Corporate Eye

...compare, compete, excel

Careers

The Rational Tortoise and the Relational Hare


tortoise-and-hare

I’m a Solver!

That is–I belong to “the first global web community for open innovation, enabling scientists, engineers, professionals and entrepreneurs to collaborate to deliver breakthrough solutions for innovative R&D-driven organizations,” aka Innocentive.

Innocentive connects “Seekers” (companies that need solutions) with a pool of 175,000+ registered “Solvers.”  Solvers who come up with potential solutions compete for cash awards offered by the Seeker.  Although anyone can register as a Solver, most of the problems are highly technical, so I rarely get to compete.  But I’m fascinated by the amazing array of problems posted.  For example . . . once company needs a “Fast Hydrating Reference Electrode with Constant Potential in Thick Film Technology” while another seeks something that will make men want to shave more often.

It’s also interesting to read the Innocentive blog–and here’s where we get to the point.  In a recent post, Chief Innovation Evangelist Steve Shapiro observes: “From my research on innovation personality styles, I have observed that there are two broad ways of solving challenges: relational/creative and rational/analytical.”  And that observation is linked to some recent studies about brain function, explained in this excellent overview in the Wall Street Journal.

Short version:  Some solutions appear in a flash of insight, others are arrived at by methodical reasoning, and these processes use different parts of the brain.  Also, insight doesn’t really happen in a moment–it’s the product of brainwork that may have been going on in the background for quite a while.

(I’ve nicknamed these styles Hare and Tortoise, mostly because that’s more fun.)

So now for the relevance . . .

Consider who comes to a company’s Career site.  Not just Tortoises (who probably analyze the Benefits page and look for detailed descriptions of career paths and job responsibilities).  And not just Hares (who are likely to watch the videos and zoom around the site looking for interesting features).  There will be both kinds of visitors, no matter what the business line is or who the target audience might be.

There are Hares among the engineers and Tortoises in the marketing department. And many people are a mix of both.  So a great website will have plenty to offer relational thinkers as well as rationalists.

Ultimately, you want the best candidates to apply.  Some will “decide” to apply because they have weighed advantages and identified a suitable fit.  Some will “choose” to apply because they have a good feeling about the company or think they might like the job.  Offering content and tools for both groups will ensure that all good prospects make it into the applicant pool.


(Our Tortoise and Hare are from The Æsop for Children, illustrated by Milo Winter.  Thanks to Project Gutenberg.)


A Tale of Two Booksellers

It’s no secret that Borders has been struggling.  Top competitor Barnes & Noble has been a bit savvier (for example, selling off its mall-based stores sooner rather than too late), so it’s in relatively better shape.

But the reality is–traditional bookselling has been hit hard by a variety of economic and cultural factors, and the whole business model is in the midst of a huge, painful, and irreversible shift.  The market for CDs and DVDs, formerly a staple at both chains, is declining rapidly; downloadable books a la Kindle are on the ascendency; and the old, centralized publishing industry is rapidly being overtaken by a diffuse, diverse assortment of alternative publishing strategies.

So what’s the good news?  Not much yet.  But necessity is indeed mothering up some invention in the book world, and that’s a good reason to take a look at the Career sites of the two largest booksellers in America.

It’s fair to say there is no comparison.  B&N is bookish and buttoned up, while Borders is salsa-dancing hot.  Seriously.

b-n1borders2

Unfortunately, I  couldn’t find out when this design was implemented at Borders, so there’s no way of relating it to their overall business situation or marketing approach.  However, last year Borders took back its online operations from Amazon (after 17 years), and the Careers area may have been updated when the retail site was built.

Also unfortunately–there’s no way of knowing whether Borders gets better/more applicants through its site than B&N.  But for what it’s worth, they’ve done the right things at a fundamental level:  highlighting special opportunities (front-page AARP feature) and culture (front-page diversity feature); offering substantive information on benefits, as well as detailed position descriptions; and providing a seamless search-and-apply process.  (Barnes & Nobles does not have online search and application–listings are outsourced to HotJobs.)

No bells and whistles–videos, Flash, etc., at the Borders site.  A nice look and feel, though, suitable for a book business trying to reinvent itself in the digital age.  I had the impression that job-seekers are being invited along for an interesting adventure.

On the other hand, I definitely prefer the design of the customer-facing pages at Barnes & Noble over Borders.  So one wonders:  Is B&N behind the Careers curve because of complacency?  Do they have something new in the works?  Or . . . ?

To end on a high note, here’s a book-related reward for reading all the way to the end of the post!  A link to Librarians Gone Wild.  Yes, it’s highlights of the Golden Book Cart Drill Championships–and if you need further enticement, I’ll just mention that there are swords involved.


The Scary Thing about Social Media

scary-faces

CIOZone just published a smart article by Michael Neubarth called Social Media:  How We Got Here, Where We’re Going.  It’s fairly long, and worth reading, so I won’t try to summarize all the content-which includes a backward look at a decade of predictions about the fate of mass marketing.

I just want to focus on this statement:  “Like the fall of the Berlin Wall, many observers say we are witnessing the collapse of the command-and-control power of corporate mass marketing.”

