto do, to make sure you don't
lose that candidate at the timeso if I'm, if I'm Describing
(36:51):
oppositins of the spectrum aswhen you should and shouldn't
use a third party for hiring,you don't need one.
Pete Newsome (36:59):
If time is not important Now, time always
should be a factor.
If it's not an immediateopening, don't use a third party
for that.
Don't waste the staffingcompany's time.
Or if you're flooded with somany great candidates you don't
need to use a third party, then,of course, don't do it.
I like to say that no one usesus unless they need us.
But if you do need a thirdparty, if Urgency is a factor,
(37:23):
if it is a role that needs to befilled as quickly as possible,
then they're your best friend.
Yeah, a third-party staffingcompany is your best friend
because we are inherently goingto be much faster and More
efficient than a corporateentity, and that's just the way
it is, and I would argue thatanytime anywhere.
Ricky Baez (37:42):
I agree.
No, I agree with you.
I agree with you because,remember, are recruited for a
corporate entity.
They're just somebody thatworks for a business that has a
different core business, astaffing agency.
That's their core, that's whatthey do for a living right.
Pete Newsome (37:55):
It's a great way to look at it.
It's not about the quality ofthe individual, it's not about
the capabilities of theindividual recruiter.
It has to do with what the corebusiness actually is, and
everything in that business, ifyou're a third party, is Focused
on recruiting and staffing.
Everything that's it.
Sales is focused on recruitingRight.
(38:15):
Operations is focused onrecruiting every aspect of it.
But if you're any other type ofbusiness, the core of what you
do is not recruiting.
So that's a great thing tobring up and I've never actually
thought of it that way before,but it makes so much sense.
Ricky Baez (38:32):
Well, yeah, because you know it's.
It's if you're in the businessof making toilet paper and it's
time to cut, you know, to cut aStaff, you're not gonna cut the
people who make the toilet paper.
That's what you need to to toactually succeed.
They're gonna cut out peoplewho don't make a direct impact,
right, well, sometimes it's HR,training, recruiting, whereas in
(38:53):
the, in a staffing agency, whenwe have to let people go
because you know things aretough, yeah, you're gonna keep
your, your, your top players.
You may let go of some of somepeople who don't make a direct
impact.
So, yeah, it really depends onthat issue.
That's why it's a good idea, ifyou don't have the time To
actually do it yourself, get astaffing agency.
Who's who's an expert in thatfield and man, let me tell you,
(39:15):
they work quick.
Pete Newsome (39:16):
Well, it's a difference between a thing you
do and the thing you do right,that's it right.
Okay, so To wrap up, you, wewant to simplify the onboarding
process.
Of course, in this, that thatgoes without saying.
But if you've listened this far, we what we've covered are the
ways that you can speed up yourHiring process.
(39:37):
There's lots of reasons to doit.
No reason not to that.
Ricky, did we catch?
Do we cover everything?
Did we did we do it?
I Don't say it.
Ricky Baez (39:47):
No, no, wait now.
I'm sorry cuz I know you'rewrapping up, but I have to say
this because I'm big ononboarding Pete, I am huge on
onboarding.
Yes, streamlining, yes, make itas efficient as possible, but
do not let the impact diminish.
Do not let the impact diminishat all, because I know somebody
who just started a job two weeksago and that person was in an
(40:08):
office all day long watching avideo for new employee
orientation.
It was, you know, a fishing isall can get.
But let me tell you, by thethird hour in that eight hour
day, looking into that camera,this person's eyes were glazed
over.
So, yes, streamlining as muchas you can, but don't let the
human connection Be be affectedby this dreamline process,
(40:33):
because that's still is key.
Pete Newsome (40:36):
I so, in conclusion, how to speed up your
hiring process clear jobdescriptions.
Take advantage of technology.
Employee referral programsgreat way to do it.
Set clear expectationsinternally.
Teach your interviewers how tomanage the process and when you
need to Hire a third-partyrecruiting firm.
They'll be your best friend ifspeed and efficiency you're at
(40:56):
the top of your priority list.
Anything else, pete, look athow far we've come.
Ricky Baez (41:03):
We're now summarizing the end of the
podcast.
I know we're really good, I'mproud of ourselves, and well
that's.
Pete Newsome (41:10):
There's.
There's no one.
There's no one left listeningthis long, so why not?
Ricky Baez (41:16):
mom love you.
She's listening.
I know she is.
Yes, she's so proud of me.
Pete Newsome (41:19):
I'm proud of you too.
So, ricky, thank you, thanksfor listening.
If you, if you are with us, ourtwo moms, wonderful.
We appreciate you and have agreat weekend.
Have a good one guys.
Ricky Baez (41:32):
Bye mom.
You're listening to the Hire Calling podcast,
your source for all thingshiring, staffing and recruiting.
I'm Pete Newsome, joined byRicky Baez today.
Ricky, how are you?
I'm doing good, pete.
How about yourself?
I'm doing well, ricky.
At some point I just have tosay it's Pete and Ricky and then
just be done with it.
The introduction yeah, it's thesame thing every time.
Ricky Baez (00:23):
I mean, it's not like we didn't ask how we're
doing before we startedrecording, right?
We just want everybody else toknow that we're cordial with
each other.
Pete Newsome (00:30):
That's true.
