Agency v Corporate

I have lately seen some interesting postings. (Perhaps they always existed and I am just noticing them now, I’m not sure. . .). In any case, I have seen some recruiting postings that state:

“No agency recruiters needed. Corporate only.”
OR
“Agency sourcers and recruiters needed. No corporate recruiters need apply.”

Why is this? Okay, so being an “agency” person I am baffled by the first. I bust my patooty to get out and sell our services to clients, come home with multiple requirements, search, fish, hunt, gather (while being polite and sweet to all), comb through resumes, make callbacks, set up appts with in house HR pros and/or HMs. Then stay on them for several weeks regarding a second interview, third, etc (meanwhile the candidate calls or emails thrice weekly to get the feedback I do not yet have, getting a little angrier at me each time.). When I finally score a face to face, it either goes through (yes! a match! I’m a rock star!!!) or gets canceled 4 minutes (yes this is a TRUE story) before the time it was due to begin. Then I called the crestfallen candidate who was already spending the money he was sure he was going to make and listen to his voice fall when he hears my voice instead of the HM he was expecting.

I short, I feel that I not only work just as hard as corporate recruiters but am just as honest and as forthright as I can be. In addition, no one really expects corporate recruiters to follow up but every one expects agency recruiters to stay with them and their 1,000 other candidates.

I know several recruiters and the general riff is this:

Agency is better than corporate because they have to learn how to sell and then recruit much faster.

Corporate is better than agency because they take more time and have a more comprehensive view of the company.

(I should mention that this is from the client side, from the candidate side it looks more like this, which is depressing. . .)

I happen to agree with both. I also happen to think that companies who restrict themselves to one kind of recruiter miss out, as both types of talent acquisition can be extremely valuable. And a candidate who has both can be an excellent asset. For example, in a high-volume, permanent staffing initiative, I’d want a recruiter who could do both.

To go back to the dead horse that is job-hopping, I wonder if contract recruiting is the blend of both? It certainly seems to appeal to a great many sensibilities. Recruiters are by nature, a fickle animal, and learning a new industry, company and pool of candidates (not to mention the exposure to different locales, software and culture) every few months is a great outlet for our ADD species. Like some IT professionals, some employers see a lengthy resume as a good thing. If contract recruiting is the best of both worlds and contract recruiting begets job-hopping and job hopping attracts millenials, perhaps the job posters should focus less on YEARS of experience and more on the AMOUNT of experience.

I know a 25 year old woman who has held six positions since college. I would be willing to bet that she has more recruiting and HR knowledge in her little pinky than most recruiters who have been with the same firm for 10 years do. Why? With every job change, she has to adapt, learn, retool and grow. With each jump her experience and network grows. With each move she learns her new surroundings, a new industry and a new skill set. Which is probably why she’s on the verge of becoming an HR Executive before the age of 30.

The rubber band has snapped a little on the telecommuting thang. Which bugs me. I like to think that professionals (especially IT pros) can (and will) work very well unsupervised or at least outside of a cubicle. Companies like HP, AT&T and Best Buy were great to recruit for because of that fact. But now, as we bow to the great gods of consolidation, workers find themselves being yanked back in office (with the tedious interruptions, the endless birthday cakes, the daily email joke forward barrage. . .). Hopefully, someone smarter than me will find a way to prove that telecommuting is cheaper, better, cooler, whatever and I can go back to raving about it.

Misc.

Because I am currently on pain meds, there is a high likelihood this will make no sense. However, since if I don’t force myself to post, no one else will, the show must go on.

I recently noted that transitioning from one career path to another has its own set of pitfalls. I posted some tips, but there are others that come to mind:

1) Join networking and industry groups. There’s one for EVERY industry.

2) Make your move by jumping on board a smaller company.

3) Use your current skills and grab at projects where you can work with others in your desired field (this one only works if you look before you leap, something I hardly ever do!).

Speaking of career transitions, I really think that job-hopping is the way of the future. I know fewer and fewer people who spend more than two or so years in one position or at one company. Is it just my generation or are people honing and moving on? My money’s on the honers. This does raise an interesting question about onboarding though– Is it worth it to spend more on onboarding or should we be focusing on ways to make it more effective? How do you get a 18-24 month employee to care about the future of your company? Can a company’s success be measured by a string of successful projects or must there be consistency? If so, consistency in what? Leadership, strategy?

