Fistful of Talent

Recruiter Goat's Gruff: Recessions Bring Out Our True Recruiting-Self...

Recessions tell us a good deal about ourselves as Recruiting Animals, don't they?  If you want me to be honest, I really wish we didn't have any, but the fact is that we do . . . and the cycle is fairly predictable.  One thing I've come to learn is that down economic periods shape our view of what is truly important in life.  For example, my grandparents often told me stories I will never forget about living through the Great Depression as young children. And as the number of unemployed grow, I find myself having more and more conversations in which the downsized candidate needs, above all things, a flicker of positivity; many simply pick up on the hope in your voice and it can change their outlook, giving them some momentum to continue pushing forward.  "These are tough times, but we will come out of this."

Yet, as I say this, I am dismayed at the number of candidate-bludgeoning articles (and today, blog posts) that come out during recessionary times such as those we find ourselves in today.  It's as if many Recruiters (internal and external) are now sporting "a gun and a badge."  At a time when we can do the most good (see David Pritchard's efforts to assist the candidate market), there are entire series coming out that do nothing but perpetuate this majority-versus-minority mentality.  The latest installment in the Egregiously Bad Candidate series, "7 Great Ways to Ensure No Recruiter Ever Reads Your Resume" was the breaking point for me.  Seriously, with 50% of the entire Recruiting population gone over the last 12 months, those of us still standing are better than this.  Let me ask: At what point did we transition from a highly skilled and passionate group of people continuously seeking to find and secure the best talent, to behaving as if we're trolls guarding the bridge?  "Thou Shall Not Pass!"

Watching more and more of these negativity-focused articles come out, I can't help but believe they're exactly what we don't need . . . and as far as the unemployed population goes, it's no wonder many are scared of (and turned off by) Recruiters.  And in that sense, I've come to some conclusions I'd like to share today.  As always, I welcome your thoughts and ask you to add to the list:

1. We, as a Recruiting Industry, have taught the candidate market many of their bad habits.  That's a fact, Jack.  For example, is it ok for us to blind mass email out job descriptions . . . but then flex on the candidate population when they blind mass email their resume?  Until we elevate our own behavior, we're nothing more than sitting in glass houses.

2. For all you External Recruiters out there, let me shoot straight with you: If you can afford to screen out on the basis of petty issues (i.e. "I didn't like their signature line"), you're in the wrong niche.  For Internal Recruiters, I'll say this: Just because the average tenure in your position is 8 - 12 months, you still hold responsibility for your organization's employment brand.

3. Just because we temporarily hold a position of power (i.e. Recruiters can screen in or screen out on the basis of personal discretion), doesn't mean that we should abuse our power.  Acton was right when he stated that, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Look, if you want to be a gun-and-badge toting monster, I understand there isn't a whole lot I can do to change your mind.  But, If I can leave you with one thing today, it's this: Don't forget what happened to the Troll in Billy Goat's Gruff.  He's no longer recruiting.  Nope, he now works at a used-car dealership and moonlights as an real estate consultant.

Editor's Note - Josh Letourneau is the owner of LG and Associates, a Strategic Sourcing, Executive Search, and Human Capital Intelligence firm based in Atlanta.  Prior to founding LG & Associates, Josh worked as a Sales & Marketing professional in the software biz and was a hard-charging Sergeant in the Marines.  In his spare time, Josh enjoys shooting at other sourcing and search professionals as available in random paintball games.

What Led To The Recruiting Industry's Current Grapefruit Diet . . . And Why The Detox Is Good For All of Us

I had a rather interesting conversation with Industry Icon, Doug Beabout, the other day.  He let me know that approximately 1/2 of our industry has vaporized over the last 12 months, with many more recruiters to leave by the end of the year.  As he comically put it, "A large majority of our industry will now go back to whatever in the world they were doing before the recession started."  However, he was also sure to let me know that while the current recession has been particularly painful, the massive influx of recruiters (during a boom) and coinciding mass exodus (during a bust) is actually a quite predictable phenomenon.

