Wednesday, September 27, 2017

Bass Ackwards

Business publications can't stop screaming about the lack of skilled and especially highly technical workers. Meanwhile, companies screen-out by the millions the very people qualified to interview for these positions.

How did we get here? Here's how:

The people screening these resumes are doing nothing more than looking for a series of keywords on these resumes. No keywords or not the right keywords? Into the electronic trash pile it goes. A reasonably intelligent Golden Retriever is capable of this type of low-level resume screening.

Such a colossal waste.

What these screeners are missing is what might be an unconventional background or possibly a somewhat parallel set of skills and work history in which a manager/supervisor can VERY quickly size up and determine if this person is capable and qualified to do the work.

Backing up..in most organizations, managers who primarily supervise work are also asked to do some hiring. We're talking about "hiring managers" here.

Now, these managers are told by the executives above them what an important part of their job hiring is.

These same employers and these same executives, in their endless efforts to increase production while lowering cost, then sabotage the very act and process of hiring good people. More on that below.

Not to be forgotten in all this: jobs that don't get filled are putting the burden of all this extra work on to existing employees.

So here's the part that is just SO ass backwards. People ENTIRELY unqualified to determine if a potential employee is CAPABLE OF DOING HIGHLY TECHNICAL AND SPECIALIZED WORK are the ones screening most or all of the resumes- instead of the line of business manager who has spent years both doing the work and, later, supervising the people doing the work.

Now it's true that, if asked, hiring managers often state they want nothing to do with the labor-intensive screening process.

I ask: What if hiring managers were fairly compensated for being much more involved in the recruiting process? I mean, after all, companies talk a good game about the importance of hiring. But the overwhelming majority of these firms burden the hiring manager with extraneous work, creating a collective position that does echo: "I don't have time to look at candidate resumes!".

Get the hiring manager VERY involved early and often. That is the solution. That is the solution to this perceived "shortage" of skilled and/or technical positions unfilled by the millions.




Friday, May 5, 2017

We're passing on Mr. Hodges..

Mine was not an exciting resume. I changed jobs frequently and, on paper, appeared content to coast for years on end. Didn't make me a bad guy- but it did make me something.

Imagine yourself a business owner or someone who answers directly to either an owner or a major stakeholder in a company. Years of blood, sweat and cold beers, er..ah. I mean tears. Years of busting your stones and making sacrifices. Business owners know the intense pressure of meeting payroll when receivables are shaky and lines of credit are shrinking...or worse. They know a million other major stressors that 8-5'ers will never know.

When owners are thinking about hiring someone, it's important the someone they're considering appears to be a person who gives a shit.

I've read, witnessed and most important lived endless discussions about resumes and how important they are (or aren't) when considering hiring someone. It's true there are many instances of a subpar resume resulting in a great hire. It's considerably MORE true, however, that a person with a consistent and stable work history is a WAY better investment than someone who has neither.

Recruiters used to ask me why I left an employer. I almost always answered I didn't want to work there anymore. I wasn't being a smartass, I was simply being honest. I knew the recruiter wanted one of those stock, bullshit-intensive answers as to why I left but it seemed pointless to play that game. My honesty rarely if ever rewarded me with recruiters. But I wouldn't expect an owner to like the fact that I never seemed all-in..no matter where I previously worked.

(Worth noting, as a self-employed person, I am all in. Apparently, this is what I needed to feel the same commitment and zeal as the people who hired me in the past).

It's common to hear the phrase Think Like an Owner in business.

I suggest to people who can't understand why their resume isn't opening more doors to think like an owner. Like it or not, resumes tell a story. What story is yours telling?

Monday, October 31, 2016

Candlestick Makers

There's a school of thought that says- if you're going to do something- make every effort to do it at the highest possible level.

(Notice from the faculty of THE SCHOOL OF THOUGHT: We are canceling classes Thursday and Friday so we can sit around and think about random and often trivial things.)

