SmartRank was honored to be recognized as an HR Tech Award Winner for Talent Acquisition Best Innovative or Emerging Tech Solution.
On behalf of our entire team here at SmartRank, we wanted to say thank you to Ben Eubanks, George Rogers, and the entire team at Lighthouse Research & Advisory for this opportunity and recognition.
Software should make our lives easier, not harder.
There is a concept called “opinionated” vs. “unopinionated” software. Here’s the very high-level definitions for both:
Unopinionated software – highly configurable but generally more manual task management because you make the decision for every single last thing that needs to happen within the system. In other words, there is not really any automation happening, you’re the one that has to do everything.
Example: Old email systems without spam filters. They are not going to filter anything because you have to make the decision on every single email as to whether it’s spam or not.
Opinionated software – less configurable but essentially involves more automation with tasks because it can assume the next logical step based on some assumptions. In other words, it automates much of the work for you, but you have to be comfortable with the assumptions it makes.
Example: Gmail spam filters. They make logical assumptions about what email is spam and what is not. They are not 100% correct all the time, but they’re pretty darn close.
Both types of software naturally have pros and cons. Which one is right for you really depends on preference. In the email spam filter examples above, you have to ask yourself whether it’s worth it to you to save the time with Gmail filtering out spam emails for you under some assumptions, realizing they won’t get it perfect 100% of the time. Or, maybe you are okay with your inbox being bombarded with every single email because you want to decide which emails are spam and which are not, but you’re going to waste a lot of your time filtering emails.
ATSs work in the same way. Generally speaking, unopinionated ATSs (which are most of them) create a lot of manual tasks and clicks for every single thing you want to happen. If you don’t take action, it won’t happen, and that can waste A LOT of your time. In other words, you end up working for your ATS.
SmartRank is more opinionated which creates automation. This saves time and reduces frustration. Your ATS ends up working for you.
If you want to see opinionated and therefore massive time-saving software in action, send us a note!
“What in the hell is going on in recruiting” is the subtitle of a blog post put out by Visier. The actual title is “6 Reasons Recruiting Doesn’t Measure New Hire Failure Rates (But Should)” and calls out a very disturbing statistic that has been floating around for about a decade.
Think about it…what if your software only worked with 50% of the clicks. What if your product was only delivered to your customers 50% of the time. Would that be acceptable? Then why do we accept almost a 50% failure rate with new hires?
When you look up employee retention rates and turnover statistics you’ll find all kinds of data from various sources. A 2021 Bureau of Labor Statistics report found the overall turnover rate is 57.3%. Another study found that ⅓ of new employees quit after about 6 months.
Whichever statistic you want to pick, they all tell a similar story…turnover in the early stages is way higher than it should be. The only statistic that matters is what turnover percentage your company has, percentage for 0 – 18 month new hires, and the cost of that turnover. Not tracking that data is a mistake.
We all know there could be a million reasons why turnover is high. But who is to blame for these high turnover numbers? Talent acquisition will many times say it’s the hiring managers. Hiring managers will turn around and say it’s talent acquisition. They are both right, and they are both wrong, because it’s not one or the other, but rather the combined dysfunction that leads to high turnover.
So what can we do about it? Identifying the specific requirements of each role, backed by data, is one major step in the right direction.
We hire within the confines of a legacy system where we don’t identify these very specific requirements. We “think” we do, but we don’t. Instead, 90% of the applicants that get passed to hiring managers are based on keyword matching, and that ultimately contributes to the turnover problem. Hiring managers are then forced to pick the best of the 3 candidates they interviewed, based on the 20 résumés they reviewed. Does that mean those were the 20 most qualified applicants to look at? Most certainly not.
In the same Visier blog post, it mentions that “a majority of managers believe that less than half of all candidates that they interviewed were qualified.” Does this data support the problem mentioned in the paragraph above? Absolutely.
If companies have a turnover problem, they should start by digging into the beginning of the process and understanding how candidates are selected for interviews.
