China Syndrome

Some people are just more athletic than you. Some clearly seem to be luckier. Some are better looking, some are more ambitious and some are just smarter. This is a hard to accept concept for many in the developed world but not so in China. The masses not only accept it but are grateful for the benefits the work of the few bring to the many.

China has pulled an astonishing number people out of abject poverty in the last 40 years. For all the legitimate "the ends does NOT justify the means" discussion about their policies, this massive quality of living transformation is undisputed. Many if not most were villagers living in the countryside who migrated to urban areas. Millions were urban multi-generational poor born in the wrong place at the wrong time. 

Transforming the lives of hundreds of millions of people this quickly who previously did not have enough to eat, clean drinking water, stable housing and access to basic medical care is unprecedented in human history.

China's economic achievements are not news to me or anyone who pays attention to such things.

What I recently learned about Chinese societal norms and culture that helped facilitate this is news to me

Like all nations, China has some extraordinarily brilliant minds. They also have significant numbers of highly organized and driven individuals whose work in the public and (semi) private sectors are a major reason why things turned around the way they did. Ordinary Chinese are grateful their fellow super-citizens are where they are and are doing what they are doing. They know the efforts of their elite compatriots is the reason the countries' standard of living has increased exponentially in a very short people of time. If wholesale jealously exists about the elite's lofty status, it's neither written about nor discussed publicly. (though that perceived silence is a different discussion).

In the Western world and, in particular the U.S., things and perceptions are often very different. In our endless "have nots versus the haves" public dialogs and protests, we mostly hear about how corrupt our system is and how the 1%'ers have designed the system to enrich themselves while keeping the others down.

One can't ignore there is enormous advantage to being born into a connected and wealthy family . It's even more true that notable numbers of the offspring of the wealthy will live very comfortably for the remainder of their lives without ever contributing anything of societal value. It's tempting to demonize these "idiot sons and daughters".

What virtually every study of wealth in the U.S. has revealed, however, is considerably more than half of wealthy Americans are self-made. Back to the beginning of this piece-they are more driven than you and are probably more intelligent. But because of them, you have an iPhone. And commercial jets to fly on. And they will operate on your heart if it is not working properly. The list is very, very long.

Our culture usually doesn't bother to dig too deep to where your money came from. If you have it, well, you're just one of those exploiting 1%'ers.

It's not possible to attempt to understand the very complex situation here at hand in a couple hundred words. 

But let's drop the entitlement groupthink and recognize and appreciate the efforts of these gifted producers- their output has benefited more than a billion people such comfort and care that royalty only 2 centuries ago wouldn't recognize.

  

Phoned it in- another perspective.

"Hey boss- not going to be able to come in to work today. It's my back..again"

Saying something like this is more than likely going to get an eye-roll from someone..very possibly the person you just said it to.

Possibly more suspicious to the listening audience is when others hear someone is not coming to work for some purported mental health issue. I'm not talking about the now ubiquitous "mental health day" that seemingly everyone seems to ask for and take from time to time in the 21st century. I'm talking about the type of mental health issue often mapped to very serious outcomes..including the most serious outcome of them all. ("Gosh...just horrible..nobody knew").

Unless an illness can be seen under a microscope or from an MRI, a sizable percentage of people think it is a sham. They think the system is being gamed. And it is true there will always be people who will game the system. But most unable to answer the bell for these reasons are hurting, often badly, and they know you don't believe them.

Chronic back issues and mental health are clearly very different things though both can stop people in their tracks. If you are fortunate enough to struggle with neither, I can understand how the idea of carrying your weight- and some of the weight of others- can be disillusioning. Especially when some are claiming they are not well but, in fact, are almost certainly capable of fulfilling their duties. Just remember, however, the ones who are unjustifiably "phoning it in"- be grateful that you are who you are instead of ruminating how inadequate they are. You'll be an exponentially happier person.

