One of the sites I routinely visit is the Electronic Recruiting Exchange. It is not only well organized and well run, the content and discussions are quite interesting and would be, I think, even if your DNA does not include recruiting.
Given the volume of complaints that I have heard over the years about what some laughingly refer to as "working with recruiters" it was with considerable interest that I read a recent article posted by Kevin Wheeler, President and Founder of a recruiting strategy consulting firm called Global Learning Resources.
In short, Kevin was pointing out that most, if not all, of the technology has been developed to help the recruiter while the candidates is left to try and fight his way through it or around it. If you read his piece my guess is that you would probably agree.
Among other things, what struck me about what Kevin was saying is that unless my experience was unique (which I seriously doubt) along with the experiences for literally thousands of our members with whom I have spoken over the years (which I also seriously doubt) the disadvantages faced by a candidate have been around long before job boards, e-mail, voice mail, applicant tracking systems, and web sites, all of which are discussed in this piece.
As I read further and looked over the proposed Candidate Bill of Rights put forth by recruiting site Accolo it reminded me of all the neat sounding "mission statements" that companies spent hundreds of hours and millions of dollars having consultants help them craft to create something that really amounts to nothing more than treating people with respect. I have never felt it was about words, I have always believed that is was about individual value systems.
As the old saying goes, "actions speak louder than words." When it comes to the things that candidates resent in terms of "working with recruiters" they way they manage the relationship is by having a very short list in their pocket of those recruiters who they will call to help them fill the executive jobs that will surface in their new gig.
Monday, August 29, 2005
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
Running a Business & Running a Job Search: Different Animals As They Say
Based on the stories people have shared with me over the years, I should (and do) consider myself among the really lucky ones. I have only had to go through a job search twice in my life. And by "job search" I mean looking for a job when I didn't have one, not the type of "search" that happens when a recruiter comes calling. In any event, and even at this stage of the game when I look back on both job changing experiences (one was 18 years ago, and the other more than 30), it takes no time at all to bring back the rush of bad feelings, bad memories, and an anxiety level that probably registers near 10 on the personal stress Richter scale.
It is with this in mind that on a daily basis as we talk with senior level executives in job search that I realize why it is that people who are absolutely brilliant at running businesses are so often absolutely clueless in terms of running a job search. They may be able to predict to within two decimal places the potential market share of a new product, but haven't the slightest notion of how hard it would be to make a job change at the executive level if you are over 50, and while they have prepared their organization to be in a position to deal with any market changes, they have done zilch to prepare themselves for the same threats.
There are, of course, lots of other factors that are involved which include in no particular order:
1. Loss of power to make others take action.
2. Loss of the comfort that comes from having structure around you.
3. Loss of self-esteem - America keeps scores, and if you are not working, that still goes in the L column.
4. Loss of recognition as a leader.
5. Loss of control in one's ability to make choices
6. Loss of motivation to succeed. (I have worked so hard to get to where I am, I can't imagine going through all that again!)
7. Fill in the blank_______________________ And if you need more room, as they say, use the other side of the paper.
When you are not the person affected by an event, it is way too easy to lose one's ability to empathize or understand. Especially because of the ease with which we view the such things from the comfort of air-conditioned homes over a nice dinner and a glass of wine.
It is with this in mind that on a daily basis as we talk with senior level executives in job search that I realize why it is that people who are absolutely brilliant at running businesses are so often absolutely clueless in terms of running a job search. They may be able to predict to within two decimal places the potential market share of a new product, but haven't the slightest notion of how hard it would be to make a job change at the executive level if you are over 50, and while they have prepared their organization to be in a position to deal with any market changes, they have done zilch to prepare themselves for the same threats.
There are, of course, lots of other factors that are involved which include in no particular order:
1. Loss of power to make others take action.
2. Loss of the comfort that comes from having structure around you.
3. Loss of self-esteem - America keeps scores, and if you are not working, that still goes in the L column.
4. Loss of recognition as a leader.
5. Loss of control in one's ability to make choices
6. Loss of motivation to succeed. (I have worked so hard to get to where I am, I can't imagine going through all that again!)
