Perceptions Are Real to Those Who Hold Them

Our banjo playing Chief Creative Officer, Sue DiAmico, is, among other things, a multi-tasker extraordinaire, so I wasn't surprised when she found the time in her cyber travels to forward a piece that appeared on the eMarketer Digital Intelligence site. The article was entitled: Job Candidates Both Hurt and Helped by Social Networks. As the title implies, the information about you on the Net can be a two-edged sword.

As I continue to contemplate the electronic world in which we live and while I am fascinated with it all, at least when it comes to the "digital dirt" issues that face some of the Gen X and Y folks, I not only feel for them but actually feel lucky that I was born way too soon.

Indeed, once I had read the piece, I could not help but think of the fact that if some of the stuff that I did when I was in college (or high school for that matter) ever made it to the Net, and I was a hiring manager and saw it or read about it, I wouldn't have made a phone call to me, much less hired me.

No matter where you are philosophically, when it comes to the debate over the separation of business lives vs. personal lives, if you are looking to make a change on the business side and whereas you might put points on the board for freedom of expression when the cover of an album on your Facebook page is a picture of you and your buddies standing by someone's VW that you just put on their porch last Halloween, points, not paychecks will be about all you'll get.

I don't know how many clichés there are or ways to say "You only get one chance to make a first impression," and for sure there has been plenty written on the subject (e.g. when I goggled "digital dirt" I got 3,600,000 hits); and yet even in this super competitive market I can't get over how we still see way too many people head out into the market before they are really ready to make sure that the impression they are going to leave be it verbal, print or electronic is at the quality level that they not only would want for themselves but which others would expect.

I am not talking about the crazy stuff that most of us did. If it's out there, it's out there, and while there are still plenty of folks who are at senior executive levels today who have been eliminated by recruiters due to stuff the recruiter has found online, for the most part at senior levels it isn't the skinny dip photos that gets your resume shredded. It is much more likely to be sloppy spelling, poor follow-up, poor communication skills, poor grammar, or maybe a resume that looks like it is a "before" sample.

With the pressures facing organizations these days, they don't have and won't take the time to get a second impression, so taking the time to make sure that "the product" is ready for prime time is not only time well spent, it is absolutely essential.

Success on a Shoestring

Even with electronic media that does everything but pump you full of information intravenously at night I just can't seem to keep up with everything that either interests me or which while it may not interest me so much is nonetheless stuff that I feel I should be paying attention to anyway.

All of which is the only excuse I could think of for posting something the impetus of which was driven by the special issue of BusinessWeek that came out the last week of August.

As I am sure we all immediately recall this special issue was the one with the cover headline: Trouble at the Office? and the picture of Rainn Wilson on the cover. Why it took BW this long to realize that there is indeed "trouble at the office" I have no idea, but I was glad to see that at least it was starting to show up on their radar.

Being in the business we are at ExecuNet and are talking with both recruiters and senior level executives on a daily if not hourly basis as we do, the fact that there are "issues" in the workplace comes as no surprise, and while there are any number of keywords that could be thrown out to try and capture the essence of the challenge, at the moment, the two that come to my mind were: recruitment and retention.

The habitual cry we hear all the time is the "war for talent" is getting worse not better (the economy notwithstanding) and keeping my "A" players feels like a losing battle.

Given that as a business we find ourselves very much in the middle of this discussion, I read each article on this topic in this particular issue. I read them with great interest and great hope. When finished I found myself still interested but not particularly hopeful. I was looking for answers and instead found lots of wringing of hands and articles reporting on but not suggesting a whole lot of "to dos" regarding things of which I was all too painfully aware before I had read word one.

I should also say at this juncture that if I had access to the universal solvent to fix these ills, I would have shared it long ago. Unfortunately my approach to life is too simplistic to conjure up such stuff, however, so as much as I wish it were the case, I don't have any silver bullets to offer up. That said, however, there was one article in the issue that I thought at least expressed what struck me as pretty cogent advice in trying to overcome the core issues.

