Online-Dating vs. Recruiting: A Comparison (Part II)
Are there any online dating tactics that do or could conceivably succeed in recruiting?
Why will most of the ones that are “successful” on dating sites nonetheless never, or only rarely, work in a recruiting environment?
With these tactics having been identified in Part I, what remains is to see whether, why and how each of these is, can or should(n’t) be applied in recruiting—and to explore the underlying reasons, including very subtle ones, for the differences and similarities between the “rules” of recruiting a date online and those that (should[n’t]) apply in recruiting a candidate.
The following are some of the most commonly applied rules and tactics of online dating, analyzed and evaluated in a recruitment context:
1. Never accept a substantial opportunity cost,i.e., don’t pass up a chance with anyone who seems at least as enticing as the birds in the hand: The ugly irony of dating sites—especially those with millions of subscribers—is that they represent not only countless opportunities, but also (imagined) inestimable opportunity costs, setting the stage for “buyer’s remorse” or at least “buyer’s hesitation and vacillation” (discussed below). The predictable response and solution: Either be very cagey and choosey, or be a “player” who has his dating cake and someone else’s, through multiple date-site relationships and user names (in both senses of “user”).
If too cagey and choosey, the date-site lovelorn “recruiter” is at risk of frustrating both sides of the supply-demand equation—including those left feeling rejected: (S)he loses time and energy, endlessly vetting yet another “applicant”, waiting for “perfection”. If (s)he hedges too many bets by juggling them, the risk is that of losing focus, spreading oneself too thin, in terms of time, energy, resources and reputation—as the word gets out about being a “player”) and of becoming demotivated by tedious or fake repetition of stories, promises, lists of expectations, outcomes, etc..
(In)Applicability to Recruiting:This kind of opportunity-cost obsession and its associated cageyness and “playing around” with multiple “partners” (candidates) would, in general, be a disaster in a recruiting environment. The main reason is that, unlike online dating, recruiting is always atriangulated relationship.
The recruiter is the intermediary to the deal between candidate and employer (even when the recruiter is an in-house HR department staffer). Although the dating-site administrators and owners play an administrative 3rd-party recruiting role, the primary recruiter in this comparison is the hopeful dating-site subscriber vetting other subscribers.
Such triangulation generally profoundly impacts human relationships, especially in recruiting. If the online-dating site administrators were as equally opportunity-cost driven as their clients, their sites would either be paralyzed, a lot smaller or much less discriminating (by choosing to “miss out” on as few as possible potential subscribers. Instead, they use profiles as sieves and resumes). However, the dating site subscribers’ bottom line is less vulnerable to opportunity-cost-induced dithering or mass trolling—or so they imagine, because the costs are not transparent, monetized or recognized.
The power of such triangulation must not be underestimated, e.g., if you want someone to pay attention to you, cc somebody who is important to that person when sending the email. It works like a charm (unless you write something libelous or otherwise defaming).
Because recruiters are always triangulated, i.e., are accountable to both the employer they represent and their job candidates, they cannot afford the online-dating luxuries of accepting too few or too many (job) applicants for in-depth placement processing
2. Keep all “investments” highly liquid (commitments and promises of commitments should last only as long as they are useful): Even though it’s a mantra of online dating, “I’ve met someone else” is not something a recruiter is likely to say to a candidate after committing to him or her. (I do recall a witty cartoon in which a parent is breaking the news to his son that Mom and Dad have “met someone else”. Insightful, as well as hilarious.)
That’s because recruiter investments are more like illiquid than liquid investments. Some investments are highly liquid and can be dumped in a heartbeat, e.g., a stock. Others are much less so, e.g., highly illiquid investment in a company’s infrastructure or long-term bonds. The mentality that pervades online dating is that of the day-trader: in or out, as fast as seems both necessary and possible.
(In)Applicability to recruiting:Obviously, online dating is far less explicitly contractual than recruiting. The contract law governing offer and acceptance is like a shark: It has lots of teeth, all very sharp. In contrast, the online dating promises made and broken by members recruiting each other, the investments cashed out (e.g., in one-coffee or one-night stands, three minute/day/week/month trial periods, etc.), are not generally subject to stiff penalties or long “holding” periods (until “maturation” or collapse of the investment).
True, an employment contract represents a long-term relatively illiquid investment, but that’s between the employer and the employee, and becomes, when breached, suddenly very liquid.
Recruiters, however, and because of triangulation, are more like the agent who brokers a stock deal, than like the buyer or the seller: once the investment by the employer in a new employer is made, the recruiter cannot “dump” the newly purchased “stock” if it tanks or a better one comes along.
3. Create “fire” from “ice”: It’s not easy to start a fire with ice (but it can be done, e.g., by creating an ice lens to concentrate the Sun’s rays). It’s also not easy to remain a warm person by treating so many as coldly and as expendable as is the norm in online dating.