So I reflected on this for a while and have concluded that the 'normalization' or 'purging of the excess' is good for the Recruitosphere.  Don't get me wrong - I hate to see anyone lose their job or have a contract come to an end.  However, if you've recruited beyond a few years, you probably know what I mean when I say there were truly some characters that parachuted onto to our scene before flopping out shortly thereafter.  "Jokers to the left of me, Clowns to the right . . . Here I am, Stuck in the middle with you."  [Compliments to the band, Stealers Wheel strumming in the background way back in 1972.]

See, during boom-times, companies hire and hire and hire.  They get fat, just like the average American's credit card bill before the bottom fell out of the market and we realized that operating in the red doesn't make good financial sense.  And as the company gets fatter, so does the Recruiting Department.  "Thought Leaders" start suggesting that you don't need to lean out -- nope, you need more division of responsibilities.  You don't need better recruiters -- nope, you need people good at doing individual functions, just like Henry Ford popularized with the Assembly line in 1908.  "Hey, you don't need better full-cycle recruiters -- nope, you need dedicated sourcers and researchers and candidate contractors and candidate developers and professional appointment setters."  That's right, somewhere we were told we needed people good at doing only one thing all day long - "If they hate speaking to candidates, no problem - just place them at station 7."  Then, when we last expect it, we're offered all types of services, tools, technologies, training and additional contractors to increase the efficiency of each resource and/or station of the assembly line.  "Yeah, we understand your total staffing expense just ballooned up 300% Mr. Talent Acquisition Leader, but if you want to get the most out of your newfound investments, you're going to have to spend another 50% on this Recruit-O-Meter Flux Capacitor."

Well, sorry.  That ship has sailed.  We never needed the assembly line, and we didn't need the coinciding bloat, either.  It's as if we just ate that triple cheeseburger super-sized with a large fries and 100 oz. Coke, at which point we sloth down into the couch because we're too stuffed to move . . . wondering why we just did that to ourselves.

So this is what I'm getting at:  We needed then what we still need today - Peter Drucker's notion of "knowledge workers" who specialize in tacit interactions; intelligent people who can handle multiple moving balls in the air, yet have an instinctive ability to understand human psychology . . . and sell all at the same time.  Isn't it funny that every once in a while, the very industry that focuses on people (who have the 'talent') needs the old, "It's the people, Stupid!" wake-up call?

So that's why our current Recruitosphere detox has been a good thing.  It might be like eating a lemon, or going on a grapefruit diet . . . but the weight-loss is necessary and needed for us to maintain our health, not to mention our sanity.

Editor's Note - Josh Letourneau is the owner of LG and Associates, a Strategic Sourcing, Executive Search, and Human Capital Intelligence firm based in Atlanta.  Prior to founding LG & Associates, Josh worked as a Sales & Marketing professional in the software biz and was a hard-charging Sergeant in the Marines.  In his spare time, Josh enjoys shooting at other sourcing and search professionals as available in random paintball games.

What Do You Mean Our Employer Value Proposition (EVP) Doesn't Compare?!?!?"

Every once in a while, each of us (as External Recruiters, Internal Recruiters, or Sourcers) have interesting conversations worth sharing.  Some are informative, many are myth-busting, and a few are mind-boggling.  Here is an example of one with an organization that has doubled their staffing spend over the last 12 months by believing the hype and searching for a magic bullet.  Today, they have little to nothing to show for their 'investments' and are very close to exhausting their entire FY09 budget:

 

Them: "Josh, we've basically done everything we can.  We've had 3 contractors who came from 'Recruiting Excellence' award-winning companies join our staff and they struck out.  Their response in regards to lack of production was along the lines that at their other companies, they were used to 'handling volume' instead of having to directly source from the competition.  Although these contractors were from these award-winning companies, I realized that we weren't living in the same recruiting reality as them.  They spent the bulk of their day waiting on incoming resumes and filtering old ones so they could do a quick phone screen and submit the candidate to the hiring manager.  From there, we brought in a few well-known internet sourcing trainers, but to be honest, their stuff didn't do much beyond show us search results in Google.  In many cases, the resulting data was old . . . in others, it didn't mean we could do anything with it.  Then we brought in one of the larger recruiting training firms to help our recruiters, and while we learned a few things, we're still not hiring better candidates in the needed timeframes. As of late, we've invested in an advanced sourcing platform to lay on top of our existing job board investments . . . but a big part of me sees this as throwing good money after bad.  So here's the bottom-line: This year alone, our staffing spend has basically doubled . . . and we have nothing to show for it."