If you look at labor force statistics, they are confusing. Supposedly we’re sitting at 3.5% unemployment, 62.5% labor force participation rate, 225k jobs cut in the tech sector alone over the past 15 months, and inflation has made everything from gas to groceries way more expensive.
Anecdotally we saw talent acquisition (TA) teams struggling to find talent just 6 months ago, and now we see posts about having too many applicants.
One could argue that managing job applicants has never been more challenging than it is right now. With the ease of applying to jobs online, the bipolar hiring environment, high expectations from applicants and hiring managers, it’s made the process downright miserable. No wonder TA has one of the highest turnover rates of any department in a company.
We expect technology to help us with this management, but in many cases the technology TA teams use acts more like a band-aid rather than a cure. But that could be fixed if companies upgrade their technology.
It’s very likely applicant volume will continue to increase. If you’re still on that old fashioned train of “we’re going to stick to reviewing applicant résumés one-by-one in our ATS,” then the higher volume is only going to exacerbate the problem.
If there is one area that should be automated in TA, it’s the reviewing/screening of applicants. And I’m NOT talking about using a machine (i.e., “AI”) to do the same process a human does of scanning résumés for keywords. I’m talking about ACTUALLY screening 100% of the applicants faster, easier, better, less biased, and giving the hiring managers exactly what they are looking for in a candidate.
There is a way to stop going through every haystack to find the needle, because as that haystack gets bigger, so do your problems. But you will NOT solve any of these problems if you can’t shake the “this is how I’ve been taught and how we’ve always done it” mentality.
There are multiple methods for getting to the root cause of a problem.
One method is called “5 Whys” and it’s just how it sounds. You take a problem and keep asking “why” until you get to the root cause.
Another method I developed many years ago is called the TPPO method. The TPPO stands for Tools, Processes, Problems, and Outcomes. It’s pretty easy and it goes like this…whatever tools you use will dictate a certain process. That process will inevitably create certain problems. Those problems will either keep you from achieving positive business outcomes or create negative business outcomes. Last but not least…those business outcomes will almost certainly drive your personal outcomes (e.g., stress, work-life balance, promotions, demotions, etc.).
For example, if we look at talent acquisition teams using résumés, job descriptions, and traditional ATSs to screen job applicants, those tools will dictate a process of manually reviewing each applicant. This inefficient process creates problems such as wasted time and biased screening. These problems create negative business outcomes like reduced productivity and limiting DE&I progress. Ultimately the personal outcomes are higher stress, lower morale, etc.
Another example is looking at why 65% of recruiters have a tenure of 2 years or less. Why are recruiters turning over at this rate? One explanation is that they have a rough job. Why? Because they have SO MANY manual, tedious, and time-consuming tasks. Why? Because their processes like manually screening each applicant, chasing hiring managers down for feedback, etc. are very inefficient. Why? Their tools like résumés, job descriptions, and traditional ATSs dictate that process.
If you had a tool that automated job applicant screening without using a résumé, while giving hiring managers EXACTLY what they’re looking for, then you significantly improve your process. That process improvement mitigates the problems of wasted time and biased screening, which improves productivity and DE&I progress. And ultimately, provides personal outcomes like lower stress and higher morale.
In short, fix your tools and you can ultimately provide some significant business and personal outcomes!
How many of you have landlines? Maybe I should have first asked how many of you remember landlines?
At one point, it was all we had. You had to hope someone was home when you called them or you left a message on their answering machine (separate device). Sometimes you had to wait at home if you were expecting a call. You had to fight with your sibling or parent about using the one phone line in the house…unless you had a fancy household with multiple lines.
From the time the telephone was invented to when we finally forced it into retirement the foundational technology evolved very slowly and only with small incremental changes.
Then we started down this path of “mobile phones” but they were the briefcase car phones or “Zach Morris phone” (bonus points if you understand that reference). But it wasn’t until the late 1990s that mobile phones became mainstream. Since then, the technology has evolved quickly and with unbelievable innovation.