7. Fill in the blank_______________________ And if you need more room, as they say, use the other side of the paper.
When you are not the person affected by an event, it is way too easy to lose one's ability to empathize or understand. Especially because of the ease with which we view the such things from the comfort of air-conditioned homes over a nice dinner and a glass of wine.
Friday, August 19, 2005
Is There Any Such Thing As A Passive Candidate?
Some of you may have seen the article in the WSJ just a few days ago that was talking about the hunger recruiter's have for finding the so called "passive candidate." One of the comments in the article that I thought captured the bias that someone who is unemployed faces was CareerXRoads co-founder Mark Mehler's comment which was "You may be employed on Friday at a big company at a big salary, and at 4:55 on Friday get fired. On Monday [to a recruiter], you're a different person." I don't think many would argue that Mark's comment is, unhappily, right on target.
There certainly is no point in asking why since the bias that is operating in the world of employed versus unemployed simply has to take its place on a long list of stuff like this that has no basis in fact other than ignorance.
But I have often wondered what all the hoopla was around "passive candidates" and more importantly, how does one even define what a "passive candidate" is? There is so much hype around this phrase that one would think that every "passive candidate" was somehow endowed with some super intelligent DNA that those who are more assertive about managing their careers simply don't have. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Indeed I wonder if a lot of the hoopla and hype isn't really marketing copy to help me feel that the ROI I got from the fee I paid to the recruiter was because I hired a "passive candidate" who clearly is superior to anyone else out there because they "weren't actively looking."
Maybe someone else has seen it, but in all the survey data I have seen over the years, I don't recall ever seeing anything that suggested that the "passive" folks did any better than the "active" folks. Indeed, I recall seeing or reading somewhere that a study done by The Center for Creative Leadership found that 40% of new executives failed in the first 18 months on the job. In our annual survey of the executive marketplace that we do every year, the feedback we got from the search community as well as corporate HR departments came in with numbers very much along the same lines.
So, I am sitting here wondering if these executives who are failing are the "passive" ones that recruiters have worked so hard to find and place, or if they are simply the "active" ones who somehow slipped through the screening process? My belief is that one has really very little to do with the other, that when an organization is seeking talent, they would be far better served to look for people who can fix their problems and not worry so much about if a person happens to be working at the present time or not. At the rate we have been downsizing in this country for the past 10 years or so, we are long past the "also rans," and while we're at it, and given the competitive position in which we find ourselves on the global level, we would do well to stop worrying about some of these other "criteria" such as age, sex, race, and a dozen more "factors" I could name.
There certainly is no point in asking why since the bias that is operating in the world of employed versus unemployed simply has to take its place on a long list of stuff like this that has no basis in fact other than ignorance.
But I have often wondered what all the hoopla was around "passive candidates" and more importantly, how does one even define what a "passive candidate" is? There is so much hype around this phrase that one would think that every "passive candidate" was somehow endowed with some super intelligent DNA that those who are more assertive about managing their careers simply don't have. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Indeed I wonder if a lot of the hoopla and hype isn't really marketing copy to help me feel that the ROI I got from the fee I paid to the recruiter was because I hired a "passive candidate" who clearly is superior to anyone else out there because they "weren't actively looking."
Maybe someone else has seen it, but in all the survey data I have seen over the years, I don't recall ever seeing anything that suggested that the "passive" folks did any better than the "active" folks. Indeed, I recall seeing or reading somewhere that a study done by The Center for Creative Leadership found that 40% of new executives failed in the first 18 months on the job. In our annual survey of the executive marketplace that we do every year, the feedback we got from the search community as well as corporate HR departments came in with numbers very much along the same lines.
So, I am sitting here wondering if these executives who are failing are the "passive" ones that recruiters have worked so hard to find and place, or if they are simply the "active" ones who somehow slipped through the screening process? My belief is that one has really very little to do with the other, that when an organization is seeking talent, they would be far better served to look for people who can fix their problems and not worry so much about if a person happens to be working at the present time or not. At the rate we have been downsizing in this country for the past 10 years or so, we are long past the "also rans," and while we're at it, and given the competitive position in which we find ourselves on the global level, we would do well to stop worrying about some of these other "criteria" such as age, sex, race, and a dozen more "factors" I could name.
