Last Tuesday, Chris Dannen wrote an article on Fast Company giving a brief analysis of Weber Shandwick’s study which found that big companies just don’t get Twitter. At least, that’s what they say. Dannen followed up with an assessment that perhaps companies need a dedicated tweeter who won’t stick just to tweeting about ‘brand awareness’ but also bring more personal flavor to it:

“To succeed on Twitter, I’d bet that companies need do no more than ask those questions–and then hire that person to tweet about anything but brand awareness and product news. Twitter is so popular because it’s so personal and so direct; give one person the keys to your brand’s castle, and they’ll go out and connect. But don’t try to drag the whole board-room table.”

I disagree with this, and I wanted to respond to this post here on my blog in hopes of bringing more attention to the post and soliciting more feedback on this issue.

I have to wonder if individual user accounts who tweet on behalf of these companies were taken into consideration in Weber Shandwick’s study, or if the only Twitter accounts that were considered were officially endorsed accounts, created by the companies themselves. I for one know that many companies have employees who represent them, on a rather official basis, but they aren’t ‘branded’ as a company account because the companies realize the need for personalization of their Twitter presence.

Furthermore, each company is going to have a different purpose for using Twitter. Some perhaps don’t need/want to engage there. Anyone who understands marketing and social media strategy knows that the shoe doesn’t fit everyone in the same way. I saw that the Weber Shandwick study discusses that briefly.

As to the original question of this post, I don’t think a dedicated “tweeter” could/should be a full-time job at this point. It should be part of many people’s jobs, not just one person. The idea of having one dedicate person reeks of the antiquated “spokesperson” concept, and if you take a look at the way business is done today, there is never just “one voice” of a company any more, especially not within the walls of social media.

I think it’s better to ask several people, who understand your company (i.e. NOT a brand-new intern), to participate in some degree. This doesn’t have to (and shouldn’t, in my opinion) rest solely with one internal team or individual. It should be a collaborative effort – after all, if the purpose of a company being on Twitter is to engage, shouldn’t the entire company be represented, not just one person or group of individuals which has decided that they ‘own’ the company’s social media presence? (a whole other issue itself…)

How about you – what do you think about this? Should companies hire a dedicated tweeter or team of people whose sole function is to tweet (and I’m sure engage on other social media)? Leave your thoughts in a comment below.

Twitter recently released Twitter Lists which allow you to group people together based on whatever subjective categorization method you want. For example: since its rollout I’ve been made a part of 107 lists, including: Networking Rockstars, Human Capital Peeps, Movers and Shakers, Gators (go Tebow!), and my favorite – Women. (I looked down and checked; yup, that’s an appropriate group for me to be in)

This is great that Twitter has created these lists – however, Twitter is a bit late to the game with this upgrade, and there are some limitations/downsides to its current functionality. For starters, I’ve had “lists” of people in my TweetDeck groups since 2008. I know other Twitter apps have also provided the opportunity to categorize our flocks of tweeple. In addition, when you ‘follow’ a list, all you’re following is the list. And to the best of my knowledge, in order to view the list updates, you actually have to go TO the list instead of having it automatically update like with TweetDeck groups. You can’t subscribe to an RSS feed of the list yet, either, like you can for individual Twitter users. (unless you know how to manipulate Yahoo Pipes) AND – if you want to actually follow the people in the List, you know, so they can DM you and so forth, you have to manually click through each person and follow them. I don’t know about you, but I’m too lazy busy to do that these days.

Of course, you also can’t ’share’ your TweetDeck groups so Twitter Lists has a leg up here. But I found something better a couple of months ago, long before Twitter launched its lists feature…

My list-builder of choice is a sweet little service called TweepML. TweepML is “an XML format used to represent a list of Tweeps (Twitter users).” Basically, you can add people to a list, share the generated link, and allow other people to actually follow those individuals, not the list itself. In addition, you can add buttons to your website to provide an easy one-click follow to all of the people on the list, or you can select who on the list you want to follow by checking the box beside a name.

The best part is that I’ve actually found a great way for the two of these listing services to play together! A very cool feature that TweepML has is a quick import tool, so if you have a link to a page with a list of Twitter users that you want to add to a list (let’s say, oh, a Twitter List) it will automatically extract the Twitter users from that site and put it directly into your list builder.