If you stop and think about it,there's absolutely no reason
for me to ask how you're doing.
We've already established thatprior to hitting the record
button.
But nonetheless, here we areback for another recording to
talk today about speeding up thehiring process.
That's an important thing.
Ricky Baez (00:49):
Why will we want to speed that up, Pete?
Pete Newsome (00:52):
Lots of reasons, Lots of reasons.
Yeah, one thing I'll tell youis candidates certainly will
appreciate it.
We know that because, boy, youdon't have to spend more than a
couple of minutes on LinkedIn tosee a whole lot of frustrated
candidates out there these dayswho are trying to find a great
job and it just doesn't seem tobe happening quickly for them.
Ricky Baez (01:13):
Well, I mean, it doesn't right.
And then there's a lot ofrecruiters that have a lot of
their mind and a lot of thingsthat they're juggling.
That's not an excuse, butyou're right, You've got
candidates out there who are outthere waiting, and while
they're waiting, other thingscan happen, which that's what
we're going to dive into today.
Right, the importance ofspeeding up the hiring process.
That way you don't lose out ongreat top candidates.
Pete Newsome (01:35):
So let's just start with talking.
What are we talking aboutreally?
The time to hire.
It's the time between when youmake a decision that a job needs
to be filled, you have anopening that's new, a
replacement for someone.
You post that job.
How quickly can you get someonein the seat?
How long does it take?
Let's talk about the average,and the average has been going
(01:57):
up.
What do you think you know whatthe average is?
If you're listening to us rightnow, stop and think.
How long do you think it takesfor a company to fill an open
position?
Ricky Baez (02:07):
We'll wait and then we'll answer.
Well, I'm going to go withoutlooking at any stats.
I'm going to go with when I wasleading a team of recruiters
and the KPIs I had for them andwhat I told them on average 30
days beginning to end fromopening to executing a job offer
and accepting that job offer.
(02:28):
Beginning to end four weeks 30days.
Pete Newsome (02:31):
Now we know there's a difference between how
a corporation would measurethat with their internal team
and how a staffing company, athird party, would measure that.
Ricky Baez (02:40):
All very different.
Pete Newsome (02:41):
It can be a long time for some jobs.
The average, according to theSociety for Human Resource
Management, is actually 36 days,but studies have shown 44, or
maybe even 50 days.
Now we think that's changingfor a number of reasons.
Why do you think it's evolvingand going higher?
Ricky Baez (03:02):
Well, I think, wow.
So 36 days, so five weeks.
So I think it's going higherjust because the lower the
unemployment rate as it keepstrending, lower the less able
bodies that are out in theworkforce looking for work and
the less talent that recruitershave to work with, the higher
the time to fill on averagewould come to be, because the
(03:26):
less people that are out there,the more work the recruiter has
to do to fill those positions.
So I'm thinking it'sunemployment you think so.
Pete Newsome (03:33):
I think it's more about companies right now being
hesitant and very cautious inmaking any decisions.
So, even though the hiring needis there, they're not pulling
the trigger as quickly, and thatis something that a lot of
staffing companies areexperiencing right now.
We talk, we share informationand it's very common Companies
(03:54):
are slower to pull the trigger.
Now you're smiling big at that.
Why so?
Ricky Baez (03:59):
I'm smiling big because Pete on this show.
For the past couple of years,we've talked about how
organizations go on thishumongous hiring blitz, only six
months later to figure outthey've overshot their goals and
now they have to lay people off.
So I'm smiling because I'm likedid organizations learn their
lesson?
Are they now being morecautious, instead of following
(04:23):
somebody's trail that theyblazed to hire people left and
right?
What happened?
Pete Newsome (04:28):
I think a lot of it's reactive to your point.
We saw that happening a coupleof years ago, post-covid, and
the hiring craze that washappening, where companies were
paying giant salaries, biggerthan they needed to Now being in
the recruiting space.
We saw that very prevalent inour industry, where recruiters
with very little experience weregetting offered the opportunity
(04:50):
to work remotely giant salaries.
Amazon, facebook at the time,metta, if we're going to call
them that now I guess they werethrowing huge salaries out there
and it flooded the market withnew opportunities in.
A lot of people jump ship andnow the pendulum has swung back.
This happens, the need is nolonger as great as it was, and
(05:11):
so companies are reactingdifferently now, and I think the
economic uncertainty that we'refacing continues to be an issue
where companies just continueto sit on the sidelines with a
lot of things and watch and waitto see what's going to happen,
and hiring is part of that.
That's my perspective on it.
Ricky Baez (05:32):
So, for the sake of everybody listening, because you
and I both know the answer tothis question, but I'm going to
ask anyway, that way they can bea part of the conversation.
Why should we care if we fill aposition quickly?
Shouldn't recruiters andorganizations take the time to
make sure they got the rightcandidate?
Pete Newsome (05:49):
They should, but they have to balance that
against the negatives of waiting.
A prolonged hiring processleads to other problems, so
let's just talk about those.
One is there's a costassociated with a vacancy.
We call it cost of vacancy.
You have to know what that is.
What happens to yourorganization as long as that
(06:11):
position remains unfilled and wehave a recent blog post on
fourcorneresourcescom about it Iencourage everyone to check it
out because it actually liststhe calculation.
I'm not going to try todescribe that verbally, it's a
math.