The article was entitled Success on a Shoestring authored by Richard Clark, the CEO of APTARE, a company in Campbell, California and in a tad more than 800 words, Mr. Clarke said two things that I tacked up on the bulletin board above my desk.

1. Establish the DNA of your company and then hire people that fit into that DNA., and

2. Because we are a small business, we cannot afford to lose time, energy, or capital on hiring and rehiring.

Magic? Certainly not. Revolutionary? Hardly. Critical to keep you on the right path? You betcha!

Survey Said

While it hardly seems possible, the fact is that sixteen years ago we began an annual survey of the executive marketplace which has become known as ExecuNet's Executive Job Market Intelligence Report. The report has expanded each year, as has the effort that our staff expends in putting it together has also grown expodentially. I have to say, however, that the feedback we get from both executives and the recruiting community on the value of the information serves as continuing motivation to continue the investment of time and energy.

This year's survey with more than 6,000+ responses has produced a good deal of commentary in the media both electronic and print.

Among the more stimulating and flattering requests that we got for commentary on the survey came from Peter Clayton, the voice and engine behind Total Picture Radio, the well-respected website whose tag line: "The Voice of Career Leadership"describes the site very well

Peter came over to our offices last week and sat down with Mark Anderson (our President) and me and in his disarming and relaxed interviewing style, Peter really engaged us in dialouge that was more of a conversation than an interview.

While our members have access to the full report, we also have an executive summary of the report which is available to the public on our site as a free download and can be obtained by clicking here

If you are interested in the "conversation" we had we Peter, the link to the interview is here.

Retaining Gen X and Gen Y

Employees have long recognized the rewards of volunteering; the chance to share their skills and expertise with those who really need it is always a fulfilling experience, and certainly providing the ways and means for employees to participate in such activities is not new, but I do think these activities are getting more attention as it starts to feel like we might be getting to the tipping point on issues like global warming, energy conservation, etc.

According to a recent article reported by The Associated Press entitled Companies See Volunteering as a Benefit, organizations are more actively granting employees the time they need to volunteer. Some are even creating company organized volunteering opportunities.

Moreover, companies are finding that they can link these volunteer programs to their overall business objectives. The article, for example, notes how employees of dog food maker Pedigree can volunteer at animal shelters as part of that company’s program. Organizations are also using volunteering as an employee retention strategy, since it undoubtedly improves company morale. It’s also an initiative in which members of our current multi-generational workforce share an interest.

In the article, David Eisner, chief executive of the Corporation for National and Community Service, notes how the younger members of the workforce use volunteering to help achieve their desired work-life balance. At the same time, older workers just enjoy the opportunity to serve their communities.

Volunteering is a positive action for both companies and their employees. Yet, we also can’t forget that the true beneficiaries, of course, are the recipients of this good will.

Sounds like the proverbial win-win to me.

Deciding Who Leads: How Executive Recruiters Drive, Direct and Disrupt the Global Search for Leadership Talent

If this sounds like it ought to be the title of a book, it's because it is.

Ever since I had known that Joe McCool (a name that is known to almost anyone who follows the executive recruiting world) was going to write a book, I was wondering how I could say something about it here without it sounding too self-serving inasmuch as Joe is a Senior Contributing Editor with ExecuNet.

My worries were answered, as they often are by Robyn Greenspan our Editor-in-Chief who in our Executive Insider newsletter that was published today featured an interview that she did with Joe. In it, she does a far better job than I ever could in giving readers a 10,000 foot view of just a few of the subjects Joe covers in this first book on the executive search industry published since 1986. Here's what she had to say and Joe's responses:

Would I be featuring this book if the author, Joe McCool, was not a trusted colleague and friend? Absolutely, because executives who recruit will find it fascinating and insightful, and executives who work with recruiters to achieve their own career goals will be enlightened to learn the inside scoop. In this Q&A, Joe and I talk about how executives can use the messages in Deciding Who Leads: How Executive Recruiters Drive, Direct & Disrupt the Global Search for Leadership Talent [Davies-Black, 2008] to their advantage.