People profiling. For so long, we’ve heard the word “profiling” right behind “racial” usually in some story about an airport. No longer! Profiling is increasingly being used by employers to ensure a great hire. Worth it?

Loving this quote from Seth Godin’s recent post on “Marketing HR”:

What if you started acting like the VP of Talent? Understanding that talent is hard to find and not obvious to manage. The VP of Talent would have to reorganize the department and do things differently all day long (small example: talent shouldn’t have to fill out reams of forms and argue with the insurance company… talent is too busy for that… talent has people to help with that.)

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes! How about as an outside recruiter I have you fill out my forms, resume fill in the blanks and type, excel, word tests, etc and THEN when I place you in an equally huge company, I have you fill out MORE? How about I wear you out with bureaucracy before you even get the JOB!!! This is particularly important if you are selling to highly skilled technical types or the millenials. It’s really a no-brainer. High volume recruiting for a call center or project may need some level of forms, reports, etc. but when I would avoid at all costs on the corporate side.

Shrewd readers will note that I just cranked at Korn Ferry for using high falootin’ words to describe what is already a very important function. And to some extent I agree with my assessment (it was after all, a week ago) but I think the idea is that the idea of talent management hasn’t caught up with the words/titles. So I am still right!

Tips on Transitioning: 2.0

Since everyone (and I do mean everyone, I caught it in my son’s school newsletter. . .) is using the 2.0 moniker, I thought I’d jump on th bandwagon!

So tips on transitioning. Okay, so far we’ve revamped the resume. One note regarding formatting: I believe the formatting style, etc, depends on the industry. I have met several banking folks who swear they would never divert from Times Roman (which makes me want to throw up in my mouth a little). Now I’m a sales-y, marketing-y, writerl-y, sort of designer person, so I get a little wild and out there with the Trebuchet and such. Now this does not mean to go beyond the three font rule (and that includes bolds and italics) but depending on your industry you might need to jazz it up or down. Again, ask an expert. Or just call up an HR person at a non-target company (w/in the target industry) and ask them what stands out for them.

A very smart friend of mine recently suggested that you attempt to combine industries, as many companies are interested in hybrids these days. I completely agree. However, if you do find a position that meshes the skills of your old job with the skills of a new job, it will likely be a smaller pool, so make a special resume for “that” position and don’t pin all your hopes there.

Final thought: When you finally do land a job in your desired field: be humble. Ask for advice from your bosses (feel it out first though) and make sure any underlings know that you are listening for their thoughts and ideas. Be frank about your past work but make sure that you take firmly in hand any idea that you are not fit for the job. Remember, you are the MAN!

Tips on Transitioning

The old switcheroo. Can it be done? Can a capable exec change from one field to another without getting slammed with entry level salaries and condescending glares?

Let me first say, that the answer to the first is yes. The answer to the second question is frankly, irrelevant because doing something you love or something new that will challenge you is worth less money and the rude smirks of yuppies (or whatever yuppies are called these days, DINKS?)

So with that Godin-esque pep talk out of the way, we get down to the nitty gritty. How to switch canoes midstream?

First off, remember that you are very capable (fill in the blank). Write this down, tape it up or make it appear on your screen so quickly you brainwash yourself. Because in the next few weeks, months, aeons, you will be told over and over about how inexperienced you are. This amount of humble pie would make even this guy sick.

And don’t forget to let others know. Yes, you will have to immediately revamp and tailor your resume to your new, desired industry. But don’t let all those niche accomplishments head on over to the Dilbert graveyard. You are the man (or the woman)! Keep note of how often you over performed, came in under budget, turned that project around or came up with an innovative product. Those kinds of triumphs never fail to translate in the one true industry vertical: success.

Second, on that resume thought. Find someone who is good at what you do, someone who you will not be going to to ask for a job by the by, and ask them to help you retool. Really take time to go over each job you did in the past and see how it could apply to a new post.

