Some say that ethics is overrated

Posted by Steve on September 20, 2005
Posted in: Uncategorized. Leave a comment

From my Dennis Smith, the talent acquisition brain behind the company whose cell phone powers my business, comes the following:

 

13%

 

?the percentage of big-company top executives who think “having strong ethical values” is the most important leadership trait” needed by CEO’s.

 

That’s down from 20% in 2003.

 

Meanwhile, 37% cited the ability to inspire others, up from 22%.

 

Reminds me of the line in one of favorite b-books of all time, Jack Stack?s The Great Game of Business, in which he describes one of his Higher Laws of Business? ?As they say in Missouri: Sh*t rolls downhill.?

 

Data: Christian & Timbers survey of 180 executives on July 11-18, 2005 (BusinessWeek, 9/12/05,  p. 16).

 

Want more good stuff? Read his blog.

Gruntled Employees

Posted by Steve on September 15, 2005
Posted in: Candidate Experience, Ethics, Recruiting. Leave a comment

This could be one of my favorite ERE blog posts (9.15.2005); notice how “candidate experience” isn’t anything new?

“Is a gruntled employee one who is not disgruntled?” -something Heather Hamilton may be thinking

Dear Heather-

Your ERE article was a home run [note from Steve – link no longer live] – not because others may use it to bolster their position on “ethical recruiting” but because it supports who you are – “The honesty part is compulsive, the responsiveness I have to work harder at.” After all, when you close your eyes at night, you have only yourself to answer to – ah, integrity (it’s what you do when no one is looking). Perhaps ethics guides outward behavior and integrity inward behavior. Ah, Philosophy 101…

Remember Nigel Tufnel’s line, “You can’t really dust for vomit” from This Is Spinal Tap? Ethics is as messy a subject as political party affiliation or in-house recruiter versus TPR. Ethics is also one of those amorphous concepts that for most only becomes concrete when a person comes face-to-face with a situation that directly impacts them. Most other times, ethics is like a new word you come across when reading a book – some will take out a dictionary and look it up but most will mumble it and perhaps figure out the meaning in the context of the story. There’s quite a bit of out-of-sight, out-of-mind when it comes to ethics.

Then there are the value statements: Who writes these for companies? I know many are written by PR/Communication staff as a means to soften the outward appearance of a company. The value statement is often like the organizational brand that is supposed to complement the product/service brand. Most of the turnarounds I’ve done had such statements; most were internally laughable because the rubber just did not meet the road. Yes, somewhere along the development process they were what the company stood for but consistent late performance reviews, mass layoffs, bloated compensation packages, SEC scandals, etc. have turned many value statement pages into rusting hulks – reminders of more “ethical” times in a company’s history.

Yet, if these values are so important, why is it that most companies don’t screen for them during interviews? There are many highly valid and reliable assessment instruments that are better than BEI – but these cost money and may deep six a favorite candidate of your hiring manager (note to Dave Arnold of Wonderlic/Association of Test Publishers – See? I believe in using these tests. Surprised?). I suppose recruiters weren’t getting too far with “Tell me about a time when you were honest and exhibited personal integrity in a business situation?” so they just dropped it altogether. And what happened next? Lay, Skilling, Rigas, Winnick, Kozlowski, Ebbers?

[Personal value statements are another matter and anyone who doesn’t have them needs to introspect until they do find them]

I wholeheartedly concur with you’re belief that “corporations were created to further the interest of shareholders, that is, to generate value.” But let’s be truthful about hiring managers neglecting “a culture of integrity”, encouraging deceptive recruiting, “and not performing their roles as stewards of shareholder value.” While most companies may have integrity and ethics as part of their performance management system, how many really hold feet to the fire – gosh, and are these reviews always conducted on time? I’m wondering out loud now: How many Wall Street analysts have employees and candidates in mind when they talk about CEOs maximizing shareholder value? We joke about Enron now – not in human terms but perhaps as a business case – but Wall Street sure did like how the Enron brain trust generated shareholder value. Heck, Enron once traded 70 times earnings! The adjusted share price climbed from $19 in early 1997 to $82 at year end 2000. Enron is not an outlier when it comes to investing and shareholder value. Yes, it is sad. I don’t mean to sound boorish but this is how business is played.

