Corporate strategy has stressed the need for companies to focus on their core product or service and not to dilute their efforts. Many firms spend a lot of time figuring out exactly what their core competency is and how to nurture and grow it. Marketers narrow their messages to a selected audience and promote products via media aimed at that audience.
/ ` \7 D! C( E* U9 N" P/ ?
8 W' X& ^+ S* N$ q D, S, e/ `3 EWe live more and more in an age of personalized messaging, tailored products, and with a mentality of "do it your way."
* d! L+ C/ P% c) W) w* j. T$ e |! M: M. ^
For some reason, recruiting has not yet figured this out. Recruiting strategies are broad and try to target everyone. What that really means is they target no one in particular.# h5 W. [: V/ n7 e
?8 Z% F/ n4 r4 C |8 IFor many recruiters, talent is synonymous with "anyone who says yes." What I mean by talent are those employees whose contributions are vital to our ability to produce our product or deliver our service., N* C0 V, a1 v+ c! }
% Y. H3 C- a. h2 [: T6 ~) BIf we were to compare our firms to sports teams, I think we could understand talent better. When a sports manager speaks of talent, he is talking about those individuals on any team who make the points, block the other team, or who the fans and players identify as essential for success.+ a3 w, \. e4 ~3 q3 U4 g6 E
" J* p8 R) w0 ICorporate strategy and recruiting strategy have to be in alignment with each other. If your corporate strategy is to build a software product, then the focus has to be on programmers or whatever group of people will develop that product. Obvious? Of course, yet I see recruiting strategies that are way off base. ' G# N3 G t; e3 J
8 B. l8 s3 e4 p" g# Z2 m6 v
I think that it really is a matter of thinking like a marketer. Recruiters make their own work harder because they do not have a clear sense of whom they are recruiting. $ L; Z% o; |# S% k6 J% ]3 [: ~
# Z+ C* i* U( QYet, I am frequently told that focusing on a particular type of employee is either too difficult or not fair.
( r- R' E$ {5 V0 [' v
8 J9 _/ I; M+ _; T6 r: LWhile it may feel unfair to rank positions as more or less valuable, this is the reality of the market. Some jobs pay more, some contribute more, and there ought to be a relationship between the two. Usually there is, but salary alone is not the best guide. , o4 Z$ V5 _* k3 v! Y
a2 Z1 b4 S1 y" T5 C! b! ^% C
I suggest that you rigorously examine every position in your company and determine which are key and which are not so important. The only evaluation criteria should be how much the position contributes to the product or service and how much to the profitability of the firm. People with little or no direct contribution are, by definition, placed in a lower level than those that do. ' }" h8 J. O% X2 J, b
5 @1 l# h+ y" a) t2 s
And, yes, perhaps it is difficult to segment the potential candidate base initially, but in the end, it saves time and raises quality. Most good and useful results require some level of hard work. |