December 07, 2006

Dashnote Launches: Common Cold Cured

... well, maybe not the common cold. But this is cool all the same.

You may remember me mentioning Dashnote a few times (here and here). Some of you were even included in the beta program (thanks for your feedback). Well Dashnote is ready for prime time and people are starting to use it in many interesting ways. For instance:

Sean Rehder is using Dashnote for distributed web-based support. He distributes a bookmarklet to users of his client’s Salesforce solutions and they use Dashnote to give him feedback on his apps, as well as request support for bugs and enhancement requests.

I have started using Dashnote for group Knowledge Management. I have set up different topics around areas I write about or am interested in, and then distribute the URL for the bookmarklet to people whom I want to include in my “Knowledge Group.” They find cool stuff for me to read on the web and provide their comments (Dashnote calls them “annotations”) through Dashnote.

Here is one that I think will really take off: recruiters have started using Dashnote to streamline their online sourcing. They set up an account, get the bookmarklet, and as they find resumes on the web they can quickly provide their comments about the resume, as well as store all the resumes they find in one convenient place. Some recruiters are even using the Dashnote “Snapper” functionality to clip resumes and forward them to hiring managers with their comments.

It’s all very exciting. I remember sitting down with Dashnote founder Ranjit Padmanabhan back in January envisioning a way to capture and annotate web content (we coined the term "3d Web" to describe it), and now it is a reality (due to the incredible efforts of Ranjit and David  and Dawn).

If you think of other cool ways to use Dashnote, or are using Dashnote for your business, let us know! You can comment on this post, send email to jjhunter at gmail dot com or, even better, drop a comment off at the Dashnote Blog.

November 06, 2006

That's the Power of Blog: Peter Clayton

A little over a year ago I wrote something called 68 Posts. Whenever someone asks me why I blog I point them to that article. With my recent revelations about the futility of trying to change the world of recruiting, I thought it best to go back and reconnect with some of the rewards I get from this peculiar activity. Reading 68 Posts I was struck by the fact that Peter Clayton reminded me of the power of blogging and I hadn’t thanked him yet. Sorry Peter!

What does existential crisis, blogging and building a network have to do with Peter Clayton? Funny you should ask. Next year I am going to be starting a new blog (about politics, not business or talent) and I decided that I wanted to try podcasting my content rather than just writing. I don’t know how to podcast any more than I know how to flycast, so I set about to learn: how do I get my voice on RSS? Like most people I went to Google and ran a search and started reading. Inevitably I ended up with a long list of questions and realized that I needed a teacher. Where to find one?

Asking someone to be a teacher is not an insignificant request. As many teachers through the years can testify, I am not a very good student. Add to that the fact that I hate to impose on other people and I quickly hit a dead-end. Until I remembered that I had worked for the last two years to provide value to a diverse network of people, and that perhaps I wouldn’t be asking for a favor as much as I would be cashing in some of the trust I had deposited in the global bank of blog. So I put the question to a test and sent an email to Peter Clayton, a person who I greatly respect and frequently listen to, but whom wouldn’t know me from Adam if I ran in front of him and did jumping jacks while shouting out “Talentism!” Given that relative anonymity I had few hopes for success.

Much to my pleasant surprise Peter wrote me back in 5 minutes. He was gracious, offering to talk with me as soon as was mutually convenient. Before I knew it I was on the phone with a guy who probably gets a bazzilion requests for his time, asking him stupid questions like “how do I record my voice anyway?” Peter not only spent considerable time with me, but followed up our conversation with some emails with helpful tidbits and Flash code for embedded MP3 players. What a prince.

If you haven’t listened to Peter’s content you really must drop everything and get over to his site, TotalPicture.com. His content is thought provoking, his expert delivery is crisp and easy on the ears, his topics cogent and his technical wizardry without peer in the recruiting world. I know the last bit of information first-hand because Peter patiently described to me what goes into getting one of his shows up on TotalPicture. We’re not talking about some guy with half a cigarette hanging out of his mouth holding a lapel microphone up to a phone while he does the NY Times crossword puzzle and says “Uh-huh” every couple of seconds. Peter comes from an audio engineering background and so has a wide variety of equipment and mastering techniques that allow him to achieve the well-mixed clarity with his shows that only a professional can deliver.

TotalPicture’s content is always worth the time, but I especially like it when he hangs out with people I know. Peter is great at putting a guest at ease and asking questions that get to the heart of the recruiting matter. I especially liked his recent conversation with Heather Hamilton.

Peter’s generosity reminded me that blogging is not just about a mission (if, in fact, that is the purpose of your blog, as it is for me). Blogging is about community. About value for value. Though Peter had only a passing acquaintance with me and my name, he knew me through my blogging and guessed (astutely I hope) that it would be worth his time to help me out of my technical befuddlement. That is the power of blog... (so maybe it’s worth it after all….)

September 27, 2006

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:

Continue reading "Is Digg Wise?" »

August 22, 2006

Want to Reduce Turnover? Turn your Employees into Brand Talent!

It is increasingly difficult to separate the act of finding great talent from the act of keeping great talent. In many ways it is a math problem: there aren’t enough people out there to replace the people you are losing. Reducing voluntary turnover is turning out to not only be the most cost-effective recruiting program you have, but maybe the only option left to you.

As recruiting managers come to this “ah-ha!” moment, they inevitably turn to the option of employee loyalty programs. The idea is simple: if you give the right rewards and say the right things then employees will stay around. It’s just like selling detergent: make it cheaper and sexier and people will overlook that your clothes don’t get clean. Fortunately people value their work experience more than they value their cleaning products, so the average consumer marketing cons aren’t going to work.

Loyalty programs will have decreasing effectiveness because the days of blind commitment to a company are done. In the past a company was an embodiment of a principle: security. Employment was rewarded independent of the value someone contributed, so you could be loyal to a company because they would be loyal to you. No longer. Too many employers view talent as a cog in the economic wheel: less valuable than the money and machinery, more valuable than the lobby décor. Many employees see an employer as an abstraction consisting of institutional shareholders wagging the dog that is management. Whether these perceptions are warranted or not is besides the point: it is the reality of our world. The days of executives taking a hit from Wall Street because they want to keep their employees around is a rare event indeed.