People carrying mental health issues also struggle mightily with the stigma. If you feel the urge to judge them or verbally beat them up- they've already beat you to it. 

Awareness has been elevated in recent years but there will not be any wholesale change any time soon. It's not a shining moment on our collective humanity. The boss or co-worker who exclaims "I'm getting screwed over" when someone misses work or another obligation is really just exhibiting another shade of victimhood- but not the type typically associated with that word. 

Keats, Boxing Gloves and Melvin Udall.

It was the great poet John Keats who spoke: "writing is hard, kinda like trying to remove a splinter from a rabid wolverine while wearing boxing gloves".

John Keats never said that- but writing is definitely hard. For this reason, along with about half a dozen other reasons, is why I haven't written a syllable on this blog all year.

Pretty much everything that is worth a damn is hard. Getting tanked on New Years Eve?-not hard. Writing a goofy blog post on New Years Eve?- a little harder. Writing something thoughtful, intelligent and maybe a little witty?- harder still. Disassembling, piece by piece, your smartphone and intricately attempting to put it back together while liquored up on New Years Eve? Hard, yes, but astonishing stupid a far better descriptor.  (Today is New Years Eve, hence this ridiculous exercise).

Caught most of the now 20 year old film As Good as it Gets on a plane the other day. When I first saw it all those years ago, I thought whoever the writer was who penned that exceptionally poignant line of dialogue did the world a great service. The cantankerous, obsessive-compulsive Jack Nicholson character said to the tough-but-kind Helen Hunt: "You make me want to be a better man". I never forget it and 20 years have passed since I saw the film (and the line) again.

I've gotten real cynical as I've aged though I feel no need to apologize for it. The world is always changing and the current iteration, when it comes to civility, creativity and unforced humility, is not of my liking. The annual ritual of making New Years Resolutions I find trite. But that line from that movie hit me right between the eyes. And, yes, a new year is essentially here.

There are at least half a dozen people in my life who need me to be a better man. 

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.

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?

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.

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.





 

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.

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.

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.

Got the Time?

"90% of success is just showing up" famously quipped Woody Allen. I think there's a ton of truth in that but it didn't help me a lick when I showed up, unprepared, for a Calculus exam in college.

Oh, I "showed up", alright. It was just everything else I had a problem with.

A gazillion smart or clever things have also been written about the importance of impeccable organization,,,and the value of  timing. (or access to "timely" information).

How do you manage "timing" when it comes to hiring? You don't- it manages you. And the problem is staring right back at you in the mirror.

In recent years, corporate Human Resources departments have put tremendous trust in Applicant Tracking Software (ATS). It's not working. LinkedIn has helped company and candidate alike but it doesn't solve the problem of everyone being in synch..."we need you now..does now work for you?"

Many of the better companies do a good job in keeping tabs on the pool of sought-after talent in their industry. But they are still forced to use agencies when they need that certain someone ASAP- and they pay big money for it.

Agencies have no secret sauce. They face the same challenges as the employers. Endlessly contacting their candidates under the guise of "just touching base"- if that's their secret sauce, that's not too tough to replicate for the companies doing the hiring. And most agencies don't do a helluva lot more than that. Ask a top performer in any industry how many of those calls he receives every month.

The problem for both sides is alarming turnover amongst the people whose job it is to stay close to any specialized labor market. When you're constantly flipping segments of your workforce (recruiting), there's simply no real knowledge transfer taking place when they leave. Expensive software is better than the old yellow candidate file folders...but not by much. And the expensive software will always run victim to the Garbage In, Garbage Out reality so widespread to an apathetic workforce that expects to be working somewhere else in a few months.

This is why instead of having the name at their fingertips of that Project Manager who's likely going to be on the market in the early Spring, companies will pay 15, 20, 30K and more to an agency who has that"timely" information.

5 %

If you are time-tested and proven in your line of work- and many influential people are aware of who you are- job security or the ease in which you can change employers almost certainly isn’t a concern.