Then there’s goodwill – ah, what a wonderful intangible. Reputation, community stewardship, brand name, trademarks; goodwill is the difference between the market value of a company’s assets and the higher amount paid at the time the company is purchased or merged into another organization. M&A activity always includes a substantial HR component that may assess the impact of recruiting processes on goodwill. But this rarely – deceptive recruiting or not and I may even be understating here – results in a lower goodwill value. Ultimately, there’s an abyss of a difference between what CEOs and Wall Street accept (or even know about) and what candidates find objectionable – or even unethical.

But what if we look at the bigger picture? What does looking outside-the-box, as John has consistently done during his consulting career, offer the candidate? This argument has become an internal battle between two sides that has the potential to incinerate the entire profession. It seems that that while many believe that some (or all) of John’s ideas come across as dark and unethical – but if people like John didn’t think like this who would ultimately feel the pain?

Yes, the candidate.

Ideas for sourcing people generate more ideas and even if these ideas are dubious, many are embraced by recruiters enabling them to find the “best” person for the job. I remember how many recruiters cursed the early Internet because it enabled the savvy ones to generate names that would take a “smiler and dialer” days or weeks to uncover. Personally, I always enjoyed printing coffee sleeves with company slogans and “Work for Us” type sayings and distributing them to coffee shops near competitors. Some folks thought this was unethical; my bosses thought it was clever. Business card bowls at restaurants? Most managers give them away at the end of the week. Conferences? During set up, I walk around and hand out coffee and donuts to those setting up company booths.

What these all have in common is that they resulted in people being hired, people who have succeeded beyond their expectations. There will always be bottom dwellers in any profession but for some to assert that the entire profession is morally corrupt because some believe that Michael Homula’s recruiting organization has irrevocably aggrieved job candidates is to go back to the late 1800’s and side with horse owners because someone has managed to link the internal combustion engine to four wheels and a steering mechanism. It would be great if no candidate was ever left behind but not everyone gets to work for their dream company.

I believe that John is all about innovation and NOT empowering recruiting organizations to become unethical implementers. This should be part of our message as a profession:

  • Our message really should be about showing candidates how we are innovating to help us find them easier and find the best person for the job.
  • Our message should be about showing candidates how we recruit, how our workload sometimes impacts responsiveness, how our use of technology will help us become better customer services providers.
  • Our message should be about showing candidates how our personal value statements push us to find the best fit for a job rather than going with the squeakiest wheel.

We are a profession that constantly runs headlong into a brick wall comprised of human beings who are in need. Many of these people expect us to forego our responsibility to our immediate stakeholders. Most times, it is heartbreaking. We’ve all had to let candidates know they aren’t right for the job and experience the resultant questioning. And some still think the entire profession is heartless? Please.

By the way, did you read Tom Burt’s (Microsoft’s Deputy General Counsel) comment about the court’s ruling in the Google v. Microsoft case that Kai-Fu Lee was in effect converted from a technical leader to a “highly overcompensated head of human resources”? Thanks Tom – that make us who are in HR and staffing roles feel good about ourselves in terms of our impact on corporate culture.

Heather, there will be more gruntled employees out there when our profession communicates how and why it acquires talent. As long as we fight over techniques and value systems we will debase all our great accomplishments.

In the end, we really should keep in mind the words of David St. Hubbins (This is Spinal Tap again)?

It’s such a fine line between stupid and clever

Cheers (honestly),

Steve

Emancipation Candidatization (yes, I made up this word)

Posted by Steve on September 7, 2005
Posted in: Uncategorized. Leave a comment
Last I checked, the Constitution still outlaws slavery (that would be the 13th Amendment if you’re keeping score). That is why the Google v. Microsoft battle is so darn interesting.
 
An article (free sign-up if needed) in today’s New York Times – the favorite print rag of bossy, self-serving, left wing liberals like me – highlights some of the reasons why…
 
Google Official Says Frustration Drove Him From Microsoft
 
Damn the NCA, Bill cursed at me, pissed me off, a competitor came calling, and I moved on. Among other things said at the trial was Microsoft’s attorney claiming that Kai-Fu Lee “…in approaching Google about a job, [he] sent an e-mail message stating, ‘I am currently the corporate vice president at Microsoft working on areas very related to Google.’ “
 
Unheard of a candidate saying such things; have you ever read a cover letter/email where a candidate made such a squirrilous comment? Newsflash – it’s what all career counselors teach.
 
