I attended the 1st annual UW Nursing Student Career Fair on Saturday. And got buried. Nearly a hundred eager and excited nurses, many ready to graduate, and many with their BSN.
Eager, excited, and…nervous. Even desperate. The recession has impacted every industry, including healthcare—despite the popular refrain on the 24/7 news networks that healthcare is a “bright spot” in the dismal job scene.
But the problem of too many new grad RNs is more complex than just a recession (isn’t it always?) The overarching issue is really one of capacity. Specifically, the capacity of…
- …hospitals to devote significant time and resources to developing efficient and effective training programs
- …hospitals to provide enough experienced RNs to train new grads
- …experienced RNs to be effective trainers
- …experienced RNs to accept and embrace new grads despite significant generational differences
- …new grads to adjust to the taxing routine of full-time nursing
- …new grads to effectively assimilate to the hierarchical structure of a hospital after years of collaboration and equality
There are other problems I could bullet out (and I’m sure you could, too), but those are the big ones as I see them. The future of nursing is graduating at unprecedented rates…and being turned away by hospitals incapable of creating the capacity to accept and train them. Meanwhile, those same hospitals have open positions that require “experienced” nurses. Can you say, “catch-22,” kids?
It’s not like we’re creating too many nurses, either. This is not a question of saturating the market. The demand is still critical, and the projections still say shortage for the foreseeable future. And the future is looking elsewhere for work. Those new grads won’t (and simply can’t) wait. Hence the desperation I saw at the nursing event. They will take jobs outside of nursing to make ends meet. They will begin to forget their training. Their licenses will lapse. And very soon we’ll be back in the position of having no nurses at all, new or otherwise, to fill critical needs. Think I’m being alarmist? I hope I am.
So, how do we fix it? The solution is simple: increase capacity. The application of the solution is, of course, incredibly complex. But the alternative is not at all attractive. Kind of like asking for a latte at Starbucks and getting a cup of Folgers.
I’ve just picked up a book from the library entitled Authenticity: What Consumers Really Want, which also happens to be the thesis. From the inside jacket I gather that the authors are trying to demonstrate how businesses can appear more authentic to a consumer who is increasingly desensitized by and cynical of attempts to induce him to buy a product or service. Authenticity, it seems, is the new black.
However, the very title of the book presents a paradox: you cannot consume authenticity. If authenticity is defined as that which is fundamentally real and without pretense, then manufacturing the pretense of authenticity destroys the meaning. Pretending to be authentic is a nonsensical idea, and attempting to sell authenticity is itself an inauthentic action.
Here’s a real-world example: the corporate mission and values statement. They’re flashy; they’re ubiquitous; they’re often effectively meaningless. I’ve worked for a company that used the statement as a cover for poor business practices, and I’m currently working for a company that seeks to embody it’s statement as fully as possible. The difference is striking: one company advertises authenticity, the other lives it.
Wow, that’s a big response for a book I haven’t read yet. Now to see whether I’ll have to eat this post. (I like my blogs with a bit of pepper and a handful of salt).
I’m back. With a new job and a fresh commitment to explore the relevant and important happenings in recruiting (aka “Talent Acquisition) as it relates to the real world and the pursuit of happiness (or satisfaction or fulfillment, which are perhaps better words for what we seek, but I digress). I will be writing and posting here every other Wednesday and hopefully contributing to the conversation around recruitment, business, and the philosophy that undergirds both. Because at heart I’m a philosopher: I want to know how things work, why they work and why we think that work is good or bad.
I hope you’ll join me and contribute as I return to this investigative journey. And I hope you’ll contribute your astute observations and ideas when you feel compelled to do so. Onward, brave souls!
Amanda Picton doesn’t like disillusioning nursing students about their first job out of school, “but I want to be honest with them.”
So when she tells the students who call her for career advice to look in Texas and expect $50,000 a year, rather than in Missouri for $100,000, she’s not surprised that some of them tell her she’s wrong. “In nursing school they are misled to believe they are going to be making $50 an hour and are in demand everywhere,” says Picton. “We do this (recruit and place nurses) everyday. We know what the market is like.”
Amanda knows it’s tough to be authentic. For her and other recruiters, being authentic doesn’t always get the quick win; in fact, it can result in a highly-qualified candidate deciding not to apply. For those who have a myopic view of success, losing a single candidate is tantamount to failure.
Only it’s not.
Recruiting is not about sales. Many recruiters and experts will disagree with me on this, but the fundamental nature of human interaction in recruiting precludes the use of a sales methodology. To put it bluntly, candidates place their livelihoods on the line with a recruiter. They’re not buying a computer or a car—objects with no intrinsic value—they’re determining their financial emotional, and mental fate. And in order to do that, they need to trust that the recruiter who is presenting the opportunity to them is doing so with honesty; they need to know that the recruiter is authentically concerned for their well-being.
