Bullhorn says recruiters post more jobs on LinkedIn through its freemium Reach service than any other social media site.
Just out, Bullhorn’s Social Recruiting in the U.S. report says 77 percent of the postings that go through Bullhorn Reach go to LinkedIn. Twitter gets 54 percent, with Facebook far down the posting popularity list. Only 25 percent of the jobs get posted there.
You can put your hands down. We know that adds up to more than 100; some ads (34 percent) get posted to two sites, while 21 percent get posted to all three sites. And 21 percent get posted to no social network. (You in the front row. How many get posted to only one site? Answer: 24 percent.)
The report is drawn from the more than 300,000 jobs posted by the 77,500 recruiters using Bullhorn Reach to manage their social media services and job postings. The report shows heavy usage of social media in the Northeast, which may have something to do with Boston being home to the recruitment technology company. But we admit to a bit of befuddlement over Mississippi and Alabama making Bullhorn’s top 10 social posters list.
Still, it’s kind of interesting to see that restaurant industry recruiters make the most use of social media for recruiting, Probably makes sense, considering the industry hires huge numbers of kids who are all (or mostly all, anyway) on Facebook and Twitter. But LinkedIn? Mining and security recruiters also made the top 10 Facebook user list, which, at least when it comes to security, make us worry a little.
We get why a company named for the partitive plural form of ovi (Finnish for door) might want to change its name. But change it to Wowzer? Well, says the company, Wowzer is “a more memorable, fun name.” That it is, especially if you are doing the chasing. We should probably mention that Wowzer, nee OVIA, is a video screening service. You record your screening questions; the candidate responds on video; you and/or the hiring manager review at your leisure. The rebranding includes a new, hipper looking website, and follows an investment of undisclosed size from the giant Tokyo recruiting and staffing firm Recruit.
Googling for MBAs
Considering the state of banking these days, it’s probably a good thing that so few of them made the top 10 employer preferences of MBA students. Who is the top employer of choice? Google. Universum’s annual survey of MBA students in the U.S. had tech companies ranking pretty well. Four of them were in the top 10, as was Nike. Goldman Sachs and J.P.Morgan made the list, but then the survey was conducted pre-Morgan debacle.
From the Department of “Yeah, Right”
Only 14 percent of employers screen job candidates using social media. That’s according to a new study by Littler Mendelson, the employment law firm. Among the many contradictory studies is this one from a year ago.
Train to Last
The most-effective trainers produce employees who stay 1.8 to 2.8 times longer than other employees, according to a report from Evolv. The study involved call centers covering more than 22,000 agents, 162 trainers, and 17 sites. (Evolv, you may remember, is the the company who did the job-hopping study).
The best trainers got good discussions going, and emphasized q-and-a. Less-effective trainers were more the disciplinarian types. More here.
We can’t say the following thoughts about the job market from R.W. Baird will put you in a good mood — but they’re not altogether gloomy either. The stock analysts at Baird who cover human resources/recruiting companies have been saying this to clients:
Nearly all economic/labor market data released in recent weeks would suggest that growth in the domestic labor market decelerated in May. The U.S. continues to add jobs, but at a slow rate, and the rate of improvement in April/May has been much slower than that seen during Dec.-Feb. (which may have been impacted by seasonal adjustments given the unusually warm weather). While the May data wasn’t uniformly negative, most key indicators were below consensus expectations and were consistent with modest deceleration … the rate of improvement has taken a step back from last month and remains well below the rate of growth experienced during prior ‘recoveries.’ As noted previously, the mixed/muddy picture is not entirely surprising given the stimulus-induced recovery, and seasonal factors may have also contributed to the choppiness (an unusually warm Jan.-Mar. may have skewed those months more positively, which reversed in April/May).