That’s a much bigger message than “you can’t afford to ignore Twitter.”  That’s the end of the world as we know it.

And fall of the wall requires a huge adjustment in strategy, not just some revision of tactics.  The story goes on to quote Tim Walker’s piece Social media: Control without command (on Hoover’s Business Insight Zone):

What’s required on the part of companies is to let go of the fantasy of command: You will not “command” the airwaves. You will not “command” the conversations around your offerings in the marketplace. Also, you will not “command” your employees, who can access all sorts of scary hiring-market information via LinkedIn and Jobster and Monster and Craigslist and the rest.

I added the italics, to focus attention on the effects this shift will have-and is having-on HR.  Just take it one step further, adding the caution that “you will not ‘command’ your candidates.”  The best prospects are already looking for something much more than one-way messaging and a one-size-fits-all application process.

Neubarth’s article is blunt about the stiff mental challenge this evolution presents for many corporations and executives.  Walker’s suggestion:

The antidote for this loss of command: just get over it. Historical and technological forces are against you, and those corporations and executives who insist on retaining command are destined to failure.

But you can exert a modicum of control. You can shape a conversation. You can rebut erroneous information about your company or your product. You can harness transparency so that it works for you. You can grow into the language of the social media so that you fall naturally into the mode of persuasion-and-recruitment rather than command-and-control.

Elsewhere in Neubarth’s article, there’s a discussion of Seth Godin’s concept of the “meatball sundae” (check out this podcast introduction), in which companies try to dress up old attitudes and ideas (the meatball) with some whipped cream and sprinkles.  Not an appetizing thought–even if the meatball might be tasty in itself!

Relevant question:   Has your company’s online recruiting strategy really shifted away from old models?  Or is it just dressed up with some creamy videos and a sprinkle of tweets?


(Thanks to Chris Breeze for the Very Scary Faces.)


Wall Street Journal Notices New Recruiting Trends . . .


telescope_psf

It’s an “Aha!” moment at WSJ’s Career Journal, with a recent story titled Beyond Job Boards: Targeting the Source. To quote the lead:

For many Americans looking for work, the first stop is an online job board. Now job seekers are finding that prospective employers increasingly are looking elsewhere to find new hires-the companies’ own Web sites.

The story ambles on through the following points:

  • Companies are buffing up their Career pages, adding videos, employee profiles and social networking tools.
  • They are doing this to save money, reduce the number of applications, and improve the quality of applicants.
  • Job seekers should change their tactics to match, using multiple job search tools, networking with companies and other job seekers, and researching the companies they apply to.
  • Both company sites and job boards are seeing an increase in applicants of as much as 30%.
  • Companies are focusing more on building their employer brands.
  • Companies are turning to employee referrals and social media tools to increase and improve the applicant pool.

If all this sounds familiar . . .

In part, I’m surprised that WSJ (or at least this columnist) is so late in noting “trends” that have been widely discussed for many months.   And in part, I’m surprised at the simple view provided by the story, which mentions an assortment of phenomena without exploring their situational context.  The account relies mainly on general observations (for example:  “‘Part of it is letting people know who we are as a company,'” says Melissa Rutledge, an employment-branding manager at Intuit.”) and anecdotal references to a few companies that are leaders in the online recruiting space (Sodexo, Adobe, Intuit, Zappos).

In fairness, the story is obviously intended as an overview, not an in-depth study, and it does offer a convenient summary of the Recruiting 2.0 landscape.  Nothing mentioned is actually wrong or misleading (except perhaps describing Zappos as a “shoe retailer”).  But the article raised two questions in my mind.

1.       If this is “old news” . . . what’s the new news?

2.       Where is the intersection between company interests and job-seeker interests?

I’ll come back to the first question in a follow-up post.  As for the second, here’s what I mean:  Job-seekers want jobs and companies need employees.  Yet the process of getting them together seems to be more of a frustration-fest than a journey toward mutual satisfaction.  There’s actually a whole industry devoted to making employment connections, yet no one on either side is happy!  Job-seekers mistrust companies and complain about recruiting processes, while companies mistrust the recruiting process and complain about the large number and low quality of applicants.

I’m not sure if it was always this way, but if not, I wonder how it got this way.

So my closing thought is:  Could “social networking” become more than just another process tool?  Perhaps an increased emphasis on communication will produce greater understanding and cooperation between seekers and hirers–which could only be a good thing.  (And maybe that will be the shape of Recruiting 3.0?)


(Hello and) Good-bye to KSAs


stack-of-papers

I admit that I hadn’t even heard of KSAs until today.  I’ve never worked for the Federal government, or even known anyone who worked for the Federal government, so I had no idea that most agencies require applicants to write extended essay answers (sometimes many of them) explaining specific aspects of their Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities.  These documents go by the nickname KSA, and apparently are widely dreaded by job-seekers.

For background:  KSAs are written not only by people trying to break into government employment, but also by government employees trying to advance or reroute their careers.  They are submitted in addition to resumes.  Each response is expected to be one-half to one page, and there may be a five or ten of them (or more) for a given job.