With this expanded view of recruiting we define success not simply as positions filled, but as positions filled with the right person.
With this in mind, here’s my simple prescription to recruiters for building credibility through authenticity:
- Always follow the Golden Rule
One of these things is not like the others. Hint, hint, take a look at the comments.
I’m amazed at how finely tuned people’s BS meters are. I’m also amazed at how much BS is out there.
I have thought about posting here for months, but I was finally motivated to do it by this post from Chris McCann. A few weeks back we had coffee and a lively conversation about the subject of sustainability. The conversation brought up some nagging issues I’ve been trying to work through recently. Namely, how do I square my talent management consulting with my passion for building a sustainable world?
Over the past year I’ve become deeply involved in the sustainability movement, a return to my roots, really. And with each passing day the gap between my “work” and my passion has grown wider.
This is one of the major reasons I’ve been finding it so difficult to write here. Every time I started a post about traditional recruiting/talent management dilemmas I ended up trying to respond from a traditional corporate capitalist perspective, and every time the content rang false. A traditional corporate capitalist I am not. But I have been acting like one for a number of reasons, bifurcating my professional and personal identities to avoid the inescapable clash of cultures and philosophies. In retrospect none of those reasons seem compelling, but they may have been necessary for me to get here.
And here is where I stand now, firmly embracing my personal convictions as they relate to business in general and “talent management” in particular. The time for a new approach is come. Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go water my garden.
I’m working on putting together a training guide for a client. This is what I just wrote in my infinite genius. I purposefully didn’t add “Plan” because we’ve already done that part, but is there anything else you think I’m missing? Or does the list below about cover it?
1. Communication
• The most important criterion for a successful project is communicating effectively at every stage
• Effective communication is not just timely communication, you also need to consider
o Audience—who are you communicating with?
o Urgency—how important is this communication?
o Relevancy—who should know about it?
o Frequency—how often should they know?
2. Organization
• To ensure that you are communicating in a timely and effective manner you must be well-organized
• Task management is critical
o Maintain a task list and manage it daily
o Magage tasks against milestones and data
o Set priorities and reassess them frequently
• Create agendas for every meeting/training
o Assign action items with due dates to relevant participants
• Appraise time commitments as accurately as possible, and avoid overcomitting
o Don’t be afraid to delegate
3. Proactive Problem Resolution
• No project is perfect out of the box, so watch for problems to arise
• If you aware of the possibility of problems, you can often catch them before they become major issues
• The problems can be process or people driven, or both
• Seek consensus whenever possible, but don’t let the project suffer because of disruptive elements
4. Engagement
• Commit to the project both publicly and privately
• Be honest and open
• Admit mistakes and be forgiving of others’
• Stay positive!
This is addressed to my work wife, who needs to learn how to work less than three jobs at a time.
Although I have to admit that I’ve been ignoring my own advice recently—much to my own detriment (tired eyes, grumpy demeanor, depressed immune system), but I did it to myself and I did it because I thought I was capable of doing it. And I suppose I am…if I’m willing to sacrifice my ability to be efficient, effective, and fully-rested. Because after about the 5th hour of staring at the LCD screen I begin to enter a state of reduced cognitive function—i.e. I start to drool. Try as I might (and concentrate as I may), I simply cannot focus on an activity for more than a few seconds. And forget any kind of creative thinking: that ability is lost after about two hours.
I’ve come to realize two things (never mind that countless studies have already proved these things; apparently I have to experience my own stupidity firsthand to come to any conclusions):
- I can’t really be effective for more than about 5 hours a day
- I start to lose focus (and consciousness) after about 30 minutes of concerted concentrating
Recently I’ve been working about 12 hours a day. Call me insane. I completely agree with you. And for all that time spent carpal tunneling I’ve probably only added about two hours of actual productive time to my day.
Two hours.
In other words, it’s a bloody waste of time.
So why does corporate America still cling to the idea that the more hours we work the more productive we are? Why do they accept with open arms the evidence that a brighter workspace boosts productivity but reject, prima facie, the evidence that a 5-hour workday makes the most business sense? Are they really as dumb as I am?
Yep.
Maybe it’s not just the corporate types. Maybe it’s the employees on the ground who fear all the ramifications of a 5-hour workday: less pay, fewer benefits, the possibility of having to pick up a THIRD job. Hell, some of them would do it just because they like to work. Of course, they’re insane.
