Why Talent Management is NOT a Zero-Sum Game

Staffing is not a Zero-Sum Game

During the course of my regularly scheduled research last week I ran across an article that immediately got me fired-up from the title alone. Tim Sackett’s post ‘When It Comes to Talent Management, It’s Just a Zero Sum Game’ on TLNT, sent an all too familiar chill down my spine and had me looking for something on which I could inflict some damage. (Okay, so maybe it wasn’t that dramatic but you get the point.) The idea that talent management is simply taking someone from one place to fill an opening in another is so basic and archaic, that it really invokes that kind of passionate response every time I hear the sentiment.

After the dust settled and I read the rest of the article, I had calmed down and realized that Mr. Sackett had some valid points. I do agree organizations need to find a balance between funding with regard to attracting, succession planning and training of their workforce rather than spending the most money and effort on candidate attraction.

The problem is that I vehemently disagree that we have to convince hiring managers and whole organizations that the current market is a Zero-Sum Game. The idea devalues what a true workforce solutions team does.

Companies like Microsoft and Google sprung to being in an industry that was created out of garages, through innovation and a pioneering spirit. If talent management was Zero-Sum, they wouldn't exist as they both created a previously unknown talent pool need and filled it.

The majority of the people they initially employed were home grown talent because frankly there was no company doing what they did. It was an entirely new ‘thing’ created out of nothing. They may have taken some college kids out of a classroom to put them to work early, or stolen a drive-thru clerk passionate about BASIC and FORTRAN away from a fast food joint; it was hardly a Zero-Sum Game; it was a Human Development Game.

People can be developed, trained, motivated, and unmotivated.  We do need to convince hiring managers of the value in taking someone that can do 95-percent of what they need now and developing the other desired 5-percent in-house. We also need to convince them that they do not have the luxury of the 3-5 year IT wizard or engineer any longer. They will have to start hiring out of colleges again; investing time in developing curricula with educators to fill their needs. Some of our most successful candidates are those ‘95-percenters’ because they have a desire to learn the other 5-percent and have loyalty to the company that provides it.

It's not zero-sum.  It's not a shell game.  It's the game of life as it pertains to business and it's our job in recruiting to help companies realize the best talent to develop, and to help candidates find the next step in their path.  So much more can be gained working together; with hiring managers, HR, talent development, and candidates for a mutually beneficial outcome. There doesn’t have to be a clear cut winner and loser when it comes to talent management.

Here’s a simple analogy to demonstrate the point further:

The Biggest Loser, a popular US television reality series, is a competition whereby, in theory, everyone comes out a winner. The goal is to get healthier through weight loss, nutritional changes and exercise. At the shows close, there is ultimately a grand prize winner but, there was no cause to which they had to take from another to come out on top. Nearly every contestant seems to walk away from the program better for it, even the non-prize-winning losers. That's kind of how how I view talent management and recruitment.

If you're engaging a ‘passive’ candidate, chances are they aren't engaged with their current company for any number of reasons. They are likely dragging down their current company in some way because of this sense of disengagement. In hopes of a brighter future, they are willing to talk to you about a new position with growth potential either economically or professionally.

The losing company actually wins because they have offloaded someone who was probably producing at a level below their potential. The hiring company wins because they're getting an employee who is reinvigorated and engaged. The candidate wins for obvious reasons. The recruitment firm wins because they provided value to both customers of their services and were paid for the match.

To me, calling recruitment and talent management a Zero-Sum Game; that cynicism that removes the exact value from staffing that we bring; is simply inaccurate. If you are truly invested in the job at hand, then you’re looking to help the organization and the candidate grow. If you’re good at filling both customers’ new needs; creating a value proposition along the way; you simply cannot look at the game mathematically. There is so much to be gained from looking beyond the 'perfect' skill set to find out what real potential lies within a candidate or in an opportunity. Humans aren't dollars, or market share, and therefore can't be zero-sum. 

 

Just ask Microsoft and Google.

Josh Kaplan writes on various subjects including management, information technology breakthroughs, healthcare IT recruitment and innovations, big data, IT staffing and recruitment, and technical news and trends.

Three Things We Learned from the Instagram TOS Fiasco

Instagram's abrupt TOS changes may have lasting negative effects.

In December, users of the popular photo sharing site Instagram (now owned by Facebook) were treated to a proverbial piece of coal for the holidays. Based on media reports from Reuters, this is how it played out:

• On December 17^th reportedly, Instagram abruptly changed its Terms of Service (TOS) to note that it could use its members’ photos, likeness and username for advertisements without permission.

• Users of the site didn’t notice at first but, rest assured, some did. News of the changes went viral.
• National Geographic magazine reportedly announced they were leaving the site due to the new terms.
• By New Year’s Eve, according to AppData reports, about 6 million of Instagram’s 16 million users who access it via Facebook left the site as well. (Although,Instagram disputes AppData’s numbers)
• A class action lawsuit was launched in California shortly following the changes.
• December 20^th , according to Reuter’s,Instagram CEO Kevin Systrom apologizes and reinstates the old TOS via a blog, and added the thought that  some users had misinterpreted the intent of the new TOS.
• Instagram users will reportedly be bound by a new TOS as of Jan 19^th.
• As of today, I cannot find out the true impact of the fiasco as ‘Facebook no longer reports new data for this application’ according to a new search I’ve conducted on the AppData site.

