Six degrees of candidate care

It goes without saying that a company should look after its employees; some may choose not to, but the majority understand that a happy workforce is a profitable workforce. But have you ever considered looking after potential employees – those that have yet to be considered suitable, but may well be in the very near future? Or more importantly, those who aren’t successful but may speak to someone that is? Confused? So was I, until I spoke with Lou Manzi, Vice President of Global Recruitment at pharmaceuticals powerhouse GlaxoSmithKline, a leader in the implementation of the candidate care ethos.

A link in the chain

Imagine the principle of six degrees of separation and apply it to HR. Someone has a friend, who knows someone that went for a job interview at X plc and thought the place was either amazing, OK or a horrible place to work – all because of the interview and surrounding experience. The first two are obviously good experiences, even if the applicant was unsuccessful; but what is the relevance if they have a negative experience? I guessed it wouldn’t really matter much, seeing as they wont be working there anyway. On the contrary, as Manzi is keen to pint out.

“It's what happens when someone has a bad experience,” he says. “They tell 10 people and then those 10 people tell 10 more people, and so on. Thus, many people are negatively affected by one person’s bad experience.” This will in turn provide a negative reflection upon the company and is where the principle of candidate care comes into effect.

So what exactly is candidate care and how can it be a competitive advantage? According to Manzi: “Candidate care is a point of view, a point of differentiation, a process and prescribed behaviors whereby GSK applies a customer service model to the candidate's recruitment experience. In other words, every candidate is treated as a customer rather than as a traditional applicant.”

He continues: “What is particularly noteworthy is that the candidate process is the only customer experience where we deliberately excite the consumer about our brand, when the odds on them getting that brand in the way they want (i.e. a job offer) are stacked against them. As with all prospective employers, GSK sees far more ‘failed candidates’ than successful ones.”

This means that taking a thoughtful customer-focused approach to each individual candidate’s experience enhances GSK’s reputation as a ‘preferred employer’ while increasing the firm’s brand equity. “Word of mouth is a powerful magnet in the talent acquisition arena and our candidate care process is an equally powerful way of differentiating GSK from others,” he says. “As recruiters, we need to remember that our ‘failed’ candidates are more likely to add value to the brand in a way that does not include employment, but might impact future sales and drive product revenue.”

Missing the point

However, some companies struggle to look after their existing staff, let alone portray a good image throughout the interview process. So why is it that such a simple approach is so often overlooked? Manzi confirms it is because there is a tendency for many recruiters to think in a short-term transactional way. It’s also down to the fact that most people outside of HR or recruitment don’t fully appreciate the value that good people processes and practices can bring to an organization. Recruitment is too often at the bottom of the HR food chain. “Line managers, in particular, do not see candidates as anything other than candidates. In fact, hiring managers often view themselves as the customer eager to procure the necessary skills of eager candidates – which is quite the opposite of the candidate care model,” Manzi asserts.

This has me questioning two things: who has final accountability (is this purely an issue for the HR department)? And how do you get current employees to buy into the idea, and in turn portray the image of the company required? Manzi answers both. “Everyone involved in the recruiting process is accountable,” he says. “Candidate care looks at the full spectrum of the experience; every point at which the candidate interacts with the company. It is shared accountability.” And as for buy-in? “Make employees aware of the value candidates bring to the organization when they stop being candidates – put a monetary value to this where possible to ensure all involved in the recruitment process have a sense of personal accountability. Ask interviewers and hiring managers what has bothered them when they were candidates. They need to be reminded that they need to treat candidates as they want to be treated.” And the important thing to note is that this doesn’t just apply to senior level appointments. “Candidate care applies to all candidates, not just senior ones,” he asserts. Quite simple really.

The GSK experience

So what about the GSK model – how well does this actually work in practice? On the company website it states that “our candidate care charter asks for any negative feedback.” Now, I don’t know about you, but I’ve come across the whole “we would love to have your feedback, even if it’s negative” thing before – but I’ve never personally had the time, inclination (or the guts) to offload my negativity and I question the validity of such a statement with regard to the GSK experience. Do candidates really have the heart to let a potential employer know about their negative experience? Manzi’s answer is a resounding, “Yes, they do!” He continues: “We find that from our confidential surveys of candidates not hired and the candidates who were hired that our interviewers and recruiters get tangible, useful feedback to help us change or tweak our process and procedures.”

The result of any negative feedback has resulted in the realization that GSK needs to do a better job in communicating with candidates – not just before the interviews, but during and after the interviews too. “Proactive versus reactive communication will ensure that we stay out in front as an employer who really values candidate care,” says Manzi.

As for the other companies that are now following in the footsteps of GSK and adopting these processes, Manzi has no wish to relinquish the company’s position: “Our brand promise and employer brand experience are unique to GSK. As long as we continue to be true in driving our value proposition, we will be secure in our leadership.”

Lou Manzi joined SmithKline Beecham Consumer Products as Manager, Government and Public Affairs in 1985. He is currently with GlaxoSmithKline Corporate Staffs and leads the Global Recruitment function. In addition, he has responsibility for coordinating all US Human Resources Shared Services initiatives. He serves on the Board of the US Army War College and on the Board of hireAbility, a philanthropic organization whose purpose is to serve as a link between people with disabilities and businesses. He is also a past trustee of the Wilkes University Board of Directors.

Making history?

Manzi on the history behind GSK’s implementation of candidate care.

“GSK invested significant time and resources in understanding its brand promise as an employer,” says Manzi. “To give further credibility to our brand, we tested internally and externally. To ensure maximum effectiveness, we needed to evidence the brand promise at the first brand touch point. For external candidates, this is obviously the recruitment process. We looked at the processes and recruiter behaviors that we felt best reflected the GSK brand promise. Linking the process to the brand promise was the first step in breathing life into our candidate care program. And for internal candidates the recruitment process might be their last chance to fall in love (again) with the organization. Our research showed that internal candidates would also be looking in the external marketplace in case they did not find what they were looking for internally. Employing candidate care processes for internal candidates is now viewed as a smart retention tool.”

The top five mistakes

“First and foremost, we know that candidates formulate a particularly negative perception of a company if they are not treated with respect and courtesy throughout the process,” highlights Manzi. “From timely and accurate communications to delivering on promises and expectations, there are countless opportunities to either enhance or diminish a candidate’s perception of a company.”

According to Manzi, the top five mistakes companies make are:

1. They don't value recruitment as a process and business/brand tool. Too often anyone is allowed to interview. In smart organizations the line managers are made aware that it is an accredited honor being involved in talent acquisition.
2. They do not have a ‘joined up’ approach to recruitment in the way they’d have a joined up sales approach – meaning the recruitment process can therefore feel inconsistent.
3. They do not have development in place for recruiters – it can feel like a dead-end job when it should be a springboard for other options. Recruiters are a critical part of the talent acquisition process. Ensure that they are developed continuously.
4. They don’t collate candidate feedback or they do it in a non-scientific way (i.e. don't poll people who are in process! They are going to tell you what they want to hear).
5. They don’t performance manage recruiters and even participating line managers against candidate feedback. Feedback must be given to the recruiters and the hiring managers based on the perceptions of the candidates they interview.