One of Google’s attorney argued that recruiting was not a violation of the NCA (looks as if one a Google recruiter had the company counsel look at the NCA before moving forward – someone IS listening and learning at Google).
 
In the end, I’m fairly certain that the scandalous recruiting tactics used by Google – recruiting away talent from a competitor – will be upheld by the courts. Perhaps the courts should first take a look at the 13th Amendment; indentured servitude – whether bound by a ball and chain on a plantation or a non-compete agreement at a large company – is counter to what everyone thinks about freedom of choice.
 
Oh, when all else fails, remember that if someone is really vital to your organization, try not to anger them – browbeating, budget bashing, etc. – to the point of acccepting recruiter calls.

Support for Sullivan and Homula (words of advice for all others)

Posted by Steve on August 30, 2005
Posted in: Uncategorized. Leave a comment
On the one hand, I wish John Sullivan hadn’t added fuel to the creative recruiting fire because I was hoping – perhaps in a Pollyannaish sort of way – that some of the people with the loudest ?nay? voices might just go away (curiously enough these are also the ones who appear to be depauperate in either the law or how the corporate side recruits). On the other hand, it is because some of these folks have elected themselves to the lofty status of “Amateur Attorney, Esq. and ?Recruiting Ethicist, Ph.D.” that I am compelled to side with the airing of the article (truth be told, I did call David Manaster and ask him if this thread is going to be another “Me Too, Shally!” thread).
 
John, you push the envelope. It’s that simple. After that, it’s about personal and professional choice. There were many who once believed that cars, planes, cell phones and the teaching of evolution were the Devil’s work (aside from SUVs this is obviously untrue). Same goes for recruiting. Remember “Inherit The Wind”, the depiction of the case involving the teaching of evil-u-tion? Towards the end, Bertram Cate’s fianc�e utters the following:

 

“You see, I haven’t really thought very much. I was always afraid of what I might think – so it seemed safer not to think at all. But now I know. A thought is like a child inside our body. It has to be born? Bad or good, it doesn’t make any difference. The ideas have to come out – like children.”

 
John’s thoughts about recruiting are just pieces of clay; how we mold them using the ideas in our own heads is what makes for progress. But all associated shooting-the-messenger or attacking a successful recruiting program does is debase the purpose of business recruiting: To find the best talent for the organization. As uncomfortable as it is for some to admit this, recruiting is a commodity-based process. Time and cost parameters are important.
 
When did business in the eyes of some recruiters move from a competition for sales and customers to the same pitiful space as, for example, holistic education where its more important for the student to feel good about themselves than it is to learn multiplication tables or proper grammar? Is it any wonder that most recruiting organizations need a major Fab Five makeover? If your recruiting leader isn?t a valued charge of the CEO, something is very wrong.  So the TPRs out there don?t choke on their smugness, realize that many of you are no better a business person or more immune from stupidity and the law than some in-house recruiters (read the case law and weep at the details).
 
So…don?t like being told you’re not special? Suck it up or find something else to do.
 
But if you want to stay in the profession, lay off the personal attacks; those who proffer them come across as ignorant about recruiting and the very people whom they feel they intuitively know. When someone elects to flame and make personal attacks on Michael Homula ? because he has been successful on both sides and has been designated by John Sullivan as being a progressive recruiting leader ? nothing is accomplished. In fact, attackers succeed in nothing more than coming across as pithy, close-minded, and judgmental.
 
It?s no different than quoting summary judgment of a legal case about recruiting without reading the details of the case then generalizing to the entire profession. Or passing judgment on a progressive corporate recruiting organization, its leader, recruiters and anyone else ever associated with them without ever having built or lead one… after spending the bulk of one?s career selling computers. Just pitiful.
 
Get on with it – and remember, many still believe the Internet is the Devil’s work.
 
Want to talk? Call me on my Samsung P777 at 203-216-6226.

Old Recruiting Joke: The Devil Made Her Do It

Posted by Steve on August 24, 2005
Posted in: Devil, Recruiting, Recruiting Inferno, Uncategorized. Leave a comment

I believe this old ERE blog post (8.24.2005) was where the inspiration for Recruiting Inferno came from. Some old recruiting jokes never die – and are closer to reality than we’d like to believe…

 

Since some have asked…

One day while walking down the street a highly successful executive woman was tragically hit by a bus and she died. Her soul arrived up in heaven where she was met at the Pearly Gates by St. Peter himself.