So we’re talking about, what, 5% of the workforce? You think you’re in that group? You very well might be.  I have a lot of admiration for the people in that lot.

I do, at times, wonder about that 5%. Mostly I wonder why these elite performers work for other people. You 5% ‘ers  are a very special group, the BEST employees.  And my “why” inquiry- at a macro level- would be a study with endless layers that is best left to academics and meaningless to this short blog entry.

But please allow me some room.

The vast majority of business empire builders were never part of this 5%. Some were very good employees, but most were not. They just didn’t believe they should serve anything or anybody but their own ideas and resolute belief in THEMSELVES. And our world certainly benefited from their brilliance. The high profile types in this mix- Richard Branson, Steve Jobs etc..aren’t useful for this example. 

I’m talking about the untold thousands of brilliant people who perform at the highest of levels but never contemplate the idea of building something they can call their own. And gaining the monetary windfall from it.

Most high-performance employees aren’t looking to change the world. They have their own worlds- family, friends, value systems, hobbies. They are more than fine with trading their output for what is hopefully a equitable payment from an employer. And the world ALSO benefits tremendously from their effort and endeavors.

So..

If you’re EXCELLENT at what you do, are you confident and comfortable that you are getting what the market bears for someone like yourself? 

A question, even if in silence, that needs asking.

Screen the screener

The headline read something like: What 10 things candidates do that drives Recruiters crazy. 

For openers, I ignore all articles like this and I suggest you do the same.

Aside this is how Internet marketing people hope to get people to click on Web content of any variety, regardless of subject (EVERYTHING is now a TOP TEN-LIKE HEADLINE positioned somewhere on your screen) pay no attention to articles about what recruiters don't like...or like. And pay no attention to the man behind the curtain because it was a GREAT line from The Wizard of Oz and I felt like including it- so there.

The next time a Recruiter puts you up on the Witness Stand and starts grilling you with questions, tell them you can't do this phone interview unless you know something about them.

If they won't oblige, politely tell them you are about to end the call. 9 times out of 10, this person is not in any position to do anything except pass your resume along to someone only slightly less empowered to assist you.

Ask the recruiter the purpose of this phone interview/screen
Ask the recruiter ALL the steps they must pass to get an interview with someone who understands the type of work you do and has the authority to hire you.
Ask the recruiter if THEY THEMSELVES are employed by this company.
Ask the recruiter their unique qualifications that qualifies THEM to qualify you.

Truth is, doing this won't advance your cause....that's the bad news. Good news is you waste no time being interrogated by someone not qualified to qualify you.  

But taking this approach allows you to learn who you are talking to. By this I mean can they do anything but DISQUALIFY you?

They're are MILLIONS of people in the U.S. employed in the DISQUALIFYING business. They usually have ridiculous titles like "Sr Talent Acquisition Specialist" . Beyond ridiculous.

Their EMPLOYMENT HISTORIES??...don't get me started- but they are there to screen you.

If you have a long track record with notable employers in your industry, this post is not about you, If you are the other 90%, take charge of your career and don't subject yourself to these "screening calls".

Start your own company and you can award yourself any salary you like.

Doesn’t that sound delightful?

“Well, there, fine sir. We are extending you an offer of employment with an annual salary of…oh, just fill in any number!...we think you are the bees knees. And please forgive our use of bees knees- an expression that even your grandparents though was dated..Yeee haaa”

It sounds super-snarky but I do say the line about "starting your own company" a couple of times a year to people looking for a job or to change jobs. I say it because they’ve convinced themselves they should be paid a king’s ransom but they possess zero economic justification.

(they’ve also convinced themselves that I just graduated from the 3^rd grade- and not with high honors)

What people are paid doesn’t come from some arcane formula. Like water, money/salaries will find its own level. Supply and Demand in any labor market is driving this bus. The brain surgeon makes more than the retail clerk. The lawyer who wins cases AND brings in new clients makes more than the lawyer who wins cases. The Project Manager with a long track record on getting projects done on time and at or under budget gets paid more than the Project Manager whose record is less.