Verbal math is no fun, but thereis a cost to not filling a
(06:32):
position and there's losses thathappen.
Maybe it's customer servicedeclines, maybe it's a loss of
productivity, of sales, not tomention the true burnout that
happens from your otheremployees who have to share the
load.
So those are the hidden costs,if you will.
Even though they're realnumbers, companies don't stop
(06:53):
and consider those things.
Some do, I think most don't.
What's your take on?
Ricky Baez (07:00):
that Most do not.
Most do not.
And I actually got a quickstory on that, pete, because
when I was in corporate Americaand I was working for Searsome
Improvement, we were trying tofigure out look, we're not
offering enough, we are notoffering enough to make sure
that we fill the positions thatwe set out to fill.
And back then I think I had tofill 500 in one calendar year
(07:23):
and that was at a time whenunemployment was really really
low at that time.
So the best way to convincesenior leadership is to
translate that problem intonumbers.
So instead of saying hey, we'renot filling positions and
they're like, well, we're doingthe job with the people you have
, you have to convert thosevacancies into lots of
productivity.
(07:44):
So, long story short, we wereable to figure out for every
empty seat per hour will costthe organization $1,000 per hour
, every empty seat.
So once they per hour.
So once they were able to seethat, like whoa, we're losing
how much, okay, here's a check,what it?
Whatever you need here you goright.
(08:04):
So you have to articulate thatnow as a recruiter, a recruiting
manager.
After you're done articulatingthat and they give you those
funds, you better perform, youbetter perform right.
You better put your theory tothe test.
So yeah, it's the best way toget Executive leaderships.
Attention is to focus on thelots of productivity and how
(08:25):
much that vacancy is costingthem perfect.
Pete Newsome (08:28):
So Pitfalls of a prolonged hiring process.
We know that it adds to the.
There's a cost of the vacancythat has to be considered.
We know that it puts a strainon your other employees.
You're going to lose topcandidates.
Oh dude that's candidates don'tstay available.
We know that too.
So these are things that haveto be considered if you're going
(08:48):
to Take it seriously.
So what else?
So we cover all the bases.
I mean, that's enoughjustification.
Any one of those things, in myopinion, is Justification enough
.
Ricky Baez (09:00):
Well, it is.
It is especially what you justsaid as far as losing top
candidates right, the idea thatcorporate America had 20 years
ago that Candidates should bowdown at the opportunity to
interview for this, for thisposition that that's no longer
relevant now.
Top, especially top talent.
They have options and you knowwhat.
They don't have a lot ofpatients and they're gonna go
(09:23):
somewhere else.
You know who doesn't haveoptions and options and all the
patients in the world, your Dand C level candidates Correct,
that's who you're gonna be stuckwith if you're, if your process
is too long for comfort.
Pete Newsome (09:37):
Well, it comes down to supply and demand.
Yeah so if you're willing tosettle for subpar candidates,
then take as long as you like,but if you want the best
available, I don't knowgovernment sit on that.
And and let me tell you as athird-party recruiter, nothing
is more frustrating than when wehave the ideal candidate, and
you know it when you see it.
You just do anyone who's beenin recruiting for a long time.
(10:00):
When you have that just perfectperson, you know they're going
to get hired.
If they have an opportunity tointerview, they're interested in
the job, the timing is rightmeans the stars are all aligning
.
And then you have a Client onthe other side who's slow to
pull the trigger and has adelayed process.
It is a deal killer and nothingis more frustrating because you
(10:23):
know that this great candidateis not going to sit on the
sidelines very long.
They're going to haveopportunities come their way.
So if if you're listening andyou are someone in a hiring
position, don't delay.
That's right.
Act, delay, act.
Ricky Baez (10:39):
That's a message now that now that's the strain on.
Actually that that's whathappens for external candidates.
But what happens also is, atsome point the job has to be
done right, the vacancy is thereand whatever, whatever duties
needs to be done in that vacancySomebody else has to do is.
So the longer you take andmaking sure you fill that role,
(11:00):
the more strain you put on yourcurrent Resources and guess what
happens.
That creates burnout, and themore burnout employees have, the
bigger job a recruit is goingto have, because turnover is
just going to go up.
If the burnout goes up,turnover goes up.
Pete Newsome (11:15):
So let's start with the.
Let's talk about what you coulddo about it.
Yes, so how can you improveyour hiring processors?
A number of ways to do it.
One is to take advantage ofTechnology that exists.
Now.
I would tell you and I say thisoften that some of the
technology that we use today hasmade us worse as recruiters
(11:35):
collectively, as significantlyworse, because it makes it too
easy, and what I mean by that isyou can post a job and have
Thousands of applicants in avery short time frame.
Now, that sounds great, but thepracticality of that is
something altogether different.
You don't have the ability tothoroughly look at that many,
(11:57):
and I would Say that maybe youdon't have the ability to look
at them at all.
So what does that mean?
It means that you're going to.
You're going to risk having alot of unqualified candidates
Because it's easy for them toapply.
Right easy to get theapplicants, easy to apply, very
low barrier.
People disregard the the jobdescription.
So we can talk about jobdescriptions too, but that only
(12:21):
matters if people pay attentionto it and what happens, is the
the best candidates you know toget buried in that, in that
giant stack.
So that's a, that's a challenge.
But take advantage oftechnology but also understand
its limitations.