Employee loyalty programs have been a small but key contribution to this tsunami of cynicism. Management credibility is paid in the coin of authenticity, and nothing feels more contrived than an “attaboy!” followed by increased work hours, lousy bosses and decreased wages. Piecemeal changes to the relationship with employees won’t turn this situation around. It really does take a radical new approach.

Continue reading "Want to Reduce Turnover? Turn your Employees into Brand Talent!" »

August 05, 2006

Google This: I am not having Brad Pitt's Love Child

All those who labor over their blogs either learn or intuit a few simple guidelines about their endeavor:

  1. Post frequently.
  2. Write stuff that matters to you and your audience.
  3. Be consistent in style, presentation and intent.
  4. Be fresh and engaging.

This all makes sense. Blogging is supposed to be a conversation, not a diatribe, a community instead of a hermitage. So you gotta keep 'em coming back for more.

After 173 posts comprising over 500 pages of original content (in essence, after writing a book in public) I have learned all those lessons first hand. I can watch my traffic numbers spike and dive as I employ (or forget) those maxims.

But those "guidelines" can also be creativity killers. Having to stay on top of a post every day, or every couple of days, really does me in. People like Sumser and Dubs and Jason are just so damn good at it that it is easy to forget that it is almost super-human to create fresh, interesting and relevant content frequently and consistently.

Today I am going to put up three posts: this one and two others. This one is short and quick and will probably get some traction. The other two are long, drawn-out and boring and will be read only by B-school shut-ins who really don't care but need to look smart in their next Porter class. I should break these two longer posts into little nuggets and be pithy and irreverent, but I really don't have the time, and while I am here and engaged, I want to get all this stuff up and online (and forget about it).

I wouldn't have considered this 4 months ago, but a significant stint of radio silence on my part, coupled with some rigorous analysis of my site traffic, leads me to the conclusion that a significant part of the value that I am adding to the blogosphere (if there is any) is that my articles are crawled and indexed and available when people type in a search on Google (and sometimes Yahoo). It's not as sexy as having a regular readership, and it certainly fails in the area of building a conversation and a community, but at this point being Googled is about the best I can do.

Keywords: sex, Tom Cruise weds Brad Pitt, Britney Spears gives birth to Brad Pitts illegitimate love child, did I say sex yet?, Angelina Jolie, naked

Thanks for reading!

June 01, 2006

Java Entrepreneur Get's It

 

Java Entrepreneur gets it. And while I don’t always buy into the “best and the brightest” tag line , his “Worst Boss to Work For” is a great read. I am adding this blog to my list. If you are hiring software engineers, you should too.

May 22, 2006

Recommended Reading: Escape from Cubicle Nation

Check out this blog: Escape from Cubicle Nation

This post is especially great. (Thanks Colin for pointing it out to me!)

I believe that most of Pamela's excellent points are symptoms, not causes, of corporate stupidity. When people are rewarded for conserving capital and are penalized for mazimizing the value of talent then they engage in all the stupid behaviors that Pamela writes about so passionately.

Talentism is an attempt to get people to change the root cause, but pointing out the stupidity of the symptoms is a lot of fun too.

Thanks Pamela!

May 11, 2006

A New Tag Line

You may notice that this blog's tag line has changed. It used to be "Business, talent, technology and the American Way" (or something like that). The phrase certainly stated the topics I covered, but didn't give me any warm fuzzies about just why I was engaged in tilting at these particular windmills.

At the same time that I was thinking about this, I was working on the book about Brand Talent with Dave Lefkow. When you write a book you hope that editors and publishers will magically appear out of nowhere, swinging huge bags of cash around and begging you to publish with them. Then you figure out that the authors are the ones coughing up the cash and doing the begging, so you start to go out and pitch your idea. As part of that you go around and ask people whom you respect, and who used to respect you before you ask them to spend their time shilling for you, to write nice things about you and your idea.

It's an interesting exercise. I don't know about you, but asking people to put aside their busy lives so that they can talk about how great I am is right up there with public flatulence in quiet places for uncomfortable situations that call attention to yourself.

One of the people whom I asked replied with something that really struck home. This person asked me to keep their identity private because they work with a large organization that would have to review what they wrote if it was publicly attributed. Or maybe they just didn't want anyone to know we are friends. After the flatulence comment I can understand their point of view.

Continue reading "A New Tag Line" »

May 04, 2006

Jazy Thinking - Part 3

Today we will examine the last and final statement from Jazy regarding "Three Measures of your Company's Health": Cash Flow.

Jazy likes cash flow instead of basic P&L metrics because “all your other profit-and-loss numbers, like net income, have some art to them.. they’ve been messaged through the accounting process, which is filled with assumptions.”

It's certainly refreshing to see a top executive admit that most of today's modern accounting techniques are turning up to be ever more useless. As I said here:

'P&L' is an accounting concept, not an economic model. Many accounting tricks can be played to arrive at a predetermined profit target. Profit is therefore a temporary lagging indicator of an organization’s ability to manage its finances in such a way as to record the highest possible number for the quarter. Many organizations record profits but don’t return value above their cost of capital.

So cash flow is better than standard P&L metrics, but is it the best financial measure a company's health?

A company exists to return value to its investors. When a company has been in business a long time and is in a relatively static industry then cash flow is a good short-hand for the value they are creating. But fewer and fewer companies are in the enviable position of being valued for how much money they mint. Instead, companies are increasingly measured by whether they have some new concept or widget which will make a lot of cash in the future, but is doing nothing but costing money right now. Innovation is a process of taking something that is valuable today (time, money, natural resources, attention) and turning it into something that will be much more valuable tomorrow (products and services that can be replicated easily and sold at a profit to what it really cost to create them).

In those cases, cash flow is a lousy measure of your company's health. For instance, would you rather be a Microsoft shareholder today (a company that has great cash flow) or a Google shareholder six years ago (a company that, at that time, had almost no cash flow). A share of stock in Google six years ago is much more valuable than a share in Microsoft today, even though one company generates a lot of cash and the other didn't.

More and more companies (and analysts) are coming to realize that the P&L and cash flow statement suffer from the same basic problem: they don't tell you how much the company is really worth. Cash flow can tell you how healthy the company is right now, but that health can go away fast. A company with a really strong balance sheet, on the other hand, probably has a stronger position for the future.

