Talentism

Is Digg Wise?

This morning I went over to Digg.com, the godfather of "user powered content aggregation." There I discovered that Digg users had this to say about the content they had powered:

• 889 votes for a picture of a McDonald’s ad on a campus that was based on the premise that since food is more difficult to steal than music, you might as well get your food cheap.
• 530 votes for an article about Terrell Owens, the receiver for the Dallas Cowboys, trying to kill himself (literally this time, not figuratively like all the previous times).
• 313 votes for a rather thoughtless but still provocative rant about America losing it’s standing as the number one economy in the world (apparently our problem is not enough taxes on the middle class – who would have thought?)
• 39 votes for an article about funding for Wallop, a new social networking service (Microsoft’s entry into the “Let’s kill MySpace” market).

I didn't find any articles about Bill Clinton's recent tête-à-tête with Chris Wallace, but I did find a lot of people interested in a girl trying to blow up her SUV with her sweater.

Digg is presently one of the top 20 trafficked website in the world, and its users search far and wide for interesting new content. The Digg user community has spoken loud and clear: silly ads are more important than America’s economic position or the funding of a new business. Why think about the merits of a political argument when you can watch a Jeep go "boom!"? Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

Digg is based on a “Wisdom of Crowds” concept. And since I am a big fan of both the logic and the possibilities of that idea, one would think that I am a big fan of Digg. But as my analysis above probably telegraphed.. not so much. When the crowd that I am depending on to tell me what I should read thinks that cheap McDonalds copy is more important than the ability to create jobs in the future I tune out. I am left with the conclusion that the Digg crowd is not that wise, and I don’t just mean that I don’t agree with their preferences.

“The Wisdom of Crowds” was James Surowiecki’s breakthrough book which brought the heretofore mutually-exclusive concepts of "Wisdom" and "Crowds" together in the common lexicon. According to Surowiecki a “Wise” crowd has the following characteristics:

• It is diverse in composition
• The individuals are well informed and have access to the same data sources
• The opinion of one individual doesn’t unduly influence the opinion of others in the crowd
• There is an objective method for aggregating individual input into a group conclusion

When a crowd meets those criteria it is amazingly adept at predicting the future, including what is important and what isn't. When a crowd doesn’t meet those criteria, however, it runs the risk of thinking that McDonalds’ copy is a better use of your time than why somebody would try to kill themselves or why America may be in economic trouble.

So if user powered content is based on the “Wisdom of Crowds” then we have to examine whether the “Crowd” meets the “Wise” standard. In most cases the answer is clearly “no.” Here are just a few of the reasons why:

Fact or Fiction; Fiction or Fact

I am hoping to start a conversation over on the SimplyHired blog about Job Descriptions. Some people tell me that it is best to write fluff pieces and then separate the good from the bad later. I think they are wrong, and that honesty is the best policy.

Help me out... which one is it?

If you are a Job Seeker, is it Fact or Fiction?

If you are a recruiter, is it Fiction or Fact?

Please check it out and add your voice to the conversation. Thanks!

Two Masters

Interesting article by Lou Adler today over at ERE. He says:

• Your technology investment is yielding a negative ROI. While not a public session, someone described to me a meeting they had with a number of recruiting managers evaluating their satisfaction with all of the available recruiting technology. First, every tool was listed by name, including every major applicant-tracking system, every major job board, and all of the major tools. The ranking was limited to either a positive, neutral, or negative. In the summary report, not one technology product or tool received a positive ranking, and most had negatives. The moral is that high-tech will not solve your hiring problems without a lot of high touch.

It's not just that "technology doesn't solve problems" (which I agree with by the way), but that:

• ATS's are designed to solve HR's problems, not fulfill recruiter needs. But recruiters use the system and hate it and complain to HR, who then says the system doesn't work. You can't serve two masters: either hire great recruiters and give them the tools they need to win and then figure out the compliance problems on the back-end, or hire administrative temps who will manage data for compliance and who understand that nobody cares about what they think about the system.
• Job Boards are designed to solve recruiters problems, not candidate's interests. But employment managers pay for the systems and see that they get poor quality and a lot of noise for a pretty steep price. You can't serve two masters: either focus on how to attract the person who is right for your job (and that often won't include putting up a lousy job description on a public billboard) or figure that the money is going towards making recruiters feel better about their work because they plastered the job everywhere.