Ricky Baez (12:36):
Correct.
So it's especially with AIthese days where I I know a lot
of recruiters are using AI toassist them in the sourcing
process.
Now here's the thing Notice Isaid assist, not take over,
right, ai it's still in itsinfancy stages and you still
need a human being to really goin and make sure that you're
(12:57):
checking for the right Thingsand you have to make sure that
you don't fall into any legalpitfalls, right, that AI just
doesn't take a look at.
So you have to use technologyas a tool to help you source and
recruit, not not as the tool tosource in recruit.
There's a big difference there.
Pete Newsome (13:15):
But let me put you on the spot as an HR
professional.
Talk to me what, how much of anobligation do you believe that
recruiters have to address everyresume that comes in?
Ricky Baez (13:28):
Address every resume that without any kind of of AI
help just in general.
Pete Newsome (13:35):
So, they've put a job posting out.
Can it supply?
What obligation do you believethat that recruiter has to
acknowledge and then addressthose candidates who've applied?
Ricky Baez (13:47):
I think 100%, and here's why.
Here's why, before a recruitercan say this resume doesn't fit
the bill, that's not what I'mlooking for, they have to look
at it.
They cannot say this is notgoing to work without taking a
look at it.
Now, how long they spend on itis something different.
Right, on average, what 6 to 9seconds A recruiter takes a look
(14:09):
at a resume before they put itin the lab again.
It's Friday, it's payday, right,we got to do math, right?
No?
But I mean, here's the thing.
I think, 100%, 100%.
There's no other way arecruiter can make a
determination whether thisresume goes to the next step or
not without taking a look at itfor at least the minimum amount
(14:29):
of time, or maximum amount oftime, which is 9 seconds, to
impress that recruiter.
What?
Pete Newsome (14:33):
do you think?
I think it's unrealistic,because if you run that math out
by the number of applicationsthat comes in, that's all
they'll spend their time doingis looking at resumes.
So what we need and we're notgoing to fix this during this
recording, someone needs to fixthis soon is a bigger barrier to
(14:56):
apply.
I saw a post on LinkedIn theother day I don't support this,
by the way.
I don't think it's practical inany form or fashion but they
said can it have to pay to applyto a job?
Now, that's silly, but what Ido find interesting is if there
was a way to it has so off topic, and I probably just got to cut
this.
It wasn't me, I promise, it wasyou, pete.
(15:21):
So we know that there's bottraffic everywhere if you're on
Twitter, any social mediaaccount, and there's a guy named
Michael Saylor.
Do you know who Michael Sayloris?
I don't.
He's a CEO of MicroStrategy, avery successful company, and
he's a big fan of Bitcoin, andwe know that Bitcoin can be as
divisible by 100 million.
So basically, you can take thesmallest of increments, a
(15:44):
fraction of a penny, and have aBitcoin transaction with it in
theory, and his suggestion wasyou have to have these
microtransactions to prove thatyou're a human.
And so what if someone?
It was almost like amerit-based system where someone
had to do more than just haveone click to apply, where it
(16:04):
wasn't that simple.
That's what I would like to seenot to charge anyone, but to
have a way that you have to stopand pause and decide whether
you really want to apply.
Now LinkedIn has an interestingsystem for in-mails, which
you're familiar with, where theygive you credits and you get
the credit back.
You have a certain number ofcredits a month.
(16:26):
You get the credit back if theperson you send the in-mail to
replies.
Now that to me denotesrelevance.
If you send out a lot of spammessages, no one will apply, but
if you're contacting people fora relevant purpose, then they
will reply at a high rate.
Same goes for job applicants, ifyou only are applying to jobs
(16:49):
where you have a realisticchance at getting it.
I'm not saying your experienceand background has to match word
for word the job description,but it has to be reasonable.
That doesn't exist today onLinkedIn and there's no penalty
for saying, yes, I have a degree.
When you don't.
Yes, I'm qualified for this job.
When you're not, I have Xnumber of years of experience.
(17:10):
You're just going to answerwith no penalty today, and my
contention is that that messesup the system for everyone else
and, by the way, I'm not alonein thinking that but there's no
barrier.
I think we need a barrier,don't you?
Ricky Baez (17:24):
I just think it's funny that I know it's a meme
and I know you don't subscribeto it, but just the rationale of
the meme that people should payto apply and I think that's
hilarious.
If I'm applying for a job, it'sbecause I don't have money.
Pete Newsome (17:41):
Absolutely.
I don't have money, I agree100%, but we have to go up with
something.
It's not going to be to pay foror apply.
That's silly.
But it used to take effort.
It used to take writing aletter, sending a resume in the
mail, even faxing it.
I would argue that evenemailing takes effort.
(18:03):
One click apply takes no effortat all.
That's cool.
That's the part of the systemthat's broken, so let's move on
from that, because that's notspeeding up anything, let alone
the hiring process.
It's actually along the podcastyeah, we just dragged it out.
So take advantage of technology, but also understand its
limitations.
That's my message there.
Have a job description that isconcise and spells out exactly
(18:29):
what you need to the minimumyou'll consider.
Now we've just spent fiveunnecessary minutes talking
about how people ignore the jobdescription anyway, but I still
think it's something you shouldstrive to do by bees as clear as
possible, and I like sharingthe bad news too.