 

Me: "Wow, I can feel your pain.  This is a tough market.  It sounds like you were betting on speculative results that didn't pan out - somewhat like buying real estate in hopes the property value would appreciate . . . that is, before the bottom fell out.  From where I'm standing, you were looking to invest in training, channels, and technology with the hopes of big returns that simply didn't result.  Look, the truth is that most of the consistent award-winning recruiting organizations have massive budgets, strong employment brands, and their challenge is resume volume, not direct sourcing.  In terms of Internet Research, the reality is that there is a big difference between what the military calls 'information' versus 'intelligence'.  You can act on intel, but information alone holds little value.  For example, knowing who someone is doesn't mean you can recruit them.  As far as Sourcing Platforms that lay over job boards are concerned, the elephant in the room is that the results can only be as good as the resumes being put into the job board.  If they're poor, relative to your desired profiles, then don't expect big-time results.  Anyway, how can I help you?"

 

Them: "Well, as much as we hate the idea of paying executive search fees, we feel as if we have no other choice.  Sure, we tried BountyJobs, TalentHire, and RecruitAlliance, but all we received were the same candidates that our sourcing platform pulled off of Monster for us.  I mean, I don't blame the recruiting firms because we refuse to speak to them in the first place.  Put it like this: I liked the idea of offering way lower fees, but ultimately, about 1 in 15 resumes we received were actually worth taking a look at.  So, we've doubled our staffing spend from last year and have nothing to show for it outside of a social networking presence that has helped us with our entry-level roles, but not much else.  And since we've spent so much of our budget, we can't pay more than 20% on a direct-hire fee."

 

Me: "I wish I could help, but I can't.  Your recruiters are going to continue to struggle and until you fix the root cause of your real problem, you can spend and spend and spend and you won't see much more than an incremental improvement, if that.  In all honesty, your current strategy isn't much different than opening your window and throwing dollar bills out of it."

 

Them: "What do you mean?"

 

Me: "You're trying to sell a meatball sundae.  Strong candidates aren't going to leave their current position to join your firm for 15% less total compensation, a non-existent relocation package, and a $3k tuition reimbursement plan.  It's just not going to happen.  As much as I hate to turn down business, you're asking me to essentially recruit the bottom 10% of the market that is currently employed at your competition.  Put simply, your value proposition is the weakest in the market and as a result, the word on the street is that your company is looking to tread water instead of make some serious waves."

 

Them: "How do you know what our competitors are paying?  What do you mean our value prop doesn't compare?  Out of all the consultants and fancy solutions we've purchased over the last 12 months, nobody ever told us what you're saying.  It was as if I'd tell them our issues and they'd lay out a chinese menu of options on a pricing chart."

 

Me: "Yeah, that's Sales 101, right?  Find the Client's problem, magnify it, explain how your solutions will fix the pain, and then get the invoice signed.  My recommendation is to kill your meatball sundaes.  Reinvent your value prop to become more attractive to strong performers.  Stop paying for consultants and technology you don't need and actually fix what's wrong.  If you can do that, I'll help you turn your performance around by getting you some real movers, shakers, and difference makers.  Oh, and when you begin taking steps to fix the real issues and actually focus on getting great candidates hired, think about how a few points on the direct-hire fee matters very little at the end of the day.  The couple grand more you'll spend with my firm to get a great candidate hired instead of a good one is half a week's pay for a contractor at $100 per hour.  Except in my case, you actually make a guaranteed hire."

The Client called back 3 hours later to agree to the fee structure, but more importantly, requested assistance with a full vendor review.

Offshoring is a Natural Product of Recruiting-as-Assembly-Line Thinking

When it comes to Talent Acquisition, cost advantages created by the Global Economy have become quite a taboo subject.  Frankly, many U.S.-based Recruiters and Sourcers avoid this issue because it invokes deep, protectionist emotions.  And despite all the anti-rhetoric, we see more and more (and more) offshoring.  In fact, if there is one thing we know, it's that demand is growing and doesn't appear it will slow down anytime soon.

