Learn how diversity recruitment is impacted by current economic markets and what to do to mange it better from Jump Recruits’ team of expert talent advisors.
ATLANTA, GA, UNITED STATES, December 27, 2022 /EINPresswire.com/ — In early hiring stages, emerging businesses have to think through where to find the help needed to build a strong foundation. Two common options are either finding a recruiter to work internally or finding an outside partner to assist the process? A tough decision for many…
Hiring internal recruiters:
Going internal (meaning, hiring someone directly) can help monitoring the way they work and the overall experience candidates have as they apply. However, this is going to cost startups once leadership takes into account how benefits are going to play into it and another critical factor with this: one person during a high growth stage is not going to be enough. Jump Recruits has seen clients that have internal teams spend the bulk of their time just combing through applications they receive and scheduling interviews, which leaves the leadership team little time to actually go out and find people for their high need roles.
The other path is to go external and hiring a traditional recruitment firm. While a firm can leverage an understanding of the market and their connections to others in their target field, a lot of firms will struggle moving out of certain pockets (say, from software developers to business development reps) and the hiring costs with the traditional pricing structures and fees can get way up there pretty quick. And then we go back to that last point on having an internal team: startups most likely need to employ another firm to work alongside their internal team regardless.
What’s the verdict?
In the end, the ideal path combines internal and external resources to get the best outcome: having an internal team that is devoted to the candidate experience and manages inbound applications, while an agency works the market and helps find the right people for the highest demand roles. Rather than competing over the same talent pool, both parties work in tandem to ensure a healthy talent pipeline that ensures sustained growth.
There is one issue with this approach and it’s a pretty big one.
Working with agencies has proven to be a pretty lackluster experience for many candidates.
Picking the right partner:
Since its inception, recruitment was basically driven as any other operations would: there’s a requisition to be filled, an amount of time devoted to fill said requisition, and KPIs to make it happen. If it sounds a little too much like a production line, it’s because it was (and in a lot of places, still is). And the cutthroat nature of it basically forced recruiters to become salesmen for a role waiting for an applicant to ‘buy’ it and pursue it. There’s a sobering reality behind it that has caused so many people to feel left by the wayside and turned off on recruiters in general:
They are talking to people. Real people, with pressure mounting to find another job, stressed, and now dealing with the uncertainty of a recruiter that won’t answer emails or calls if they don’t get the job, that won’t push back if the client is unreasonable, and that constantly get invited to apply to roles that don’t fit their qualifications because they need to meet an outreach KPI. This has translated to 2/3’s of applicants stressing over dealing with recruiters as they look for a job.
All that being said, which red flags are there to look out for?
Sending candidates to the hiring team without a phone conversation to screen first.
Heavy emphasis on desired amount of outreach.
Pushing towards a C2C (corp-to-corp) model out of the gate to force startups into a work authorization sponsorship situation.
Sticking to a single niche and flexing to something else carries a very high price tag, or is plainly not available.
Candidates will be overqualified more often than not so that they can get the most out of their placement fee.
There’s also another elephant in the room we’ve yet to highlight. One that might determine a startups’ success or failure. And whether or not it will be a meaningful change or more of a “under new management” type of situation.
Enter diversity and inclusion.
The case for tackling diversity and inclusion early on:
There’s been a lot written about D&I within the last couple of years so to keep short what we’ve learned so far, after a lot of researching and testing in various environments here it is…
Diverse working groups perform better than their counterparts.
Diverse groups are smarter because they challenge the status quo more often.
More investors than ever before are looking for diversity in the companies they bring into their portfolio.
Despite this, less than a third of startups we talk to are tackling diversity from inception.
And that last point right there is the disruption within the disruption. Getting into the weeds of diversity early on pays dividends in more ways than one, affording the opportunity to create a meaningful differentiator in the employer market (boosting one’s employer brand) and driving direct, tangible benefits to the growth of the target product or service. Adding more perspectives helps with preparing for growth in the melting pot that is the US, and sets startups up nicely to look beyond its borders when the time comes.
There’s really no argument against it, and those that do exist rarely come from an evidence based background that can actually prove their claims. Diversity is the way of the future and the future is now.
Ultimately, carrying out meaningful changes from a D&I perspective takes work, intent, and a model that actually treats people as people. Jump Recruit’s model works for all parties, and truly helps you truly innovate, stewarding the future of corporate America and beyond. In 2022, Jump Recruits started the fastest-growing Discord channel to build community, make this year ahead all about growth and get in on the conversation.