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
And People Are Upset Because Kids Have To Go Back To School Before Labor Day?
I was skimming the online version of the NY Times today, and the following headline caught my eye: Many Going To College Aren't Ready, Report Finds. The piece was written by Tamar Lewin and the first couple of paragraphs went on to say:
"Only about half of this year's high school graduates have the reading skills they need to succeed in college, and even fewer are prepared for college-level science and math courses, according to a yearly report from ACT, which produces one of the nation's leading college admissions tests. Only about half of this year's high school graduates have the reading skills they need to succeed in college, and even fewer are prepared for college-level science and math courses, according to a yearly report from ACT, which produces one of the nation's leading college admissions tests.
The report, based on scores of the 2005 high school graduates who took the exam, some 1.2 million students in all, also found that fewer than one in four met the college-readiness benchmarks in all four subjects tested: reading comprehension, English, math and science."
When I see things like this, and read books like Tom Friedman's latest called The World is Flat, it is enough to make you want to adjourn to the nearest bar for the duration.
"Only about half of this year's high school graduates have the reading skills they need to succeed in college, and even fewer are prepared for college-level science and math courses, according to a yearly report from ACT, which produces one of the nation's leading college admissions tests. Only about half of this year's high school graduates have the reading skills they need to succeed in college, and even fewer are prepared for college-level science and math courses, according to a yearly report from ACT, which produces one of the nation's leading college admissions tests.
The report, based on scores of the 2005 high school graduates who took the exam, some 1.2 million students in all, also found that fewer than one in four met the college-readiness benchmarks in all four subjects tested: reading comprehension, English, math and science."
When I see things like this, and read books like Tom Friedman's latest called The World is Flat, it is enough to make you want to adjourn to the nearest bar for the duration.
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
The More Things Change, The More They.....
Saw an interesting piece of survey data on what was also an interesting site (at least to me) called Chief Learning Officer. The annual survey was conducted by Accenture who, after surveying 425 "senior executives" at many of the world's largest companies, came up with a list of what they say are the issues of greatest concern to senior management.
If you are only into "short lists" the top two items were:
1. Attracting and retaining skilled staff, and
2. Changing organizational culture and employee attitudes.
The other eight were certainly worthy of being on the list, but I was struck by the first two.
First, and maybe this is my age showing through, but almost since day one, way back in 1961 when I showed up for work as a Personnel and Industrial Relations Trainee (remember those terms - Personnel and Industrial Relations? Sounds like high button shoes now.) at the Winchester Western Division of Olin, the priorities for the company were items 1 and 2 on the Accenture list!
Indeed, on the day that I reported to work to start what I guess is now called "my career,” there were over 700 people lined up outside who felt they were potential "skilled staff." After just a few months on the job, and wandering around a manufacturing plant of some 3,000 production and maintenance workers, I started to understand why many of those who were initially hired didn't end up on the "retained" list, and why people talked about things like changing the "culture" and employee attitudes.
Second, and as we all stand back and observe an employment market that seems to be really starting some sustained movement back toward a sellers market, I was thinking of our own survey data that speaks to the same issues. The skilled staff was there, but when you asked people about the culture in which they found themselves and their attitudes, what came back was a resounding 61% who told us they were unhappy campers and an astounding 77% who said they planned to do something about how they felt.
With those kinds of numbers, I am not surprised to see what turned out to be the top two items on Accenture's survey. Almost 70% of ExecuNet's current membership is made up of executives who are currently employed and as I looked at the numbers, I couldn't help but think that many worked for the same companies whose management responded to the survey.
So here I am some 44 years into what I would loosely refer to as a "career" and saying to myself, there is an awful lot of work still there for somebody, because clearly we have yet to break the code.
If you are only into "short lists" the top two items were:
1. Attracting and retaining skilled staff, and
2. Changing organizational culture and employee attitudes.
The other eight were certainly worthy of being on the list, but I was struck by the first two.