Welcome to Heaven, said St. Peter. Before you get settled in though, it seems we have a problem. You see, strangely enough, we’ve never once had an executive make it this far and we’re not really sure what to do with you.

No problem, just let me in, said the woman.

Well, I’d like to, but I have higher orders. What we’re going to do is let you have a day in Hell and a day in Heaven and then you can choose whichever one you want to spend an eternity in.

Actually, I think I’ve made up my mind…I prefer to stay in Heaven, said the woman. Sorry, we have rules…

And with that St. Peter put the executive in an elevator and it went down-down-down to Hell. The doors opened and she found herself stepping out onto the putting green of a beautiful golf course.

In the distance was a country club and standing in front of her were all her friends – fellow executives that she had worked with and they were all dressed in evening gowns and cheering for her.

They ran up and kissed her on both cheeks and they talked about old times. They played an excellent round of golf and at night went to the country club where she enjoyed an excellent steak and lobster dinner. She met the Devil who was actually a really nice guy (and kinda cute) and she had a great time telling jokes and dancing. She was having such a good time that before she knew it, it was time to leave. Everybody shook her hand and waved good-bye as she got on the elevator.

The elevator went up-up-up and opened back up at the Pearly Gates and found St. Peter waiting for her. Now it’s time to spend a day in heaven, he said.

So she spent the next 24 hours lounging around on clouds and playing the harp and singing. She had a great time and before she knew it her 24 hours were up and St. Peter came and got her. So, you’ve spent a day in hell and you’ve spent a day in heaven. Now you must choose your eternity, he said.

The woman paused for a second and then replied, Well, I never thought I’d say this, I mean, Heaven has been really great and all, but I think I had a better time in Hell. So St. Peter escorted her to the elevator and again she went down-down-down back to Hell.

When the doors of the elevator opened she found herself standing in a desolate wasteland covered in garbage and filth. She saw her friends were dressed in rags and were picking up the garbage and putting it in sacks. The Devil came up to her and put his arm around her.

I don’t understand, stammered the woman, yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and a country club and we ate lobster and we danced and had a great time. Now all there is a wasteland of garbage and all my friends look miserable.

The Devil looked at her and smiled.

Yesterday we were recruiting you; today you’re staff.

Truth in Recruiting?

Posted by Steve on August 23, 2005
Posted in: Uncategorized. Leave a comment

In yesterday’s New York Times, columnist Bob Herbert writes a compelling thought piece that takes the United States military recruiting policies and practices to task by asking “Should people who are being recruited into the armed forces be told the truth about the risks they are likely to face if they agree to sign up and put on a uniform?”

 

Although I believe that Herbert’s words can be juxtaposed onto any recruiting scenario – military, executive, high-volume, etc. – as a “professional” recruiter (meaning, yes, there are many amateurs out there) and as someone who supports the allied troops (notice that I did not say the President), Mr. Herbert proffers some strong words in defense of his premise one that sadly can be extended to the professional side of recruiting.

 

To his point, the glorification of life in the armed forces during the recruiting process is quite different than life on the battlefield; we’ve all heard the joke of the Devil and the deceased Executive ending with ?Well, before we were recruiting you; now you?re staff.? (if you haven?t, email me and I?ll post it as a new thread). Imagine the response rate if bloody pictures of battle were part of armed forces ad campaigns?

 

Along with $30,000 for college – upon an honorable discharge after your six year tour is over – we?ll it may not really be over then because we reserve the right to auto-enlist you for as many two year tours as we see fit – you?ll also receive a coupon for a free prosthetic limb (or two) of your choice! And if you?re really unfortunate, there?s a flag-draped casket with your name on it.

 

Then again, when we look for hard-to-find candidates with specific skill sets, we don?t exactly tell them that their boss is a raging psychopath with a turnover rate of 137% or that the company is under SEC investigation. Oh, did I also bother to mention that we relocated this candidate from Oshkosh, WI to New York City upon which they sold all their worldly possessions to afford a 500 SF studio?

