Community is one of those words — like diversity, empowerment, and so on — that means something different to everyone. For some people, it’s a place, like a website. For others, community is a concept – a sense of belonging.
In recruiting, it can mean a Facebook group (like this from New Zealand) or a LinkedIn group (like this for “reliability engineering”) or it can be something else, on or offline: alumni of a company or a college, for example.
Anyhow, there’s a new one today, from Bacardi. This site’s emphasis is not on socializing but on skills, and includes demo videos and career advice. You can earn badges like “recruiter” for recruiting community members; “commentator” badges for posting a lot of comments; “thought leader” badges for having a lot of followers, and more.
Rum fans can sign up for the site using their Facebook identity.
For Bacardi, it seems to be aiming primarily at product marketing. It’s not, however, a terrible model for a recruiting community.
An email I got today advertising a webinar read:
A disparate impact is a concern if recruiters and companies exclusively use social media to source and search for candidates. For example, if a recruiter relies solely on Twitter to advertise job openings, they are reaching a predominantly Caucasian audience.
I get the idea: be careful where you source for candidates, because you may accidentally be discriminating. But as someone who likes to see a little proof, a little data — I’m not so sure it’s actually true.
In fact, on the contrary: this post says that a “higher than average” number of Twitter users are African-American and Hispanic.
This post argues that “Twitter is more popular with black people than white people.”
This one talks about Hispanic community Twitter usage, generally arguing that Hispanics and blacks use Twitter more than others because they tend to be younger.
Why, then, are we so concerned that recruiting on Twitter is inherently discriminatory?
I’ve written about the silliness that goes on when candidates are asked their biggest weakness. And about the also-silly notion that candidates or people should be perfect.
I’ve also seen alternatives to the “biggest weakness” question.” But I’ve never loved any of them. So I’ll throw one alternative out there.
Instead of asking people their biggest weakness, and having them say, “my biggest weakness is that I care too much,” how about asking this:
From what you know of the job, what do you think would be your biggest challenge on the job, or the thing you will most need to learn as you get up to speed?
That might get you a good answer, a job-related answer — though as you know from my previous posts, I’m skeptical of people who answer, “Nothing!”