Robyn Greenspan (RG): Why should executives read this book? What will they learn about executive recruiting that will help their own career plans?

Joseph Daniel McCool (JDM): I believe it offers today's executives a lot of perspective about how their career plans might eventually marry with the organizational leadership agenda of a new employer. I think executives will come away from the book with a fresh view of the role so-called "executive headhunters" play in management recruiting and also about how the process is still plagued by dysfunction. I hope it also informs their own interactions with executive recruiters and offers some rationale for why they should enter the career courtship process with their eyes wide open and with the utmost discretion, since it usually only proves successful for one or maybe two of the dozens of executives who might be contacted during the course of any search assignment.

RG: What's the most significant change you discovered in the executive recruiting business in the period since John Byrne's book, The Headhunters, was published in 1986?

JDM: Actually, the thing I was most struck by was just how little has changed since Byrne's 1986 assessment of the executive recruiting business and the state of corporate management succession. Perceptions about executive recruiters haven't moved one iota since his book was published, although it is important to point out that the practice of executive search has really been institutionalized across corporate America. The bottom line is that many companies need to start getting smart about management succession and become better consumers of the executive search business. The status quo isn't serving the best interests of employer organizations or of executive job candidates, and Deciding Who Leads really identifies the kind of sophistication employers and executive candidates need to bring to the process.

RG: You make a strong case as to why on-boarding is essential for executive success in a new position. What should a newly hired executive do to get acclimated if their recruiter or new employer does not offer on-boarding assistance?

JDM: I think smart executives are insisting on some form of performance feedback relatively early on in their tenure in a new leadership role, so they'll have some actionable intelligence to plot a course correction if they got off on the wrong foot or failed to make a really positive first impression. The fact is that management churn costs companies a lot of money, and failure in a new role can have dire consequences for any executive from a career advancement point of view. Organizations need lifelong learners in key executive roles, and I believe today's best leaders are those who will be willing to learn from their new environment and learn how their performance is perceived within it.

The Name of the Game

A couple of days ago, I returned from attending ERE's Spring Expo in San Diego. While I have been to the Left Coast many times, this was my first time to visit San Diego.

The fact that I came back at all was a major test of self-discipline and will power, and for those readers who have been to San Diego, you will know exactly what I mean, especially after living in the Northeast in January through March. Just kidding, I love it in New England, but I have to say, the weather out there was something to treasure for sure.

Anyway, back to the ERE experience. This was my first ERE Expo, although as a company we have been to several. At this particular event, in addition to exhibiting, ExecuNet was asked to help do a summary of the "learnings" that participants were exposed to over the two days that came from a variety of well-known experts such as:

Lou Adler, CEO of The Adler Group , Jeremy Eskenazi Managing Principal Riviera Advisors, John Leech Director of Recruitment at FedEx, Shally Steckerl, Founder of JobMachine, Dr. John Sullivan and Penelope Trunk Boston Globe Columnist aka The Brazen Careerist, and this is only a sampling.

Trying to cover all the of the workshops and tracks that were offered was a challenge to say the least, but there were five of us out there, and while it made for some longish days, we got to almost everything, and as this is written, are preparing a white paper executive summary that will be sent by ERE to all the those attending since one of the toughest things about attending a conference such as this is making the difficult choices regarding what tracks you are going to go to when there are always things going on at the same time that you want to hear.

The purpose of the closing summary that we were asked to sponsor was to try and quickly summarize what the key learnings were while things were still fresh in people's minds. So, with conference chair Trudy Knoepke-Campbell Director of National Recruitment for Minuteclinic we tried to lead the group through what we felt were the key points that came out of the conference.

At one point, there was a question asked that really helped me to focus and express what the most important takeaway was, at least for me. The question went something like this: "If you were to summarize in one word what you felt expressed the key headline message over the course of the conference, what would it be?"

I wasn't sure if this was asked to make sure that I didn't go on too long, or if it was asked to help the group focus. I elected to assume it was the latter, and my response was: TRUST.