I’m not sure it works in a Planned Economy but with free markets, you get paid what the market says your worth. Any monetary value is where buyer and seller agree to meet, no exceptions. If you want to get paid more, the market will let you know if you’ve earned it. Might take a while- often you’ve got to hustle. Sometimes, people will come to you and announce your worth more. Ask them what qualifies them to make this assessment. Do not accept incomplete and vague answers.

My work includes advising people on the market and what people’s compensation looks like. Too many of the people who also do what I do haven’t the vaguest idea on what they are talking about. Again, be careful-even suspicious.

Rand Finale

I normally attempt to amuse myself in these vignettes while simultaneously playing the role of Mr. CrankyPants.

This time I’m playing the role of the blown-dried newscaster tilting his head slightly to the right, that solemn and grave stare , about to do a piece on something important- directly followed by the fluff piece about a house cat that just adores watching Jon Stewart.

Years before people were discussing the nations “richest 1%”,  I commented to a friend that such a tiny fraction of the population controlling so much of the nation’s wealth cannot be a good thing.  Mind you I’ve mostly voted for Republican candidates- except the ones who insinuate that God is on their side.

My friend, far from being wealthy but a lifelong Ayn Rand Objectivist replied:  “you think so?..how come?. ..do you  think it affects you?...you think the uber wealthy affects you..or anybody, for that matter?

The guy FROZE me with that question. I had nothing.

Many years later, I still don’t know.  Let me clarify: I BELIEVE  it doesn’t affect me personally but I can’t say for sure it doesn’t hamstring this or any economic system in which it which it exists.

Like him, it is my belief that Capitalism serves the people far better than any form of Socialism.

History’s experiments in Socialism/Collectivism have ended in unequivocal economic ruin and unspeakable horrors and human tragedy. All of them. Meanwhile, for all of the talk of the unfairness of the U.S. income inequality, tens of millions of immigrants still desperately want to come here WHILE, statistically speaking, nobody ever leaves.

History, however, does not have any precedent to compare the current relationship between Capital and Labor and a disparity in income and wealth only seen before in societies with The Royal Class and peasants. 

For clarification purposes, “Labor” doesn’t just mean the middle class, the working class or the working poor. Labor are ALL people in the workforce whose income comes only from work. A Brain Surgeon who receives virtually all of his income from their work is Labor while the person whose economic output is entirely earning money from their money is “Capital”. Same question or debate has been asked the last two hundred years so we're not talking about anything new here.

However..

Extraordinary advances in productivity- much the result of incredible advances in Information Technology has made any comparisons between the past and present economic eras unusable. It would be tough to argue advances in worker productivity are a MAJOR reason for the deeper shifts in the concentration of wealth. But I still don't know if there is anything inherently good or bad about this.

If I were again asked to answer my friends question, I (again) would be stumped. My job has never been sent overseas but- if it had been- is that necessarily wrong or cold hearted? Anyone with a conscience feels for that person but is there any difference between their situation and that of the laborer flattened by the Industrial Revolution of 130 years ago? Some could intelligently argue it’s the necessary impetus for the lower-skilled worker at acquire the skills the market seeks. But others could argue that insatiable economic growth with no ceiling will always slaughter society’s weakest and most disadvantaged.

I do know with 100% certainty that the entrenched middle class/working class in the U.S.- with virtually no free time due to increased demands from work while raising a family- have a very different life than the middle classes that came before them. They are much worse off.

Now let’s go back to my co-anchor Skyler for that story about an area 2^nd grader who created a Facebook Page for Mark Zuckerberg- only to learn later that Mark Zuckerberg owns 53% of the company, has a net worth north of $30 billion and apparently already has his own page.

