(Mind you, with virtually every new mobile handset coming preloaded with a host of apps for LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube etc, you have to admire the blind optimism, if nothing else, of an employer that thinks it can still prevent its employees from wasting time on social networking sites during working hours, or writing anything defamatory, libellous, untrue, or just plain old fashioned nasty about them, simply by controlling access through their own network.  Why am I reminded of the story of the little Dutch boy who put his finger in the dyke to stem the flood waters?)

Getting back to the point, perhaps a more surprising finding from Proskaur’s survey is that 27% of organisations monitor their employees’ use of social networking sites?  (And following the furore over News International/NOTW’s telephone hacking,  I wonder how many employers will admit to workplace monitoring like this in next year’s survey?)

But the most surprising finding to have come out of the survey, surely, must be that 43% of employers have had to deal with employee misuse of social networks (with a third of those surveyed having taken disciplinary action as a result) whilst 45% of all businesses still do not have social networking policies in place.

To paraphrase countless Private Eye correspondents, “are these two results by any chance related”?

Yes, of course they are.

So if you haven’t got a clear social networking policy in place, one that makes it clear what you consider to be acceptable behaviour and reminds employees of their contractual obligations to you, and if you haven’t communicated that policy clearly to your workforce, it really is your own fault if things go wrong.  And no matter what you do to limit access or monitor your employees’ social networking activity, if you haven’t got that policy in place, nothing else will prevent the inevitable.

(So if you are one of the 45% that don’t have a policy, I would suggest you head on over to TechRepublic’s useful guide on what you should and shouldn’t include, and ask your legal department to start drafting your soon-to-be-launched policy).

Andrew Soane joins SAS as Director of Talent Communications.  More proof that organisations are increasingly turning to a brand-based approach to solve their talent acquisition and engagement challenges.

London, July 11, 2011: SAS today announced the appointment of Andrew Soane, a leading figure in the recruitment advertising industry for over 23 years. Having held senior positions at TMP, Hodes, Barkers and currently Penna, Andrew will be joining Brand and Talent communications agency SAS – part of the global MSLGROUP – as Director of Talent Communications. Andrew is currently Director of Client Development at Penna, and had led the development of their global network.

Andrew, who will be joining SAS in August, has been appointed to play a key role as part of the leadership team, driving the ongoing domestic and global growth of the agency’s holistic talent communications offer.

Andrew will be tasked with ensuring that SAS’s impressive roster of international clients benefit from the full range of the agency’s talent communications offer, wherever they need them – as well as leading the acquisition of new clients.

At Penna Andrew led client acquisition and development across the full breadth of their service lines, and helped to evolve their global network. Andrew’s client experience includes organisations such as BT, EDS, Halfords, Mitchell & Butlers, Philip Morris, Tesco, Welcome Break, and Yell – helping them to identify and develop solutions to their branding, recruitment and employee engagement challenges.

SAS’s joint MD Jason Frank said “Andrew has such fantastic credentials and respect within the industry, we’re extremely excited about what he can add to our unique offer and the skills he can bring to our clients. Andrew is another important step in SAS building a leadership position in the global talent communications space. We’re offering clients something new – talent communications solutions that are completely media agnostic, and draw on employer brand, recruitment marketing and employee engagement expertise in equal measure. Andrew will be invaluable in ensuring that we acquire new clients, grow our business and continue to develop innovative and creative solutions to our clients’ talent acquisition and engagement challenges.”

According to Andrew “Being a part of SAS’ more holistic, brand-based approach to talent communications – based on a fee model – for international clients such as The Coca-Cola Company, BP and Ernst & Young, was an opportunity not to be missed. With talent now firmly at the top of the CEO agenda (as highlighted by extensive research, including PwC’s latest Annual Global CEO survey), this is an amazing opportunity to join – and help grow and develop – an agency with a unique proposition in this exciting space.”

We’d like to invite you to join in the debate at our Graduate Forum on Tuesday 24th November, 6 pm for 6.30 pm at Scott Room – The Guardian Offices, Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9GU.

We’ll be debating the impact of graduate recruitment on organisational culture, manpower planning and business plans for growth, in good times and in bad.

The event will be in two parts, the first being a BBC Question Time style debate chaired jointly by Gary Browning (CEO at Penna Plc) and Anne Riley (MD of Penna Recruitment Marketing and Communications). The second will give you chance to network, whilst enjoying canapes and wine. The panellists will include:

• Toby Foggo, Head of Learning and Development at O2
• Karen Martin, Group Graduate Recruitment Manager at RBS
• Martin Thomas, Head of Recruitment at BT Group

Spaces are limited, so please book yours today with Heather Wiseman at heather.wiseman@pennabarkers.com or on 0207 634 1033.