Third, don’t be a big old fake. I really hate that and so do a lot of other people who are trying to help you find a job. Don’t say “I’m in advertising” if you have up until now been an accountant. Hopefully, there is some string tying your old job to your new hoped for job, such as:

“Well, I used to take care of the financials for some larger media clients, which piqued my interest in online advertising. That’s what I’m currently pursuing.”

If you have nothing to link, try:

“I’m currently an accountant but I have always loved the print advertising world and would like to learn more about it.”

Remember how Chandler was willing to take that internship in an ad agency (I think the real hero there was Monica but whatever. . .) just to pursue his dream?

Monica helps Chandler consider what careers he’s interested in. He choses advertising, and Monica arranges a meeting with a friend (Steve) in the business. Chandler gets offered an unpaid internship at Steve’s agency, which might mean he and Monica need to postpone having a child for a while.

The one where they said….

Chandler: I can write slogans. I mean, how hard can it be? Right? “Cheese – It’s milk… that you chew.” “Crackers – Because your cheese needs a buddy.” “Grapes – Because who can get a watermelon in your mouth?”

Chandler: “The Phone – Bringing you closer to people who have phones.”

Steve: So, do you have any other questions about advertising?
Chandler: No, no. But let me show you what I can do. “Bagels and Donuts – Round food for every mood.”
Steve: Monica warned me you might do that.

Korn Ferry is getting on my nerves

So this is the SECOND post where Korn Ferry earns (quite rightly) the annoyance of a writer who feels compelled to tar all recruiters/headhunters/human resource pros with the same doggone brush. The first is here. My solution? Stop using high-falootin’ words to describe what is already a hugely important job.

“What, I didn’t have any Korn!!”

Here is a great story about the use of Web 2.0 tactics by smaller companies. Yeah! I’m also linking to it because I used to live in Capitola. Go Fast Eddy’s!

Okay, so I am still on my quest to find out more about this elusive “onboarding”. It’s a great term, one that makes starting a new job sound like something much cooler, like a cruise! But the definition doesn’t seem to live up to the name. I recently looked at this FC Blog entry by Shawn Graham (shout out, here’s his blog: courtingyourcareer.wordpress.com)

“Don’t take onboarding for granted. Developing a structured process for new hires will help them hit the ground running when they join your organization. And based on the research mentioned earlier, it will also significantly increase the chance of them sticking around for years to come. If you see someone roaming your halls in a new suit with a confused look on his or her face, introduce yourself and make that person feel welcome. It also doesn’t hurt if you point out the coffee maker.”

He makes a really valid point. What used to be called, oh I don’t know, common courtesy, is now a skill that is taught. Now I am probably not qualified to talk about this for my own company since our idea of onboarding is Jimmy John’s box lunches and “going with our gut” (preferably before the JJ sandwich), but I digress. Smaller companies get this better than larger ones. Perfect example of a company here in Omaha that filled a .NET position far faster than some larger clients, mainly because of their understanding of the market and their ability to allow employees (even potential ones) to feel valued and take ownership.

Still, my mom would say that no matter how large your company gets, you should still be polite, especially on someone’s baby’s first day. . .

But my very super favoritest part of this story is that as I am writing this post, Google is providing me with very helpful ads that will help me to automate my onboarding process! Sheesh!

There probably will not be a post tomorrow since I am heading to Chicago (where the Tribune is laying off at least 100 people!) May the recruiting force be with you.

Help me, help you

The life of a third party recruiter is not easy folks. Companies need someone NOW, NOW, NOW and then the opening gets “put on the back burner”, leaving you with frustrated candidates expecting a job, your contracts are “lost” over and over by the same company, internal HR policies change as often as Brit’s hairstyle (no, the website, no, the software, no, the employee referral program, no, the outside agency) and candidates are frequently stolen out from under you. What’s a recruiter to do?