Continue reading "Jazy Thinking - Part 3" »

May 03, 2006

Some Jazy Thinking - Part 2

Yesterday we examined why Jack and Suzy Welch's (or, as I call them, "Jazy") admonition to survey your employees to determine their engagement wasn't the best possible way to establish just how committed your employees are. (The column I referred to yesterday is premium content, so I can't provide a link.)

Jazy says that the second important measure of your company's health is Customer Satisfaction. They explain that you have to meet customers in order to know how they feel about your products / services / people. Good advice. Then Jazy say’s “And don’t leave without finding out if each customer would recommend your products or services.” Even better advice. But the best advice of all would be “Get evidence that your customers like you, as all the meetings and glad-handing is meaningless in absence of evidence about how your customers really feel."

How do you do that? Glad you asked. You look for heat. You want hot customers, not cold ones, and you want customers that show you the love. Here is a method I have used before to determine both the health of an individual customer relationship and, even more importantly, the overall health of all of your customer relationships.

Continue reading "Some Jazy Thinking - Part 2" »

May 02, 2006

Some Jazy Thinking - Part 1

Jack and Suzy Welch (whom I shall henceforth refer to as simply “Jazy”) have a column in BusinessWeek titled “Ideas the Welch Way.” In the colum Jazy sets out to identify the three most meaningful measures of a company’s health.

The three measure they propose are:

  1. Employee engagement
  2. Customer satisfaction
  3. Cash flow

Let’s take the next three days and examine these a little more closely. Jazy's responses provide a great platform for exploring some ideas that are near-and-dear to my heart and that I have not as of yet explored fully (except cash flow - more on that in two days).

Today… Employee Engagement

Continue reading "Some Jazy Thinking - Part 1" »

April 24, 2006

Buildings that Stand

In 1979 Christopher Alexander published a book titled The Timeless Way of Building. Alexander opens the book by saying:

There is one timeless way of building… It is not possible to make great buildings, or beautiful places, places where you feel yourself, places where you feel alive, except by following this way.

For recruiters that “one way” is transparency and authenticity.

Continue reading "Buildings that Stand" »

April 18, 2006

Working at Electronic Arts

Talentism is not a “recruiting blog” in the oft-used sense of that phrase: my topic of choice is not usually how great it is to work at Electronic Arts (EA) . This is a personal blog and maintaining the freedom to discuss the topics that are important to me is something I jealously guard. Never once has a post been published here with the idea “Hey, prospective hires are just gonna love this!” Even the “Join the EA Talent Network” widget is more an experiment in technological utility than a shill for my employer. I always figured that (as was said in 68 Posts) that this blog was a “payment in advance,” a way of creating a market for my ideas based on their value to the reader. I always assumed that if readers got value from the posts and they knew I worked at EA, then by the transitive property some people might think better of EA.  I never put more thought into it than that.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the forum. Last week I was asked a specific question about EA in an interview and an apparently repressed desire to sing EA’s praises came pouring forth. It was astonishing, to me as much as anybody else.

My self-description would be “contrarian entrepreneurial innovation information junkie” in that I have spent most of my career starting and running small companies. Since 1992 I have not recieved a paycheck from a company with more than 100 employees. And as my regular readers will likely recognize, I have never been a fan of corporate America. So it was more than a bit of a shock to my friends and family when I told them that I was “going corporate”, not only because that didn’t seem to be in my DNA but also because I have a family to feed and my off-the-wall approach to creative problem solving didn’t seem to be a big company’s cup of tea. Frankly, even I was perplexed about my decision to join EA. It felt like the right thing to do, but any further examination of the situation always ended in “Are you nuts?”

And yet here I was, 14 months and 20 days later, telling the Fortune Innovation Blog that “I feel lucky every day I get to go to work.” What happened? Do they literally serve Kool-aid from the drink dispensers that I frequent in the HR department? Perhaps, but the truth of the feeling is inescapable: I have never had more fun working. I am having a blast. That doesn’t mean that it’s all daisies and love 24/7 (but if your idea of fulfillment is a big kumbaya session then you probably need to stick to the camp counselor listings in the want ads). And I wouldn’t say I have gotten hitched – I continue to believe in a free agent market and that all employers need to be recruiting their employees every day. But the much prognosticated (perhaps there was a bit of schadenfreude in there, hmmm?) homogenization of my personality hasn’t occured. I haven’t had to go through some sort of genetic mutation in order to survive here. Quite the opposite – I find that I am rewarded for innovating and hard-charging without the worry of making a payroll (those of you whom are entrepreneurs know the dread of which I speak). Best of all, I get to work with a lot of incredibly smart people who charge my learning battery in ways that I haven’t enjoyed since… well, ever.

Continue reading "Working at Electronic Arts" »

April 14, 2006

Fortune Innovation Blog Interview with Talentism

This was fun.

March 31, 2006

What is Talentism?

CH finally did it. He goaded me into explaining what I mean by “Talentism.” (BTW – Love the new blog!) I have been struggling with getting a more detailed explanation down for a while so I might as well take a crack at it now.

First, someone told me recently that I often write like I am trying to make other people feel stupid. That is really not my intention. This is how I think about these things. Really smart people can take a difficult subject like this and make it easy to understand in one-sentence soundbytes. I am not nearly that smart.

Talentism means that talent is more valuable than money, which is more valuable than need. It’s better than capitalism, which values the holding and exchange of real capital (money), and it’s way better than consumerism (our present system of economics) in that it focuses on the production of value, not the fulfillment of need. It focuses people on how they can make the world a better place and it focuses companies on how they can help people achieve their best.

Continue reading "What is Talentism?" »

February 28, 2006

Clear or Certain?

On Monday we talked about the concept of "Right versus Rich." Today we will talk about "Certain" versus "Clear."

"Right" people need certainty. It is a psychological signature; you can see it in how they approach people, projects and their work in general. You want to find "certain" people if you are hiring for advanced technical research positions, scientists, financial analysts, compensation specialists or safety inspectors. You want people who display the "certain" signature for any job where getting it wrong costs lives or costs millions of dollars, and where the cost of getting right is always worth it.