First, and maybe this is my age showing through, but almost since day one, way back in 1961 when I showed up for work as a Personnel and Industrial Relations Trainee (remember those terms - Personnel and Industrial Relations? Sounds like high button shoes now.) at the Winchester Western Division of Olin, the priorities for the company were items 1 and 2 on the Accenture list!
Indeed, on the day that I reported to work to start what I guess is now called "my career,” there were over 700 people lined up outside who felt they were potential "skilled staff." After just a few months on the job, and wandering around a manufacturing plant of some 3,000 production and maintenance workers, I started to understand why many of those who were initially hired didn't end up on the "retained" list, and why people talked about things like changing the "culture" and employee attitudes.
Second, and as we all stand back and observe an employment market that seems to be really starting some sustained movement back toward a sellers market, I was thinking of our own survey data that speaks to the same issues. The skilled staff was there, but when you asked people about the culture in which they found themselves and their attitudes, what came back was a resounding 61% who told us they were unhappy campers and an astounding 77% who said they planned to do something about how they felt.
With those kinds of numbers, I am not surprised to see what turned out to be the top two items on Accenture's survey. Almost 70% of ExecuNet's current membership is made up of executives who are currently employed and as I looked at the numbers, I couldn't help but think that many worked for the same companies whose management responded to the survey.
So here I am some 44 years into what I would loosely refer to as a "career" and saying to myself, there is an awful lot of work still there for somebody, because clearly we have yet to break the code.
Friday, August 12, 2005
Community vs. Contact -- Trust vs. Transactions -- Members & Subscribers -- There Is A Difference
As a subscriber to Business Week, I saw the piece they just ran on Craig Newmark, the founder of Craig's list, in their column called, “Voices of Innovation.” My guess is that almost no one these days doesn't know about or at least hasn't heard of Craig's list. My daughter uses it all the time. It was nice to see Craig recognized yet once again, although his desire to avoid the limelight is nearing legend proportions.
While I don't know him personally, a few years ago at a conference in New York, I was asked to be on a panel with Craig and Laurel Touby, the founder of Media Bistro. The subject we were to discuss was the building of online communities.
Seeing the piece in Business Week reminded me not just of the panel but of the common thread that I recalled from each of our remarks -- even though none of us had talked to the other about what we were going to say. The common thread was that each of our sites had grown by personal referral and personal involvement with our "community."
“Word-of-mouth” is a difficult thing to actively control, but when it works in your favor, the positive results can be quite powerful. ExecuNet was formed in 1988 before commercial Internet usage, and obviously at that time we relied heavily on referrals from our members. Seventeen years later, we still credit recommendations from our members for much of our success and longevity.
In today's world, the value of word-of-mouth buzz is compounded by the speed in which news travels over the Internet. For example, every time ExecuNet appears in the press – as it did a couple of weeks ago in the Wall Street Journal – we see the results online as blogs and website links and reprints, all of which help in driving traffic to our site and making people aware.
No matter how people get here, however, I have always felt that personal referral was the most powerful advertising there is, and that is evidenced by the fact that the community we have with ExecuNet is based on the commitment that comes from being a member. That was -- and still is -- the key factor in why personal referral remains the way most of our members get here.
One of the first questions many people who contact us for the first time ask is how we measure our effectiveness as a career management resource for senior-level executives? My response is usually along the lines of "How did you hear of us?" The answer more often than not is "A friend of mine told me about you." To which I then respond, "Well, you have now found a good part of the answer -- by reputation.
Most people I know don't refer people to something unless they feel there is value there. I don’t, and I wouldn't expect you to either."
There is a real difference between being a member of something and simply a subscriber. Craig interacts and treats those who use his site as real members of a community. In turn, those visitors (and I believe our members as well) bring the most important element in any business or personal relationship -- TRUST.
While I don't know him personally, a few years ago at a conference in New York, I was asked to be on a panel with Craig and Laurel Touby, the founder of Media Bistro. The subject we were to discuss was the building of online communities.
Seeing the piece in Business Week reminded me not just of the panel but of the common thread that I recalled from each of our remarks -- even though none of us had talked to the other about what we were going to say. The common thread was that each of our sites had grown by personal referral and personal involvement with our "community."
