Why eHarmony Won't Work for Recruiting

Wow.  Here it is 11 o'clock at night and all I want is to drink a beer and call it a day.  Maybe watch Dirty Jobs or something.  Then I start checking my RSS reader, and I see a post on TechCrunch by web strategy consultant, Steve Poland.  Mr. Poland's post is titled Online Job Hunt 10 Years Later - Still Sucks, and I can't resist getting sucked into it.

You can read Mr. Poland's post for the foreplay, but the main thrust of his article is that ...

"I want to see a company come out and eHarmony-ize the job market.  Make it so candidates go through a 15- to 30-minute application process that might include various tests related to their claimed skillsets.  Allow recruiters to specify what skillsets are required and make them somehow rank the importance of the required skillsets.  I’d also like to see some social networking aspects along the lines of LinkedIn — allow people to refer their friends to jobs."

Now, I know I've been wrong before -- but I just don't see that happening EVER.  And believe me, I've thought long and hard about it.

Here's five reasons why I'm right (this time):

I.  Companies often don't know what they want the new employee to do -- and therefore, they don't know how to identify the talent they need.  It's is the client-side of the problem I outline in this recent post.  Earlier this year I handled a VP-level search for a catalog retailer who changed the job spec three times before they hired my candidate.  I owe the six previous candidates some holiday whisky for helping the client figure out what they wanted.  Try as I might, there just doesn't seem to be any correcting this problem -- especially where politically charged, committee based hiring is involved.

II.  Many jobs have no defined skill set -- and therefore are nearly impossible to "taxonimize."  Everyone has used a pull-down menu of states in an email form.  That menu is called a taxonomy.  What Mr. Poland wants to see is a taxonomy of job attributes that can be electronically matched with a corresponding taxonomy of candidate skills.  Certainly, for CPAs and the like, this may be possible.  But in many jobs that involve emerging technologies, or emerging uses of existing technologies, this just isn't possible.  And it simply would be unwanted in jobs that involve proprietary processes or technologies.

III.  People are terrified to specialize -- and therefore will refuse to commit to one set definition of what they do professionally at the exclusion of everything else.  Singles on eHarmony are unlikely to transition from one member classification to another (for example, "SBJF" to "SBJM") -- and they embrace rigid classifications of who they are.

This is the total opposite of what job seekers want, and they will reject any attempt to rigidly classify their skills for fear that it may limit their options.  For example, I have spoken with more than one legal or accounting marketer who thinks they are qualified to run a major online retail store.  People should stick to their knitting.  But they don't -- and they will gamely resist filling out an online profile such as the one Mr. Poland envisions.

IV.  All candidates are liars.  We are all delusional to some degree.  Most men think they are good looking, for example.  Given human nature, the oldest joke in the executive search business is that "You are only perfect twice in your life:  at birth and on your resume."  To the extent that candidates can game the form or keyword-load their online bios, they will -- rendering the entire method suspect, and therefore useless.  And any attempt for a future jobsite (ie Google Base) to datamine the super rich surfing patterns of its users to find out "who they really are" would be met with howls of protest from the likes of the ACLU.

V.  Resumes and online "profiles" aren't people.  Just because someone has a great resume or did well on the GMAT doesn't mean they will create value for your company.  Indeed, Enron was loaded with Harvard MBA's and Enron went straight to hell.  The fact is, a resume is like an X-ray:  An X-ray will tell you what your bone structure looks like, but very often the cancer that kills a career is poor people skills, a drinking problem, poor chemistry with senior management, etc.

Do you think I'm smart?

Well, my boss at BellSouth thought I was a disaster, and I would have likely been fired if I hadn't left when I did.  Even as I type those words, I think to myself "Should I really tell my readers this?  That I was a FAILURE in a job?  That might ruin their opinion of me."

Then I think "Sure, why not?  It's my duty to enlighten anyone who has made it this far in my post.  Besides, I'm self employed.  What the hell is the difference?"

But most people aren't self-employed.  Most people are scraping out a living and terrified of failure.  They are terrified to be exposed for who they (are afraid they) are.

Do you honestly think that the average candidate is going to allow himself to be pigeonholed by an eHarmony for recruiting?  Not if he can help it.

Just four years ago I was unemployed and flat broke.  My resume made me look like "a food guy," and that was the end of the matter as far as recruiters and hiring managers were concerned.  I had been typecast as a food guy -- and every recruiter's database that contains my resume and profile says that I'm good for one thing:  Buying and selling frozen food.  End of story.

One small problem:  Nobody in the food industry was hiring in 2002, and I was trying desperately to change industries in order to feed my family.

It didn't matter that I was bright.  It mattered less that I have decent people skills, because nobody would talk to me.  Eventually, I went into business for myself.  I'm not being negative.  I'm just saying that I have walked a couple of miles in the shoes of a down-and-out jobseeker.  It sucks.

Bottom line:  "Information intensive" products (products about which there is much to be known, like books and music) are only marketable online because the products themselves have no feeling regarding what is being said about them.  It's a very different story for candidates.

We all care a great deal (perhaps too much) what the world thinks of us.  How many times have you seen a photograph of yourself an insisted "That's not me!  I'm not that fat!"?

Well, take heart.  Right now, there are millions people on Monster, LinkedIn, and eHarmony who share your insecurities.  Except that those people on eHarmony's livelihoods aren't threatened by the prospect of poverty if you don't fancy them.