 

Fact is all recruiters stretch the truth of the assignment to some extent. We all perfume-the-pig at some point during the process. Herbert believes that ?potential recruits should be told the truth about what is expected of them, and what the risks are. And they should be told why it’s a good idea for them to take those risks.? Unless you?ve been living on the most remote island in the Pacific, you know that if you join the military during war time there?s a good chance you?ll end up on the battlefield. If you end up on the battlefield in Iraq or Afghanistan, there?s a lesser albeit real chance you?ll be wounded or killed. There?s no escaping the fact here in the States that over 2,000 soldiers have been killed; every morning I awake hoping that today?s a day when the number doesn?t rise. But no one joins up without knowing that a battlefield assignment might end in death.

 

What about our side? Some of us try to do this and lay out the benefits and risks of taking a new job – sometimes more effectively than others. Yet there are countless unknowns built into the process that recruiters are not privy to. Recruiters are often too low on the corporate totem pole to be aware of short and long term business decisions that affect employees (perhaps you?ve heard of the phrase ?mass layoff??). Yet we break out the perfume bottle and go to work. Moreover, candidates “know” that business decisions can result in job changes yet they too elect to move to a new city for a new job, new place, new risks.

 

In the end, whether right or wrong, all recruiters – professional and military – tell candidates what they want to hear unless the candidates demand more information. Herbert suggests that ?the military and its harried recruiters are preying more and more on youngsters who are especially vulnerable and impressionable, and they’re doing it by creating a patently false impression of what life in the wartime military is like.? Are we as non-military recruiters really any different?

 

Some people just take more risks than others. I?m one of those people. I prefer start-ups and turnarounds to more mature organizations with established employment brands, impeccable goodwill, and large recruiting budgets. These are my professional endorphins. As far as military service, I?d sign up for the Navy?s SEAL program in a heartbeat yet I?m told that at 46, I?m too old. About all I can do unless someone finds a way around the stupid age limit is to help train local SEALs and work with military recruiters to develop new ways of recruiting.

 

In the end, war is a short and ugly word and there’s no way to make it pretty; there’s no way to perfume-the-pig; and no Leo Burnett led ad campaign is going to reattach blown off limbs, fill a family void, or truly convince parents that their child will be better off in uniform. For some, change is always about risks and for most a simple chance is often the only thing to count on.

 

That is, unless someone is willing to be completely honest from the get-go…

Thanks

Posted by Steve on June 16, 2005
Posted in: Uncategorized. 1 Comment

Don?t worry ? I?ll be back?

 

Steven ? Re:money, can I have some? Perhaps when the technical issues are resolved (DB, did I ever tell you how much I enjoyed sending you code?) I?m sure I?ll be back. BTW, I love your blog. Folks, read it here.

 

Sherry ? There?s no sighing in recruiting.

 

Meg ? I?m not leaving ERE ? especially if I know there are people like you out there. Thank you!

 

Homula ? Number one, the only difference between us is that I can rhyme just a bit better than you (we won?t even talk about singing?). Two, you?re right about reaching people ? as I learned in grad school when I was teaching undergraduate courses in the exciting topic of statistics (yes, some of you are thinking, that would explain lots of things about Levy), I realized after a few weeks that in a class of 25, the best I could hope for was to ?reach? perhaps 3-4 students. Then I became a better teacher and a far happier one to boot.

 

But I don?t care that recruiters in general are an apathetic bunch. In martial arts, in particularly aikido, there is an uke (ookey) and a nage (nah-gay): The nage offers the technique and the uke accepts it; it really is like a dance where no one leads or follows but everything flows. I never expect to be listened to in this forum ? I?m merely offering insights to anyone who will accept them. But as you and I have spoken about how many recruiters and many in HR think people like me are off their rocker for suggesting that folks try things that would clearly not fly, there are times when even the strongest need a little pick-me-up.

 

Michael, can I have a hug?

 

Jennifer ? My hands are scarred from touching the hot flame on the stove, my eyesight damaged from playing with the pencil until I almost poked my eyes out, and my knees perpetually sore from jumping off the tree because my friend Peter jumped from the very same tree (BTW, thanks Mom). And I wouldn?t have it any other way. Jennifer, please post. Jennifer, please let the world know what you?re thinking. Jennifer, please continue to be a liberal. Jennifer, thank you!