If it Doesn't Fit

If a salesperson, recruiter or some other total stranger colds calls you- and they describe what they're representing as any of the following: 1.) A great fit for you 2.) Amazing 3.) Fantastic- I advise you to hang up immediately. They are entirely full of shit and will be working elsewhere shortly.

These are the same people who will be "advising" you on wise career decisions because they are a SR TALENT ACQUISITION SPECIALIST (Translation: they are a new hire at some bogus Staffing company).

A Great Fit for You. Is that so? Tell me more about me...oh, wait. You don't know me, but you already know what constitutes a great fit in my work life?

Wow. Am I here right now?

An awesome opportunity, you say? How does this job inspire awe? Just the thought of the formation of the Solar System...now THAT inspires awe, the birth of a child, even the peaceful death of a 100 year old who serenely takes their last breath.

The product/job you're trying to pitch me might does not inspire awe.

I overheard this somewhat relevant conversation the other day: (With apologies to Dr. Suess). It has to do with the adjective I just used. Worth mentioning that both of these people were AT LEAST 10 years out of college.

Thing One: That is, like, sooooo annoying. I mean, like, what is he thinking?
Thing Two: I don't know. But you're right..the guy is so, like, I don't know!
Thing One: I know, right? Like, it's so awesome that his idea will be ignored.
Thing Two: I know. Tanner is such an awesome manager. He, like, has no time for that.
Thing One: I know. It's so awesome. You free for lunch?
Thing Two: I am!..want to go to that new place, Vapid? I hear it's, like, really awesome.
Thing One: Definitely!
Thing Two: Awesome!

If you're one of my estimated three regular readers, you know I loathe stereotypical salespeople. There are considerably less of them out there but not because of an evolutionary shift in consciousness. Some companies just have smartened up and realized this low intel garbage doesn't work.

But you will still get these emails and phone calls about products, services, jobs etc.

Maybe the nature of your work requires you to pick up that phone. I, personally, have never hung up on someone the way I just described. But I plan on starting because it will be, ya know, like...so awesome.

Please Don't Go..

Ask a recruiter about the repercussions of taking a counter offer and you'll likely be told that an asteroid will hit not only your home but the homes of everyone you love as well.

Fact is you can get an offer from another employer, take the counter offer from your current employer and still emerge from the burning embers that was your abode in one piece. Your job is about as safe as it was before. For most of us, your job is safe UNTIL IT ISN'T.

Your current employer will keep you for as long as they need you. As long as your exit would make life miserable for your current supervisor, they won't look for a reason to fire you.

(Wow...that's the good news)

But here's the bad news. If your current supervisor comes to have even marginal feelings about your value, they'll remember you held them hostage for more money. (and that's how they'll remember it). And if your supervisor goes elsewhere, their boss remembers what went down when you almost left.

Keep in mind, if you're earning a professionals salary and you can't quantify the revenue you bring into the organization, your less expensive replacement is out there. If this sounds like the words of a pessimist, you're shielding yourself from some painful truths.

It's a form of economic Darwinism that has always existed but has grown exponentially. Information technology has finally delivered on the increases in productivity it promised for years. In some cases, people can do your job from a desk overseas. Public companies put shareholder value over everything- including profitability. Private employers have taken note of all of the above and have a number on your back specific to the bottom line. 

A small handful of people are seemingly protected..you probably know a few. They've been at the current job for 10, 15, 20 years. They've either been designated as irreplaceable or they are THE ROCKET SCIENTISTS of playing company politics. They may not like kissing all the right asses at every turn but they like it better than the alternative: finding another job that covers their needs.

For an overwhelming majority of the labor force: you're a free agent. There's some upside to all this. Figure out what's best for you because the entity that is your employer is in a constant state of doing just that. The bright side is if you're good at what you do, you'll earn comparatively more money in this market of bidders for your services than you would have staying at the same job in an earlier generation.

Whining and Dining

I've been far too busy complaining about the weather to do much of anything lately- that includes writing blog posts.