Administrative Helper Therapy Victims

or: How I Still Keep Worrying and Can’t Seem to Love Cognitive Dissonance

HR is all about “cognitive dissonance”. Cognitive dissonance is the massive headache you get when you are trying to hold two mutually exclusive thoughts at once. For me, cognitive dissonance is represented by my beliefs that “the HR function is strategic” and my experience that “the HR system creates Administrative Helper Therapy Victims.”

Administrative Helper Therapy Victims: it’s my new term to describe the mind-numbing system of HR that most of us get to experience regularly and which we all hate. Like all bad systems, HR takes good people and turns them into bumfuzzled dolts.

Most people ascribe bad behaviors (i.e. behaviors that we don’t like) to some evil intent on the part of the person who is bothering you. Spend any amount of time with that same person outside the conflict context, however, and you will usually find that the other person is likable and reasonable. I have run into a lot of people who bug me, but very few who I think are genuinely bad (as in “Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Amin” bad). Likewise, it is trite and irresponsible to run around saying that HR is filled with social workers. It’s just as likely that they could be great capitalists in another system, but HR has a way of turning them into a cross between Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud.

It’s an important point to bring up, because I have seen many HR people leave HR and become successful in some other field or endeavor. I once reported to a gentleman who ran a very typical HR shop (e.g. Administrative Helper Therapy Victims). He then went on to be the GM of a large manufacturing division of the same company and did quite well. What was different about this fine fellow? HR as a system is a soul-sucking exercise in CYA futility, and running a P&L business really let him shine. That’s the difference.

We can sit around and blame the CEO and blame the client and blame… well, just about everybody, but we are the system, and the system is making us into Administrative Helper Therapy Victims:

New Entries at TuSK

Three new people over at TuSK. Check it out.

Random for September 20 2006

1 - Wrote about Sean Rehder over at TuSK. Yes, TuSK is still alive. Actually, a fair number of people on TuSK have moved on to bigger and better things. Michele Macready is now over at Q with Lance, and Tom Cullen is now CIO of Peet's.  Michele and Tom couldn't be happier, and when I see somebody get the job of their dreams, it puts a smile on my face.

2 - Ever start a writing project and have it turn into Godzilla? This was one of those experiences. Started out as a little post about Brand Talent and turned into this monster about the "New World of Recruiting." I was hesitant to start the series because everybody who is in the midst of change believes that their experience is unique, but I do believe that recruiting is structurally changing.

3 - Having a really great time writing with the people at SimplyHired. One of the really fun parts about it is finding people who haven't written before and dragging them kicking and screaming to the page. Working with Mike Bacher was a warm-up for Phil Gee - the guy is almost allergic to the fame that his intelligence and experience should bring to him. Maybe I'll do a TuSK post on Phil and really bum him out.

4 - I really liked C.M.'s post on the SimplyHired blog. Quick, to the point, actionable. Nicely done.

5 - Still getting my start-up fix on the side.  The team tell me that Dashnote will be launching soon (yeah, sure - I said here that we would be announcing in February!). We have one super-genius working on it full-time and assorted other smart people burning the midnight oil once their day jobs are done. Showing VCs and angels, and the response is pretty exciting. The whole Dashnote experience reminds me of that Gary Larson panel where the two spiders have woven a web at the bottom of a children's playground slide. The caption reads "If we pull this off we are going to eat like kings!"

6 - In addition to TuSK, Talentism and SimplyHired, I have been doing some blogging inside of EA. For one of my posts on the EA blog I took the "10 Rules for Innovators" piece and reprinted. It is getting some of the same numbers inside that it did outside. This has consistently been my most popular post (now translated into several languages if you can believe it). Funny. Maybe I should give up everything else and become an "Innovation Guru". Hello Hawaiian shirts, goodbye personal hygiene!

7 - Mentioned the global launch of our "Universal Sourcing Platform" back in May. It launched, was successful, and now we are on to our Next Gen solution. It is a real thrill to work with masters like Kristi and Sean. All that stuff that you hear about that you think "Yeah, sure, it would be nice, but who is really doing it?" Kristi and Sean are. Really. I'd tell you more but then I would have to... (you know the rest).

Call with the Average Software Sales Person

Sales Person (SP): Hello, Mr. Hunter?

Me: Yes?