 

Viva ? Don?t worry, since you demanded ? and I?m truly scared of what would happen if I didn?t consent ? I won?t be a stranger to ethics or diversity?nothing controversial about these areas.

 

Debbie ? Me give up? You kidding me? I?ll give up when President Bush can correctly pronounce ?nuclear?. I really don?t think I?m in the clouds ? the ONLY thing I may have as an advantage is that I?ve been in far more functions than most recruiter, I?m an engineer (there are no former engineers) and thus, probably have one or two more tricks in my bag to draw upon. Be careful though of looking up in the clouds ? if you?re not prepared, (a) the sun can come out without warning (as is known to happen in the Pacific Northwest) and if you?re not wearing a good pair of glasses, you can hurt your eyes and possibly prevent yourself from seeing well ever again; or (b) you can be pelted by a variety of moisture-based projectiles (some of which may even not be rain). Sure – opportunity favors the prepared mind ? but not all organizations (or bosses) like change (even though they say they do).

 

Marty ? I knew it wouldn?t take you too long to pick up the slack. But to clarify, it?s not at all ?boring and discouraging to speak into a void? ? as those who really know me, I am often found having engaging conversations with myself?or to my cats (yes, they do answer back). As far as the names have NOT been changed to protect the innocent, fear is demotivational. I?ve always tried to offer points of view that were empowering ? whether I?ve succeeded at times?or not, may be evident in these wonderful sentiments. Technologically, ERE needs a real blogging app (and I know DB is working on it) as well as RSS feeds. As far as my experience with Google, I was so annoyed with how call-ins were treated that I didn?t notice the statistical characteristics of the receptionist?

 

Dennis ? No, thank you. You?re right, my blogging ain?t dead ? it?s just in need of a larger screen (but don?t think I?m abandoning the ERE ? ERE is THE place for recruiters). If you?re going to buy a cell phone, it might as well be a Samsung…

 

Maureen ? What I appreciate is how often you send me private notes of thanks when all I really did was listen to what you had to say. And I know Marty IS a hoot.

Last Blog Post

Posted by Steve on June 14, 2005
Posted in: Uncategorized. Leave a comment

It’s been fun blogging here but…

…it gets old when the same people respond over and over and the comments look like a conversation with yourself. Don’t know if people actually read these things or if they think I’m too much of a liberal that no one in their right mind would think as I do about recruiting or if many in our profession just aren’t open to new ideas (FYI, John Sullivan posts a great article on helping military recruiters with their numbers problem but I blogged about doing just this months ago. I’m sure his article will be emailed around but read my thoughts visiting the recruiting station before you go? Nothing liberal here, just outside-the-box thinking).

Recruiting is so much more than a search string, a certification, and an ATS. How do I know this? Imagine as I did a few months back, sitting in the lobby of Google’s NY office, filling out a paper form and listening to their receptionist field several calls from folks looking to work for the company. The receptionist’s response after each call was – and I’m paraphrasing (but not too much – this really has stayed with me) here – “What a loser – we’ll never hire this person. Do they really think they’ll work at Google?” Hmmm – I wonder what special techniques the Google recruiting team is teaching its frontline people?

They lost me right there – the rest of the morning was just courtesy. Often in recruiting it’s easy to get lost not being able to see the forest through the trees. Recruiting is not as simple as “If you build it, he will come.” In Google’s case, the recruiters were also unaware of what I would consider some of the best sources (trust me I’m not THAT outside-the-box) in the NY Metro area – I gave them universities, companies, diversity sources, etc. that weren’t on their radar. The shirt I walked away with was nice but I would have preferred a clearer receptivity to some of the things I spoke about that day with the recruiters (yes, and I was warned).

I don’t mean to pick on Google but if you’re out there at $282.75 per share and everyone thinks you’re the nest best thing since Starbucks coffee and Samsung phones (except for the possible exception of Andy Newman at Motorola), every move of yours will be scrutinized. But I think the problem is deeper than Google and its receptionist. Over the past few months as I moved on my quest to leave consulting and go back inside in some type of leadership recruiting (or recruiting/OD) role, I’ve spoken to recruiters who went from hot ‘n’ heavy to not returning my phone calls – or exhibiting similar bad behavior not related to the telephone. What is going on here?!?! I know I’m not an ogre (well, perhaps my ex-wife might believe otherwise) and I’ve done some pretty neat things in my time and influenced a few dozen (or so) people or so but jeez after courting you, can’t recruiters answer their calls or reply to their emails? Do you really want those who care about this profession to name names and treat you the same way municipalities treat deadbeat dads by posting your name and company on the Internet (“Danger Will Robinson, danger – alien forces ahead!)”