This is how the ambitious view the world and we often benefit from their efforts. Think of the top people who work tirelessly to cure disease or stand up for people society has forgotten or re-build parts of the world destroyed by human or natural catastrophe. Without smart and ambitious leaders (and doers), this stuff does not get done.

The flip side, of course, is how the hyper ambitious and cutthroat-competitive seek nothing other than personal gain with zero regard for who or what they leave in their wake.

As with everything, there's a middle ground. So if you're a butcher, a baker or are involved in the manufacture of candlesticks- why not give it all you have to be a world-class baker? (unless, of course, you're a Project Manager of some sort...or a butcher.)

Being the best at what you do will mean something is going to suffers or lack. Unbridled ambition is a zero-sum game. The great Jack Welch of General Electric fame said he really didn't know his four grown adult children and it saddened him greatly. Thousands of other uber achievers have similar stories. Many of the super-accomplished were aware what was being short-changed in their lives while in the middle of it. There are no simple answers here but I do believe, as people, we need to be who we are as opposed to who the world tells us we should be...even if the regrets are pronounced.

I have felt the pangs of not answering to what very clearly could have been "a calling". I'm still not totally at peace with it. In my work now I routinely speak with people who need to decide on whether to go full bore and/or are currently taking personal inventory on what it is they want from their work.

So, by all means, go forward, purchase a custom cut of prime rib, stop by the bakery and later pick up a bizarro-scent Yankee Candle. While you're at it, ask yourself if it makes sense to go THE FULL MONTY with your career..I'll be over here.

Thursday, July 7, 2016

Recruiters work for Employers- NOT YOU.

I wrote about this recently on this blog (May 17th).

I'm adding more because I'll soon be a live case study on how a recruiter can put THE CANDIDATE'S best interest first (and their own, of course) while still effectively managing the hiring company expectations, requirements and placement fees.

In the coming weeks, I will be contacting many of the top 10% (+/-) in Construction Management-or at least the top 10% from profile appearances. Appearances meaning stability and tenure, career progression, what I can gather about past project performance and specialized training and education.

It's my belief the industry's top performers want to take charge in managing their careers- "managing" meaning understanding their value in the open market. This includes commensurate and fair compensation, avenues to promotion inside and outside their current organization and reasonable expectations of a life outside of work. It also means weaning certain professionals from the endless noise that is LinkedIn. For every nugget of value on LinkedIn, there are 99 nuggets of complete horsehit.

The best time to understand your place in the market is when you are on top. Like everything else of value, it requires some work on your part (and plenty on mine). Don't wait on your network of industry friends and/or professional contacts to hand-deliver something for your exclusive benefit- not advisable for driven people who claim to know what they want from their work.

I wrote previously how the recruiter, regardless of industry, is acting in the best interest of the hiring company- no exceptions. The agency recruiter is always a 3rd party representative for the company doing the hiring. When a recruiter introduces you to a company for a position you have a legitimate interest in, regardless of how strong a track record you have, the hiring company has a leg up. The company expects and often demands your salary history from the recruiter who, in turn, requests it from you.  This is a HUGE advantage to the hiring company before and during any type of negotiations regarding what your pay could be.The hiring company also expects the recruiter to present more than just you for the position. The company often has additional agency recruiters presenting candidates for the position. The hiring company's directive, whether spoken or not is: "get me the best person at the best (lowest) price".   None of this should be new information to you if you've been down this road before.

Having a 3rd party agency recruiter present you for an open position to an employer is not how you, an elite producer, want to maximize and leverage years of exemplary work.

Because companies' hiring hold the cash does not mean they have all the leverage. But that is how the system works- this is how it ALWAYS has worked- regardless of what is being said.

I've had some smart people tell me that the system can't be changed because of who is holding the money.

Let's look where it's the talent that has the agent and not the entity holding the money.

The top earners in high visibility fields such as entertainment and sports have agents.

