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’m a big fan of The Simple Dollar. So when Lifehacker announced that Trent had put out a 50 page pdf of Personal Finance recommendations for free I jumped on the opportunity. This aligns with many of the changes I’ve been making at home for the purposes of both environmental and fiscal sustainability.
The document is full of simple, straightforward tasks and advice (some that I’ve done, others that I should). It reads in a way that you could use it as a tick list, and that’s exactly what I’m going to do:
- Twice a week, I’ve set Things to remind me to review one of the tasks on the document
- If I’ve already done it, I tick off the task, pat myself on the back and move on with my day
- If I haven’t done it, I’m going to commit myself to accomplishing the task the same day
I’ve found that these commitment things only work if you actually DO IT. I know, shocking. I’ll let you know how it goes.
The last section of Trent’s book deals with something else near and dear to my heart: pursuing your dreams. For Trent, it’s all about good fiscal discipline giving you the ability to do what you really want to do. His bullets about this are as follows:
- Not about being rich
- All about freedom!
- Follow your passions and dreams
- Do whatever makes you happy
- No regrets or worries
How are your personal finance commitments going? How about those dreams? Are you following them?
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.
I talked with a very smart, very cool guy on a flight recently. One of the reasons he’s very cool is because he works for Apple Care. The other reason he’s very cool is because he doesn’t have a degree in what he’s currently doing, which involves testing and troubleshooting 3rd-party apps on MacOS.
He also spoke quite animatedly and passionately about programming. I asked him what a good language for someone in my line of work might be, and he waxed poetic on Ruby on Rails. I now have a couple pages of notes to help me get started on my programming career.
In the process of giving me advice, Dan (we’ll call him Dan, though I never got his name) filled me in on how computers were a hobby of his in high school and college, and that he learned some HTML and Java while he got his degree in photography. So, to be clear, Dan works at Apple, which is his second tech job after working fir the City of Austin for four years, with no formal degree. He has a few certifications, but no formal degree.
How did Dan land such a sweet gig without the résumé bling to even get him in the door?
A recommendation.
One of his coworkers at the C of A was a former employee at Apple and wanted to go back. They made a deal that whoever got hired first would help the other guy in the door. Two months after his buddy got hired, Dan was working for Apple, too.
What does this mean? Two things:
1. The best hires are referrals
2. Network your ass off
The end.
Soapbox Moment:
It’s a pretty simple equation: respect = collaboration. And without collaboration success is nigh impossible. But with all their talk of respect, compassion, egalitarianism, etc. in the workspace, many companies still struggle to walk the talk. And they fail as a result. Which is hilarious (and ironic, and contradictory–I LOVE $5 words), because a lack of tolerance for failure in the process or, especially, in the person, creates conditions for failure. If we don’t respect failure then we usually don’t respect the one who failed. And then fingers get pointed while nothing changes.
The problem is this: Failure is okay (in fact, it’s absolutely fundamental to suceess), as long as we learn from it, but repeating failures is–as a gritty, old-school talent director told me–the definition of insanity.
The problem is twofold:
1. It indicates a lack of leadership. Respect is fostered by leaders who set the example and who are not afraid to discipline (gasp! not that!) staff who don’t play nicely in the sandbox. Think Zach DeLaRocha and RATM. They worked magic for a while but there was no one to keep Zach’s ego in check. The result? A dead band, a dead solo career, and Chris Cornell nailing the lid shut with his vocal hammer of death.
2. Secondary to and resultant from poor leadership is a wholly inadequate selection process that ends in the choice of the wrong candidate: we’re looking for the Beatles but we end up with the Butthole Surfers. Totally wrong. Disturbingly wrong. Without the right team–one whose members can practice the core value of respect and thus collaborate–consistent, continuous, disheartening failures will be the hallmark of the team.
“And once again I’d like to present the Dysfunction Award to the Butthole Surfers! They managed to accomplish NOTHING last quarter. Which made the rest if us look like geniuses. Give ‘em a hand!”
Haha?
Anyway…
The solution can be driven by process change, by leadership change, or by a simultaneous movement of both, but it must be holistically driven (that is to say actively accepted and developed by employees across the workspace spectrum, from janitor to CEO), it must have simple, achievable, yet agressive goals, it must be well-planned and structured, and, perhaps most importantly, it must respect failure. Without the acceptance of fallibilty in the procees or the person, respect is impossible. And since the whole point of this post is that we need to select for respect and respectfully manage, well, then just stop reading.