Notwithstanding the fact that we could have over 3 million people unemployed by then (I’ll come back to that), it seems according to the research that nearly a quarter of those surveyed (24%) are dissatisfied with their jobs and for 64% the recession made them think about moving.  These stats were supported by another piece of research this time by financial recruitment specialist Parkside, which found 26% of accountants will ‘definitely’ move after the market improves.

On the surface, this is worrying news indeed, and to some extent reflects what happened after the 1990/1992 recession (something that many of my colleagues, sadly unlike me, are too young to remember). 

And I guess it makes sense.  When the market is buoyant, everything is on the up: it’s party time for everyone.  Bonuses get paid, training takes place, investment happens.  And if you do decide that the grass is greener somewhere else, well, everyone’s desperate for talent, aren’t they?  It’s easy to get a great job somewhere else.

But in a declining market, things don’t look quite so good.  Training budgets get reined in or cancelled.  Investment stops.  And in most cases, even bonuses don’t get paid.  And you can’t just up and leave, because there’s nowhere to go.  So people start to feel trapped – and think about moving on as quickly as they can.

This time, it might be different.

Unemployment in the UK currently stands at 2.47 million and, while most are predicting some growth in the economy this year or early in 2010, continued downsizing within the commercial and industrial sectors coupled to the so-called ‘public sector recession’ means that many do now agree that unemployment will hit 3 million in 2010.

And how that affects the predicted talent exodus remains to be seen.

The Work Foundation believes that the broader job market won’t necessarily affect the exodus.  It’s Managing Director, Stephen Bevan argues that “Unemployment is still going up and it will take longer for the job market to recover than the economy. So firms will not see any real exodus for a year or 18 months.” But he adds that “Talented employees have more labour market power, so if they want to change jobs, they will experience demand however the job market is faring.”

One thing is certain. If employers want to stem the predicted flow of talent leaving their organisations, they are going to need robust strategies in place to do that.  And that probably means looking at (and investing in) how they develop, manage and engage with their staff.  As Stephen Bevan says: “Pay will not improve loyalty. Golden handcuffs are not going to work now”. 

 The challenge for employers, of course, will be to reconcile the need to make that investment (into areas such as L&D, communications and engagement, the employer brand and managing their reputation – both internally and externally) against the challenging trading and budgeting conditions that exist now.  The question many HRDs will I suspect need to ask their CFOs will be: can we afford not to?

The headline actually read “Recruitment by Twitter as job search goes online”. That was in the print version. The digital version was slightly more reserved “Twitter launches job recruitment service”. I guess it would have had to have been a bit more reticent. Online readers are more likely to know that job search had gone online.

But either way, the content in both articles was the same.

It’s a new service that has been launched by Jobsite. It’s been a huge success. And my favourite bit. Gary Robinson of Jobsite (sorry Gary) explaining that after Facebook, “this seemed a logical next step” and that he “has no doubt it will soon be commonplace to find a job through Twitter”.

Blimey, talk about crystal balls.

To be fair, the article does say that Jobsite “is one of several firms offering recruitment via Twitter”. Which is true enough. It’s one of several hundred (thousand?) firms doing it. But then, it doesn’t mention any other by name, just Jobsite.

Perhaps more cynical readers might assume that this omission could in some way be related to the fact that both Jobsite and the Evening Standard are owned by DMGT. But I couldn’t possibly comment.

I’m at pains to point out that I think Jobsite is a great site. And it absolutely has a role to play. But let’s not pretend that they’re breaking any new ground here – in this instance, they’re treading a pretty well worn path. One hopes that media planners, resourcing professionals and HR teams aren’t taken in by this kind of nonsense, but if they are, my agency (and indeed every other credible, digital recruitment specialist or recruitment advertising agency) would be happy to help them unpick fact from fiction.

So guardianjobs.co.uk has broken the 2 million users-a-month barrier for the first time, and according to the press release it has sent out: “the continuing rise in traffic is attributed to the quality of jobs carried across a wide range of sectors and a strong pool of both passive and active job-seekers”.

Hmm.  I suspect it might be more about the active job seekers than anything else. 

After all, as even the calmest and least sensational of commentators agree, the UK unemployment rate is about to smash through the 2 million barrier – it if hasn’t already done so (http://tinyurl.com/bxd8e6). 

