Jobhunters who are optimistic stand a better change of getting a job, as do those who are proactive and decisive.

But is there a way of becoming more optimistic in a gloomy market?  Phill Lane, a co-author of the research discussing the issue on Chris Evans' BBC Radio 2 Drivetime show.

Click below to hear the interview.

radio2.mp3 (2.86 mb)

One of the key things ACE shows us is that search engines are now playing a vital part in people’s job search. There is no rocket science here, search plays a massive part in most people’s lives these days, but what are the implications for recruitment?

An interesting issue that we touched on during the panel debate is whether it is important to have brand recognition strong enough that potential candidates perform searches directly on your company name. The short answer is, unsurprisingly enough, “yes it is important” however this doesn’t really tell the whole story. 

The key to all of this isn’t that people are using search engines as part of their job search its how they are using them. Most people will start their search with broader terms and then narrow to be more specific. This means that it is therefore equally important to have a visible presence round the keywords that your audience might use before they get to the point of searching on the name of any specific organisation.

To illustrate just how important a part search is of your integrated strategy and to caution against not having an effective search plan in place let me finish with an example. We recently worked with an employer and one of the ways we tracked the effectiveness of their advertising campaign was look for uplift in relevant Google searches. Interestingly there was 60% uplift in such searches once the campaign had launched. Unfortunately for them they had decided not to run a search campaign and thus let their competitors, who did have a search presence, benefit from exposure to a whole new set of potential candidates!

In theory, that should be an easy question.   Once they've started a new job.

Sure, there’ll always be people that drop out during the process and employers have long been aware that recruitment is as much about candidates reviewing the employer as the other way round. 

And, of course, many candidates (62%) will turn down job offers even having run the whole gauntlet.  

But surely offer accepted, job started, deal done.  

Or is it? 

Actually, it seems that many strong candidates spend their first few months in a new role actively looking for another.  That their probation period is not just about settling in, but already about looking for a way out! 

Alarming as it seems, under investigation this makes a lot of sense. 

People usually leave an employer that they are unhappy with only when the risks of staying outweigh the risks of leaving.  And even outside the current climate, leaving a job for another does involve taking a leap of faith. 

However, having taken that leap once, it is not so much of a risk to change again very quickly.  There is less emotional attachment and few people to yet call friends. 

In fact, there is very little risk in taking a better job within the first few weeks of starting a new one. 

Over and above the mitigated risk, there is a host of additional reasons for changing jobs within the first few weeks.   

• The notice period is typically just a week until probation is served, giving candidates more flexibility on start dates
• Inboxes are still full of offers of second interviews and roles that have been well-filtered
• Candidates are in peak form – they have practised (typically for four months) so have their interview and application techniques honed to a fine art
• They have little/nothing to lose by seeing through the balls they had in play to a natural conclusion
• Confidence and self-worth are at an all time high – since they have just been offered a job, they have no reason to doubt themselves 

But for an employer the risk of an employee moving at this point is huge. 

Just when the right candidate has been found, and actually started, all of the others let down gently, the whole process has to start again, from scratch. 

All in all, it seems that for all the effort put in to find the right employees, just as much is needed during the first few weeks and months if organisations are to convert a new joiner into a productive employee.

As you’d expect, the survey respondents had a number of frustrations with the job hunting process as it stands and one of the most common was when they received misleading/incomplete/deliberately false information. 

This is a concern if only because we know that the ability to make decisions is something that sets the better candidates apart and because there is a clear correlation between decision making and availability of information with which to make them. 

And whilst there is a trend towards those that are able to find more information for themselves by way of asking and reading more widely, there is also a question to ask of employers who are not publishing clearly enough some relatively simple information. 

Salary is a good example.   

It’s what many people search on first and, not necessarily because they are mercenary but, in fact, because how people judge whether a role is suitable/appropriate for them is often based on how similar the salary level is to the job that they are doing now.  A little higher, for most people, is about right. 

In industries where new jobs with new job titles have been common, such as the environmental sector, the salary level stated is often of paramount importance in helping candidates determine suitability before any further investigation can take place.  This is also true for organisations that are not well known.  The size of the salary is a very good indicator of the size of the challenge. 

What this means for those that withhold salary details is that they lose out in a number of ways: 

• candidates cannot tell if they are at a suitable level, so overlook these roles
• the chances of a candidate applying anyway but declining later in the process are heightened
• some candidates read “£Competitive” as meaning “they’ll work you really hard to earn your money” – not as having a salary comparable to the industry
• candidates are less able to make a decision early and commit emotionally to that application
• job alerts are often set up on salary criteria, so without it in your advertisement you are unlikely to benefit from these alerts sent out on a daily basis

 In the current climate any new roles are unlikely to be sanctioned without a business case – that will inevitably include the proposed salary. 

So when 51% candidates who turned down jobs do so due to “unattractive terms and conditions”, it makes you wonder who exactly benefits from withholding such a simple piece of information?