(18:49):
Right, say, the worst part ofthe job.
If you know you're going to getflooded with candidates, try to
eliminate that as much aspossible.
I don't know how much it helpsin the current market, but you
need to spell out the details onthe job description to increase
your chances of accuracy.
Ricky Baez (19:05):
Well, I like that strategy, Pete, and the reason I
like that strategy and you andI have talked about this before
is because look, what's going tohappen if you don't spill that
out.
Is the person you're going togo through the trouble of hiring
that person, go through theprocess, only to find that six
months later they're not a goodfit?
You wasted your time, youwasted your money.
It's better for you to find outas quickly as possible whether
this person is going to be a fit.
(19:27):
You've said it on this showplenty of times Bad news early
is good news.
So you might as well talk themout of the job.
That's why I like thatrationale.
You talk them out of it and thepeople who are still there,
they're going to be there forthe right reasons.
So I agree with that 100%.
Now, is that streamlining, ordoes that?
Because I don't know if thatstreamlines the recruiting
(19:47):
process.
I know it helps you hiresomebody who's going to stick
around you for the long haul.
Pete Newsome (19:54):
Well, I hope that.
My hope, although unrealisticin many respects, is that
candidates will see a jobdescription and acknowledge that
there's just not a realisticchance that they'll be
considered for that role andwill stop applying.
So in the not too distant past,just two years ago, when the
(20:15):
market it was very much anemployee's market you may write
a looser job description to tryto cast a poll in a lot of
candidates.
Now I'd say go the oppositeMake it as concise as you can.
So while you could argue thatthat doesn't streamline the
hiring process if you need togather a lot of candidates, it
does when it comes to matchingthe quality of candidate with
(20:39):
the job that you're hiring for.
Ricky Baez (20:41):
No, agreed.
So, and coming from an HRconsultant there, pete, I see so
many times that jobdescriptions are 10, 15, someone
that was 30 years old about twomonths ago and I'm like this is
before email people.
We need to be able I thinkthere was something in there
about a Daisy printer.
(21:01):
If you don't know what that is,look it up, google it.
So, yes, you need to havereally clear, really concise,
straight to the point jobdescription.
Now, here's what that's going todo.
It's going to attract the rightpeople and the people who are
looking for a job but they maynot qualify and they may be, oh,
I don't know.
They're going to jump ship,right?
They're not going to waste yourtime, they're not going to be
(21:22):
in your process, right?
They're like oh, that's toomuch for me, I'm not going to do
it.
You're going to have thosefolks that are like the go
getters either the fake it tillyou make it kind of people.
You got to watch out for them,right, because you got to make
sure that you test them alongthe way to make sure that they
are able to do what they saythey're able to do, and that's
what you can figure out throughthe interview process.
Pete Newsome (21:44):
So start to touch off, but that you know.
So it doesn't matter what theysay on paper.
That may get them in the door.
But then you have to getthrough that and I think most
candidates are pretty accuratein what they have on the resume.
You think so.
Ricky Baez (21:59):
You don't think there's a little bit of a, a
little bit of a a a, a, a a aliberties in expanding on skill
set.
That happens in a regularresume.
Pete Newsome (22:08):
I think it exists.
I think it's at a candidate'sinterest to put themselves in
the best possible light, ofcourse, but I think blatant
dishonesty on a resume is prettyrare.
Only because it's going to comeout and it's.
You'd have to be a crazy personto want to get an interview,
(22:28):
take your time for the interviewonly to know that if you can't
code and they're interviewingyou as a coder, it's going to.
It's going to not end well.
So for the most part, candidatesare savvy enough to realize
what their limitations are, butI would encourage everyone, of
course, to put yourself in thebest possible light.
(22:50):
If you're not going to to yourown whore, no one else will do
it for you, no it's going to doit for you, You're right.
Ricky Baez (22:54):
And then, and then speaking about interviews from a
recruited perspective, anotherway that you're able to really
streamline that process is toschedule the interviews as
frequently as possible.
Now, I'm not going to go as faras saying back to back
interviews, because then there'sthat delicate dance, right,
Because you have to understandthe time that it takes for the
hiring authority to interview aswell.
(23:16):
So if you do back to back toback interviews I mean if you,
if you take a hiring authoritythe entire day on just
interviewing, right, it's, youhave to understand the time it
takes away from those folks aswell.
So it's got to be a delicatedance.
Schedule interviewsconsistently, not back to back,
but in my opinion it should befrequent enough that you have a
(23:37):
steady flow of candidates tomake a decision in a reasonable
amount of time.
Pete Newsome (23:41):
So let's let's identify the difference in high
volume hiring versus hiring forone position.
And maybe that would helpexplain when it's appropriate
and when it's not so.
If you are hiring for oneposition, I believe the
recruiter's job is to only sendone candidate at a time.
Send the hiring manager, theperson they're going to hire.
(24:04):
You won't be able to do thatwith a hundred percent accuracy,
certainly not over time, butthat's recruiting when it's done
right.
In my opinion.
Now that means there has to bea really solid exchange of
information upfront.
The recruiter has to fullyunderstand the, the hiring need,
what the manager's looking for,the culture, all of the hard
and soft skills that go involvedin making that hiring decision.
(24:27):
But you don't have to have alot of back to back interviews
if it's done right.
You shouldn't Now high volume.