The first company to adopt a 5-hour workday as their 1.0 FTE will revolutionize the economy. They will probably also go out of business. But the seed will be sown. And a whole host of ancillary benefits will ensue, not the least of which will be a social awakening. Studies (yes, more studies) have shown that people who work fewer hours, or who work jobs with flexible hours, are more involved in their communities, giving a whole lot more of themselves than the full-timers. In this case our country is analogous to our home: if we weren’t so wiped out when we got home we’d clean the place up a little more. At least fold the pile of clothes on the couch. Yes, work wife, I’m looking at YOU.
After months of exploring various permutations and combinations of multiple applications, I have hit upon a group of apps that I believe actually does boost my productivity…for the most part. Here’s a list of the winners I have set to start at Login on my Macbook (both those that help and those that are supposed to help but actually steal my productivity):
- Firefox 3 (helper)
- I love Firefox for its ease of use and customizability
- Two great add-ons are Ad Block Plus and Tab Mix Plus (you’ll have to use the dev-build on FF3, but I’ve had no issues at all)
- Apple Mail (helper/stealer)
- If I didn’t have MailTags this app wouldn’t be nearly so helpful, but with this add on installed, I can use Mail to manage projects very nicely
- I’ve subscribed to too many digests right now and they’re overflowing my inboxes
- iCal (helper/stealer)
- I interface with Google Calendar using Spanning Sync, which is bulletproof, so I have access to my calendar no matter where I am
- I love the ability to create multiple, contextual calendars and subscribe to my Project Management webcals
- I’m bummed that it struggles with invitations; having to retype them through the Mail Tags function wastes time
- NetNewsWire (STEALER)
- I downloaded this to be a helper, then subscribed to a bazillion news feeds and personal blogs; now I just READ ALL DAY
- If I could manage to manage my curiosity, this app would be great, since I get RSS updates from my Project Management site
- On The Job (helper, could be improved, but that is apparently on the way!)
- The current version is a nice little time tracker, but it does have it’s shortcomings so I’m excited to see the improvements
- Things (HELPER)
- The BEST task manager I’ve used, bar none
- The wireless sync between the iPhone app and the desktop app is MAGIC
- Quicksilver (HELPER)
- I am one with my movements and therefore unconscious of them
- I use this helper for about 50% of my desktop movements
These apps make my laptop infinitely more usable, which makes me moderately more productive. I think I might have to ditch NNW, though, if I ever want to get any real work done…
What combination of apps helps you be your most productive? Which one(s) suck the day away?
A little backstory: I’m off on another recruitment implementation project. Basically, I’m helping a long term care/hospice facility build a best practice recruiting process. Part of this implementation involves restructuring (or, in this case, resuscitating, ’cause it’s dead) existing programs. I suggested we start with the Employee Referral Program, because thriving business get at least 40% of their best employees through referrals.
In laying the groundwork for the new Employee Referral Program, I mentioned the reward structure, which we had used at another facility in the same company and which works thus:
- 5% x FTE of the position’s annual base salary is paid to the employee
For instance, if I refer a full-time RN and the base salary for that position is $65k, then I make $3,250. If I refer a full-time CNA and the base is $26k, I make $1,300.
I got immediate pushback on two fronts:
- “We need CNAs more than RNs right now”
- “I think this goes against our core value of equity—we are all equally important”
The first objection is reasonable and solvable: let’s create a promotional period where we double the CNA referral reward.
The second argument I call bullshit on. When it comes to compensation, we are not all equal, and for very good reasons. Think about it, if we were then the logical inference we can make is that we should all be paid equally, that a housekeeper should make the same as a unit manager. Right?
Of course not, because the jobs simply aren’t the same. One is far more important to the success of the business than the other. The unit manager who was making the argument said, “We all know how difficult it can be with a housekeeper missing.” Difficult, yes, but the unit stays open when the housekeeper is missing; everyone else still works; the residents can remain. Without an RN, however, the unit closes. No other employees work and no residents get care. And the facility loses buckets of money. This is why RN staffing agencies exist in such numbers; it costs far less to staff a unit with an agency RN than to shut it down altogether. Housekeeping not so much.
Further, this kind of equivocating devalues higher-level staff, who had to actively pursue higher education to attain their current competencies, and on who the facility places a much greater weight of responsibility.
I’m not arguing that support positions are not important, because they are, or that we don’t underpay support staff, because we do. Issues surrounding fair compensation need to be addressed. But it’s a red herring to argue that a program which offers differing rewards based on the level of the position creates inequality. Inequality does not follow from differences in compensation for different levels of skill, competence, and responsibility.
Bottom line: we have to provide incentives that are comensurate with the level of the position. Some positions, and the people who staff them, are simply more important.