I wish I could say we're talking about the same dynamics here- BUT WE ARE NOT. The world's elite athletes and entertainers have something to offer that virtually nobody on the planet can replicate. In real-world professions, no matter how exceptional you are, there are always at least a handful who can perform close to, equal to or even beyond your output. This is where we're told the candidate agency model in untenable.

So what's the good news? For openers, the candidate agent already exists but NOT by design. That is a separate blog post. The net of it is recruiters are unable to recruit the best of the best. And in the rare instance they've got the ear (and resume) of an elite producer, they typically blast the resume to the hiring managers they've worked with. That's all they do. They spray-n-pray..and hope someone answers. Good grief.

Back to the good news...let's change that to great news. 90% of your peers are incapable of your production and profitability. The ones who supposedley are- what are they doing to ensure their employer (or another employer) is providing them what they have earned and desire? Almost all of them are doing nothing, Only so many hours in a day and (seemingly) all of theirs are accounted for.

So your real competition is not even in the game.

It all comes down to smart positioning and sequencing in how you present yourself to the market. That and your agent busting their ass to get the right doors opened.

So how does it work? How does one use "an agent" but not participate in the system described above? That's what I do. Though I have some marketing panache and a rigorous methodology, it's mostly just hard work. If you've read this far, your retinas need a rest. I'd like to leave you with a few things that took me a long time to learn- as a candidate in a previous life and later as a recruiter.

Recruiters who tell you what THEY want (to fill a position for their client), tread lightly.

Be VERY judicious when discussing your salary history and requirements. Recruiters ask you for that information early and often- for the express benefit of their client(s).

Market your track record and credentials, NOT YOUR NAME. Your anonymity is critical and needs to be kept as long as possible- ideally revealed only when you come face to face with a hiring manager. Sounds improbable in an industry where people know each other- but it's not.

Don't be fooled by recruiters who boast of all of their "relationships". WHO KNOWS WHAT..AND WHEN DO THEY KNOW IT. That's what companies care about in terms of recruiters. They're not hiring someone because Recruiter Ricky is a swell fellow.





 



Monday, June 13, 2016

Dogs, ponies, gas and SNL

I've been on more than a few interviews in my days including a couple this year.

This years' interviews were different in that I truly was there to learn more about the job and the people running things. I was respectful in every way and even communicated all this on the phone before I went in. I was upbeat with good energy. Again, I was completely honest about why I was there-as opposed to trying to overtly sell myself or exhibiting insincere excitement about a job/company I knew nothing about.

This approach went over like a fart in church....which is fine. (The result, not the metaphor..though that's one of my favorite images).

These masks we all wear. That "polite laugh" you do when your boss tries to be funny. Our constant need to be validated. So much of work has nothing to do with work. I digress.

Most people interviewing you expect certain things. For openers, they expect your personalized Dog-n-Pony about your exceptionalism. They also want you to exhibit your intense interest in the position from jump street- and how your prowess can be utilized if they were to consider hiring you.

They endlessly mumble words like leverage, deliverable, traction and end of the day. Meaningless business buzzwords.You manage to hold down your lunch until they start talking about thinking out of the box. You're stuck in a real-life, very unfunny Saturday Night Live skit.

All that's been written about how interviews are a two-way street, go ahead and try that approach...but don't do it if you really need THAT job. They'll look at you the way a pigeon looks at The Space Shuttle.

Obviously, this is not every interview situation. not even close. But it's true for way too many.

I understand the hiring company's psychology- they must fill the job but it's a huge part of the turnover problem.







Tuesday, May 17, 2016

An Interesting Conflict

Any time you’re talking to an agency recruiter about either a specific job or what recruiters generically call “opportunities”, just remember who’s buttering their bread.

All recruiters are paid by the company doing the hiring.

So when you’re given some version of “the more you make, the more I make” regarding what your new salary would be if you change jobs, be reminded the recruiter has the hiring manager in their other ear telling them they would want to hire you at the most prudent salary.  