For example: we recently had our first Bellingham Social Media meet & greet, and I wanted to create a list of people who were interested in the group on Twitter. I created a Twitter List of these people, copied the URL, and pasted it into the field that TweepML provides to automatically find Twitter users:

I finished creating the TweepML Bellingham Social Media list and posted the link up on our Facebook group page so that everyone there can follow each other without having to constantly click through to the Twitter list. Simple, quick, and no extra steps!

Now – something that would be even more of a value-add would be an integration between TweepML and say TweetDeck to automatically associate people from a certain list with an existing group….how ’bout it guys? Can you make that happen?

Last Wednesday, I wrote a post about how I believe that sourcing is not dying, but evolving. I ended the post with a teaser about what I believe sourcing will evolve into in the coming years. I certainly don’t think the need for the skills which sourcers possess will go away, but I feel like other aspects of a sourcer’s repertoire will become more in-demand as our communication methods continue to change.

As I mentioned last week, human interaction is an integral part of any profession that falls into the same classification pool as sourcing, talent attraction / acquisition, recruiting, HR, etc. To ignore the fact that our jobs are very ‘high-touch’ would be foolish, no matter how deep into the technical aspect of sourcing we may be. In the coming years, and I think especially over the course of 2010, I see sourcing taking on a huge role of proactive communication. Since the accessibility of information via social networks keeps getting easier and easier, I believe being a good relationship-builder is going to go up in value. Please note: I do not believe this means that sourcing will inevitably equal recruiting. The reason I know this is because not all recruiters know how to build relationships. You all know what I’m talking about – we all know at least one recruiter who is a script-reading robot with the interpersonal skills of a rock.

Sourcers who are good communicators are going to be the goodwill ambassadors and (I hope Glen will forgive me for this) the talent pipeline builders. Sourcing is going to take on a very proactive marketing-type role, involving such things as interaction in discussion forums, posing questions on LinkedIn, writing for and selecting content for a company blog, getting involved in the Chamber of Commerce, attending networking events, and getting the word out about either their companies or their clients.

We have seen throughout the history of recruiting how important building true relationships is, and sadly I feel that recruiting, and thus sourcing, has become more transactional in recent years. Sourcing of the future will move away from the transactional and more toward the strategic, as people become more web savvy and numb to blanket messaging. Sourcing, I believe, will begin to take on more of a proactive than a reactive role. Since more of the technical search aspect of it can (and will) be automated, this opens up a window of time to start being proactive. Consider this: traditionally, sourcers wait to research until they receive a search request from a recruiter. I think the future role of sourcing will be for sourcers to continually have their ‘antennae’ up for good talent, and to also take the opportunity to start developing those initial relationships so that when timing is appropriate, the recruiters can approach them warmly with job opportunities.

There is no cookie-cutter mold into which a sourcer fits. At SourceCon 2007, during my presentation about what true research is, I stopped for an interactive portion and polled the audience of researchers for their educational and professional backgrounds. I asked 5 people to share, and not one of them had the same educational OR professional career path. So, when thinking about who would be the best types of people to hire for this future sourcing role, two in particular come to mind. They might surprise you a little:

• Public relations specialists: In the ‘entry level’ years of PR, traditionally individuals will conduct research and create ‘pitch lists’ for their companies or their clients. While they’re honing these research skills, they are also taking lessons on pitching, managing campaigns, and client interaction from their senior coworkers. Translate this into a sourcing role: you’ve got someone who knows how to find the right people, and then who knows how to interact with them professionally and get them excited about a company or a job opportunity.
• English majors: I am the daughter of an English teacher, and I used to help Mom grade her students’ grammar papers. But earning a degree in English goes well beyond knowing proper grammar – you learn to master the high standards of accuracy, clarity, and finesse of the language as well as information synthesis, summarization, and analysis of literature. As search engines strive toward semantic comprehension, a person who has studied sentence mapping and understands the historical progression of the meanings of various words and phrases will be able to pair this with searching a social network to find the right people. And with the increasingly lackadaisical attitude toward proper grammar and punctuation in communication due to spellcheck and text message abbreviations, someone who has mastered these skills will be highly sought-after in a role where good communication is so crucial.