Continue reading "Clear or Certain?" »

February 27, 2006

Announcing TuSK!

I am not a recruiter. There, I said it. I do a lot of my work in a recruiting department, and spend a lot of time with recruiters and I have been a recruiter in the past. But right now I am doing technology, strategy and business stuff, not the whole recruiting thing.

But once you recruiting in your blood it is hard to forget. It's a lot like sales but with two smiling faces instead of one (since in recruiting you always have two customers: the candidate and the hiring manager). You can go on to start companies and do all sorts of things, but you never forget the high of helping a great person find a job, or connecting two great people so that they go start something great. I think it’s one of the coolest ways known to wo/man to make the world a better place.

It’s with that in mind that I have started a new blog: TuSK. TuSK stands for Talent u Should Know. As I explain on the site, TuSK is about introducing you to:

  • People who I have worked with who I think are great, and
  • People who I trust and respect, and
  • People who the people I trust and respect know

In other words, it’s an informal network of at most one degree of separation. Sometimes you will see a short note from me about somebody I think you should know. Sometimes you will see a note from that person themselves (that note can cover any topic of their interest as long as they think it serves as a way to get to know them better). Other times you will see people I trust and respect writing about great people they know. But no matter what, if you are reading about someone on TuSK he or she is a person I am willing to champion and spend time on.

There aren’t many rules, but the few that exist won’t be broken:

  • If I don’t know you, introducing yourself via email won’t qualify as “friendship.” To be a guest author or otherwise be in the TuSK spotlight I need to really get to know you. You figure out how (hint: email always works better than phone or voice mail).
  • No fees, no time, no way. Don’t even think about writing me to put someone on if you will get paid for it sometime later. This is a way of building a value network, not of getting my friends rich. If I find out you are pushing people for monetary gain you will be deleted as an author.
  • If you like the site, think about using the “Tip Jar” on the left hand column. It will help me cover the costs of the site.
  • All posts are approved by me before they go out, so if I don’t like it, I won’t post it. No exceptions.
  • I reserve the right to change, add, delete, modify, color and flaunt the rules however I see fit. No whining!

Otherwise let’s have at it and see if we can’t all introduce each other to the great people we know.

February 26, 2006

Right or Rich?

Here is an easy way to see if there is alignment between a hiring manager and an employee. Ask them both the same question: "Do you want to be right, or do you want to be rich?"

Said another way: "Which is more important to you: your ego or your value?"

Continue reading "Right or Rich?" »

February 20, 2006

Reference Posts

I periodically publish something called a “reference post.” These are posts that I use as a reference point for other articles and conversations. I figure the value of a reference post by calculating the amount of time I save from having to explain a concept multiple times, and then subtracting the amount of time if took to write, edit and link to the post. Every reference post has paid off handsomely in total time saved except the “Gunslinger” story, because that took longer than most to write and most people don’t take the time to read it, and the “Sellers, Buyers and Branders” post, because I just put that up last week. Otherwise, I would consider all reference posts as having positive ROI.

My able and awesome web assistant Dawn (she is awesome on Typepad web work as well as general web design - check out her site) has added the category links back in the right hand column of Talentism so that you can navigate right to these types of posts (as well as Strategy posts, etc.).

I am always looking for ways to make the content on Talentism more accessible. Comments always welcome.

February 16, 2006

Seller, Buyers and Branders (and one Piker)

Every once in a while something or someone bothers you so much that you have to address it. Some people go to the gym and work out and get healthier. I sit down and write about it and get more sedate. Perhaps it is time to go outside.

Continue reading "Seller, Buyers and Branders (and one Piker)" »

December 12, 2005

Time To Proficiency

(First published March of this year.)

There are two metrics that are at the core of any sales systems success. I have never heard of them measured or discussed. Because our language of technology (at least in the world of recruiting) does not include handy references to these factors, our discussions of technology keep coming up short. And we keep getting low adoption rates for the systems that we install.

Today we talk about the first and most important metric: Time to Proficiency (TTP).

Continue reading "Time To Proficiency" »

November 17, 2005

No More "Passive"

I am not going to use the term “passive candidates” anymore. I have used it in the past as short-hand for describing a person who won’t ever be coming to your job site to apply for a job.

But the concept of a “passive candidate” appears to be a contradiction in terms. When I have been talking about passive candidates I have been speaking of people who are constantly updating and expanding their networks and finding ways to add value to that network. They work almost as hard as “active” seekers at getting to their next opportunity.

Because they are good at their jobs, and are in demand because of it, they expect you to come looking for them. They definitely won't be looking for you. Even more, they expect that you will have done your research and know what they do, why they are good and who else thinks so. This means they don’t expect to go through lots of interviews or have to prove themselves to potential employers. Their network can verify they are good and their network is trusted by the people who do the hiring.

So I would like to propose the concept of Brand Talent. (It may be that others such as Tom Peters have done this - let me know if you have heard of this before so I can link to their definition.) Brand Talent has the following characteristics:

Continue reading "No More "Passive"" »

October 31, 2005

68 Posts

68 posts. About 130 pages of content. A royal pain in the butt. A gut-wrenching act of public intellectual immolation. The last 10 months of my blogging experience have indeed been interesting. When you have three kids, a busy spouse, a new house, 2 dogs (soon to be 10), 4 cats and all the things that come with them, one has to ask “What the hell are you thinking?” Why put in the effort and time and heartache when it doesn’t make any money?

Continue reading "68 Posts" »

October 12, 2005

Experience and Education

Managing risk is an important part of what recruiters do. Recruiting is a gate-keeping service. We are starting to figure out that taking time to get the right person in is often less expensive than taking the time to get the wrong person out. Over time we have invented all kinds of tools and methods to manage risk. Once they have been around for a while people generally stop asking whether they work or not.

We hire people to complete tasks and run functions (not really – we employ talent to create value, but I’ll try to stick to the point). A good recruiter will want to figure out whether someone is capable of doing a task before they get through they get the key to executive washroom. But most recruiters are swamped, so they look for easy-to-recognize and generally-agreed-upon statistics to assess whether a person can really do what they say they can. The two most common are “Years of Experience” and “Degree (Education).”