We’re at an inflection point in the talent acquisition world where we desperately need to make this move from reviewing résumés (old fashioned corded phones) for screening talent to automated applicant screening technology like SmartRank. It’s more efficient, more effective, less biased, more applicant-friendly, and makes the hiring managers happier.
The old fashioned telephone was a great tool and helped us for many decades. Resumes were our best tool for screening talent for many decades, but it’s time to embrace the newer and better way of screening talent. It’s time we bring job applicant screening into the 21st century!
Does anyone remember Netflix when they first came out? In the beginning they had a slightly different approach to renting movies (at the time DVDs). They would ship the movies to your house and you would ship them back. It was a decent idea. They got rid of late fees, had return envelopes to make the process easier, but they were also hemorrhaging cash and almost out of business. That’s why they approached Blockbuster Video with the hopes of being acquired for $50M. Blockbuster declined their offer, and the rest is history.
It wasn’t until they made the pivot to streaming that they truly became the disruptive Netflix we all know today. Why? Because they finally tossed out the status quo thinking of “needing an actual DVD” and began thinking how they could be fundamentally different.
True disrupters are rare, even in this technology-driven world we live in. But every once in a while a disrupter like Uber or Netflix comes on the scene at the right time and completely changes our world.
There is no department that needs disruption more than talent acquisition. Every other department in business like Sales, Marketing, Finance, etc. has upgraded their tools, technology, and processes over the past 25 years. It is time for talent acquisition to do the same!
At SmartRank we believe that we have the innovative ideas and technology to disrupt the talent acquisition market because we:
1. Ask a lot of important, detailed, and sometimes difficult questions to uncover the most important problems
2. Identify the root-cause of those problems
3. Put ALL assumptions, opinions, status quo, and the “way things have always been done” type of thinking to the side
4. Accept early objections and criticisms of our ideas because they are so different
5. Understand that sometimes it just takes time for everyone else to see the same vision
If your disruptive technology doesn’t scare people a little, then you aren’t even trying to be a disrupter.
Here’s a fun exercise. Ask your significant other or your kid or a friend to sneak up behind you and scare you. Then see which reaction you have. Do you immediately start running, do you ball your fists up and raise your arm ready to swing it, or do you completely freeze up?
The amygdala is one of the oldest parts of the brain. It’s responsible for our fight, flight, or freeze response to danger. This chemical reaction in the brain and body has kept us alive as a species for a very long time. It kept us from becoming prey to a saber-toothed tiger and allowed us to avoid environmental dangers. It’s actually really cool how it works and so many of our reactions like sweaty palms or “butterflies in the stomach” are associated with this response.
Luckily we don’t face the same threats that we did 10,000 years ago, but that part of the brain is still alive and active. Today, the amygdala simply responds to a different set of fears and perceived danger.
The question is, how do you respond to danger in business? Do you choose to run away from the problem? Do you choose to simply do nothing and hope the situation somehow resolves itself? Or do you address the problem head-on?
If you look at many quotes from successful leaders in history, they almost use inaction as a four-letter word. If you’re a business leader and your go-to problem solving strategy is to simply do nothing about a problem or threat, or to run from it, then perhaps leadership may not be your calling.
In talent acquisition, there are MANY problems that desperately need to be solved. Unfortunately these problems will not get solved with “fleeing” or “freezing” as the response. It may seem like there is comfort in those responses, but the only way to truly solve those problems is to address them head-on.
Lastly, for the record, being a “freezer” or “flighter” is not a bad thing. You can even be a freezer or flighter when someone jumps out and scares you. But now that you’re aware of how that part of the brain works, you can make a conscious decision to “fight” problems when you face them at work. Is it scary? Yes. Is it uncertain? Yes. But as JFK once brilliantly said, “There are risks and costs to action. But they are far less than the long range risks of comfortable inaction.”