I have mentioned the PR job description in a couple of blog postings, discussing the similarities between its and recruiting’s job duties. English, on the other hand, I would guess is a bit of a surprise to some, but I truly believe that will be a sought-after major in the coming years.

As we observe and experience the change in our job functions, let’s not forget the importance of knowing the basics. Understanding Boolean will always be key to successful sourcing. But understanding the rising value of strategic proactive relationship discovery and development will help you evolve with the position. Work on GOOD networking skills. Start learning about semantic search. Educate yourself on professional communication skills. Study the people who really know how to cultivate relationships. And don’t believe for a second that sourcing is dying – it’s just getting a facelift.

I’ve seen the topic “sourcing is dying”, written in a couple of different forms, in a couple of articles over the last year. Without any disrespect to my colleagues who have penned these writings, I must disagree with your sentiments. Here are some of those articles:

• Digging Into RecruitingBlogs.com v2.08: The Death of Sourcing (February 2009)
• Is Sourcing Dead? (March 2009)
• The Death of Sourcing (November 2009)

Sourcing is not dead; it’s not dying; it’s not even on a respirator. It’s simply evolving.

Where sourcing over the last several years has been about finding the hard-to-find folks by manipulating complex Boolean strings, with the growing popularity of social media technology, finding profiles, resumes, and contact information online has gotten easier. But this absolutely does NOT mean that sourcing is dying. All it simply means is that information availability is changing and the role of sourcing must change with it. This is not unlike any other job function – when certain aspects of a job function become automated or simplified, it means that other aspects of that function grow in importance. Hence, leading to job function evolution.

Sourcing is not just about digging up information, regardless of what some (including myself! yeah I admit it) have said over the years. Any profession that falls under the umbrella of recruiting, talent attraction, talent acquisition, HR, or however you want to classify it, contains an element of human interaction. Thus, communication plays a role, with varying degrees depending on where you stand. With the automation of SOME parts of sourcing, the communication aspect of the role is being amplified. Notice the emphasis on “some”, because you cannot, and SHOULD not in my opinion, automate personal touch.

With social media technologies becoming more mainstream tools in a sourcing toolbelt, the difficulty of finding people is diminished. However, as Glen Cathey states in his article, finding people is easy, but finding the RIGHT people is hard. We’re not just sourcing for a needle in a haystack these days. With the economic downturn and unemployment in the double digits now, we are all of a sudden searching for a needle in ten haystacks. Though finding people in general has been made easier, we still must find that right person.

With that being said, I believe that over the next several years, sourcing will evolve into a new role – retaining of course the technical elements of Boolean search, but to a smaller degree. With tools that can automatically generate complicated Boolean search strings and query multiple search engines or networks at once, much of the technical knowledge needed to be a successful sourcer can be automated. I will stress here that knowing advanced Boolean as a sourcer is still, and I believe always will be, a must. You wouldn’t want a teacher who didn’t know her ABC’s, or a physician who couldn’t pass basic anatomy, would you?

So, what will sourcing evolve into? Well – in the interest of encouraging you to come back and read more, and just because I love the suspense, I’m going to leave you hanging until next Monday Stay tuned for part 2 on the Evolution of Sourcing.

There was a LOT of great feedback from my post on why recruiters should care about marketing, advertising, and PR. I hope that everyone who read it got some new knowledge and possibly some ideas on how to improve your overall recruitment strategy by grasping the functions (and the benefit) of each of these important components of running a successful business.