Here are some examples of generic KSA topics that might be required for many positions:   Ability to communicate in writing; Ability to manage a program; Ability to analyze problems and develop solutions; Ability to use and maintain tools and equipment.

Then there are more specific and/or complex topics, such as:  Ability to make critical judgments about biomedical research projects; Skill in applying engineering concepts and theories to the solution of engineering problems; Skill to function effectively in a stressful environment; Knowledge of anti-terrorist tactics . . .

And where did I find these examples?  Why, at one of the dozens of sites that sell pre-written KSAs and/or “custom” KSA writing services.  (I won’t provide links–just search on KSA and you’ll get pages of them.)

I stumbled into the wonderland of KSAs by reading Hiring reform: KSAs to be phased out within a year, a news story on FederalTimes.com.  At first I was overwhelmed by the mere idea of all those papers–having taught freshman composition at one point in my life, this just seems like a nightmare.  How does the HR staff find time to read them?  Do they read them?

Many of those staffers are reportedly thrilled at the news that KSAs will go away.  But on the other hand, according to the FedTimes story:  “Some HR officials feel that if someone can’t be bothered to put time and effort into answering KSA questions, they may not be that interested in the job after all. ‘If you can’t address these KSAs, how thorough are you going to be on the job?’ asked one HR director at a small agency, who asked not to be identified. ‘If we do away with KSAs, we’ll be moving away from information we need to properly evaluate people.  I’m not sure this is going to work.'”

So do they NOT KNOW about the apparently thriving KSA marketplace?  That seems unbelievable, since I found out in less than five minutes.  Or is buying good answers interpreted as “addressing these KSAs,” thereby indicating the applicant would be “thorough” on the job?  Or in reality do most people write their own KSAs and this is not really a problem?

And by the way–I read several official government documents explaining the importance of KSAs and offering advice on how to write KSAs.  But nowhere did I find a basic statement such as:  “You must write the KSA yourself.”  So maybe that’s not even a rule?  But then–what’s the point?  It’s one thing to have someone else reorganize and reformat the facts on your resume for better effect, but it’s really different to have someone else write your writing sample.

That must be the most question marks ever stuffed into one post, but I really am flummoxed over this!  Even if KSAs do go away (which will leave some “writers” scrambling for a new product line, I suppose), the whole business seems to indicate a serious disconnect somewhere.  Or am I wrong?

Anyway . . . from the corporate side–this topic started me thinking about the whole matter of “candidate packaging.”  Is what you “see” what you “get”?  But that’s another topic.

(Thanks to Bryan Partington for the handsome stack of papers.)


Tick Tock: Recruiting Hourly Workers

clock-1

I was aware that I didn’t know much about the subject of hourly hiring, but it turns out I knew even less than I thought.  There are a lot of moving parts to the process, including several (such as drug testing, background checks, and physical exams) that aren’t as likely to apply in salaried hiring.  And whereas salaried employees are typically inclined to keep their jobs as long as possible, turnover is a huge issue in the hourly world–so the hiring process tends to be constant rather than cyclic or intermittent.

Other differences I hadn’t thought about:  Walk-ins are an important source of hourly applicants.  Location is often especially important to hourly workers, who are likely to work within five miles of where they live.  And time-to-hire is a key factor for many hourly applicants, who may need to find work quickly.

I also had some misconceptions.  Although it’s true that hourly workers have traditionally tended to be young and either under-educated or still in the process of getting educated, today’s hourly workforce is divided roughly into thirds in terms of age (a little over one-third for the under-25 set, a little under one-third for the over-45s, and the rest in between).  And as for education and experience . . . in today’s economy, teenage dropouts may be standing next to down-sized professionals at the application kiosk.

I gathered my new view of hourly hiring by visiting the websites of several specialized recruiting consultants and niche job boards.  The Job Magnet, a site specifically catering to hourly job seekers, has an overview of candidate sourcing (PDF) in their Employer area.  (And while you’re there, check out the nice way they have matched up the look of their seeker-facing home page and their employer-facing home page.  Each shows five photos of audience representatives across the top, and the difference in depiction of the two groups–job-seekers and employers–is quite instructive in itself!)

Kronos, which provides HR solutions specifically tailored for the hourly workforce, offers a case study and a webinar on the ROI of selection.  (Look in the right-hand navigation pane.)  And HRLogix, which specializes in “strategic talent acquisition strategy” for the gaming and hospitality industries (major employers of hourly workers) provides a nice graphic overview of the whole hiring and onboarding process.

Niche board Snag-a-Job offers helpful information in its Employers section.  There are a variety of short, targeted articles in the Hiring Library, and a good round-up of information and tips in the monthly Recruiting Edge newsletter..

But by far the most interesting and useful resource I found is “How to Find and Recruit the Best Hourly Employees (PDF),” a Workforce Institute white paper by Mel Kleinman of Humetrics.  Among the eye-openers included in this paper is a 2008 survey of hiring managers which found that only 9% regarded the corporate website as one of their best recruiting tools.  And a mere 14% listed the Internet as a top tool.

What’s the problem?  Find out in the next post.

(Thanks to Chris Metcalf for the cleverly framed clock.)