However, the purpose of my post today is not to say whether offshoring certain components of the recruiting process is effective or not.  Why?  Because doing so will divert the true essence of this conversation, not to mention that it would invite a further cascade of irrational and emotional responses.  Any logical person will understand effectiveness is purely situational - what may work for Company A may not work for Company B, and vice versa.  There are too many individual variables within each circumstance to offer a broad-sweeping conclusion, such as scarcity of talent, employment brand, competitiveness of compensation, etc.

If there is one thing I'd ask readers to consider today, it is the following: It is we who have created this very monster.  The relentless, ongoing focus on process improvement has led our industry to believe that by breaking the Talent Acquisition process into smaller and smaller steps (and then improving the performance of each step), we'll be able to improve overall performance.  Ah, if only we could create the perfect recruiting assembly-line and hire Henry Ford to assist us in reaching "peak efficiency" at each 'station', or sub-step, right?  Wrong.  People don't like feeling as if they're widgets or being shuffled from station to station.  Light bulbs don't seem to mind, but Human Beings do.

Yet, as this belief permeated our industry further, guess what happened next?  Exactly.  Vendors have identified opportunities to exploit through innovation, and in some cases, by offering cost efficiencies.  A perfect example is Fay Hansen's recent reference to iPlace in her Workforce article, "Cash-Strapped Firms Find India Offers a Down-Home Recruiting Touch".

See, somewhere along the road, we adopted a robotically Descartian, mechanistic mindset that focuses more on output than outcome.  The next evolution of this type of thinking is a focus on cost-reduction, or worse, commoditization.  For many of these offshored jobs to come back to the U.S., the Talent Acquisition world must undergo a fundamental shift in the way performance is judged.  If cost-per-hire, time-to-fill, and other reactive metrics continue to dominate conversation, there will always be labor who can do the work cheaper and faster.

Editor's Note - Josh Letourneau is the owner of LG and Associates, a Strategic Sourcing, Executive Search, and Human Capital Intelligence firm based in Atlanta.  Prior to founding LG & Associates, Josh worked as a Sales & Marketing professional in the software biz and was a hard-charging Sergeant in the Marines.  In his spare time, Josh enjoys shooting at other sourcing and search professionals as available in random paintball games.

The Time Has Come for Upper Management to Offer Long-Term Contracts to Talent Management Pros

We've reached a very interesting inflection point in the Talent Management world today.  There is no simpler way to put it than to be as straightforward as possible: Upper Management is demanding more of HR, notably Talent Acquisition and Organizational Development.  In fact, the following visual illustrates two critical gaps in perception that are at the root of our crossroads today.

When posed with the point, "HR lacks the capabilities to develop talent strategies aligned with business objectives", only 25% of HR respondents agreed while 58% of Line Managers agreed.  This is a problem.  When posed with the point, "HR is not held accountable for success or failure of talent-management initiatives", 36% of HR respondents agreed while 64% of Line Managers agreed.  This is an even bigger problem.  The Line Managers are essentially saying, "Not only are you not accountable, but you don't even have the needed capabilities to do the job."  Wow.

As I look across the Talent Management landscape, I ask myself what is being done to counter this modern day Battle of Waterloo.  It's as if Upper Management is sitting across the table asking us this question, (not so) patiently awaiting our response.  Academia is responding in a big way - "Beyond HR: The New Science of Human Capital" (published in May of 2007) was a brave move by John Boudreau and Peter Ramstad toward establishing an actual Talent Management decision science.  "The Differentiated Workforce: Transforming Talent into Strategic Impact" (Becker, Huselid, and Beatty, published March 2009) is another audacious move toward an arena near and dear to my heart -- identifying and nurturing those roles and talent pockets that create the majority of customer and economic value. 

However, while Academia is stepping up to the plate in a big, big way, I find those of us who actually do the job moving in a distinctly different direction.  Instead of having the intelligent, strategic discussions about Talent Management that the C-Suite is demanding of us, I see our community ducking legitimate response by staying busy in evaluating more and more new technologies.  As Social Media has accelerated the marketing hype within our industry to mirror that of a modern-day bodybuilding magazine, it's as if we believe that if we stay busy enough, we'll never have to really "man up".  Unfortunately, this is an ineffective approach because the time has come to 'pay the piper'.