In other words, there are more people out there looking for jobs than ever before (or at least, more than at any other time since the birth of digital recruiting).  Is it just possible that more than anything else, it’s the high number of job seekers out there that is fuelling guardianjobs.co.uk’s traffic numbers?

The Guardian might argue that those job seekers come to guardianjobs.co.uk because they know they’ll find that high “quality of jobs carried across a wide range of sectors”.  But the truth is, a quick glance at most job sites’ ABCe (www.abce.org.uk)  audit – assuming they are independently audited- will show a big jump in numbers.  For example, TotalJobs saw the number of their monthly users increase between Dec 08 and Jan 09 by a massive 90%. 

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not criticising guardianjobs.co.uk – in fact I think it’s a strong site in many areas and in some cases would always appear on the schedule.  But let’s not get carried away with some increases in audience and traffic numbers at the moment because right now, that is par for the course.

In any case, if we assume that guardianjobs.co.uk’s press release “big-ing up” the numbers was the result of a slightly over enthusiastic sales effort, let’s look at what resourcing professionals and advertisers really are interested in when they are formulating attraction strategies for their recruitment needs.

Are we interested in traffic and audience numbers? To a point. But it’s not the be all and end all.  Once upon a time those numbers might be a useful indicator of potential success (or otherwise) of a campaign, but these days, there are so many active job seekers out there (as we’ve discussed), that it’s a little less relevant.  People are more desperate so there’ll be more applicants.  But in that middle-to-senior management space that the Guardian and its sister job site occupy, employers want quality – not quantity. 

The stuff that would really make us sit up and take notice is data on likely success – numbers of applications in similar roles, numbers of shortlisted candidates, and offers made, for example.  In fact, the same kind of information that resourcers and advertisers have been asking for, for years.  Except now, thanks to more joined-up technology, we do have the ability to capture, manage and share this information.  The question is, are we (by which I mean media and site operators, advertisers and resourcing professionals) ready to really take advantage, by working in a more open and collaborative way?

Now I know that sometimes HR and resourcing teams are just too nice; they don’t want to have to tell you that you were too expensive, the creative work was rubbish, the strategy had more holes than swiss cheese, or even that “we thought the MD was an idiot”.  But let’s just put that thought to one side for the moment, can we?

Take today.  My company has been doing some fantastic stuff in terms of new business (including a number of blue chip wins we’ll be announcing very shortly), but we’ve also pitched to a medium sized manufacturing business with a global export business, based in the West Midlands, a month or so ago.  Let’s call them Company X. 

We’ve been talking to Company X for months.  We know them.  They know us.  From the first metaphorical shy, nervous smiles across the dancefloor, to the breathless, desperate throws of that first night together, to the pleasant routine of the comfortable, lived-in relationship.  We know everything about each other. 

So why did they wait, until we’d gone to the effort and expense of pitching for their business, before telling us (today) that actually, with hindsight, umm, you know, they really liked our pitch but well, the thing is, they realised they’d be better off with a smaller agency?  But we’d really like to keep in touch, you know, just in case.

Please.

I completely understand that some organisations would feel more comfortable working with a smaller partner.  But couldn’t they have told us before we were ready to commit?  It’s not like we were pretending to be anything we’re not, was it?

So you have to wonder, maybe getting jilted by Company X had nothing to do with our size.  As I say, we never tried to hide our size and were completely open at the credentials stage months ago.  So maybe we really were too expensive, or they didn’t like the creative work, or the strategy, or even the MD?

In which case (and this is a plea to any HR or resourcing professionals who happen to stumble upon this blog), please give us honest feedback.  You’re not going to appoint us?  OK, we can take it.  We’re big boys and girls.  No-one expects to win every pitch (like I say, we’ve won a number of blue chip accounts already this year – our strike rate for January is 3 out 4).  But every organisation (including my own) that pitches for your business will invest a huge amount (of time and money) into getting their pitch ready, and that represents a considerable commitment to you.  The least you can do, is to give us honest and clear feedback – so we can properly understand where it went wrong and what we need to do next time, however hard that may seem (nothing wrong in aiming for 4 out 4, is there?).  So if you thought we were too expensive, or you didn’t like the creative work or the strategy, or even if you thought the MD was an idiot, please tell us.  We can take it.

On second thoughts, maybe size is everything?!

But is that really true? 

