The goal of HR is to make that mantra a part of every decision-making process and strategic goal. The question should be not only, “Do we have the budget, the capital, the equipment, the space?” But also, “Do we have have the leadership?” In fact, it should be the first question, because success is virtually impossible without it.

Are you ready for the next “War for Talent in Healthcare?”

Frankly, no.

I have little patience for superficial and inane slogans in general, and no patience for this slogan in particular. (An actual headline for a webinar, in case you’re wondering). In the context of healthcare, there is a jarring dissonance between the term “war” (violence, carnage, and death) and the term “healthcare” (care, compassion, and hope). Such thoughtless and lazy use of concepts marks a thoughtless and lazy mind. Unfortunately, I see it all the time. It just ain’t pretty.

Looking beyond healthcare to Talent Acquisition as a whole, I find this term is increasingly anachronistic and reflective of a tired philosophy, one that pits “us” against “them” in a “battle for supremacy”. Yep, it’s easy to use the terms. Yet false and misleading. And potentially destructive. No one benefits for long from a hostile mindset or a continuous escalation of competition.

A different and more progressive philosophy acknowledges competition but doesn’t attempt to destroy its competitor. In healthcare this philosophy allows for collaboration between talent teams within different companies as everyone seeks solutions for the shortages in nursing, rehab, and other critical skill areas. And this philosophy is not new, just overlooked. Maybe if we give it a new, hip name that will help raise its image. Let’s call it “open networking.”

Now that I’ve coined the term, tell me, what does it mean to you?

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

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!

• you made on Word (or even In Design for the fancy people) and had printed at Kinkos?

OR

• you sent to an ad agency for professional-level ad copy?

What I’ve seen and heard from employees is this:

• Don’t waste money trying to impress us with slick campaigns; just show us the money and the respect
• If you DO produce a slick campaign we’re going to wonder a) how much money you spent, and b) why you’re so concerned about APPEARANCE

What it boils down to is authenticity. As long as you produce quality collateral that gets employees’ attention, and as long as you’re representing what employees know to be the TRUTH about the company, you’re golden. In fact, collateral produced in-house will almost always ring truer and generate a better response than flashy ad-copy produced by a mega ad firm—and that LOOKS like all the other collateral produced by a mega ad firm.

Of course, you CAN make a mess of your collateral, but then so can an ad firm. So an even better idea is to have your employees help you create the brand. Then they’re invested in it, you’ve conducted a simultaneous focus group, and you can be pretty sure the finished product will go a long way toward representing you in an authentic and effective way.

This raises another question: do you think your CANDIDATES really notice the difference between a nicely designed position profile that

• you made on Word (or even In Design for the fancy people) and had printed at Kinkos?

OR

• you sent to an ad agency for professional-level ad copy?

But that…is the subject of the next post.

HOWEVER, I think I’m past my limit on social networking. By my best count, I now belong to 22 different sites. It’s a good thing Firefox has a password manager because I have NO IDEA what my login ID is.

And I only really use like two of them regularly. And only one is the slightest bit work related.

So, do you think it’s better to have one or two sites and really focus on building them up to insane proportions? Or do you advocate posting your face all over the digital universe?

Okay, so you’ve long ago asked yourself, What’s with the philosohistory lesson, man? Well, I read Guy Kawasaki’s “10 Best Things About LinkedIn”article today. It was posted on LinkedIn as recommended reading, and since I do EVERYTHING LinkedIn tells me too, I read it. Then I went to his blog and read an even better one, titled “LinkedIn and the Art of Avoiding an Asshole Boss.” In it, Guy suggests using LinkedIn to “check your prospective boss’s references just like she’s checking out yours.” Good advice. And a movement towards an equal relationship, at least at the candidate stage. Karl Marx would have been proud.

Let’s face it, work is a lot like marriage, so equality and respect are muy importante to its continued bliss. After all, your relationship with your boss is a lot like your relationship with your spouse. Hell, if you work in an office, you spend as much time or more with her (I’ll pick Guy’s gender choice for this post) than you do with your “real” spouse. The terms “work wife” and “work husband” really do mean something.

In terms of checking the prospective spouseness of your future boss, I would go a step farther than Guy’s article (as I’m wont to do) and suggest that we aim for a time when you the candidate will be doing “work trials” at jobs you’re considering. Consider it dating.

Progressive companies have to see that the current clumsy and convoluted process does a major disservice to both business and employee. I read a comment recently where the author, a Director of IT, claimed that even though he worked the position of Widget Maker for 15 years and therefore knew exactly what the ideal candidate looked like, when he made a hiring decision he was still right only 50% of the time. Okay, that’s worse than clumsy, that’s crap; it really means that the entire process is effectively useless. Just flip a coin. It’ll save you days of preparation, agonizing, and paperwork and the results are effectively the same. Time for a logical syllogism kids:

• The only way to know someone’s a fit as an employee is to actually work with her
• The current clumsy and convoluted process does not include a work trial
• Therefore, the current clumsy and convoluted process should be blown up, preferably on that show, Smash Lab; maybe then some good would come of it.

The idea of a work trial would fit perfectly with the New Recruitment mindset that values building and maintaining pipelines, active networks, and passive sourcing. If such conditions were present in a company, the manager and the candidate could meet and chat on an informal basis, develop a relationship, and then see where things go from there. What better way for both manager and managee to know if they’re going to become long-term Work Spouses or if a divorce is just around the corner?

Oh, and this does NOT mean I have a thing for Karl Marx. He’s cute, but he’s no Work Husband. I’m more of a Nietzsche type.