Some very smart people had spent a lot of time talking about ways and means to recruit and retain in a market place that, despite an economy that was contracting, going to remain very competitive both home and away for some time to come.

As I thought about it, it really didn't make a lot of difference if an organization was recruiting or working to build a culture in which people would want to stay once the "selling" was over, if they did not fundamentally trust the organization’s leadership, the brand, their boss, or their colleagues the relationship was doomed.

A company can have the best technology going and all that good stuff, but if they do not have a culture and values that actually support all the "copy" of a mission statement or the letters to stockholders from the CEO will not stem the departure of people in search of something/someone in which to believe, and judging from where things stand at the moment (think sub-prime debacle for openers) we still have lots of work to do.

Oxymoron #36 Passive Candidate

I am a sucker for "bumper stickers" like the one that I recently saw for the holidays that said "It's a Jingle Out There." Okay, if you didn't like that one, how about "Ho. Greetings from the Society for the Prevention of Redundancy." Okay, I'll move on, just don't throw anything.

The site where I find these is called Internet Bumper Stickers and there are several categories on the site one of which is Oxymorans and there you will find stickers like Oxymoron #3: "Microsoft Works" or #7: "Government Accountability." Okay, I'll move on from these too, but before I do, I want to try and add what I have arbitrarily labeled Oxymoron #36: Passive Candidate.

What energized me to lobby for this addition? My friend Pete Weddle, as he has on a number of other occasions, prompted me to start pounding away on my keyboard. Pete recently published an article in one of his newsletters which he called Why Recruit Passives? In it, Pete makes, as he always does, a number of very cogent arguments about why "passives" are better than "actives." One of the points he made was this:

... Are active job seekers also qualified? Of course. But passive prospects are passive largely because they are already employed and, therefore, presumably making an acceptable or better contribution to their employers. Data collected by the Yahoo! survey tend to support this view. It found that the average experience level of passive prospects was 18.4 years, with over half reporting more than 20 years in the workplace. The average for active job seekers, in contrast, was 14.9 years of experience, with slightly more than a third reporting more than 20 years on-the-job. In addition, if pay is a measure of a person's perceived value to an enterprise, then passive job seekers are viewed as significantly greater contributors. The average annual salary for passive prospects is $66,100, while the average for active job seekers is over 10% lower at $54,583.

Okay, I admit I have not gone back and looked at the Yahoo survey that Pete has referenced, so maybe it defines some of this stuff in more detail, but at least based on what I read in all this, I just don't buy it.

I don't buy the exerience level as much of a criteria for a number of reasons, not the least of which is just because someone has "hung in there" for 20 years or so doesn't mean they aren't "active." I know an awful lot of folks with 20 years in same gig who may not be "actively" looking but that doesn't mean that they are happy campers (we have lots of data from our own surveys that says they aren't) or that they aren't staying where they are because they are afraid on a lot of levels.

There is an old saying that there are two things that cause people to act; one is inspiration and the other is desperation. Point being just because they aren't out there pounding the pavement doesn't mean they wouldn't like to be "active" and certainly doesn't mean that they would be a better or more productive employee than someone who is "active" be they driven by either inspiration of desperation.

I also don't quite get the compensation as a criteria etiher. Compensation is, as we all know, dictated by any number of veriables, such as industry, geography, seniority (and I am not talking about bargaining unit seniority), etc.

That there has been and continues to be a strong bias in this country against people who are "at liberty" as they used to say back in the day versus someone who is "...presumably making an acceptable or better contribution to their employers" is hardly a military secret.

I would submit that at this stage of the downsizing game in our country that there are at least as many folks out there working like hell to find meaningful employment who are every bit as capable if not more so at making "acceptable or better contributions to their employees" as those who are still "presumably" still doing so.

I just don't think there is such a thing as a "passive candidate" in the sense that someone who is currently employed is the definition of 'passive' and someone who isn't employed is the definition of "active."

As far as those who are working being passive or active is concerned, I think that depends on how things went at the office on any given day.