SP: I am with (fill in the blank software company) and I have GOOD NEWS to tell you about our solution, which is the number one in the market.

Me: How do you measure that?

SP: Excuse me?

Me: How do you measure “#1”? You’re not a public company so I can’t independently verify that you sell more product than your competition. You advertise with the magazine that just gave you that big award, so that’s not very helpful. I don’t hear much about you from people I respect. So what exactly does “#1” mean?

SP: Well sir, we are the most configurable system on the market.

Me: OK, so you don’t have an answer to the “What’s #1?” question. Got it. Now, how do you know that you have the most configurable system on the market?

SP: Well, we consistently get high marks from (fill in name of pundit or publication).

Me: Do you have an economic relationship with that (person / publication)?

SP: Excuse me?

Me: You know, do you pay them money before they say nice things about you?

SP: Oh I assure you sir, integrity is very important to our company.

Me: I’ll take that as a “yes.” So let’s examine integrity for a minute. Do you pay your sales people immediately upon closing the sale, or do you stagger the commission based on measurable customer satisfaction?

SP: Excuse me?

Me: Do your sales people get rich once the contract is signed, or do they only make their money once the customer actually achieves what you told him / her they were going to achieve?

SP: What does that have to do with anything sir?

Me: Well, you mentioned “integrity.” Integrity is when one’s words and one’s actions match. Companies that pay salespeople for closing a deal as opposed to customer success tell salespeople that they should do whatever it takes to close the deal, leaving the mess for the professional services team to clean up. But if a sales person’s personal success is aligned with the customer’s success, you are more likely to practice integrity as you obviously preach it. So which is it?

SP: Sir, our sales people are the best in the business. I assure you that they are absolutely committed to your success.

Me: Uh huh. Tell me please, what percentage of your customers that have been in operation for over six months picked up a phone and called a friend to recommend your system in the last month?

SP: Um, sir, we don’t keep those statistics.

Me: OK, how about this one. What is the average tenure of your sales professionals?

SP: Excuse me?

Me: You know, how long do the sales people hang around?

SP: What does that have to do with anything?

Me: My experience has been that sales people who sell a good product want to stick around because the margins are good, and their repeat business is a high percentage of sales, which means they make club faster which means they make money easier. Good sales people leave companies that sell crappy products because their percentage of repeat business to new business is low, which means their cost of sales is higher, which means it is harder to make their number. So they sell what they can and leave. Or the company hires bad sales people who hoodwink the prospects, get the company in deep puckey, and then split before their commission gets dinged. Either way, the longer your sales people stick around, the better it is for me. So how long have they been around?

SP: Sir, if I could just direct you to the fact that there is no better system on the market to handle your recruiting / compensation / hiring / onboarding needs…

Me: What are they?

SP: Excuse me?

Me: You can’t possibly know that your system is the best fit for my needs without knowing my needs. So what are they?

SP: Sir, our research shows that everyone is trying to (lower costs / get better data / implement faster / get leading edge technology).

Me: But I don’t have any of those problems. And by telling me that those are the problems you solve, you are telling me that you sell the same piece of commoditized junk that everyone else is selling. So, can you relate any of my problems to any of the uniqie features of your solution such that I will look like a genius for picking you and my company will sell more widgets in the marketplace?

SP: No, sir, but if you would let us come in an do a presentation I am sure we could figure that out together.

Me: OK, how much?

SP: Excuse me?

Me: How much of your commission am I going to get for helping you figure out how to sell to me?

Click... brrrrrrrrrrrrrr......

 

The New Recruiting.com Looks Awesome

Get over to Recruiting.com and take a look at their new site. I love how Jason Davis and crew continue to set the standard and innovate us all to greatness.

I have been reading Good to Great recently, and found one of the anecdotes in there interesting. Great companies sometimes get out of markets because the competition is poor. They define great markets by great competitors. If this is the case (and I think there is a lot of sense to it) then Recruiting.com continues to define recruitment blogging as a great market. They are truly in the "rising tide" business and it is an honor to be in the water with them.

Congrats Jason, Jason Goldberg and the entire Jobster crew. Great job!

Free: Gibbons

(A Gibbon is small primate. Just picture them like a monkey, spastically jumping around and making noise.)