There was one particular comment I wanted to pull out and focus on, because it takes the importance of marketing and ties right back to my original love, which is research. The commenter, Steve, is a former executive VP of Sales and Marketing for a Fortune 500 company (and he’s also my boyfriend’s dad!). Here is what he said:

“…I am only going to touch on the marketing phase. The true function of marketing is research. The job of the marketing department is to search for products or services needed by the end user(the customer). It is their job to work closely with the engineering and sales departments, giving these the departments the proper research and data needed to have a successful launch of a product. Of course there is the glitz of coming up with the proper slogan, packaging and promotional items, but these are very minor compared to the mountain of research which must be done first if a product or service is going to be successful.“

You can’t read this assessment and not fit it right into recruiting! The glitz of recruiting is building the relationships with the candidates and the clients, and ultimately making the hire, but there would be no candidates if there were no research done to find them. Anyone who functions as a researcher knows and can absolutely relate to the vision of a mountain of research, whether for leads or for industry knowledge. These are both vital for a recruiter to perform at his/her peak potential and match ideal candidates to their clients. Having said this, we know that the research would be worthless if it weren’t put to good use, such as a recruiter turning it into a hire. Researcher needs recruiter as much as recruiter needs researcher. So, as Steve observed, all parts of the business operation must work closely together and in harmony in order to have a ’successful launch’ – i.e. a new employee.

Thanks for your keen observation Mr. D!

Networking knowledge is being beaten to death these days. Everyone has an opinion, everyone wants to get better at it, and it seems like everyone has some product or training seminar they want to sell you on how to get buh-zillions of leads from networking. There are the creepy networkers (you know, the guy who seriously violates the rules of personal space), the shy connectors (thanks Sacha Chua, I LOVE this definition!), the woman who knows everyone, the guy whose boss told him he HAD to attend the event, the person who walks around and leaves business cards on the tables without talking to anyone, the list goes on and on. So – how about being that person who makes connections for OTHERS? Or the person who makes time for someone who wants to learn from you?

When I was still living in Cincinnati, I was introduced to a guy who works in mobile marketing. We knew of each other through our social media networks but had never gotten a chance to meet. When I joined AT&T, I wanted to learn more about mobile marketing, so I reached out to this guy and asked if he would be willing to share some of his knowledge of mobile marketing and how it fits into the way we communicate today. Even though I know he’s a busy guy, he agreed to meet me an hour before one of our Jelly Cincy Tweetups. What was supposed to be a brief encounter ended up turning into over an hour of him sharing his passion for mobile marketing with me. I can’t tell you how much I appreciated his time. Recently a colleague of mine expressed interest in this type of work, and guess who the first person was that came to my mind? The person who took a moment out of their busy schedule to share with me.

A similar story with a fellow recruiter: we discovered a mutual love for business books. We started having phone calls on a semi-regular basis just to talk about business strategy, proper mindset for achieving success, and how it applies to our respective industries – he, PR and me, now telecom. There was no hidden agenda from this guy (if there was, I would have seen it a mile away) – all he wanted was to talk about a personal interest we discovered we both shared. When some of my colleagues who work in PR reach out to me looking for new opportunities, guess who I send them to first. He shared moments of his life with me, and as a result I will send him referrals because I appreciate that.

One of my favorite things to do is to introduce individuals who should know each other, but don’t. I know lots of you do this too – you meet someone at a gathering, learn a little about them, and at another event you meet someone else and think, “I just HAVE to introduce so-and-so to this person!” I recently had a friend move to Chicago, and I introduced him to another friend of mine who already lives there (finding out that they now live about 10 minutes from each other – bonus!). Reasons for the introduction:

• They’re both guys (a poor reason for an intro by itself)
• They’re both tall and athletic (I understand a meetup to play some hoops was arranged)
• They’re both in their mid 20s
• They’re both big time into social media

My hope is that a new friendship is developed. It’s up to them of course, but chances are these two guys may never have met otherwise. What’s the personal benefit to me? Not much really, outside of knowing that two people I like can now be friends. I kinda enjoy that.

If you go into every new situation with an agenda, you’re going to end up being disappointed a lot of the time. There are some things to remember when you’re networking that will help to make you memorable to others and often results in situations like the ones above:

• Listen. It is often said that those who are perceived as the best conversationalists are the ones who listen the most. People remember how much you pay attention when they share with you.
• Ask, and then Listen (again). Ask probing questions to learn more about someone, but then make sure you pay attention to the response. Don’t just ask a question to appear interested.
• Connect. Try to make it a goal to make a new connection for someone. If they mention they enjoy cooking, say “Oh, I know so-and-so who also works in your field who loves it too – I’d be happy to introduce you!” If they say their company is looking to hire a social media coordinator, say “I just met someone the other day who might be great for that. I’ll connect the two of you if you’d like!” People remember gestures like this with fondness and appreciation.
• Make Time. I know you’re busy – we all are. But nothing resonates more than making time to meet with someone who asks for it. Of course, you can’t do this for everyone who asks if they can “pick your brain” and you would be wise to qualify these types of requests by asking what specifically they’d like to know. But taking an hour even once a week to have coffee with someone who is new in your business or someone looking to gain some knowledge shows that you are a giver. And go into these situations with the expectation that you are going to do all of the giving.
• Respond. (I feel hypocritical even putting this in the list because I am TERRIBLE about email responses. To those who I’ve yet to reply to, please forgive me. And please email me multiple times, that does help me!) Responding to people validates the outreach. I recently began gathering information on a very ambitious article I’m writing and hope to have published in a prominent news publication. (*hint hint to anyone reading this who works at any such business!) I reached out to about 30 high profile individuals to ask for their participation in this project. Realizing that they must receive thousands of emails each day, I am eternally grateful to those who took the time to respond to me. It showed me that they read what I was doing and saw the value in the project. And they will forever have an advocate in me for their own endeavors because of the kindness they showed to me.

As the holiday season is upon us, we should remind ourselves that it truly is greater to give than to receive. For in giving with no expectation of receiving anything in return, our returns eventually become greater. Remember this when you network. Give selflessly, and you will find a lifetime of return on your investment.

These days, everything is a mashup – our gadgets and gizmos aren’t worth purchasing unless they perform a million different functions. So no big surprise that our jobs are becoming mashups as well, and I think that as recruiting professionals, our roles within our companies are about as complex as they get. I wrote a post earlier this year discussing the various roles that recruiters play in our daily duties. There are certain aspects of this job however that are becoming more and more important, but I don’t think a lot of recruiting professionals really understand the impact and the value of these components of our jobs.

Our jobs are all about building relationships. Such is the case with marketers, advertisers, and PR professionals. Our desired end result of building the relationship is really what separates us. Here are some very simple definitions:

• Marketing is the activity, set of institutions, and processes for creating, communicating, delivering, and exchanging offerings that have value for customers, clients, partners, and society at large.
• Advertising is a paid communication in which the message is controlled by the sponsor, and is designed to gain attention and motivate action.
• Public Relations is planned and sustained effort to establish and maintain goodwill and mutual understanding between an organization and its public by telling an organization’s story to its public.

Subtle differences between the three, but the basic premise with all of these functions is to establish a line of communication between two or more entities.

Recruiting professionals would do themselves a favor to understand some of the job responsibilities that come with being in marketing, advertising, and public relations. For example: there is much more to candidate advertising (aka job posting) than simply plopping a boring job description into a post template and slapping it up on some job board. There is more to recruitment marketing than bulk emailing a spammy message with an e-newsletter attachment to your entire prospective client database in the hopes of gaining one or two additional job orders. And there is certainly more to creating good PR for your company than simply having a Twitter account or a Facebook fan page.

What I would like to do with this post is invite professionals who perform these unique functions to leave a piece of advice for recruiters to incorporate into their job function. Yes, I did work at a PR agency for a little bit, but that doesn’t make me a good source for PR strategy by any stretch of the imagination. I learned a lot while I was there, and I use that knowledge in my daily function now with AT&T, but I’m looking forward to hearing from the marketers, the advertisers, and the PR pros who are out there in the trenches on a daily basis. How do we, as recruiting professionals, utilize the strategies you exercise daily in our own efforts in finding, attracting, and hiring talent for our companies?

When leaving a comment, please let us know what job function you perform, and the industry in which you work. I look forward to an interactive discussion!

I was going through some of my old blog posts when I stumbled across one of the very first series of articles that I wrote, discussing the role researchers and sourcers play in their companies. I have decided to update and re-post them over the next few weeks. In this final week, we’ll discuss and dispel some common myths associated with the role of the researcher/sourcer on a recruitment team. Enjoy!