Oh, sure, the New England winter has been affected by the Earth somehow being blown off its axis, pushed 30 million miles further away from The Sun but whining about it does nothing but make you and others more miserable.

I'm pretty sure the world of business keeps chugging along, despite it all.

For my estimated 3 regular readers, I plan on writing much more in 2015. More about business and the business of hiring. I think it likely I'll win the multi-state lottery at some point this year so-fair warning-my posts will then veer solely towards attempting to amuse myself.

Now its time to get back to telling people I barely know that the 7 feet of snow in 4 weeks plus daytime temperatures previously only observed during Mars evenings will surely mean the end of me.

The Tree

Nick Corcodilos advises people and companies on hiring and interviewing. If there’s someone better, I don’t know who it is.

“Let’s talk about the work that you need done”.

Nick advises that all employment interviews should start with this one question and the many things that will follow in asking that one question will be more than enough to determine if the candidate is the right person for the job.

Instead, candidates get asked irrelevant and idiotic questions about what type of tree they would be (if, ya know, they were a tree). There’s dozens more equally inane interview questions and they’re published online, in books, on public restroom walls, etc.

Someone also decided a long time ago that asking candidates “where do you see yourself in 5 years” was brilliant. I think it’s a lazy, default question that reveals nothing about the candidate except if they're prepared to give you a rehearsed answer to that worn-out question.

Why not get right to the point as to why you’re in a room together in the first place? All of the other visceral and intangible stuff will soon present itself, none more important than “Is this a person I can work with?”

There are other reasons why hiring and interviewing can drag out for way longer than necessary but none more than a terrible interview methodology.

So...if you were a dog, what type of cat would you want to be?

Or..

We need someone to profitably grow this organization from $3 million in revenue to 4.5M in the next 18 months. What are your thoughts on how best to do this?

Follow the Duck

Just know who’s cutting the check. Follow the money, as investigators like to say.

Swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck- then it’s probably a…you know how this one ends. Too often, what’s obvious to one person is a mystery to another.

Here we’ll talk about you getting a call from a third-party recruiter. I call them headhunters because that’s what they are- that’s what I am and I have ZERO problem with that word.

A headhunter gets paid- AND ONLY GETS PAID- when a placement occurs. And they get paid by the company doing the hiring. Seems simple enough.

Any reputable headhunter who contacts you is an agent working on the behalf of one or more employers in your industry. Again, seems simple and obvious but it’s neither if you’re new to how this works.

Even the most honest and credible headhunter (oxymoron?) will not tell you this and not because they’re hiding information. This presumption is made for three reasons: 1.) The professional being contacted by the headhunter has almost always changed jobs before and they’ve talked to a recruiter before 2.) The professional being contacted by the recruiter is not being asked to pay for anything 3.) A good headhunter who contacts you knows they only have seconds of your time. Unless you request it, an education on the process will not be part of the dialog.

If a headhunter tells a candidate that they are unequivocally working on the candidates behalf- that's horseshit. Though the recruiter is financially incentivized to get the candidate all that they want in changing jobs, it’s the hiring employer that cuts the check.

What’s the takeaway here? Not entirely sure because of my penchant for drifting off into tangents- but I'll give it a whirl.

Just know that changing jobs will involve- directly or indirectly- the discussion of money. If you’re considering leaving your current job and money has NOTHING to do with it, just know that the subject is going to come up come up anyway.

Similar to water finding its own level, money ALWAYS finds its own level and drives virtually everything in any for-profit enterprise.

Idealism often dislikes that- and that’s fine. But it’s delusional to ignore it.

Just know that business is business and you don’t need to compromise anything- including your ideals. If your ideals come into direct conflict with something that’s driven by money or fiscal policy, you have a tough decision to make. Refuse to talk about it, refuse to reveal anything about your requirements or history- or just acquiesce to the reality of the subject matter.