The problem is, both of these are unreliable measures of whether someone can do a task or run a function. We tend to miss the point that both of these are short-hand measures of risk. After all, if someone has an MBA they can’t be stupid right? (Which means you need to hang around more MBA’s – you can’t take a blind swing at one of my family get togethers without knocking three of four MBAs to the ground, which is where they are probably going to end up after the punch is gone anyway). If someone has “programmed” for 10 years they have to be good at programming, right?

Wrong. We are just talking probabilities here. Risk analysis. If you take any two individuals and know only one fact about them (which one has had more experience doing a particular task or function), then you will draw the conclusion that the one with more experience will be better at the function. Or perhaps if someone went to Harvard and another person went to Whatsamatta U, you say to yourself “Harvard’s always better.” But they’re not. Dolts get into Harvard all the time. They are called Legacies. Sure, they’re rich dolts. But unless you are looking for a VC, that doesn’t really matter, does it?

It may in fact be that you are more likely to get someone who is qualified by virtue of their greater experience. But it is not a certainty. Do you know how great a risk you are facing? Is it a 1 in 5 chance that the person from Princeton with 20 years of programming experience can barely chew gum and walk at the same time? A 2 in 5 chance? And if you don’t know, then why use the measure at all? The probability of value is outweighed by the possibility of risk.

We have to be willing to demand proof of outcomes and behaviors. Have the candidate show you work they have done at previous companies (within the legal guidelines established by your company, of course). Have them demonstrate the reach and power of their network to you. Get testimonials from people you trust who also know them. And for goodness sakes, spend the time up front to create a “roles description” that can be evaluated with proof and outcomes.

Years of experience and education (other than in positions that require certification such as legal positions), are bad indicators of potential and unreliable measures of risk.

October 05, 2005

History, Theory and Legality - Why Lying Doesn't Make Sense

One of the things I have learned about blogging is that it is not a place for long tirades. People get bored and don’t want to spend their time reading you work out your issues in the digital domain. I know first hand, because I have rambled about stuff that gets the universal “what the hell are you talking about?” response. My readership numbers directly correlate to these posts. Talk a little, and they go up. Talk a lot, and they go down. So this little number should send the numbers right through the floor.

Everyone is blogging and talking about the Adler and Sumser conflict. I think that’s a good thing. But the debate seems mostly uninformed by corporate history, sound business theory or any basic understanding of the legal issues involved. So I thought I would reflect a little bit on these topics.

First, the entire discussion starts on the premise of the permanence of the labor contract. All arguments that have been posted start with an assumption about the level of hold an employer has on their employees. Many have related this to slavery: you haven’t been able to “own” a person since the emancipation proclamation (or Lee’s surrender at Appomattox), and so every employee is a free agent, completely free of the bonds of corporate servitude. Then there are those that say that approaching an employee of another company is like “stealing” – the person is (supposedly) happily employed and you go in there and try to poach / steal / take them out of that environment, which has does material harm to the company being alleviated of their employee.

Corporate History

In pre-industrial society (after feudalism but before mass production) you started as an apprentice. Fathers sold their sons into the employ of an artisan or craftsman so that the boy could learn their trade, eventually graduating out of apprenticeship to full artisan or craftsman status. It was against the law to try to “poach” someone out of this situation. (Many people still are stuck with this notion – that while you are getting your bread and education from someone else you are “owned” by them and that it would be bad practice to try to lure them away from a situation to which they are ethically and legally committed.)

Two things happened to change this: the civil war and the development of the steam engine. Steam power moved industrial production from craftsmanship to mass production, so people became employed by a large enterprise, not by an individual. Most people understand that. But what they don’t understand is that the very nature of the industrial enterprise was changed by the civil war. Companies no longer had to get congressional approval for incorporation. Lincoln needed more corporations to supply his troops, so congress changed the rules to make it easier to set up (and disband) a corporation. In other words, when the corporation became impermanent (since the barrier to entry and penalty for exit were both reduced), so did the employment contract.

This (and not the Japanese miracle of the 70’s) was the start of  our “free agent” work place. Over time the contractual obligation  between the employer and employee has gotten weaker and weaker. You knew that “ownership” of an employee was dead as a concept when IBM had its first layoffs in the 80’s. But this doesn’t mean that an employee has no obligation to the employer. Quite the contrary. In fact, the obligation of an employee to hold a employer’s information as valuable and proprietary information is at the heart of the rest of our analysis.

But overall the basic premise that recruiters “steal” employees is fundamentally bankrupt, not because slavery is dead, but because free market economics has successfully killed off every form of employee indenture, starting with feudalism, working through apprenticeship, and ending with life-long employment contracts. Employees are free agents in as much as they can freely change employment at will. And while the fluidity of the employment contract may cause real harm to employers as an employee who is critical to some part of the business is able to leave freely and without bondage, the value to individual to freely pursue their interests (perhaps this is the real “pursuit of happiness” of which Jefferson spoke?) outweighs the potential damage to the corporation.

Therefore it is not stealing or poaching (or whatever derogatory name you want to hang on the practice) when you attempt to recruit someone from another company, even if they are a competitor and by virtue of your act of recruiting you are impairing the competitor’s ability to compete in the marketplace.

So if engaging in the act of recruiting from another company is both legal and ethical (as defined by a civilly and legally defensible act that does not markedly decrease the value of your brand in the marketplace), then you have not crossed the line into hell whereby all actions are justified because you have already decided to do bad things (the old “if you are going to hold up a liquor store you might as well murder the clerk” argument of ethics, which is one of two roots of all evil, but I digress).

Business Theory and Practice

Sound business theory says that your objective is to create value for your investors. You must provide a greater rate of return than they would get for a similar amount of risk out of another enterprise. Therefore there are some enterprises which may provide a lot of return to investors, but with a high degree of risk, and others that the opposite (low return, low risk).

Engaging in risky business practice may be justified by the return. Many (most) businesses engage in behavior that according to a personal code of ethics would be abhorrent but which in a business are expected (“vapor ware” in the software industry is a great example).

Business seeks to return value to shareholders within a very constrained value system: “value for value” and “reward exceeds risk.” Over time government (as an agency of the people) has constrained business behavior: what is good for GM is not always good for America. They do this by proscribing criminal controls (fraud is a criminal activity for instance) and civil law controls (failing to file you annual corporate meetings minutes for instance) as a consequence for behavior that is seen an antithetical to the good of the society as a whole.