So, I’ve talked about what a researcher does and doesn’t do. I’ve given you some of my thoughts on where to look for a researcher for your office, and what qualities in an individual might lead them to be a good researcher. I’ve also given you some insight into the day in the life of a researcher. What’s left? How about some fun things: some common misconceptions of what a researcher is. Yes, I believe every researcher has beaten this topic to death at some point or another. But now, it’s my turn! The goal of this is to shed some light on some of the things that are incorrectly associated with internet research, and hopefully offer some suggestions on the correct way to classify this increasingly vital part of a recruiting operation.

Myth #1: “The researcher will find you candidates.”

You may think, ‘How is this incorrect? That’s what researchers do isn’t it? Source candidates?’ Not exactly….as I’ve mentioned in prior postings, a researcher’s duty is to source leads. YOUR job, as a recruiter, is to turn them into candidates. Now, there are times with this does apply; for example if you have a researcher who also pre-screens the contacts/leads they source before passing them along to the recruiter. But for the most part, we researchers generate the leads, and you recruiters qualify them and turn them into candidates. Call this a simple play on words or whatever you like, but I felt it needed to be included here.

Myth #2: “Just find me resumes.”

Sure, your researcher will find you resumes. Some of the time. But depending on what resources they are provided, the majority of the leads that your researcher can and will provide you with might just be a name, title, and method of contact. Perhaps also a short bio. When doing high-volume searches, I do use pay-for job boards (Monster, CareerBuilder, HotJobs, etc.) for portions of the search, however when working on one-off searches, I will typically start with social networks. Most (good) researchers do not rely solely on resume boards. Should I even go so far as to say a good researcher will not only also use professional networking sites like LinkedIn to source? I might get some hate mail for saying that, but it’s true. Researchers will from time to time come across an HTML resume or a personal website with a resume posted on it. But most of their leads may be simply names and contact information. Just be realistic, and get excited if your researcher DOES give you a resume! Don’t get salty if ‘all’ they give you is a list of 50 names and contact information. Get pumped about all the networking you can do when you call those people!

Myth #3: Being an internet researcher is a ground-level starting point for becoming a recruiter.

Not in every case! Recruiting professionals across the board talk about this concept of the “junior recruiter” – some stating this as correct and others calling it a false assumption. This label is as dumb as thinking that all tall kids want to grow up to be professional basketball players. I for one have no desire to recruit. I enjoy the thrill of hunting down leads. Other researchers I know partake in some of the recruiting process and yes, they would aspire to be a recruiter one day. But don’t pigeonhole your researcher into being fast tracked to the divine status of “recruiter”. Take a few moments to find out what excites them and encourage them to develop their skills and pursue their own career goals.

Myth #4: I can do my own research. I don’t need to waste money on hiring a researcher.

Um, I’m curious how you successfully keep up with your own industry and not work 24/7 if this is your attitude toward research! In a conversation I had with a recruiter who had taken some time off, he mentioned that for two weeks prior to getting back on the phones he spent at least 10 hours a day researching the latest news in his industry. Yes, you read that correctly – 10 hours a day, for two weeks. And this recruiter still uses researchers on a daily basis! I presented this question to my LinkedIn network and was shocked at the number of responses I got that said “No, I do not use a researcher; I do my own research.” In my personal (honest) opinion, this is very cocky and I can’t imagine that many of those recruiters are big billers (as I prepare to be sent more hate mail for saying so!). As a recruiter, your bread and butter is earned by being on the phones during the day, not searching news sites and conducting research. I’ll bet the majority of those who do their own research do this on their own time – in the evenings and on the weekends – thus sacrificing family time and any resemblance of a personal life to do so. So, tell me again that research is easy and doesn’t take much time and that hiring a researcher wouldn’t be beneficial? Okay then…

Myth #5: 23 ways a researcher will help you make more placements in less time

I don’t think any explanation is needed here. This post is ALLLLLL kindsa wrong, IMHO! Please just read the list of what duties the author thinks a researcher can be responsible for and see if it doesn’t steam you. My favorite in this list has to be “watering plants”…

Myth #6: Researcher = data entry/PC troubleshooter/anything-I-don’t-feel-like-doing person

Yes, I think most researchers have a love for technology, which predisposes them to being good at all things computer-related. However, know that the more you ask your researcher to deviate from their research duties, the less time they will be able to spend on what you hired them to do – research! The last thing in the world you should be asking your researcher to spend a great deal of time on is data entry. This is a job for which you can hire someone at $8/hour. While it’s definitely part of what the job entails, using your researcher to do a large amount of data entry is, quite honestly, wasteful of your payroll dollars. A good friend of mine and former fellow researcher stated once that his job description was “All duties that no one else in the office wants to do.” Turning your researcher into a gopher is a gross misuse of talent and will inevitably turn your researcher off.