When I was in college (back when candles were used for lighting and coal for heating) my friends and I would sit around and in between old episodes of Star Trek, we would develop lists of “Givens.” Like “It’s a given that she won’t go out with you” or “You’re gonna flunk that test; that’s a given.” One of us started calling them Gibbons (perhaps they weren't quite sober at the time). And so the idea of the Gibbon was born: an event, task, idea or concept that was foreordained, as certain as the sun's rising and setting, and therefore an event, task, idea or concept that couldn't be questioned. Failing the test was a Gibbon, so you didn't even worry about how to change your study habits or cram at the last second. It just wouldn't be worth it.

After a year or two it became apparent to my friends and I that Gibbons are funny things. Since they don't get questioned they develop lives of their own. In fact it is quite easy for your life to be taken over by Gibbons. And like all monkeys, Gibbons end up settling comfortably onto your back, where they weigh you down until you set them free. Sometimes the monkey was a task (as the common useage would indicate), but more often than not the monkey was just conventional wisdom, limiting the holder of the Gibbon to a existence of quiet frustration.

If you are in corporate America then you have are quite literally covered in Gibbons. Ever get asked to do something that is so stupid that you just have to wonder who ever thought it was a good idea in the first place? That’s a Gibbon. Ever fail to raise your hand at a company meeting and challenge the conventional wisdom? That's a Gibbon too. Gibbons cost the U.S. economy billions of dollars every year, because Gibbons limit progress and waste time.

Gibbons spring to life due to one of two phenomenons:

1. Something was a good idea once, but doesn't make sense any more. Gibbons are amazingly resilient to the ravages of time.
2. The Gibbon was born of something called the Abilene Paradox whereby nobody wanted the Gibbon in the first place, but you ended up with it anyway.

Top 8 Reasons I am not Joel Cheesman

Joel had a great post over at Cheezhead today. He mentioned that he will never be me and I will never be him. Other than the pure philosophical and physical common sense of his statement, I thought it important to point out exactly why that is true. So here are my “Top 8 Reasons I am not Joel Cheesman.”

Reason 1 - Joel is cool. He hangs out with sports stars and cheerleaders (can’t find the link, but the pictures were good), he’s got swagger… even the picture on his blog just drips with a Fonzi-esque “You are boring me and we aren’t even talking yet” gestalt. He is no longer “Joel Cheesman” he is just “The Cheese.” Ehhhhhhh!

Reason 2 - Joel is happy. Or at least that’s what I think he means when he says “Never Bleu.” I like Bleu Cheese, but it stinks and is laden with fungus, so maybe he is saying he bathes regularly. Either way, a big thumbs up for Joel not being bleu.

Reason 3 - Joel is multi-media. He embeds pod casts and videos in his blog. The “Jumbo Shrimp” video was awesome. I think a video of Joel dancing around in his underwear would be a great add to his blog (please reference Reason 6).

Reason 4 - Joel is at the tip of the spear. HRSEO is going to be big, and Joel has established himself as the big dawg in the market.

Reason 5 - Joel lives in Cleveland. And we all know that Cleveland rocks (am I the only one that remembers that a Hunter (Ian Hunter specifically) wrote that song? Coincidence? I think not!)

Reason 6 - Joel has the same name as Tom Cruise in Risky Business. I don’t know whether Joel is pimping on the side to get into the college of his choice (or perhaps the customers of his dreams), but given Reason 1, I have to assume he has examined this as a marketing option.

Reason 7 - Joel picks fights with Monsters. OK, sure, considering the Monster in question it’s a little like fighting your Grandfather, but Joel makes us believe that his Grandfather is Jack Palance. I know I would be impressed if Joel could actually take Jack.

And the top reason I am not Joel - Joel is a really good blogger. Joel uses his blog to create value, and knows how his blog returns value to his business. He stays out of fights he can’t win and get’s dirty in ones he thinks he can. All that stands in direct contrast to Talentism, which is sporadic, overly long, complex and sometimes meandering. In short, when I thought about what a really good blog is, I thought of Joel (amongst others). When I think about a social crusade that may end up with a BWI (blogging while intoxicated) embarrassing episode, I think of Talentism.

I think this should completely put to rest any confusion around my identity. I know that is a big weight off my shoulders and I am sure that Joel is just besides himself with joy. If you ever want to know why I am not you, just write me, and I can probably come up with a couple of good reasons.