Because the most popular members, like many corporate recruiters, have insane numbers of emails, plus countless invitations to chat, smiles, etc., many, if not most, will resort to mechanical, even harsh or rude rejection/selection methods, e.g., ignore heartfelt messages from the “disqualified”—much as some recruiters do, when inundated with resumes or follow-up emails.
After so much practice being cold and insensitive, it may be very difficult to turn warm and sensitive (again).
(In)Applicability to recruiting:Unfortunately, this kind of cold-hot mixed-strategy is not unknown in recruiting (to put it mildly). In both the online dating and recruiting arenas, its advocates think it “works”. However, in neither arena is “works” defined compassionately, and in both domains the contradictions and dangers posed by adopting coldhearted means to warm and fuzzy ends are real and substantial.
The short-cut techniques, emotional calluses or fatigue some recruiters develop in plowing through countless resumes (and interviews) can create a subtle burnout that, in taxing their patience, jeopardizes receptivity and other human(e) elements in interactions with those short-listed or hired.
In psychoanalytic terms, this kind of cold-warm mix is a paradoxical, self-defeating blending of what the psychoanalyst Romain Roland called “primary narcissism” and “secondary narcissism”—the former being, on one interpretation, an “oceanic feeling ” of oneness with others, in virtue of having no distinct sense of self or awareness of other objects, like that of a blissful nursing newborn caressed by its mother, whom it does not distinguish from itself.
On the other hand, secondary and later narcissism has been interpreted as an intense awareness of “2-ness”, of one’s self as a separate ego, if not one isolated from others that exist as objects to be manipulated for self-advantage. (Note: there are variant interpretations of these two concepts, e.g., Freud’s.)
A problem arises when the cold perspective and tactics of secondary narcissism are employed to achieve the intimate feelings of primary narcissism. In effect, this process is tantamount to trying to achieve and sustain a sense of caring and “we” by focusing on “me” and “my needs”—in either online dating or recruiting.
It’s also what happens when trying to see human resources as something other than “resources”, while treating them as precisely that.
4. Always indulge “(near) buyer remorse” and “vendor regret” when you feel like it(dump about-to-be-hired or already recruited candidates at will).
Online dating encourages—indeed, thrives on—“buyer remorse” and “vendor regret”, e.g., regretting getting involved so fast with someone whose second typed line is “I love you somuch, baby”, the third being “I need new furniture; please help.”
(Yes, this happens—to people I know, mostly Westerners looking abroad. I call them “Western Onions”, because they get financially peeled and pared down to nothing walking back and forth to Western Union offices.)
If everybody was happy with the first person they met online, dating sites wouldn’t survive for long, or at least not for as long as they tend to. To be fair, by their very nature, online dating sites provide ample justification, as well as opportunity, for remorse—of all kinds.
(In)Applicability to recruiting:If online presentation of credentials and vetting of prospective dates were as honest and rigorous as vetting of job candidates is, there would be a whole lot less reason for subscriber vendor or buyer remorse. But they aren’t—a shortcoming that compounds the negative effects of obsessive opportunity-cost calculations.
Overly cagey or overly casual, the online dater uses regret as a convenient rationalization to continue being either or both: “Oh, I really regret having gotten involved with that one so fast; I’ll switch to the new one who texted me today, or to evenings reading the Bible.”
In fact, the habitual dating-site poly-gamer players use it as a hook: “I’ve just been so disappointed with those I’ve met and gone out with; I’m hoping that will change now (that I’ve met you).” Next! (Imagine a recruiter saying, “Things haven’t worked out with my last ten placements, but I’ve got a good feeling about you!”)
Second thoughts are natural in any profession, pastime or passion—even long after those doubts are useless post-mortems on a done deal. However the triangulations of employment and employment law preclude any role for “buyer remorse” apart from stimulating stomach acid secretion until the employment contract is up or broken.
5. Overbook (over-commit):Online dating sites give out keys to their (eye-)candy shops, so greed thrives, and maybe rules, especially given a “so many, so nice” opportunity-cost phobic attitude. The result is multiple affairs through multiple user-names—behavior equivalent to what would be multiple hires for the same, single job in corporate recruitment.
(In)Applicability to recruiting:Over-committing by hiring more than one person for a single job vacancy is, with rare exceptions, impractical and prohibited (one such exception arguably being hiring of multiple look-alike body-doubles for hunted dictators: Each double is, through a kind of double-think, supposed to be the only and the real tyrant).
Juggling lovers met online (or elsewhere), despite its challenges, will always be easier than juggling multiple-candidates (stealthily) placed in the same job (as a vacancy, not a category). Among the reasons for the inadvisability of overbooking employees is the existence of numerous workplace whistleblowers.
However, work-sharing, i.e., hiring two people to share one job—especially in hard times—and the body-double example suggest there may be some room for effective online-dating-style over-committing in professional recruiting.
Another equivalent is contingency hiring, e.g., of a second-string quarterback or movie stand-in in case the star is incapacitated or otherwise fails to shine.It would be interesting to explore how this recruitment tactic can be applied outside the sports and entertainment industries.
(Continued in Part III)