“Word-of-mouth” is a difficult thing to actively control, but when it works in your favor, the positive results can be quite powerful. ExecuNet was formed in 1988 before commercial Internet usage, and obviously at that time we relied heavily on referrals from our members. Seventeen years later, we still credit recommendations from our members for much of our success and longevity.
In today's world, the value of word-of-mouth buzz is compounded by the speed in which news travels over the Internet. For example, every time ExecuNet appears in the press – as it did a couple of weeks ago in the Wall Street Journal – we see the results online as blogs and website links and reprints, all of which help in driving traffic to our site and making people aware.
No matter how people get here, however, I have always felt that personal referral was the most powerful advertising there is, and that is evidenced by the fact that the community we have with ExecuNet is based on the commitment that comes from being a member. That was -- and still is -- the key factor in why personal referral remains the way most of our members get here.
One of the first questions many people who contact us for the first time ask is how we measure our effectiveness as a career management resource for senior-level executives? My response is usually along the lines of "How did you hear of us?" The answer more often than not is "A friend of mine told me about you." To which I then respond, "Well, you have now found a good part of the answer -- by reputation.
Most people I know don't refer people to something unless they feel there is value there. I don’t, and I wouldn't expect you to either."
There is a real difference between being a member of something and simply a subscriber. Craig interacts and treats those who use his site as real members of a community. In turn, those visitors (and I believe our members as well) bring the most important element in any business or personal relationship -- TRUST.
Wednesday, August 10, 2005
I Guess We'll Just Keep Trying 'Til We Get It Right
Saw an interesting piece of survey data on what was also an interesting site (at least to me) called Chief Learning Officer. The annual survey was conducted by Accenture who, after surveying 425 "senior executives" at what they say were at many of the world's largest companies, came up with a list of what they say are the issues of greatest concern to senior management.
If you are only into "short lists" the top two items were:
1. Attracting and retaining skilled staff, and
2. Changing organizational culture and employee attitudes.
The other eight were certainly worthy of being on the list, but I was struck by the first two.
First, and maybe this is my age showing through, but almost since day one, way back in 1961 when I showed up for work as a Personnel and Industrial Relations Trainee (remember those terms - Personnel and Industrial Relations? Sounds like high button shoes now.) at the Winchester Western Division of Olin, the priorities for the company were items 1 and 2 on the Accenture list! Indeed, on the day that I reported to work to start what I guess is now called "my career", there were over 700 people lined up outside who I would guess felt they were potential "skilled staff". After just a few months on the job, and wandering around a manufacturing plant of some 3,000 production and maintenance workers, I started to understand why many of those who were initially hired didn't end up on the "retained" list, and why it was that people talked about things like changing the "culture" and employee "attitudes."
Second, and as we all stand back and observe an employment market that seems to be really starting some sustained movement back toward a sellers market, I was thinking of our own survey data that speaks to the same issues. The skilled staff was there, but when you asked people about the culture in which they found themselves and their attitudes, what came back was a resounding 61% who told us they were unhappy campers and an astounding 77% who said they planned to do something about how they felt.
With those kinds of numbers, I am not surprised to see what turned out to be the top two items on Accenture's survey. Almost 70% of ExecuNet's current membership is made up of executives who are currently employed and as I looked at the numbers, I couldn't help but think that many worked for the same companies whose management responded to the survey.
So here I am some 44 years into what I would loosely refer to as a "career" and saying to myself, there is an awful lot of work still there for somebody, because clearly we have yet to break the code.
If you are only into "short lists" the top two items were:
1. Attracting and retaining skilled staff, and
2. Changing organizational culture and employee attitudes.
The other eight were certainly worthy of being on the list, but I was struck by the first two.
First, and maybe this is my age showing through, but almost since day one, way back in 1961 when I showed up for work as a Personnel and Industrial Relations Trainee (remember those terms - Personnel and Industrial Relations? Sounds like high button shoes now.) at the Winchester Western Division of Olin, the priorities for the company were items 1 and 2 on the Accenture list! Indeed, on the day that I reported to work to start what I guess is now called "my career", there were over 700 people lined up outside who I would guess felt they were potential "skilled staff". After just a few months on the job, and wandering around a manufacturing plant of some 3,000 production and maintenance workers, I started to understand why many of those who were initially hired didn't end up on the "retained" list, and why it was that people talked about things like changing the "culture" and employee "attitudes."
