Today is about resume stupidity by recruiters and management and the resulting lies.
It is about the stupidity of a required set of buzz words that recruiters use to screen candidates.
It is about the stupidity of managers providing that list.
It is about the stupidity of lying—even when the lie is a recommended action.
Recruiters like screening lists because it eliminates the need for a lot of up-front work on their part, i.e., they don’t have to talk to anyone who doesn’t use those words.
Forget the fact that there are many ways to describe something and most people describe their work using the words of their current management.
Way back in the late 1970s I worked with companies that built communications equipment (DTS, ROLM, etc.) and most software managers required experience designing real-time switches for telecom.
I had a fabulous engineer who designed real-time switches for a process equipment maker.
The software manager was furious; ranting on that it wasn’t telecom.
That made no sense to me; it seemed logical that real-time was real-time whether a switch was flipped or a valve was closed.
So I asked him to please explain the difference, so I could understand.
He started to talk and then stopped. There was a long silence and finally he told me to have my guy there for an interview the next day—he was hired on the spot.
It’s not that I was technically knowledgeable, but real-time is real-time made sense and the other didn’t.
The same goes for many “absolute requirements”—degrees, industry, etc.
Rather than leave the future of the convents to prayer and chance, Sister Elaine Lachance has turned to the Internet. She’s using social media and blogging to attract women who feel the calling to serve God and their community. “But I knew I had to go there, that I had to do it,” said Lachance, who turned 70 on Sunday. “You have to go where the young people are. And that’s where they are.”
With 80,000 people surrounded by not much of anything — with no Interstate, no university, and the closest major city 160 miles away across steep and snowy mountains — beer has had room to make a difference. (…) “You have to thank Gary Fish for kind of creating that culture,” said Larry Sidor, a former brew master at Deschutes who left last year to open a brewery of his own this summer, CRUX Fermentation Project. “It’s been kind of a training ground, a spawning ground for the craft movement.”
We’ve put a self-perpetuating cycle in motion. The more anxious, isolated and time-deprived we are, the more likely we are to turn to paid personal services. To finance these extra services, we work longer hours. This leaves less time to spend with family, friends and neighbors; we become less likely to call on them for help, and they on us.
Young couples have long signaled their devotion to each other by various means — the gift of a letterman jacket, or an exchange of class rings or ID bracelets. (…) It has become fashionable for young people to express their affection for each other by sharing their passwords to e-mail, Facebook and other accounts.
Fast forward to adulthood and that tell-the-world social sharing is still creating mayhem, although not because of changing affections.
After a few relationship-testing episodes, some spouses have started insisting that their partners ask for approval before posting comments and photographs that include them. Couples also are talking through rules as early as the first date (a kind of social media prenup) about what is O.K. to share. Even tweeting about something as seemingly innocent as a house repair can become a lesson in boundary-setting.
Enjoy today and have a memorable Mother’s Day tomorrow.
The good thing is that things are changing. Even mighty Google that once hired only 3.7+ GPAs has changed how they recruit using puzzles to identify talent that might fall through the cracks—assuming it even got that far.
Probably the greatest value of higher education—all education, actually—is learning how to learn.
It’s knowing where to find information and how to assimilate, tweak and synthesize it
so it becomes useful in both the short and long terms; more value comes from learning how to focus and think critically.
Skill in the actual major has value for two to four years—less in technical fields that change with radical speed.
From that point on the value of actual degree content goes down 20% or more each year, whereas real experience goes up.
That means in five years specific degrees become meaningless, while specific experience holds all the value.
Moreover, those with the ability to successfully move from industry to industry, field to field, department to department, position to position sans ego and hype truly have a price above rubies—although they rarely think so.
Few companies would consider doing a major project using individual contributors instead of teams.
Hiring is a major project, one that has substantial long-term impact on the group, department, and company.
So, why are teams used in every part of business today—except staffing? Why is it assumed that the various parts of staffing are a function only of managers and HR?
Sadly, some managers are not comfortable involving their people. The reasons range from control issues (involvement in staffing is very empowering) to fear (the manager feels insecure) to disinterest (staffing has a low priority).
But in today’s fast-paced work environment, it’s hard for managers to block out several consecutive minutes, let alone the hours, needed to read resumes, let alone source any candidates, screen, etc.
Speaking as an ex-headhunter, I’m here to say that the mechanics of recruiting aren’t rocket science; they may not be intuitive, but anybody can learn them, especially in these days of LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter.
More importantly, when it comes to recruiting, there is no manager, no HR person, certainly no headhunter who is as impressive to an outsider as employees excited about their company.
Candidates really respond positively to being recruited by a peer! A peer who likes her company so much she is willing to put time into the staffing process? A manager to whom hiring is not about control but rather about empowerment? Who sees hiring as a chance to shine, not a necessary evil? Who not only understands the desire to make a difference but actually gives people extra opportunities to do so?
Wow! That’s the kind of manager most good candidates want to work for! Nobody can sell the company or the group or the project or the manager with the same intensity and passion as the company’s own people!
More bodies ease the work load, as well as supplying creative ideas and fresh energy to the staffing effort. Further, teams
empower and give people a feeling of ownership;
engage people in the present and future of their group and the company;
teach critical managerial skills;
spreads the workload; and
helps minimize new employee friction.
With the exception of technical interviewing anybody in your company can be on the team, whether they are from that department or not. Sure, it takes a well written job req, but almost everybody in your company knows as much technically as most headhunters—and they certainly know more about the company. Best of all, they really care!
None of what I’ve written hinges on the economy; the time to teach people new skills is not, not when you have multiple openings and are under pressure to fill them.
Think of it as an investment—one with an amazing ROI.
Entrepreneurs face difficulties that are hard for most people to imagine, let alone understand. You can find anonymous help and connections that do understand at 7 cups of tea.
Crises never end.
$10 really does make a difference and you’ll never miss it,
Today is about resume stupidity by recruiters and management and the resulting lies.
Maybe because it is finally spring where I live, but my mind is skipping around topics like a butterfly (although I haven’t seen any yet).
So, why are teams used in every part of business today—except staffing? Why is it assumed that the various parts of staffing are a function only of managers and HR?