ADD VALUE. Yeah, that’s right. All of those things really stink (and are lame excuses by the by) but the only way to really avoid them or step around them is to add value. Add value for your candidates by having enough company insiders that you can find them another suitable opening (and by keeping in touch even when they are seemingly not a good match); add value by making your contracts straightforward, easy to understand and guiding clients through the sign up process; add value by being able to assist with more than recruiting (we have a retention and policies program that boosts our clients above the competition); add value to your candidates by keeping the relationship open and honest (although some candidates will always get stolen, it’s the nature of the biz).

However, there are ways that internal HR Pros can make working with a third party recruiter easier. Some of the best internals know that a third party resource can be one of your greatest assets, especially in a crunch time.

-Sign agreements with agencies you trust BEFORE things get busy. Have them on hand and ready to go.

- Brief them regarding company culture, specific hurdles and turnaround time.

-Make sure all fees, candidate “ownership” and other particulars are clear to both parties and your boss.

-Use them for industry specific expertise. Ask questions about what they are seeing, what the demand is for a certain skill, what trends they’re seeing in the broader marketplace.

-Demand respect and give it.

Bellevue in WIRED!!

Hey all, I have a complete post to publish for today but I wanted to get this out there. There is a whole huge story in WIRED about the battle for CyberCommand. Check it out. Megan Lucas, the meteoric star of the Bellevue COC is quoted on the front page of the story and later on when the story discusses Nebraska’s advantages and disadvantages:

In the heartland, architecture students at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln held an exhibition to come up with potential building designs for the Cyber Command, producing 13 detailed drawings resembling bunkers, platforms and a burnished black wedge. “I believe the … proposals may play a provocative role in the future planning of such a free-standing facility,” architecture professor Chris Ford said in a press release.

Nebraska has long held a unique post in America’s defensive footing, and it’s mounting a particularly hungry bid for the Cyber Command. In 1948, Offutt Air Force Base was selected for the headquarters of the Strategic Air Command, the linchpin of America’s nuclear strategy. Square in the middle of the North American continent, the site was out of reach of existing bombers and missiles.

Architecture students at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln produced 13 concepts for the Cyber Command headquarters.

Now called the U.S. Strategic Command, the drab, concrete headquarters building still anchors Offutt to the nuclear era, with three above-ground floors and four more underground housing a 14,000-square-foot command center that directs all U.S. nuclear forces. It’s designed with its own power generator and food supply, so it can be sealed off in the event of a nuclear attack.

Comparisons between nuclear and cyberweapons might seem strained, but there’s at least one commonality. Scholars exploring the ethics of wielding logic bombs, Trojan horses, worms and bots in wartime often find themselves treading on ground tilled by an earlier generation of Cold War nuclear gamesmen.

“There are lots of unknowns with a cyberattack,” says Neil Rowe, a professor at the Center for Information Security Research at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School, who rejects cyberattacks as a legitimate tool of war. “The potential for collateral damage is worse than nuclear technology…. With cyber, it can spread through the civilian infrastructure and affect far more civilians.”

No Geographic Edge

But ethical concerns aren’t weighing down the rainmakers wooing the Cyber Command; they’re more concerned with local families and future investment. And without the geographic edge that landed the Strategic Air Command in their backyard a half-century ago, community leaders in Omaha and nearby Bellevue are finding new ways to tempt the decision makers in Washington.

“We’ve offered a package that includes land, facilities, and a demographic of strong academics and industrial consortium,” says Megan Lucas, president of the Bellevue Chamber of Commerce. “We have the infrastructure, dual power grids and dark fiber.”

Lucas is a key organizer in the region’s yearlong campaign to land the Cyber Command at Offutt. Smart and straightforward, Lucas is so well-known among Offutt staff that they keep track of her schedule, and when the previous base commander, then-Brig. Gen. T. C. Jones, left Offutt, he designated her his honorary wingman. A photo of Lucas in her black-leather bomber jacket hangs outside the headquarters office.

Lucas and other local leaders persuaded the Omaha Development Foundation to put together a purchase of 136 acres of snow-crunched land immediately south of the base for expansion. Bellevue’s entire economic engine and its community are wrapped around Offutt, she says. Nearly half the people in the town of 49,000 are active-duty or retired military.