Second, and as we all stand back and observe an employment market that seems to be really starting some sustained movement back toward a sellers market, I was thinking of our own survey data that speaks to the same issues. The skilled staff was there, but when you asked people about the culture in which they found themselves and their attitudes, what came back was a resounding 61% who told us they were unhappy campers and an astounding 77% who said they planned to do something about how they felt.
With those kinds of numbers, I am not surprised to see what turned out to be the top two items on Accenture's survey. Almost 70% of ExecuNet's current membership is made up of executives who are currently employed and as I looked at the numbers, I couldn't help but think that many worked for the same companies whose management responded to the survey.
So here I am some 44 years into what I would loosely refer to as a "career" and saying to myself, there is an awful lot of work still there for somebody, because clearly we have yet to break the code.
Tuesday, August 09, 2005
The Wonders of Modern Technology? One Wonders
Jeff Peduto, our Director of Recruiting Client Services & Sales, showed me something the other day that struck a chord that began to feel like "Okay, is this finally what it has come to?" I mean aren't we all simply fascinated (and often frustrated) by the wonders of modern telecommunications and other technological marvels that are hawked to us 24/7? All of the gadgets of the wireless world that are going to change our lives for the better and relieve all the stress we get when our PDA, cell phone, and pagers all going off at the same time? I want to know when we get to the "stress reduction" part!
What Jeff had sent along was what appeared to be a job seeker's answer to automated responses and messages that come from many job board postings, which, loosely translated, stop just short of "Dear Occupant." Apparently after this certain piece of software is up and running, the applicant can send out an automatic message to any posting on any site it searches for the key words one sets as the criteria. If true, this would make my list of finalists for the the ultimate recruiter's nightmare and a job changer's time-waster of the year award.
I recall when the Internet first showed up on most of our radar screens, many of the industry pundits were forecasting the early demise of the whole executive search industry, and that what we could expect before too long was all job openings would be filled as we slept. Okay, a bit of an overstatement to make a point, but that is what it was starting to sound like. Here we are a decade or so later, and for sure the death of the industry was, as Mark Twain said, "greatly exaggerated."
Admittedly, at ExecuNet we are focused on only one segment of the market – senior-level executive positions. By observing and interacting with that segment on a daily basis, we continue to see more of an emphasis on human judgment and less on robotic matching, and for all its impact on the speed of research and communications, the search community keeps telling us that the time to fill the assignments really hasn't changed all that much, the Internet notwithstanding.
Indeed, in our 13-year-old annual survey we have always asked search consultants about the time it takes to fill positions. With the exception of the height of the recent recession, when they say it took on average a month longer, the answer has always been between 3 to 4 months.
As I think about this issue, and keep reading about the latest and greatest technological enablers that often literally "pop up" it just keeps reminding me of three things:
1. There is no substitute for quality, and
2. There is no substitute for making qualitative judgments, and
3. As a consumer, no matter what the economic conditions, I am always willing to pay a premium for quality.
What Jeff had sent along was what appeared to be a job seeker's answer to automated responses and messages that come from many job board postings, which, loosely translated, stop just short of "Dear Occupant." Apparently after this certain piece of software is up and running, the applicant can send out an automatic message to any posting on any site it searches for the key words one sets as the criteria. If true, this would make my list of finalists for the the ultimate recruiter's nightmare and a job changer's time-waster of the year award.
I recall when the Internet first showed up on most of our radar screens, many of the industry pundits were forecasting the early demise of the whole executive search industry, and that what we could expect before too long was all job openings would be filled as we slept. Okay, a bit of an overstatement to make a point, but that is what it was starting to sound like. Here we are a decade or so later, and for sure the death of the industry was, as Mark Twain said, "greatly exaggerated."
Admittedly, at ExecuNet we are focused on only one segment of the market – senior-level executive positions. By observing and interacting with that segment on a daily basis, we continue to see more of an emphasis on human judgment and less on robotic matching, and for all its impact on the speed of research and communications, the search community keeps telling us that the time to fill the assignments really hasn't changed all that much, the Internet notwithstanding.