I would support it fully to sayif I need to hire 10 positions,
I do want to book that extendedperiod of time for the hiring
manager or whoever's going tomake the decision, to be able to
(24:47):
do it rapidly.
That to me, is efficient andspeeds up the process.
Ricky Baez (24:53):
So that makes sense, right, because you know, for
the time for your exchange ofcourse, I'm talking about the
internal leadership for yourexchange of time for interview,
you're going to yield like 10candidates, right, that you
definitely need, especially likein a calls, in a situation, or
even Amazon, right, becauseAmazon, it's November, it's
about to be you, you know whatyour parents, even your parents,
(25:15):
pass away.
You're not going to take sometime off, right, because we are
no joke with that.
So, yeah, so there has to be abalance.
But there's another one here,pete, that I really want to jump
on.
That.
I think it's crucial.
Folks, recruiters, you have totrain your interviewers, make
sure your interviewers knowexactly what they're looking for
(25:36):
.
They have to, you have to, youhave to.
Let me, I'm sorry, oh,technology, I put a thumbs up
and a little emoji came up.
What a time to be alive.
Sorry, squirrel, no.
So you want to make sure thatyour hiring authorities know
exactly who they're looking for.
And you got to make sure,especially if you do back to
(25:57):
back interviews, you got to makesure that interview number one
still has the same attention,the same desire, the same energy
as interview number 10, right?
So you got to make sure thatthe interviewers know that.
Also, make sure that theinterviewers only take notes.
That has to do with theperson's skills and whether they
can or cannot do the job.
(26:17):
So appropriate documentationshould be in that training.
The difference types of, of,not not discrimination is.
It's escaping me right now whenyou relate to somebody of a
specific say, if, if, ifsomebody did answer a question
really really really well andthen, because the answer that
question really really well, theother question, the answer
(26:39):
wrong.
It's not relevant becauseyou're so high on how well this
question I.
Pete Newsome (26:43):
I.
You're talking about anemotional connection of sorts.
Ricky Baez (26:46):
Yeah, it's, it's, it's something and it's escaping
me right now.
I can't believe it's escapingme right now.
Yeah, so you've got to makesure that you train the people
who are interviewing to makesure they know exactly what
they're looking for and theyavoid any legal pitfalls.
Pete Newsome (27:00):
So set clear, objective criteria.
I think that's that's whatwe're looking for here.
Ricky Baez (27:07):
You don't want to add a lot of subjectivity, yeah
just to the hiring process.
Pete Newsome (27:13):
You want to be concise and look if you you
should.
As a company, you should trainyour interviewers to know what
to, how to handle it, what tolook for.
That's a that's the best routeto take.
Don't just send people inhoping for the best.
That's.
That's not a good approach.
Ricky Baez (27:28):
And another approach is and I'm going to look both
sides, so make sure people hearme clear communication when the
candidate Folks, I guarantee I'malmost guarantee recruiters,
that you will dramaticallyreduce the amount of ghosting
that you get from a candidate ifyou communicate exactly what
(27:51):
the recruit, the candidate, canexpect, from the beginning of
the interview all the way to thevery end, whether they get the
job or not.
Right, you lay out the map.
Let them know where they are onthat map.
Let them know where they are onthat, on that game board, right
, a monopoly.
And the more they know that,the more invested they are and
the less likely they're going toghost you.
They're going to see it throughthe end.
Pete Newsome (28:13):
Can we talk about ghosting just for a second,
because I feel like that word ismorphed into something that I
don't believe that it is.
If you look on LinkedIn now,candidates are complaining that
recruiters are ghosting thembecause they didn't respond to
their job application.
I don't think that's ghosting.
Ricky Baez (28:30):
No, that's not ghosting.
Pete Newsome (28:32):
Yeah, for a ghost to exist, they had to be alive
at some point.
So for ghosting in thisscenario to exist, there had to
be a relationship or aconnection at some point.
Sending a one-click applicationdoes not establish rapport,
that does not establish arelationship, and so to consider
that ghosting, I think, is anunrealistic expectation and it
(28:52):
really confuses.
The good reason that word isused is to discourage people
from not following up and notcommunicating once they've been
engaged, because that's reallywhat we're talking about here is
giving candidate feedback in atimely matter, but by sending a
one-click application, thatdoesn't make you a candidate,
(29:14):
maybe in your mind as a personwho sends it, but not in the
company's mind.
Back to the point we talkedabout earlier if you're
receiving 2,000 applications,you're not building
relationships with 2,000 people.
It's just not going to happenand it's an unfortunate aspect
of the job search process.
It sounds harsh, but it isrealistic and it would apply in
(29:37):
any scenario in life.
So just because you reach out,doesn't obligate the individual
to respond.
Ricky Baez (29:43):
I agree, and yes, pete, that is not called
ghosting.
Actually, there's a scientificterm for that.
When you apply, when you as acandidate apply, and you get no
response back, hold on, let melook it up.
The scientific term or yourcredentials suck.
That's what Google said.
Your credentials suck.
Pete Newsome (30:01):
Well, maybe, okay, I know you said that in.
Just they're not appropriatefor the job.
And so look, if, if, yeah,michael Jordan as the best
basketball player of all time.
Yes, I said that.
I.
Ricky Baez (30:17):
Agree with me.
Pete Newsome (30:18):
I agree with it.