I’m happy to be proved wrong of course, but looking at the blurb for employers, I’m not sure if there’s anything new or revolutionary about it, other than the pricing model of course.  And that’s hardly revolutionary – there are any number of on/offline recruitment services available that have some form of response-based pricing/pricing-by-results model, and search.co.uk seems to borrow from those. 

The way it works is this.  I post my vacancy for free, and only pay for the applications I receive.  A rate card cost of £15 per application for the first 10 applications, and £10 a go after that.  They’ll even throw in a vacancy management system so I can easily post my jobs and an employer profile site.  Which is good.

But it’s hardly revolutionary; it takes a pricing model used by employment agencies, paid for search, and even some recruitment advertising agencies (who offer a joined up attraction plus screening and selection service) and puts it into a jobs board setting. 

Which is hardly surprising, given that search.co.uk is part of Search Consultancy, a recruitment solutions business that (according to its site) offers a range of recruitment advertising, response management, temp and perm agency services, volume resourcing and on-site/outsourced recruitment.

But if we leave its ownership to one side (as an advertiser I’m always initially sceptical of a jobs board that is part of a wider recruitment advertising/employment agency: can they be entirely independent of their owners or am I being asked to support my competitors, and pay for the privilege?), the problem with search.co.uk’s pricing model is all about timing. 

After all, with official unemployment figures rising to 1.92m as at November (surely they must be well past the 2m mark by now?) there are record numbers of applicants for most roles, never mind that the quality is not necessarily there, and that is bound inflate the amount that employers using search.co.uk have to pay.

With search.co.uk, if I receive 10 applications for a role, I’ll pay £150.  Which sounds reasonable.  But if get 100 applicants (and let’s face it, lots of junior and middle tier roles are regularly attracting much higher levels of response), I’ll pay £1,050.

Which is a lot more than I would pay if I was using a carefully selected combination of existing job boards, paid for search or social media options.

Search.co.uk would claim to have thought about that.  You can ‘cap’ your budget and limit the number of applicants.   Which is OK, but as an employer you want to select the best candidates from the total number of applicants received, not stop taking applications at some arbitarily set limit.  So it’s not an ideal solution.

But they do make a bold claim. “Guaranteed quality applications or you don’t pay”. 

Well, that’s good.  They’ve solved the quality issue.  Until you learn that “quality applications” is defined as someone who has the right to live and work in the UK and lives within 40 miles of the job. 

Which clearly won’t cut it for most employers.

Actually, on second thoughts, that makes me a qualified brain surgeon.  Really, it’s true.  I have the right to live and work in the UK and there are any number of hospitals within a 40 mile radius of where I live.  My mum will be so proud …

The problem with a response-based pricing model of this type, is that somewhere along the line you are going to have to limit the number of applications you accept, or costs will run out of control.  And if you limit the size of the pool you’re fishing from, it’s bound to limit the number of quality applicants in that pool.

Maybe at another time, in those halcyon, pre-credit crunch days when we were still talking about rising employment and ever more acute skills shortages, this kind of model would have worked.  But in today’s high unemployment economy, getting the right balance between cost and the best candidates probably means sticking to the more established pricing models (including traditional job boards, social/professional networking sites and search).

As my wife is so fond of telling me, it’s all about timing.

And that is precisely what’s wrong with the Newspaper Society’s demands. 

Whilst forcing local government (or anyone else for that matter), to advertise all their vacancies in their local newspaper might seem like an attractive proposition to publishers, it’s just plain wrong.

With the majority of job hunters now searching online in the first instance, forcing councils into using a medium that is increasingly off the job hunters’ radar and is never the cheapest option, will significantly impact on their budgets, not to mention results.  In other words, we’ll pay for it, either through budget cuts elsewhere or rising council tax rates.

But it’s also bad for publishers.  Part of the reason they are in this situation is nothing to do with the recession (is it just me that’s relieved we can stop using those insipid, vague descriptions like ‘credit crunch’ or ‘economic downturn’?) but because they didn’t face up to the challenge posed by the web fast enough. 
And by forcing councils (who let’s face it, will quickly become the only significant employer to be recruiting in some areas, as a result of this recession) into using newspapers, it lets publishers stick their heads in the sand again. 

We need publishers to think creatively about what they are offering in print and digital media, and how they can best let employers utilise their strong local brands to tap into the local jobs market.  And those that can’t meet that challenge might not make it.  But at least we won’t be asking employers, and local councils in particular, to pay for past mistakes.   We don’t really want to create a protectionist society do we?