How about a recent interview with a software company that was as warm and fuzzy a slate as I’ve ever been party to (yes, the receptionists were great, the hospitality was second to none, and there was a spot of sun in the sky). But not a single specific question was asked; sure we spoke of hypotheticals such as “What is the best way to measure quality of hire?” or “What strategy would you use to improve the relationship between recruiters and their internal customers?” Ask general questions, receive general answers; ask detailed questions, receive detailed answers. Now it really wasn’t the best fit for me but I know I left it all out on the field. But the feedback was that I didn’t give enough detail in my answers. Hello! Sometimes even some fine recruiters can fall into manholes…

Been a member of the ERE since 1998 and so much has changed but far too much has stayed the same. I appreciate the very fine folks at ERE for giving me a mouthpiece but like the deadbeat recruiters I spoke about earlier, if so few are going to engage in meaningful conversation, then it’s time to move on. So while you’re experiencing withdrawal from not being able to read my blog, why not read Marty Snyder’s ERE blog – he’s a hoot and a great thinker to boot.

Vultures

Posted by Steve on June 3, 2005
Posted in: Uncategorized. Leave a comment

On my way back from Seattle yesterday, I read an article in the Seattle Times about vultures coming back to roost in southern Maryland – or as the author of the article so aptly wrote, “Like some squadron of death, the flesh eating birds circled down from the sky one day in April and no one in Breton Bay knew quite what to do.”

Naturally, I thought of recruiters. Of course, if I read a story about hummingbirds hovering around a sweet spot I would have also thought of recruiters. Back to vultures…

So the protagonist of this story said that she “had seen nothing like it: dozens of black vultures perched on rooftops and decks, all hunched shoulders and bald skulls.” I was flattered reading this. “Like a dive bombing sequence they strafed her house with droppings. For weeks their hooked beaks  tore caulking off her roof; their stomping could be heard through the ceiling.” Sounds like a pretty good sourcing group to me.

When Elaine pulled out of her garage, “they were right there on the ledge, beady eyes boring through her windshield.” And after throwing tennis balls at them” No, they didn’t fly away – they just stared back unfazed. “It was incredible. When you look up and see 26 vultures lined up on the peak of your roof and some of them are sort of strutting around, it’s pretty disconcerting. Hopefully it’s not some seasonal migration pattern we?re going to have to get used to.” Reminds me of what happens when a company posts unexpectedly bad earnings, is acquired, or is threatening to move to another state. Recruiters line up like customers at a deli counter waiting for the their number to be called. Next!

Does it bother you that some many make disparaging comments about those in our profession? Actually, it does rankle me – in the same way, for instance, that here in New York, folks think all FDNY firefighters are beer-swigging, women-chasing, authority-hating boneheads. If it weren’t for the bad vultures who demean our profession, more would be singing our praises rather than looking up on roof ridges wondering if Fluffy the cat is outside playing with leaf.

LOL – the fact is, I guess I am a good vulture…one who is impeccably well-mannered, groomed, and above all, understands the intimate details of the migratory patterns of vultures and their quarries. Yes, I am bald but I have broad not hunched shoulders (except for those Internet sourcing periods). Like a vulture, there’s nothing quite like the rush I get when I see a potential meal appear; I’m thinking lunch all the way…

Making Google Eyes At Yahoo

Posted by Steve on May 20, 2005
Posted in: Uncategorized. Leave a comment

To:      Sergey and Larry

From: Steve

Subj:  Strategic Thinking

 
Imitation is the highest form of flattery, right? Or as Yahoo’s Jeremy Zawodny wrote in his blog in response to Google’s Product Manager on the Fusion project, “Since it seems that you haven’t settled on a name for this ‘new’ product, I’d like to suggest My Google. We’ve found that the whole ‘my’ thing works pretty well over here.”
 
What’s next? Google coffee? How about a recruiting strategy modeled after Microsoft?