If he applies to be aneurosurgeon, his credentials
aren't good to be a neurosurgeon.
It doesn't take away from hisgreatness as a basketball player
, but I'm not gonna let himoperate on me.
So that's what we're talkingabout here and so can't.
It's need to know that when youare eager to find a job and,
(30:40):
and, and you're on the clock,you're gonna be, a lot of people
will just take that shot andthen try to apply.
And there's a lot of careercoaches out there who are
encouraging people to apply toany and every job just to
increase their odds.
And I'll tell you Definitively,it just lowers the odds
collectively for everyone oftheir resume getting pulled out
(31:00):
of the pile.
So that's a different soapbox.
I'll get off that now actuallycan.
Ricky Baez (31:04):
It's, it's.
I really think that candidatesneed to hear this piece.
They really do.
I know this is higher calling,but this is a piece that
candidates need to hear.
At the beginning of my career, Iused to subscribe to the notion
that apply to every job, evenif you don't qualify, just so
you can get to meet the hiringauthority, right.
I used to subscribe to thatright and then shake some hands,
(31:25):
make friends with them and thenlater on I'll get something
else.
When it came my turn tointerview and I found out that's
what people were doing, it gota.
It made me mad.
I'm like you're wasting my timeso I no longer subscribe to
that notion.
So, yes, it's.
It don't apply to every singlejob that's out there and I get
it if you're out there.
(31:45):
On unemployment Part of you knowit depending what state you're
in, if you're gonna getunemployment, you have to show
that you applied and I get,since that's what people do, but
it try to have an intentionalapplication.
Try to have a Reason why you'reapplying, because you have to
remember other people are, are,are setting their time from the
business schedule aside To makesure they meet with you.
(32:07):
So yeah, I changed tune on thatabout five years into my career
.
Pete Newsome (32:11):
Okay, fair enough fair enough so, but communicate
with your candidates.
Let them, let them know what'sgoing on.
That that's an important aspectof this right.
So here's a couple other things.
Let's touch on having anemployee referral program.
That's a great way to speed upyour hiring process.
No one knows your culture betterthan your internal employees.
Take advantage of them.
(32:31):
Give them a reason to refercandidates to you.
There's every reason to do it.
None that I'm aware of not to.
I can't think of a downside toit.
So that is something that willnot only speed up your process
but Increase your retentionrates as well, because your
employer employees Know who'sgoing to be a good fit.
(32:52):
If, especially if it's apersonal referral, someone
they've worked with in the past,they know that person's work
habits.
Those things are really hard topick out during an interview
process.
You can ask questions, you cancheck references, but I've
always said you don't reallyknow what someone's like until
you live with them.
So Go with the person who'slived with that person in the in
(33:13):
the past.
Take advantage of of what theyknow that you won't be able to
Accurately determine in theinterview process.
Ricky Baez (33:21):
I wasn't, so I agree with that a hundred percent.
I agree that that employeeReferrals if you put a good
process in place you know it'sagain.
Who knows better about theintricacies of the job and the
good, the bad and the ugly thanthe people who work there?
But I had that backfire, I meanone time one time.
Every organization, everybusiness has that one employee
(33:41):
that they're like I just wishthey'll just leave or go
somewhere else.
And then that one employee itmight in.
About three jobs ago, yeah, Igave a referral.
I'm like, ah, do we wantanother one of this person?
That kind of backfired?
Yeah, the person didn't evenbother interviewing.
But, yeah, it's you.
You have, you have walking,living, breathing marketing
(34:03):
campaigns in your organizationleverage that leverage.
That, trust me folks, you willget much better candidates From
people who were referred fromother people who know the ins
and outs of that job.
So that is a great way to makesure you got the right talent
for the for the job.
There's an HR piece, but that'sa whole nother show to to be
(34:24):
careful with.
But I don't want to do real usright.
Pete Newsome (34:27):
So that we do that enough, as I'm definitely gonna
cut out the Bitcoin partearlier.
Ricky Baez (34:31):
Oh, come on.
Pete Newsome (34:34):
That was.
That was five minutes ofunnecessary conversation.
But we of course have to bringup the value of hiring a third
party, hire a recruiting firm tospeed up your hiring process.
Why?
Because that's all we do.
We have blinders on.
We are not a corporate talentacquisition Department that
inevitably gets pulled intoother things a staffing company,
(34:57):
a recruiting firm, a headhunteruse whatever words you like.
Third parties are on a missionbecause they don't get paid,
they don't eat unless theydeliver.
Now what better motivation fora fast and efficient hiring
process is to leverage someonewho only gets rewarded when they
produce results.
And we're measured on adifferent timeline internally.
(35:20):
When you, when we talk aboutthe average of 30, 40, maybe
even 50 days For a hiringprocess, my eyes glaze over that
sounds.
That sounds unrealistic to me,because I'll go out of business
if it takes that long to find agreat candidate.
So we're incited and highlymotivated to produce not just a
(35:42):
candidate or candidates, but theright candidate as fast as
possible.
Ricky Baez (35:47):
So for every recruiter out there listening,
especially recruiters incorporate America, police
understand, yes, it's a greatidea to go with a third party
recruiter Agency.
That way they because they'rethe experts, but they work fast.
They work really really fast.
So they're there be careful.
Pete Newsome (36:04):
What you wish for.