The result?  Articles like, "Memo to CFOs" Don't Trust HR", "Why We Hate HR", not to mention a further declining of the average tenure of the Talent Management Professional.  My own research of 100 profiles on LinkedIn shows the average tenure of a TM Pro at 18 months - and in that sense, is it any surprise that short-term reactionary thinking and focus on immediate metrics?  In my humble opinion, this further perpetuates the problem. 

So, let's talk about a potential solution.  How about asking TM Pros to sign 5-year minimum contracts in which bonuses are paid out on incentives tied to long-term economic value creation?  Given that the average economic cycle is 3.5 to 7 years, I'd say a base 5-year contract might do the trick.  As an Executive Recruiter, it's not uncommon for me to put together 3 year contracts for the V.P. level and higher, so I don't see this as that much of a stretch.  Think about it - a large majority of our industry is a contingent workforce anyway . . . so instead of signing open-ended contracts at an hourly rate that can be canceled at a whim (one of the bigger value propositions of a contingent force), why not attach to them a time period conducive to moving beyond short-term Wall Street pressures?  Hey, it might not be a perfect solution (if there even is one), but it would be a step in the right direction.

Editor's Note - Josh Letourneau is the owner of LG and Associates, a Strategic Sourcing, Executive Search, and Human Capital Intelligence firm based in Atlanta.  Prior to founding LG & Associates, Josh worked as a Sales & Marketing professional in the software biz and was a hard-charging Sergeant in the Marines.  In his spare time, Josh enjoys shooting at other sourcing and search professionals as available in random paintball games.  Like my background? Talk to Josh, because with all this talk of 5 year contracts, he's my personal Jerry McGuire.  That makes me Rod Tidwell.

Graduate Oversupply, Mismatched Degrees, and Employer Greed Collide with the “American Dream”

Workforce Magazine's recent article by Faye Hansen, "Recruiters Still Court College Grads but Signing Fewer New Hires", is, to say the least, a real eye-opener.  While it's not uncommon for us to see things happening around us, such as emerging trends in hiring and slow-brewing shifts in talent market psychology, finding so much reinforcing data in one central source is highly unusual.  In fact, CERI's survey touches upon so many societal and generational undercurrents that it's difficult finding a place to begin. The following represents my best effort --

Key Data Point #1: 1.85 Million workers with bachelor's degrees or higher are unemployed.  1.5 Million new undergraduates will receive their degree this year and enter the workforce.  These numbers "reflect a long-term trend toward producing more college graduates than labor markets can absorb."

Insight: The American Dream, as we once knew it, may have officially evaporated.  Paraphrased best by Robert Kiyosaki's 'Poor Dad', the dream may be more irrelevant today than any time in our country's history -- "Study hard, earn a degree, and get a good job."  I ask myself what may happen at the point Gen-Y becomes self-aware; aware that what they've been taught to believe their whole lives may have been wrong.  Seeing the cup as half-full, perhaps we will experience an explosion in entrepreneurialism.  Perhaps.

Key Data Point #2: In 2006, U.S. Colleges produced ~83k new graduates in the visual and performing arts, but only ~67k in engineering.  36 Percent of surveyed employers plan to hire engineering majors, while only 6 percent are looking for liberal arts or humanities graduates and only 5 percent looking for social science majors, "which are among the most popular majors."  Such phenomenon further "represents an equally long-standing mismatch in the fields of study students pursue and the skill sets employers require."

Insight: This immediately brings to mind a 2005 article, "Can America Compete?", written by Geoffrey Colvin of Fortune Magazine.  He notes that within the engineering degrees, we are graduating 5 times less than India and 9 times less than China.  Obviously, there is the population disparity . . . however consider the statistics that in 2006, we experienced a greater number of performing arts graduates than engineering graduates.  This is a problem - a big problem.  As we did during the late 1950s, we must make science and math cool again.  Sure, we're not racing the USSR to the moon, but I'm in agreement with Colin Powell that we need to start applying ourselves again.

Key Data Point #3: 29 Percent of surveyed employers indicate shifting their hiring in favor of new college graduates over experienced workers "primarily because of costs."