Indeed, in our 13-year-old annual survey we have always asked search consultants about the time it takes to fill positions. With the exception of the height of the recent recession, when they say it took on average a month longer, the answer has always been between 3 to 4 months.
As I think about this issue, and keep reading about the latest and greatest technological enablers that often literally "pop up" it just keeps reminding me of three things:
1. There is no substitute for quality, and
2. There is no substitute for making qualitative judgments, and
3. As a consumer, no matter what the economic conditions, I am always willing to pay a premium for quality.
Saturday, August 06, 2005
Some Support for "Crazy Al"
I often wish I was an economist so that when the Feds release the jobs numbers I could guess right along with the rest of the forecasters. When the numbers were released on Friday and showed job growth of +207,000 and they said it was slightly above expectations, we were certainly pleased, but not really surprised.
While we don't have the resources of the BLS, in our own space where we deal in the world of executive jobs and executive careers, we would have told the media to take it easy and to stop trying to make it sound like it is such a horse race every month, and besides, they are looking at and reporting on what has happened in the past (i.e. last month). We think it is just as much fun, and sometimes more exciting to try and see what's coming.
For the past several years, we have been having some fun trying to forecast what's coming, by looking at what the recruiting folks think is coming down the pike in 3 months and what they think the future looks like 6 months out. We call it the Recruiters Confidence Index.
In July our RCI for the 6 month outlook was at a 75% confidence level versus 54% in July of last year, and 27% way back in May of 2003. The 3 month RCI was at a 74% confidence level in July versus only 37% just a year ago. Our take in looking at how these two leading indicators are coming together suggests that recruiters are getting more and more calls on immediate assignments and lots of talk of more by year end. All good signs going forward.
While the recruiting world has a bit of a reputation for being overly optimistic sometimes, we also are able to measure if the results support the forecasts, which is to say we can see if the words translate into real openings. The short story is that our job postings are up 26% thus far this year and we don't see anything on the horizon that would slow that down. Recruiters felt they would see assignments go up 14% in the first half of the year, and continue to look for double digits for the last half as well.
As Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan gets ready to retire from his current gig, and as he starts to maybe chat with the likes of Spencer Stuart, Heidrick & Struggles, Russell Reynolds, etc. he, as well as other executives who are looking to make a change, should feel comfortable that the market has definitely changed and the outlook is strong. We don't think it is a question of if executive employment will increase, but how fast. The "lull" in the War for Talent is over and our bet is that it will continue to pick up.
As to inflation, we'll leave that to the guy Don Imus calls "Crazy Al."
While we don't have the resources of the BLS, in our own space where we deal in the world of executive jobs and executive careers, we would have told the media to take it easy and to stop trying to make it sound like it is such a horse race every month, and besides, they are looking at and reporting on what has happened in the past (i.e. last month). We think it is just as much fun, and sometimes more exciting to try and see what's coming.
For the past several years, we have been having some fun trying to forecast what's coming, by looking at what the recruiting folks think is coming down the pike in 3 months and what they think the future looks like 6 months out. We call it the Recruiters Confidence Index.
In July our RCI for the 6 month outlook was at a 75% confidence level versus 54% in July of last year, and 27% way back in May of 2003. The 3 month RCI was at a 74% confidence level in July versus only 37% just a year ago. Our take in looking at how these two leading indicators are coming together suggests that recruiters are getting more and more calls on immediate assignments and lots of talk of more by year end. All good signs going forward.
While the recruiting world has a bit of a reputation for being overly optimistic sometimes, we also are able to measure if the results support the forecasts, which is to say we can see if the words translate into real openings. The short story is that our job postings are up 26% thus far this year and we don't see anything on the horizon that would slow that down. Recruiters felt they would see assignments go up 14% in the first half of the year, and continue to look for double digits for the last half as well.
As Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan gets ready to retire from his current gig, and as he starts to maybe chat with the likes of Spencer Stuart, Heidrick & Struggles, Russell Reynolds, etc. he, as well as other executives who are looking to make a change, should feel comfortable that the market has definitely changed and the outlook is strong. We don't think it is a question of if executive employment will increase, but how fast. The "lull" in the War for Talent is over and our bet is that it will continue to pick up.