These consequences are risks, and therefore must be taken into account in the “reward exceeds risk” calculation. After all, if your company is going to get fined for undertaking a certain activity then that is a risk that may outweigh the value of the anticipated reward for executing that activity.

Again, businesses are not operating in the ethical constraints that an individual is. The corporation does not seek to get into heaven, and doesn’t have to look itself in the mirror in the morning. (I personally disagree with the basic corporate structure – it was wrong for the East India Company and its wrong today, but that is another question for another day.) But businesses do have to assess whether their activities create risks for their shareholders that outweigh the probability of return from pulling it off.

Legal Issues

So rather than focusing on the ethical questions of this debate, focus on the business issues. And the business issues are pretty significant. If you, as an individual or agent of a company, intentionally use deception as a method of business, you are more than likely liable for a civil action. Your risk equation has to include the probability that you will be caught and the probability that you will be sued. In the past, in the “wink-and-a-nod” underworld of recruiting, these probabilities were calculated to be low, so lying and deception were common practice. As the risk of these activities increases we will seeing a corresponding decrease in their use.

However, if you use deception as a method of getting an individual to break their contractual obligation to another person, thereby exposing the person who is deceived to civil action themselves, you are more than likely guilty of fraud. That is a criminal activity. As an example, if you employ the tactic of rusing someone into giving a name, and the person you ruse is under a standard employment contract, then you have encouraged them to break their contractual agreement with their employer that they will hold such information in confidence. If that person gets fired for such an activity, it is clear they have a civil action available to them (they can sue you), and it may be that the enterprise can report you to the DA for your activity.

Again, there is no need to view this from an ethical framework. This is just risk / reward analysis. The risk is real. How likely are you to be caught, and if caught sued and / or prosecuted? Only you can evaluate that. But given the fact that most recruiters are not trained in business theory and risk calculations, it is likely that their calculations are wrong. In other words, you are probably taking on a lot more risk than you think you are.

But what is the reward? If the reward for success is greater than the penalty for failure then it may be worth doing (assuming you have evaluated the probabilities of both occurrences correctly). It may be possible that the big score is worth the possible suit, or even going to jail. But only if the probability of getting the big score is substantially increased by the behavior in question.

And in this case, the answer is clearly “no.” A person who lies and engages in subterfuge in order to obtain the names of candidates is not significantly more successful in their efforts than a person who does not engage in such behavior. They may be marginally more successful, but the reward is clearly not worth the extra risk, even if you assume that the risk is negligible (and I can claim with certainty that the risk is both significant and growing by virtue of this debate coming to light).

I think Heather Hamilton’s article got to the basis of this, as has much good commentary. I do applaud ERE for publishing both sides of this debate, and for bringing it to forefront. In fact, from the “sound business theory” perspective, ERE has reduced the risk of my company by showing me the people who would in fact increase my risk of doing business by employing lying and subterfuge as business methods. This has been a real value to the larger (and therefore more exposed) companies that read the ERE articles and watch the dialogue on the boards.

September 19, 2005

Good News is No News

“Good News is No News; No News is Bad News; Bad News is Good news..” – Jim Morgan, Chairman, Applied Materials

Picture this: You are thinking about purchasing a new Applicant Tracking System (ATS). You are at the “pitch meeting”. The salesperson tells you that their application can slice and dice, never gets dull and comes with a lifetime warranty. You want to jump out of your seat and scream “Yes! I want that! Give me twenty of them!” But before you can even move, you hear the magic words: “Wait, there’s more!” More? More? How can there possibly be more? And then you hear “If you order now you’ll get…”

Continue reading "Good News is No News" »

March 19, 2005

The Shopkeeper, the Gunslinger and the Inefficiency Kid

 

Since Applicant Tracking Systems first made it big (around ’88 or so) there has been a cottage industry that has devoted itself to two ideas: ATS products are unique in the ire they create in their user base, and ATS vendors are to blame for this.

 

When you been around the industry as long as I have you know neither of these things is true. Yes, there are people who don’t like their ATS, and yes, vendors own part of the blame for this. But this is really a systemic issue. There are many interconnected parts to this issue, each acting in its own best interest, and each sub-optimizing the overall solution opportunity. The good news is nobody is to blame. The bad news (and the underlying reason for the continually frustrating size of the ATS market) is that nobody has the ability to fix it.

 

When I try to explain this to people I usually end up with blank stares and requests for “one more round of drinks.” So I thought I would go out on a limb here and try to explain the situation as a parable, or story with a lesson. At the end of the parable is a “moral of the story” with a distillation of its points.

 

The Shopkeeper, the Gunslinger and the Inefficiency Kid

 

He had moved in gradually, like a spider crawling into a dark room. Although he was a big man with a terrible odor, nobody in the town of

Change General Store

could remember exactly when he had showed up. There they all were one day, the shopkeeper’s family attending to business, selling food to hungry townspeople, and they glanced out front and into the slumped back of a big, smelly oaf. They nervously smiled and asked him his name. “The Inefficiency Kid” he grunted, and then sat down and started to eat.

 

Day after day the Inefficiency Kid took up the whole front porch, ate the store’s food and generally made a mess of things. The shopkeeper couldn’t get the right goods into the store: the Inefficiency Kid just took up too much damn room. The General Store couldn’t get enough customers in to make the business work. Eventually the town’s people just stopped coming, figuring out other ways to get meet their growing needs.

 

One day the mayor of the town of

Change

came by. Mr. C.E. Officious was his name, and he ruled Change with an iron fist. Dressed to the nines he was, natty as a pin strip. He pulled the shopkeeper aside and said in a sweetly dangerous way, “I can’t have that big jerk hanging around here any more. Change is growing. Fast. And that guy is the only thing standing in the way of growing just as fast as I want it too.” He winked and nodded and passed small talk about how big the shopkeeper’s kids were, but everyone got the message. Take care of it. Now.

 

The shopkeeper was a decent, hardworking person. Her diligence and ingenuity and the hard work of her family had enabled the town grow. Fast. And she was rightfully proud of her accomplishments. Her name was Emma. Emma Ploy. But the folks just called her Em.