Is that what you're saying?
Ricky Baez (36:06):
Well, no, because what happens is, you know, some
organizations are not used tohow quick these organizations
work.
And then they bring all thesegreat candidates and they take
their time in selecting, but thetop, the the clock is ticking
for that candidate, right?
If they're a top tier candidate, I guarantee that's five of the
office on the table, five ofthe offers, and if you drag your
(36:27):
feet and making a Selection,your competitor is gonna take
them.
So bring in a third-partystaffing firm, but also
understand that they work reallyfast and whatever they put in
front of you, go ahead, take thetime, make make the effort to
make sure you do what you needto do, to make sure you don't
lose that candidate at the timeso if I'm, if I'm Describing
(36:51):
oppositins of the spectrum aswhen you should and shouldn't
use a third party for hiring,you don't need one.
Pete Newsome (36:59):
If time is not important Now, time always
should be a factor.
If it's not an immediateopening, don't use a third party
for that.
Don't waste the staffingcompany's time.
Or if you're flooded with somany great candidates you don't
need to use a third party, then,of course, don't do it.
I like to say that no one usesus unless they need us.
But if you do need a thirdparty, if Urgency is a factor,
(37:23):
if it is a role that needs to befilled as quickly as possible,
then they're your best friend.
Yeah, a third-party staffingcompany is your best friend
because we are inherently goingto be much faster and More
efficient than a corporateentity, and that's just the way
it is, and I would argue thatanytime anywhere.
Ricky Baez (37:42):
I agree.
No, I agree with you.
I agree with you because,remember, are recruited for a
corporate entity.
They're just somebody thatworks for a business that has a
different core business, astaffing agency.
That's their core, that's whatthey do for a living right.
Pete Newsome (37:55):
It's a great way to look at it.
It's not about the quality ofthe individual, it's not about
the capabilities of theindividual recruiter.
It has to do with what the corebusiness actually is, and
everything in that business, ifyou're a third party, is Focused
on recruiting and staffing.
Everything that's it.
Sales is focused on recruitingRight.
(38:15):
Operations is focused onrecruiting every aspect of it.
But if you're any other type ofbusiness, the core of what you
do is not recruiting.
So that's a great thing tobring up and I've never actually
thought of it that way before,but it makes so much sense.
Ricky Baez (38:32):
Well, yeah, because you know it's.
It's if you're in the businessof making toilet paper and it's
time to cut, you know, to cut aStaff, you're not gonna cut the
people who make the toilet paper.
That's what you need to to toactually succeed.
They're gonna cut out peoplewho don't make a direct impact,
right, well, sometimes it's HR,training, recruiting, whereas in
(38:53):
the, in a staffing agency, whenwe have to let people go
because you know things aretough, yeah, you're gonna keep
your, your, your top players.
You may let go of some of somepeople who don't make a direct
impact.
So, yeah, it really depends onthat issue.
That's why it's a good idea, ifyou don't have the time To
actually do it yourself, get astaffing agency.
Who's who's an expert in thatfield and man, let me tell you,
(39:15):
they work quick.
Pete Newsome (39:16):
Well, it's a difference between a thing you
do and the thing you do right,that's it right.
Okay, so To wrap up, you, wewant to simplify the onboarding
process.
Of course, in this, that thatgoes without saying.
But if you've listened this far, we what we've covered are the
ways that you can speed up yourHiring process.
(39:37):
There's lots of reasons to doit.
No reason not to that.
Ricky, did we catch?
Do we cover everything?
Did we did we do it?
I Don't say it.
Ricky Baez (39:47):
No, no, wait now.
I'm sorry cuz I know you'rewrapping up, but I have to say
this because I'm big ononboarding Pete, I am huge on
onboarding.
Yes, streamlining, yes, make itas efficient as possible, but
do not let the impact diminish.
Do not let the impact diminishat all, because I know somebody
who just started a job two weeksago and that person was in an
(40:08):
office all day long watching avideo for new employee
orientation.
It was, you know, a fishing isall can get.
But let me tell you, by thethird hour in that eight hour
day, looking into that camera,this person's eyes were glazed
over.
So, yes, streamlining as muchas you can, but don't let the
human connection Be be affectedby this dreamline process,
(40:33):
because that's still is key.
Pete Newsome (40:36):
I so, in conclusion, how to speed up your
hiring process clear jobdescriptions.
Take advantage of technology.
Employee referral programsgreat way to do it.
Set clear expectationsinternally.
Teach your interviewers how tomanage the process and when you
need to Hire a third-partyrecruiting firm.
They'll be your best friend ifspeed and efficiency you're at
(40:56):
the top of your priority list.
Anything else, pete, look athow far we've come.
Ricky Baez (41:03):
We're now summarizing the end of the
podcast.
I know we're really good, I'mproud of ourselves, and well
that's.
Pete Newsome (41:10):
There's.
There's no one.
There's no one left listeningthis long, so why not?
Ricky Baez (41:16):
mom love you.
She's listening.
I know she is.
Yes, she's so proud of me.
Pete Newsome (41:19):
I'm proud of you too.
So, ricky, thank you, thanksfor listening.
If you, if you are with us, ourtwo moms, wonderful.
We appreciate you and have agreat weekend.
Have a good one guys.
Ricky Baez (41:32):
Bye mom.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!