Talk of the Cyber Command has gotten around in Bellevue. In the lounge at the Leopard Lanes bowling alley, a Desert Storm veteran named Jim Chappell runs the karaoke machine on weekends. He says he’s heard about the competition. “Maybe Offutt will get it, they’re wired for it,” he says, lighting a cigarette with his father’s Zippo. “That’s how dealing with the government is. You have to spend money to attract it. But there’s plenty of money and work here either way.

“It’s all political, where they decide to put it,” says Lucas. “We’re clearly the best situated and equipped. But that doesn’t mean we’ll get it.”

Best quote of the whole story?

Defense expert John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, says the Cyber Command’s mission is murky. “There’s been so much gee-whiz flackery to this,” Pike says. “They’ve got the whole thing tarted up, and it’s hard to tell what they’re actually doing.”

Did he just come up with that off the top of his head?

I know, I know

I read somewhere you are not supposed to post a bunch in one day but this is such a cool article because it talks about something I have long suspected AND also makes me feel pretty darn good about my profession. So here’s a shout out to all the awesome recruiters out there. As an aside, I really like this Karen lady, virtually everything she writes, I manage to find my way to.

The Books Smart People Read

My title is nicer than theirs. This chart is eye opening and a little annoying, especially since it took me three tries to get through Atlas Shrugged. If you scroll down on the page where the chart appears, you can see the chart in a stacked format, which interestingly show classics as being the farthest to the right (smart, supposedly). Something in the back of my mind makes me think this has more to do with commitment to a well-rounded reading program than those books making you smarter. Although I will say for the record, reading Dickensian dialogue is fairly difficult for me.

Techrepublic wisely chose to pare it down to sci-fi only reads. If you look at the complete chart chick-lit and African American reads apparently are the least smart. Interesting considering the top Democratic front-runners (no matter what you think, they both seem pretty bright). . . although I can’t really imagine that Hillary is a Bridget Jones fan. . .

Also interesting, the book “He’s just not that into you” ranks higher than Alice Walker or the Bible. What? Does Oprah know about this? Keep in mind folks, these are ranked solely on SAT scores not on literary value, but still. I like these comments. Other self-proclaimed intellects are annoyed. This does make me wonder (again) about test scores. Many of the “stupid” books have been written by or influenced some of our greatest authors, thinkers, contributors to society. However, because of their correlation with test scores (one test, not even several not taking into account all we’ve learned about emotional strengths, other quotient indicators) they are “dumb”. If you’re using just one criteria to measure potential employees (whether it’s a test or a person) you’re likely missing out on some very talented people. I liked the Hobbit and I turned out okay!

Check out this post from ionglobaltrends. Apparently, grumpiness is banned. Along with short skirts. In Serbia. On aisatax’s blog: “Companies typically shed talent rather than search for new or additional employees during periods of economic slowdowns. That could change, though, as hiring managers prepare themselves for an uncertain year. More. . .”

When I first began recruiting, I queried a lot of Yoda recruiters and professionals in general about what job boards they used or found worthwhile. As you might suspect, I got a lot of answers. Wish this study had been around then, could’ve saved myself some benjamins. Although one commentator mentions he’s seen studies that differ.

Also, I didn’t want to post this out of protest BUT since lots of other recruiting bloggers are posting about it, I should to. What can I say, I’m a lemming/Kardashian type.

Anywho, it’s apparently big news that CareerTV is going to do 30 spots on it’s network with recruiting vids. Smarter and more experienced pros than I have mentioned that this may be the same network that gave up video resumes a while back. Hmmm, again we move from candidate-centric to big corp ego-stroking. As a former co-worker of mine used to say. . .”Forget the half days off and rah-rah rallies! I just want a sweet profit-sharing plan!” Too easy.

Okay, so my more pragmatic question is: Why don’t the companies just put ‘em on YouTube?

Oh lookit they do. Never mind, please consider today’s rant canceled.

I did post Cisco’s recruitment video the other day (which I got off of YouTube) and I just saw in the WSJ that their profits are up. Coincidence?

I think NOT.

I just re-read that and it sounded cranky. So I am going to post this awesome post (which I am so totally on board with) by Amber on recruitingblogs.com

Also found this cool guy. Enjoy!