And good luck getting passive candidates to suffer through such an undignified process.

"Site Info"

Comments

[lisa]

Because you've been there, done that, it was nice to know that other executives have gone through what my husband is now going through.
We have just about given up on searching for an executive position looking through the "fake" job postings on the job boards. Every one of them are, in our opinion, a scam!

I came across your excellent posting on this subject recently because I am continuously conducting a tremendous amount of research for my husband who is in the job search "game." Yes, we call it a "game" since we figured out early on that those so-called executive job boards are in existance to make their advertisers rich--pitching their resume-writing, coaching, networking "secrets" that many job seekers fall for and spend a lot of money because they erroneously think that buying their books, etc., will all lead them to their dream job. It's a game that some, perhaps too many, play because they have no other ideas. We stopped playing the job board game, but he's still looking.

We've been trying to figure out where a marketing executive with a lot of talent, qualifications, and enthusiasm is supposed to find a real job and have a real chance. Eventually, networking contacts run out of ideas, and when the job boards are a joke and a waste of time, where do you turn? No where. Some tech savvy guru may come up with a solution--I hope it's soon. Until then, we're staying away from any and all the job boards, even the ones that look legitimate. You have to join them and pay dues to have the privilege of looking at their jobs!

[Steve NeSmith]

One of your best posts to date. I now know that you truly can identify with the job candidate.

[Laura Lake]

As always Harry your post is enlightening and "real". Landing that job and finding the right candidate has to do with screening and marketing, but I don't think it can be so calculating.

As you know I recently started down the path of finding my next job. I interviewed with numerous companies. First impressions were important as well as doing my own due diligence to research and see if their culture was right for me.

Personality test always seem cold to me and how do I know if I want to work for you and take 30 to 60 minutes to complete your questionnaire if I have not met with you? Not only am I competing with others for your job but you are competing with other companies for my skills.

While I agree that the eharmoney concept wouldn't always work when finding the right candidate, the job search is very similar to the dating game - which I've played in as well. A company must court me to get my attention and my interest.

[Valeria Maltoni]

Harry:

This post was too good not to share with our network in Philadelphia. Thinking about your reasons -

I. Companies often don't know what they want the new employee to do -- Job descriptions are something cooked up in a vacuum more often than not, especially if a company is in pain and needs help. They reflect history and not ideal. It's kind of we'll know when we see it.

II. Many jobs have no defined skill set -- We know what the output should be, sometimes not how to get there. Unless the job is so specialized that only one set of skills can get it done. Which dovetails very nicely into...

III. People are terrified to specialize -- true. I speak to so many people in transition who are terrified of closing off opportunities by showing specific experience and focus. The other issue with this point is that generalists may be viewed as too broad. This was once described to me as a funnel, where you start a career with broad-based skills, specialize to move up and then can broaden again once you get to a higher position. Specialization can also be expertise in one way of doing things: for example success at rescuing old brands and protecting cash cows.

IV. All candidates are liars. True. We tend to think we're far better than we are. All of us. No exception. My best friends are the ones who give me the most honest feedback.

V. Resumes and online "profiles" aren't people. True again. They are flat representations of 3D people and attitude is very important to know about people.

One final thought. I am reading now a book by Carol Dweck called "The New Psychology of Success" where she distinguishes between having a:

* 'fixed mindset'(= we need to be constantly validated, talent and perfection are everything, a test score is forever, we're special and sometimes this means superior to others)

and a

* 'growth mindset' (= we enjoy and we feel smart when we're learning, we repair our failures, we can always do better and want to next time, etc.)

Some of the good tidbits I'm picking up so far is that when people are successful and do well, they may not necessarily be smarter than us, they may also be smarter while they're working harder.

Mindsets can be changed. That's the most important message.

[Harry Joiner]

"As long as the revenue of a job site comes from the employers and recruiters, I don't see an effective job board for the "people" coming to fruition."

Actually, I think that's exactly right. I think the right solution is going to evolve organically -- like Google did.

As a former commodity trader, I lay awake at night wondering how long it will be before the 20% executive recruiter is "disintermediated." Such margins!

Then I realize that much of what I do is HR consulting, and even more of what I do is "making a market" for a particular search. Making a market is a little like throwing a party: anybody can do it, but it takes a real professional to throw an A-list infested wingding that people are just dying to get in to.

Obviously, great parties can happen organically. But that's really hard to turn into a reliable, scalable process -- and that's what a big company with 350 open job recs is faced with.

[anon]

As long as the revenue of a job site comes from the employers and recruiters, I don't see an effective job board for the "people" coming to fruition.

[Jason Alba]

Interesting analysis which really gets to the heart (or part of the heart?) of the job search issue. So the million dollar question is, who can come up with a solution to resolve these things? Perhaps no one - since it involved people, liars, confused, and others as listed above. So it continues to be expensive for companies, and confusing for job seekers :(

[anon]

With E-Harmony, you still get to "test drive" the person they match you with by going out on dates and finding out if it is truly a good match. E-Harmony might not get it right the first or second match, but ther is a good chance they eventually will help you find your match.

So even if e-Harmony gets it wrong, what have you lost. A few nights out, a couple bucks on dinner. Not a big deal.

But what if the e-harmony of job sites gets it wrong. You've lost your previous job (if you we're employed). You might get fired and be unemployed, you now have to look for another job. Much bigger deal than just going on some bad dates.

I wonder what is the "break up" rate for -harmony couples is?