My editor's letter from this month's edition of Talent Acquisition Excellence. Read the whole issue here: https://hrcommedia-public.s3.amazonaws.com/ExcellenceEssentials/TA/2022/TA_MAY_2022/index.html
According to the American Mental Health Association, “codependency is a learned behavior that can be passed down from one generation to another. It is an emotional and behavioral condition that affects an individual’s ability to have a healthy, mutually satisfying relationship. It is also known as “relationship addiction” because those with co-dependency often form or maintain relationships that are one sided, emotionally destructive or abusive.”
In other words, it sounds a lot like the relationship between recruitment buyers and technology vendors, an often one sided affair where HR (human resources) practitioners feel the need to continually justify augmenting and expanding their tech stack, from ERPs (enterprise resource planning) to point solutions and beyond.
We have developed an addiction to always looking for the next shiny new tool or seemingly sexy system, despite the fact that, although we have made billions of investment over several decades, we’ve barely moved the needle on hiring outcomes. Time to fill and cost per hire have been consistent over two decades; similarly, according to an HR.com survey, job boards are still considered to be most recruiters’ most successful source of hire.
Moreover, despite the explosive growth of established and emerging enterprise systems and dedicated recruiting platforms, the NPS (net promotor score) and CSAT (customer satisfaction) scores for HCM (human capital management) vendors across the board are (true story) actually lower than Putin’s international approval rating.
This is largely because, like all co-dependencies, this relationship is often one sided; VC-backed vendors, flush with millions, are incredibly effective at solution based selling - that is, identifying their target buyers (er, “personas”), speaking to their needs and building a false sense of intimacy and mutual respect during the hiring process that invariably disappears the moment a contract is signed - often for a period of 3-5 years, an eternity in talent acquisition.
It’s over this long term relationship that things too often quickly turn out to be, well, “one sided, emotionally destructive or abusive.” Often, this becomes apparent in variable costs and hidden fees (like having to pay for customer support, or charging based on API calls, or complex and pricey implementations that can take months, etc.) that wreak havoc on already finite recruitment budgets and resources.
And when it comes to being one sided, well, many buying decisions rest on a combination of RFP (request for proposal) responses and demo environments (many of which are basically a series of gifs known as click boards designed to present an unviable product as ready to go to market).
This abuse is compounded by promised features and functionality that are, inevitably, always “on the roadmap,” which is tech speak for “we don’t have that developed and probably won’t.” Tomorrow is only a day away, but it’s perpetually tomorrow when it comes to launching and optimizing best in class talent technology solutions.
Even considering this jarring initial divide between the sales and implementation/configuration process, the desperate need for TA (talent acquisition) leaders to make their technology purchases pay off - and be able to justify those decisions to executive leaders management - leads to what can be clinically described as “relationship abuse.”
With tens of billions of dollars spent every year in the Quioxtic quest for a silver bullet, the stakes of selecting the right vendor couldn’t be higher - which is why we need those relationships to work, even if we know that they’re destructive and deleterious to our people, policies and process.
This isn’t to say that every vendor is some sort of Machiavellian manipulator; some of the most innovative solutions and impactful software on the market was developed to meet a real market need, and often, these products are borne of a shared passion for improving how companies look for jobs, and how companies look for people, rather than be motivated by stuff like sales commissions, ARR (annual recurring revenue) or increasing valuation.
However, like all sourcing activities, you have to know what you’re looking for before you can find it. It’s important to remember that in talent acquisition today, technology is never the question - sometimes, it might be the answer, but just as often, it’s a combination of process and people, rather than platforms or point solutions, that make the biggest impact.
Technology can help, but without these preconditions in place, even the most advanced algorithms or cutting edge systems will inevitably fall short of their intended goal: to help employers hire better talent faster.
Co-dependency is seen as a cycle of learned behavior, and our industry has long ago learned that the status quo of legacy systems and obsolete code bases - even if they are no longer being developed or supported - is the cost of doing the business of talent.
Breaking that cycle means taking a step back and better understanding not only what technology your organization needs for recruiting and hiring success, but just as importantly, when technology will only convolute or complicate your people processes. That line, largely, has become a primary litmus test for talent acquisition excellence - both today, and tomorrow.
That’s why this month’s issue of Talent Acquisition Excellence is dedicated to not only the current state of the industry, but also, where it is going. We have assembled some of the HR Tech industry’s leading experts and biggest brands to provide enough information and insights to help you move from a codependent relationship to a long term partnership that provides meaningful value and measurable results from your talent technology investment.
We hope you enjoy this deep dive into what is new, what is next and what TA professionals really need to know about talent technology beyond a polished sales playbook, well funded GTM (go-to-market) strategy and some empty platitudes along the way.
Vendors know how to play the game. It’s time for TA leaders to level the playing field - and get with the (right) system.