As to inflation, we'll leave that to the guy Don Imus calls "Crazy Al."
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
What Keeps You Awake At Night?
One of the e-newsletters I get is from The Herman Group called Herman Trend Alert. It's a good read. In the one that arrived today, the subject was: Signs of a Tight Labor Market, and the two opening paragraphs were:
"While corporate leaders and human resource professionals continue denial that the labor market is tightening, numbers and reality tell a different story. People who insist that there is no shortage will soon find themselves in a very difficult reactive posture. Finding and holding good employees will become so challenging that a number of employers will be forced out of business. Those closures will have far-reaching implications. This problem is an international issue, not at all limited to a few communities, a region, one country, or just some industries.
Our correspondents report that employers are having trouble attracting applicants who have the capability to do the jobs available. There are too many job-seekers who lack literacy, experience, education, training, career focus, or ambition; many who do not even meet minimum qualifications. Employers are assigning more employees to recruiting functions in attempts to find, attract, and sell their employment opportunities to the few people who are qualified."
With all the hoopla around the buzz phrase of the decade aka The War for Talent, I wasn't surprised to see the subject matter, but rather in reading through it, especially the second paragraph, it brought back to me the one word that worries me more than anything - EDUCATION.
We see it at ExecuNet when we interview, and in talking with other business owners their eyes roll up as well when it comes to how the lack of education manifests itself in the workforce. I am not just talking about entry level positions, we see resumes from college "educated" candidates, including those with advanced degrees where one wonders how it is that they got into college much less graduated. It is a very scary thing to see.
I am sure that we have all seen the studies regarding the effectiveness of the national education systems around the world, and have seen where the U.S. continues to drop down the list. As we as a country continue to try and get our act together in terms of competing in a true global economy, it isn't the numerical advantage that places like India and China have that worry me, it is the educational standards that these countries establish for their children.
My belief is that over the long haul, as standards of living go up in places like China and India, etc., that our ability to compete on cost will start to come more into balance, but if we don't do something drastic about revitalizing our education system, then it won't be too long, as Tom Friedman says in his new book The World is Flat that things won't just say Made in China, they will say Designed in China.
"While corporate leaders and human resource professionals continue denial that the labor market is tightening, numbers and reality tell a different story. People who insist that there is no shortage will soon find themselves in a very difficult reactive posture. Finding and holding good employees will become so challenging that a number of employers will be forced out of business. Those closures will have far-reaching implications. This problem is an international issue, not at all limited to a few communities, a region, one country, or just some industries.
Our correspondents report that employers are having trouble attracting applicants who have the capability to do the jobs available. There are too many job-seekers who lack literacy, experience, education, training, career focus, or ambition; many who do not even meet minimum qualifications. Employers are assigning more employees to recruiting functions in attempts to find, attract, and sell their employment opportunities to the few people who are qualified."
With all the hoopla around the buzz phrase of the decade aka The War for Talent, I wasn't surprised to see the subject matter, but rather in reading through it, especially the second paragraph, it brought back to me the one word that worries me more than anything - EDUCATION.
We see it at ExecuNet when we interview, and in talking with other business owners their eyes roll up as well when it comes to how the lack of education manifests itself in the workforce. I am not just talking about entry level positions, we see resumes from college "educated" candidates, including those with advanced degrees where one wonders how it is that they got into college much less graduated. It is a very scary thing to see.
I am sure that we have all seen the studies regarding the effectiveness of the national education systems around the world, and have seen where the U.S. continues to drop down the list. As we as a country continue to try and get our act together in terms of competing in a true global economy, it isn't the numerical advantage that places like India and China have that worry me, it is the educational standards that these countries establish for their children.
My belief is that over the long haul, as standards of living go up in places like China and India, etc., that our ability to compete on cost will start to come more into balance, but if we don't do something drastic about revitalizing our education system, then it won't be too long, as Tom Friedman says in his new book The World is Flat that things won't just say Made in China, they will say Designed in China.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)