Insight: Above all data points in the article, this is the one that left me with the worst taste in my mouth.  And not because I don't get it - as a 'numbers guy' with a natural inclination toward financial analysis, I do.  I'm also aware that globalization lends to a normalization of the world's wealth distribution and quality-of-life, of which a natural consequence is a leveling declination of our own (as the U.S. has consistently been noted as a society of overabundance.)  Speaking from a point of the Global Economy, these are good things . . . yet it hurts to say this, as I envision experienced employees with higher education denied employment over the fresh graduate for mere cost concerns. 

Yes, despite my penchant for the financials, this is a crude vision of which I have a very hard time swallowing.  In addition, my gut tells me that if HR is going to focus purely on reducing initial salary offers, there will be a point of diminishing returns, and it will not be subtle.  It will be distinct.

Editor's Note - Josh Letourneau is the owner of LG and Associates, a Strategic Sourcing, Executive Search, and Human Capital Intelligence firm based in Atlanta.  Prior to founding LG & Associates, Josh worked as a Sales & Marketing professional in the software biz and was a hard-charging Sergeant in the Marines.  In his spare time, Josh enjoys shooting at other sourcing and search professionals as available in random paintball games...

The Recruiting "Community Solution": If You Build It, They Will Come (And They'll Be Engaged, Too!)

Today's mantra of recruiting success is quite a familiar one: If you build it, they will come.  ("People will come, Ray.")

I recall much the same said of career sites only a few years ago. . . and the same of job board resume databases . . . and before that, the same of career fairs.  Today, the intoxicating lure of another elegant solution is again at hand; the panacea of recruiting conversation in 2009 -- the "community".  As we walk trade show floors and read the cascades of blogs and press releases, we see the word and its many references continually resurface.  Naturally, just like last time, the market begins to believe, "[This time] If we build it, they will [really] come."

So, let's assume we build it . . . and let's assume they come.  They join our community; our social network of Rock-Star XYZ Programmers.  As they've done with the other 17 sub-communities they are a part of, they answer a few short profile questions, contribute to a couple discussions, perhaps even upload a photo of their pet and their favorite song.  We, as recruiters, then consider the individual behind the profile to be "engaged".

But are they?  How can we measure engagement?  Sure, there are scores of metrics, but very little in the way of an accepted standard.  Just ask Robert Scoble, or Brian Oberkirch, who likens measuring engagement to "nailing down a shadow."  Does our definition of engagement have anything to do with the community's receptiveness to listen regarding our opportunity?  Further, is it the community itself, or rather the individuals within the community, that are engaged?

My theory is that the juggernauts such as Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter (although not completely apples-to-apples) are the real time-biscuits of the average social-media zombie (circa 2009).  That means that there isn't much time or energy left for many sub-communities, such as our recruiting community.  Furthermore, we must ask ourselves whether engagement itself has a lifespan, as modern-day recruiting theory suggests multiple states of interest depending on a candidate's personal situation (i.e. cold-cold, cold-warm, warm-cold, warm-warm states of candidate interest, etc.) 

Despite the rush of individuals to professional networking sites, the lifespan of someone's 'engagement' is typically quite ephemeral because candidates, by their very nature, don't stay in the job-searching cocoon forever.  (Well, some do . . . such as the 10% of the market that is always in flux, 'actively seeking' a new opportunity.  However, this segment is certainly the exception and not the norm.)

Many suggest that social networking's new CGM (Consumer Generated Media) tools increase the probability that our talent pool will be more engaged.  However, does providing someone the ability to upload a widget or start a discussion engage them any further than if we were to pick up the phone and personally call them?  Or can the community itself become a crutch? (in the sense that we begin to hear subtle whispers in our ears that web conversation is the same as live conversation).

Here's an example: Let's say a recruiter lets their community know they're throwing a mixer at a local restaurant later that week.  At the mixer, the recruiter physically meets the candidate and buys them a drink - was it the social network that led to a deeper relationship?  Or was it the act of kindness and in-person touch of the recruiter?  I'd say the latter.  Sure, the community enabled another brand touch-point, but the same could have been achieved through an email or text message.

