Recruitment & Retention: How Socially Active Should We Be?

Real or hype? It’s for organisations to rethink the worth of social networking.

• Social networking has had a good run in the world of recruiting
• But does this mean it should be given more importance than other recruiting tools?

Recruiters have begun noticing the potential of social networking is stale news. What is new is that some are considering it the “ultimate solution” to sourcing and recruiting woes. A handful of recruiters may have earned their feathers by relying on social networking. But as recruiting professionals would agree, the success of few may not translate into the success for everyone. Before getting caught up in this hype, a question that organisations must ask is, “Is it the right time to ditch conventional approaches for social networking?” As desperate as recruiters are to hear a ‘yes’, it would be premature to confirm social networking’s status as ‘the panacea’. This week’s mailer discusses the merits of social networking trying to help recruiting professionals figure out its worth.

The nays have it!

Recruiters simply assume that getting connected to an online group will give them immediate and free access to a pool of talent. Another assumption is that online groups are homogenous. For instance, marketing professionals will link with those with similar backgrounds. As logical as these theories sound, getting connected to the right type and number of talent is not as simple. In fact, research has a different story to tell. Those who join social networks do so for two basic reasons:

• To keep their existing social connections alive: According to recent research, individuals socialise online mainly to uphold and strengthen their offline networks. In Korea where the number of heavy Internet users is high almost 85 per cent use social networking to remain connected with those they have offline associations with.
• To build their social capital: Social capital refers to the wealth individuals can extract from their online connections. Someone high on social capital can tap his online contacts for information, personal connections and form interest groups. Many individuals invest in social capital for their psychological welfare. In short, the main purpose of building social capital is not to find employment; at the most it is an incidental benefit.

Remaining guarded

“Members of online social networks are not so much networking as they are broadcasting their lives to an outer tier of acquaintances,” says an Internet analyst. This tendency prevents individuals from exploiting the other possibilities of social networking. In another assessment of Internet use, analysts made the following observations:

• The sizes of individuals’ networks are seemingly small . While the average number of contacts a Facebook account holder has is 120, the average number of people he often interacts with is 10.
• Men respond to an average seven postings; women to ten
• Men often e-mail or chat with not more than 4 others; women with six
• An account holder’s ‘friends’ are seldom from the same profession or background
• Most account holders are protective about friends in their core group. And they have little or no influence over those others who are not part of their core network
• Since the basic purpose of joining social networks is to keep in touch with offline friends and acquaintances, information shared or exchanged is personal. Account holder profiles too seldom mention professional details and even if they do, those details are not enough to assess an individual’s professional competence.

These observations in themselves are reason enough to remain wary about social networking. But what probably builds a case against considering it the eventual solution are the challenges involved in using it as a recruiting tool.

Sketchy details:

Information on individuals on social networking sites seldom covers their professional qualifications and interests. At best, there might be a mention of where the individual works. Recruiters must then use what is available to shortlist candidates. There have been instances where recruiters have rejected individuals because photographs posted showed them partying, with drinks in their hands. Right now, the possibility of such rejections resulting in litigation is low. However, the likelihood of rejecting good candidates for invalid, flimsy reasons is high. As one Internet analyst says, “The real danger is that someone will exclude a candidate for no good reason”. The absences of adequate and proper candidate informations compel recruiters who use social networks to assume that, “Individual who party and drink may not be as right for the organisation as those who do not”. Such reasoning may not even appeal to the least logical of people!

Detail verification:

Let us assume a recruiter has shortlisted a handful of candidates based on what he has seen and read on a networking site. The challenge now is to verify information collected to assess the candidate’s background. Are there sources that recruiters can rely on to confirm what an individual has shared in his profile? Unfortunately there is nothing. The best bet would be to rely on LinkedIn where recruiters can form a woolly impression of a candidate’s worth based on his active connections and received recommendations.
Being more cautious about relying on social networking is recommended at this stage.
As convenient as it is to think of social networking as the panacea, it is not at this stage. As long as recruiters recognise this fact, social networking can work in their favour.

Reference:

The ManageMentor