 

Em was not given to violence, so she approached the Kid and asked politely, “I’m really no good at this sort of thing mister. I know how to get the goods in and get the townsfolk buyin’, but I ain’t never had to get rid of a problem the likes of you. How about you just move along now so I can get back to doin’ what I do best?”

 

The Kid lazily threw a sideways sneer and belched. Then he went back to eating.

 

Em knew this was serious. She had to do something. So she decided to get help. Real help. Experts. She called in three cowboys from out of town. Good lookin’ fellers with fancy chaps and expensive horses.

 

Em showed them the Kid and described her problem. The first cowboy smiled and said “Why ma’am, we all agree. You have to get a hired gun. A gun slinger. And you have to get ‘em fast.”

 

Em was relieved. Finally, answers. Action. So Em asked the next logical question: “Who? Who should I get? How do I pick ‘em?”

 

The three cowboys recommended that Em buy them drinks. Over those drinks (drink after drink after drink) they slowly and surely painted a picture. It wasn’t clear. It didn’t help. But it took a long time to get out and caused Em to ask lots of questions. And for every question, there was one more drink.

 

The first cowboy said “The most important thing about a gun slinger is the kind of gun he shoots. Gotta have pearled handles.”

 

The second cowboy agreed whole heartedly, nodding like a Beagle following the turkey leg in Pa’s hand during a heated Thanksgiving conversation. He said “And also the kind of spurs he wears. Gotta be gold plated.”

 

The third cowboy was pretty drunk. He barely managed to gurgle something about “How he looks in a hat” before he went face down into the bar.

 

Em felt like asking the cowboys, “That’s all good, but what does that have to do with getting rid of the Kid?” But she knew that would just cost more drinks, and this was getting a little expensive for her budget. So she thanked them and sent them on their way.

 

The next day Em made an appointment with the mayor. Em started the conversation by saying “Now C.E., I asked the three best cowboys I could find what the heck I should do about the Inefficiency Kid and they said I should hire a gun slinger. What do you think?”

 

“Great!” bellowed C.E., slapping Em on the back. “Make it happen.”

 

“Well C.E., that’s the thing,” Em continued. “Its gonna take money to hire ‘em and I ain’t got none. You dole out all the money for that kind of thing.”

 

C.E. shot Em a sideways glance and mumbled under his breath things like “cost center” and “bottom line.” But eventually he said, “Well alright Em. How much do you need?”

 

“I don’t rightly know. I ain’t no expert in this kind of thing. I know how to move goods in and out and make sure they are the right goods and that people have stuff to buy and buy the stuff they want. So I’d have to guess. But I would say $10.” She waited.

 

It came. “$10? $10? Are you kiddin’ me? That’s real money Em! I got a limited pot of gold here and lots to do with it. There are more important things to do than get that big, fat slob off of your porch. I gotta build a system to get the cattle to market and I gotta pay the cowboys to get that system in place. And things like that. What are you thinking!?”

 

Em was crushed. But she plowed ahead. This had to get solved. “Well that’s all good and fine C.E., but what good is any of that gonna do if you don’t have a way to feed the cowboys and the cattle, if you can’t even get blankets? All the goods come out of the General Store. Dammit C.E. this is important!”

 

C.E. glowered, and then a fine, slick smile started to work its way across his face, like a rattlesnake making its way over a pile of sand. “Oh now Em. I know its important. Its not like I want to bring in one of the big general stores from the city to run the place. We just gotta make due with what we got. I know you can do it. You just take this fifty-cent piece and go take care of that bucket a’ lard and come back here and you can buy me a drink. Go on now!”

 

Em couldn’t believe her ears. Where was she going to find a honest to goodness gun slinger for half a buck? She didn’t know much about the guns-for-hire business, but she knew that wasn’t a lot of money to do anything at all.

 

The next morning she sent a courier into the big city. Within a couple of days a “gun slinger representative” showed up. People called him “the rep.” He liked that. He sat down with Em and started his talk:

 

“Emma Ploy, I know what you need. Four big guys with guns. Big guns. This is a tough job. I have seen the fella on the front porch and that is a whole lot of problem to get rid of. The price is right too. $100 and your problem is gone.”

 

Em almost swallowed her chewing tobacco whole. “$100? $100? I don’t have that kind of money. The mayor just gave me twenty-five cents and that’s all I got!” Em felt bad about lying, but she really didn’t have a lot, and she thought she could look like a hero to the mayor for saving even more money.

 

The rep looked at her with bemusement. “Twenty-five cents huh? Well, that won’t buy a lot. But I’d really like to do business with you.” The rep thought it through. This shopkeeper could turn into a long-term customer. She was likely to have problems like the Kid all the time. If the rep could get on Em’s good side there would probably be a lot more business where this came from. The rep didn’t think about the fact that if this shopkeeper didn’t make this problem go away, it was the shopkeeper, and not the problem, which would be new next time around.

 

The rep smiled and said, “Tell you what I am going to do. Have I got a deal for you. If you can raise your price to fifty cents then I’ll get my best man on it.” Em reluctantly agreed.

 

Days and days went by. Nobody showed. Em was starting to get mad. The Kid wasn’t going away… in fact, he was just getting bigger and eating more and more. And the smell! It was enough to rot the produce before it even got into the shelves. Em’s nerves were frazzled by the time the gunslinger showed up. A.T. Shot was his name. He was clean shaven and confident, but a little young. He said “Don’t you worry a hair on your head little lady. I know just how to solve your problem. I learned it in school.”

 

Em couldn’t believe a greenhorn right out of school was going to take on five hundred pounds of menacing threat sitting on her front porch. But Em was ready for some action. She called to her family and told them to come on down. She called the other townsfolk. She even got the mayor to show up. The Inefficiency Kid was finally going to meet his maker!

 

A.T. took out his gun and pointed it at the Kid. A hush fell over the crowd. You could have heard a pin drop. A.T. looked at the Kid with narrow eyes and said, his voice only cracking once or twice “Ah, excuse me sir. I hate to trouble you. Really I do. But could you please leave? Please?”