Remember – research is a vital part of your recruiting operation. There are four foundational parts of a successful recruiting office:

• Process (Operations)
• Client Relationships (and/or Business Development in agency settings)
• Recruitment
• Research

Eliminating any one of these components will cause your recruiting operation to run inefficiently, and research is an especially vital part of this foundation. Research is the backbone of the recruiting body; it supports and facilitates necessary information to reach the rest of the parts.

Don’t let the myths of what research is cloud its importance in the functioning of your recruiting practice. If you’re unsure how research will play an important role in your office, I urge you to contact someone who does use research and talk to them. Or you can call or email me; I’ll be more than happy to share my thoughts with you!

I hope this series of articles has helped you get ‘warm and fuzzy’ with research. My intent was to help the recruiting community better understand what research is and also learn about the thought process that goes behind it. Remember: researchers are real people too, and real important in the recruiting process! Even though we’re not actively generating the dollars, you really can’t put a price tag on the value that we bring to a recruiting operation.

Ugh – some of the things that people do online I just do not understand. Things that absolutely would not be socially acceptable in real life. Just this past weekend, I was witness to one of the rudest ones I’ve seen to date…

I received a DM from an individual I shall call John, changing his name to protect the, um, anti-social. John apparently had recently been conducting a job search and had been using Twitter as a resource to do so. Good job! Twitter I believe is a great resource when you’re job hunting – it’s not the ONLY thing you should use, but I think there are definitely some benefits. Well, John got himself a new job – good for him! But his next action was pretty rude, from my viewpoint. I, along with several others I would imagine, received this DM from John:

“The purpose of this account has changed. I started a new job. As such, I have un-followed you and ask that you do the same. Thank you.”

As well, in the bio section of his profile -

“The purpose of this account has changed. I will be un-following job search related accounts and asking them by DM to do the same. Please see @<otheraccount>”

Translate to the real-life version and it would go something like this: John attends a networking event for job search professionals and makes friends with several people who offer to help him with his own job search. John eventually finds himself a job, and promptly calls over his new friends to inform them that as he has no further use for their friendship, would they please delete his number from their cell and forget they ever met him. Rude, no?

I realize that people have every right to use Twitter for whatever purpose they desire. All John apparently wanted to do with Twitter was use it to help him find a job, as evident in the number of tweets on his page and their subject. No problems there. But I believe in this particular situation John COMPLETELY  missed the concept of “social” media. There are several other things he could have done to be less abrupt, crass, rude, etc. He could have sent a DM saying something like “I’ve found a job! I’ll be tweeting from here on out at @<otheraccount>”, or he could have simply deleted the account and started over again. But his words were rather harsh and carried the message “now that I have no further use for you, be gone!” Not the idea of social media at all.

Use social media – yes. Use people – no.

Last Thursday I drove down to Seattle to attend a luncheon put on by the Northwest Recruiters’ Association. The guest speakers were Kat Drum and Matthew Guiste from Starbucks. They are both involved in social media and digital strategy there, and they spoke to a room of recruiting professionals about the way that Starbucks has integrated social media strategy into its recruitment plans over the last 18 months. In this video are some of the highlights from their discussion:

It’s no secret that I’m a big believer in the power of social media in recruiting. At AT&T, we utilize Twitter, Facebook, SMS, SEO/SEM, and lots of other social technologies to find and attract talent. There’s a place for it in every recruiting strategy, but you’ve got to figure out the best method for you and your company. I always appreciate having the opportunity to learn from others. I hope to be able to attend more luncheons and seminars like this in Seattle now that I’m out here!