We, in the recruiting world, are quite new to thinking of 'Recruiting as Marketing'.  And doesn't it have a nice ring to it?  For some reason, 'Recruiting as Sales' conjures up questionable scenarios and cacophonic sounds in our minds.  Marketing, soft-selling, and the notion of communities made up of engaged, loving candidates just seems more palletable than 'Recruiting as Sales.'  However, the more we sip each flavor of Kool-aid, the more we realize that true recruiting is neither marketing nor sales.  At the end of the day, it's both.

Editor's Note - Josh Letourneau is the owner of LG and Associates, a Strategic Sourcing, Executive Search, and Human Capital Intelligence firm based in Atlanta.  Prior to founding LG & Associates, Josh worked as a Sales & Marketing professional in the software biz and was a hard-charging Sergeant in the Marines.  In his spare time, Josh enjoys shooting at other sourcing and search professionals as available in random paintball games...

FOTv Show #3 - Is a One-Page Resume the Secret to Job Search Success?

FOTv IS BACK.  And we're pissed off, and we're not going to take it anymore.

OK, I jest.  A little.  But we are eating our own today.  The target of our dining experience?  Jason Seiden, who had the audacity to say that in order to have a successful resume, you need to keep it to one page.  Here's what the human lighting rod had to say on his own blog on the topic:

"Looking for a job? Submitting your resume to recruiters, hiring managers, and HR departments?

Let’s get clarity around something: your resume needs to be one page. ONE. See for yourself why:

(Note: I assume that we’re talking about a hard copy resume in this video because my experience is that many people still print these things out and read them over lunch or on the train or other places where they are not plugged in. If you think your resume is going to be read online only, then this advice applies double: make all relevant information fit on ONE SCREEN, without shrinking the font to anything below 10 points.)".

Jason's, the camera's on, so defend yourself.  All the rest of you, click through to see what the FOT team thinks of Jason's latest deep thought, and hit us in the comments on who you agree with:

The Current Trend Toward 'Transactionalizing' Third Party Recruiting . . .

When it comes to the Recruiting World, something big happened in 2008.  Something really big.  However, most didn't take notice, and frankly, it's easy to understand why.  As the economy began entering a tailspin, the Talent Acquisition Community looked to find solace in what they were told was the next big idea.  Yep, while Social Media headlines and conversation gained momentum, Recruiters sprinted into a frenzied state of 'Friending Oblivion'.  In a 1938-like "War of the Worlds" event, mass hysteria ensued as Recruiters started sending connection requests to each other (instead of the talent pool) at an unprecedented rate.

While Recruiters were hurriedly following the zombie mob to an unknown destination of Social Media Utopia, the real threat was developing right under our noses -- Recruiting was being transactionalized.  As the Talent Acquisition Community was friending, online VMS (Vendor Management System) providers such as BountyJobs, Dayak, TalentHire, RecruitAlliance, etc., collaboratively hit the market hard with significant marketing investments.  The VMS value proposition is straightforward - the Hiring Organization simply has to post a job description online while offering to pay the same fee to any firm who fills the position.  Behind closed doors, the relationship between Internal Recruiter and External Recruiter is pitched as "overrated." Any form of communication outside of email? Pitched as "overrated."  A partnership mentality?  Pitched as "overrated." 

If you think about it, it is these very philosophies that most External Recruiting Firms work diligently to overcome each and every day - as with any relationship, communication is paramount.  So is a partnership mentality.  Appreciating one another, earing each other's trust, and wanting to see each party achieve is what success is all about.  Without this, you're "just another vendor."  Yep, at that point, not only has Recruiting become transactionalized, but your efforts have become marginalized . . . and ultimately, you have been commoditized.

At the risk of speaking out of both sides of my mouth, I admit that for some organizations, marginalizing and commoditizing their former Recruiting Partners is a viable strategy.  If Cost-of-Hire is the only metric important to the organization, and the overriding employment strategy is to hire mediocre and then hope to develop talent, an online VMS is the way to go.  However, for those organizations that rely heavily on tacit interaction, complex insight, and judgment in a rapidly evolving business atmosphere (who Peter Drucker termed "Knowledge Workers"), I would ask Talent Acquisition Leaders to reconsider Cost-of-Hire as their paramount metric.  While the lure of an online VMS is sweet, and the concept of never having to speak with an External Recruiter looks good in a marketing brochure, marginalizing and commoditizing those individuals who are actually walking among the talent pool you wish to more deeply penetrate will likely come at a great cost, both direct and indirect; tangible and intangible.