That is the way it works- EVERY TIME. The recruiter gets a percentage of your first years’ salary while the hiring company cuts the check.

You almost certainly already know this- or maybe you don’t. 

Inherently, there is nothing wrong or dishonest about any of this. But it very quickly can become a slippery slope if everyone is not on the up and up.

Ask the recruiter, if they break out that old line about The More You Make to you.., if the hiring company would like to know you’re throwing around such language. Of course they wouldn’t and you deserve a straight answer. It’s true, the recruiter WOULD LOVE for your salary to be elevated…but not as much as getting the deal done AND having a very happy hiring client.

You’re not seeking conflict by asking the question. You just want all the cards face up. It’s important you know how the process works.

Personally, I’ve never once used that phrase with a candidate re: salary expectations, I think it’s just a little misleading. If I’m asked how a client/hiring company feels about what your salary should be, here’s my answer:

“As you likely know, XYZ Company will pay me if I find the person they want to hire. That person may or may not be you. Either way, they’re in business to make a profit- just like your employer. That said, they hope to pay market value.  Part of my job is to come to a number that both parties are agreeable to”.

What exactly Market Value is can be a little fuzzy and hiring companies, to a degree, listen to what agency recruiters say about what the market is yielding on salaries. A competent and principled agency recruiter knows A HELLUVA LOT more about current salaries than, say, Salary.com, GlassDoor etc.


Virtually everything in life and especially business, when put under the microscope, has some form of conflict of interest in play. When any form of need, want or desire is in play, people are hardwired to safeguard their own and their loved ones. Often if not always, if one doesn’t protect their self-interest, things become unraveled. If everyone on the planet lived a purely altruistic life, this would be a non-issue.  Until then, much of life and most of business is a negotiation. Do your homework, gather all the facts and proceed from there.

Tuesday, March 22, 2016

Open Position- POTUS.

Politicians running for national office- takes a special type. "Special" in the sense they have a layer of ooze that covers them to a depth of about about 18 inches. Ted Cruz's face I find exponentially more frightening than a rattle snake on the bedside pillow next to me- and that's before he opens his mouth.

The Trumpster seems like a swell fellow. Wow. The monitoring extraterrestrials from Andromeda are enjoying this particular performance more than Celebrity Apprentice.

"Feel The Bern" Bernie has a great plan that would end in every true innovator and creator this nation and economy has produced finding another country to live in that won't take their earnings and drop the cash from helicopters.

"Going to fight for you!...fight, fight, fight!" "Going to make America great again!,..right after I take care of all of the Special Interests groups that got me elected" shouts Hillary. The election would have been CANCELED and her GIVEN the nomination 2 years ago if not for the fact she has more buried skeletons than Arlington National Cemetery.

I digress.

The default "are you better off than you were 4 years ago"- we don't hear that question in this election because of a lame duck sitting president. It's a good question, though. The better question for people who've been in the workforce for many years is: Are you better off than you were at an earlier stage in your career?

Most people would answer no.

Worth mentioning, many if not most of these same people answering "no" enjoy a standard of living that exceeds virtually everyone, dead or alive, who ever took a breath on this planet.  Some would say they were dealt a GREAT hand. But they have less than they used to...and they are pissed.

They shouldn't have less- most should live more comfortably than they did earlier in their life. Part of this is being a victim of circumstance (automation, globalization etc..). But part is also due to a very human trait- one of the nastiest: insatiable greed. The amended Golden Rule says "One who has the gold makes the rules". I could write a hundred pages on this but it's a lousy use of time. I'm not in favor of Bernie's Helicopter Plan for the economy but he's right that the system is utterly filthy.

There's still time to run , kiddoes!. I don't mean for POTUS, I mean Run for the Hills Have Eyes Part II- a film so frightening that Ted Cruz seems like Barney the Dinosaur in comparison. I'm sorry, I have that backwards.