 

Please leave? Trouble you? What the heck was this? Em was furious! She went to A.T. and smashed him over the head with a frying pan she had been carrying into the store to sell. Now, A.T. was a bit of a jumpy type to begin with. He had been hit before by customers. In fact he was used to it. But each time it happened it shocked him. The force of the frying-pan blow caused him to involuntarily squeeze his trigger finger.

 

BAM!

 

The report of the gun startled the entire crowd. Everyone either jumped or hit the dirt. The bullet missed the fat target of the Kid by a mile. It hit a metal plate near the door of the shop, ricocheted off to a pail near the floor, and ended up in A.T.’s foot. “Darnit!” A.T. screamed. “This always happens!”

 

Em collected her senses. The Inefficiency Kid was sitting there snoring. And her gun fighter was jumping around, holding his foot and screaming (in between darnits) that he should have taken that job in supply-chain software he had been offered. “This just ain’t worth it!” A.T. was yelling to no one in particular.

 

Em couldn’t believe her ears. “Not worth it?” she hollered. “Not worth it? Didn’t I pay a good fifty cents for you? And so far all I have gotten is a good lookin’ kid with a hole in his foot. Get the job done or I’ll take my money back and get someone else who can do the job.”

 

A.T., in between howls of pain, was indignant. “Listen lady. The rep told me this was an easy job. I would have told him in a heart beat that ton of goo you got sitting on your porch ain’t gonna move with just a kiss. This is gonna take a whole bunch of my associates to make it work. And it’s gonna cost you a whole hell of a lot more than fifty cents. Hell, half that went to the rep anyway, and my bullets and the stitches cost more than the cash left over. I’m gonna need MORE money to do this job right!”

 

Em couldn’t have cared less about what A.T.’s problems were. She had the whole town lookin’ on. Hell, she even had the mayor. This was gonna turn out right or Em was going to show everybody who was boss. So she went over to A.T., took a gun out of her pocket (a little Derringer, but scary all the same), held it to the gun slinger’s head and said in a low voice, “Either you kill the Kid, or I kill you.”

 

Well, if A.T. had been nervous before, he almost wet himself at the thought of getting shot in the head by a shopkeeper with a peashooter. He raised his gleaming pearl-handled revolver, pointed it at the Kid, and closed his eyes. He hoped for the best. A.T. thought, “If only hopes were money, I would be the richest feller in town.”

 

The second bullet came out of the muzzle like a… well, bullet. It missed the Kid by a couple of yards and started bouncing off every metal object around. It hit horseshoes and wagon wheels and pails and plates and even a bell over the bar of the saloon. It hit everything but the Kid. And just as A.T. thought he was out of the woods and safe from his own bullet, it kneecapped him.

 

A.T. went down screaming like a baby who has lost his favorite blanket. The noise was unbearable. Em had had enough. The Kid, the waiting, the eating, the bullets… the whole thing was enough to make a decent shopkeeper go crazy. She went over to A.T. and kicked him and yelled, “Give me back my money and get the hell out here!”

 

And that was the end of A.T. Shot. Another gunslinger would have to be found.

 

But the Inefficiency Kid was still there. And the town had to grow. And the mayor still expected “results.”

 

Over time the Inefficiency Kid’s posse showed up. The Dastardly Duke of Ineffectiveness. The Sour Sourcer. The Clammy Closer. And each time the mayor had something better to do with his money, and each time Em just wished she could get the whole group of ‘em to go away.

 

One day the mayor called Em over to his office. He looked purposefully gloomy.

 

“Em, I’m sorry to have to tell you this, but the city is going to revoke your license. We’ve asked the big city market to come in and take over.”

 

Em was completely dumbfounded. She hadn’t brought these problems to the store, to the town. She had asked for the right tools to get rid the job done, even if she really didn’t understand exactly how to solve it. And now she was being kicked out. The unfairness of it all was too much to bear.

 

Em slowly rose and moved to the door. She thought of all the good things she had done, her family had done. Raising the town from when it was a barn and a saloon to thriving township it was today. The feeding and the care. The delivery day in and day out.

 

As she reveled in these memories a thought struck her. She turned on her heel and stared at C.E. Officious.

 

“How much?” Em asked.

 

“What?”

 

“How much for the big city, out of town store to come in? How much?”

 

A smile spread across C.E.’s face. He seemed genuinely pleased. “It turns out we are practically going to make money on this deal. Its just $200 up front but if we keep ‘em around for five years I make $100 profit. And the best thing is that they are going to hire the whole Inefficiency Kid Gang as clerks!”

 

The Moral Of the Story

 

· Staffing (Talent) leadership is very good at doing its job: getting people in place inside a company. But they are faced with problems that are outside the realm of the standard staffing expert skill set.

 

· So they call in consultants. Consultants don’t get paid for solving problems. They get paid for making clients feel better. Why? Because implementing real solutions requires risk and pain. And nobody ever got rich telling the client that they were wrong and that the way to fix their problem was to risk their job.

 

· Making the client feel better takes time and money. Employment departments don’t have a lot of either, because executive management sees the function as a tactical cost center as opposed to a strategic revenue opportunity.

 

· So the CEO / CIO nickels and dimes the solution budget, which leaves everyone in a bad position: the employment department doesn’t know exactly what it needs but understands it doesn’t have enough to do it, the consultants know that the “art of the possible” is mission impossible given the budget, and the solutions (ATS) vendor can’t deliver and support what it will take to really fix the issue.

 

· So the first thing that gets cut is the process reengineering needed to clean up the recruiting process (which, due to political infighting, mergers and acquisitions and lack of systems insight is usually a complete mess).

 

· This means that ATS vendors are faced with the following reality:

 

o Whatever recruiting process is around will be embedded into the ATS system as a one-off customization which IT doesn’t want to support and which future recruiting leadership will want to get rid of.

o The selection process won’t be based on the ability to partner with the customer to solve a long-term, systems-level issue, but will instead be based on a “feature-function” bake-off that will focus on functionality that won’t matter to 80% of the users.

o Because cost and demos are the primary selection criteria the employment department is increasingly likely to turn it over to purchasing. This tells the ATS vendor that the problem being fixed isn’t that important because purchasing departments manage cost and risk, not effectiveness.

o The selected vendor will have to try to maintain some account profitability by reducing cost of support labor (usually by putting their services staff on too many accounts to take care of the historically high-maintena