At the end of the day, it would be easy to blame the movement toward transactionalizing recruiting on technology vendors seeking to benefit by such short-minded psychology.  Yes, their goal is to sell recurring seat licenses or siphon a percentage of each placement fee paid.  However, the Transactionalization of Recruiting itself is the end, not the 'means' -- as we well know, there will always be new means to financially capitalize on the 'end'.  The truth is that the buck stops with Talent Acquisition, the true creators of competitive advantage within an organization.  Identifying, attracting, engaging, and closing another human being to join your team and come work for you is more a delicate dance than purely a transaction.  Keep this in mind and you'll always be near the front of the pack.

Hey Jerry Jones: Individual Talent is Often Overrated

Dallas Cowboys hype - that's what the 2008-09 NFL regular season was all about, especially early on. Nearly everywhere on the roster was individual talent at the top of its class. In particular areas where there was room for improvement, Jerry Jones (Team Owner) invested diligently on the free agent market.  The focus on individual talent was so paramount that character and integrity were diminished as qualities not pivotal to performance "on the field."  Case in point: Adam "Pacman" Jones was signed to a 1-yr deal despite being arrested six times and involved in twelve instances requiring police intervention since his drafting by the Tennessee Titans in 2005.

Despite exceptional talent at each individual position, Dallas not only greatly underperformed expectations -- they got worse as the season moved on.  When redemption was in site, we had the distinct pleasure of watching the pinnacle of 'stinkdom' as the Cowboys laid an egg in the season finale against the Philadelphia Eagles.  In a "win and you're in the playoffs" scenario, they were blown out 44-6.  Despite all that talent, they were beaten mentally, emotionally, and physically.  And unlike last year's debacle, we didn't even get to see TO cry, "That's my quarterback" in the post-game media session.

Today, the hunt for a scapegoat is on.  Some blame the Head Coach for a lack of leadership.  Others blame the assistant coordinators for a poor game plan.  Many place fault squarely on the shoulders of the quarterback, Tony Romo.  There are a number of people and factors that can be pointed to, but if there is one thing for sure, it's that the Cowboys lacked chemistry and cohesiveness. They didn't communicate or collaborate, and ultimately, they lost. Could it have been the relentless focus on individual talent above all things?

Consider our role as Talent Acquisition Professionals for a moment.  Many Recruiters (both internal and external) forget about what the essence of "team" really means by virtue of our position itself.  It's understandable - 9 times out of 10, we're asked to find the most talented individual in a given market.  It doesn't initially cross our minds to find the best 'teammate' - in fact, resumes themselves aren't about communicating anything more than individual accomplishments.  Those resumes that reference the word 'team' more than twice are considered as if the candidate is hiding behind collaborative accomplishments because they have none to claim as their own.  And ponder the dance of interviewing for a moment -- How many coaches recommend a candidate speak about team accomplishments instead of blowing their horn?  Yeah, my sentiments exactly . . .

Put simply, the 2008 Cowboys brought me back to the truth about individual talent.  In football, 11 must come together to act as 1 single unit.  All the individual talent in the world means very little if the team doesn't play together. 'Execution' is about more than doing your personal job well; it's about working together as one.  Yes, a team player can be a superb individual player as well, but the truth is that the team player is more concerned with winning as a unit than what their individual statistics look like after the game. 

So, the next time you interview someone who speaks about a team accomplishment, don't write them off so quickly.  With a further flattening and decentralizing Global Economy, you just might have a true winner on your hands . . .

Editor's Note - Josh Letourneau is the owner of LG and Associates, a Strategic Sourcing, Executive Search, and Human Capital Intelligence firm based in Atlanta.  Prior to founding LG & Associates, Josh worked as a Sales & Marketing professional in the software biz and was a hard-charging Sergeant in the Marines.  In his spare time, Josh enjoys shooting at other sourcing and search professionals as available in random paintball games...