We all make mistakes.

Do I blame Instagram for the way it handled the changes? Absolutely; to mask such a large change in the TOS without pointing it out is simply wrong. Whether the intent was to work on ways to monetize Instagram in the future or to take Facebook’s already robust, intuitive advertising platform and put it into place on Instagram, it was wrong. In business, it’s better to be up front with ‘customers.’

Do I blame Instagram for attempting to monetize the business? Absolutely not; although some businesses are founded to serve a greater good, most are in business to make money. If you are signed up for a free service, make no mistake, it is not free. If there is no product being sold, no membership fee, no identifiable means to distinguish how it is making money, chances are, the product is you and your data.

Data is a valuable commodity these days given we are a largely consumer society.

Browsing habits, referring sites, demographic information like family size, your job, what school you graduated from, your birthday; even the titles and subjects of your pictures, can tell marketers something about you. Facebook and the multitude of free apps don’t care about when your birthday or anniversary is but, they do care how old you are and your marital status so they can use your demographic information to sell themselves to potential advertisers.

So what lessons have we learned from Instagram’s PR nightmare?

Buyer beware: Instagram is not the first business in the world to change its TOS (or a contract) to reduce your privacy or to get more data (in this case your pictures) from you. The problem with most TOS statements is that they are written by lawyers, for lawyers. They are also arduous to navigate through, often having 20 or more headings; each with 10-20 subheadings. How many times have you seen the little box on the screen, scrolled quickly to the bottom and clicked I agree? I’ve done it plenty of times.

Small print and multiple pages are not generated by accident. Not only does it reduce the chance that you will read it in full; it almost guarantees it, while indemnifying the company against potential legal action. Read the TOS every time you sign up for a service and when it changes to know what you’re agreeing to.  

Honesty is the best policy: It’s much harder to win a disgruntled customer back  than to be upfront with potentially bad news (anyone remember MCI WorldCom's 'delayed future billing' or Bank of America's debit card fees?). You can rely on the fact that many customers will not care or not take any action whatsoever. However, you lose credibility and relevance, even with the masses, when you anger your top customers. Maybe this was a case of anchoring to make a watered-down monetization scheme seem less ‘bad’ to users but I doubt it; a third of your users (your data) is too high of a price to pay.

Instagram will go away: Call this my first bold prediction of 2013 (although I don’t know how bold it really is). Instagram lost a third of its Facebook users in 10 days. I think the rest will eventually follow. Without a way to monetize its data without severe scrutiny now, it is virtually worthless to Facebook unless there is some proprietary code that is of value to them. Now the only way they’ll be able to realize the app’s full potential is to pawn it off on an unsuspecting suitor. If they can’t sell it, it will go away; sooner than later. Why invest in a product that is losing money that shows little chance that it will make money in the future?

Do you read the TOS statements of your favorite sites? Have you uncovered some shocking revelation when you read them that made you leave? I’d like to hear about it.

Josh Kaplan writes on various subjects including management, information technology breakthroughs, healthcare IT recruitment and innovations, big data, IT staffing and recruitment, and technical news and trends.

    

Top Technology Predictions (that affect us all) for 2013

Here they are: My predictions for 2013

If you’ve been keeping up with the blog, you know I am not opposed to expressing my opinion. My opinion is usually based on early signs that something is going right or wrong for the subject, but I do not take these things lightly. I truly believe what I am about to predict is going to happen. Feel free to express your own thoughts as they relate to these recruitment and technology predictions for 2013:

1.      Apple will begin its decline.

It’s been a good run at the top. But since the innovator and product marketing genius has left us in the form of one Steve Jobs, I see troubled waters ahead for this giant of the computing/device world. As Jobs’ pipeline starts to be reduced, the iPhone is no longer the revolutionary product it once was and Windows Phone 8, while no one is buying it, gets great overall reviews and Microsoft will stay with it. It is only a matter of time, I am afraid, that the Apple is reduced to but a core of its former self.

2.      ‘Bye. Bye.’ BestBuy

As with other big box stores that failed to remain relevant, I feel that BestBuy will shutter most of its large stores. The proof is in the pudding. When an electronic giant attempts to remain relevant by offering home goods such as mattresses and loveseats in its own stores rather than expanding into the home goods stores, I am pretty sure things are not going according to plan. I think the chain will keep the kiosks going and Geek Squad will become more independent of the stores.  Unfortunately and ultimately, in the end, they will go the route of Circuit City.

3.      Microsoft Resurgence

I know this is related to number one, but it is worthy to address again. Microsoft Surface and Phone will gain market share. Bing will not. (Google is doing it’s magic to make SEO challenging, yet even more intuitive for users and purveyors of goods and services online.) While the best product doesn’t always win, especially when the best product is from a smaller company; in search, smart phones, and tablets; it’s a battle of the titans, and I believe the best product will win.  There is simply nothing better than Google for search. However, Windows Phone and tablets with their tight integration into social networks and Microsoft office, along with PC integration, will do well.  After all, it took Xbox a while but, it attained heights that no one ever thought possible; leaving PlayStation and Nintendo to catch up.

4.      Requiem for RIM

This is a ‘gimme.’ Blackberry and RIM will die. They will likely be acquired for patents and the talent within. You just can’t come up with innovations like this and it be all for nothing. It’s a sad story of just how harsh business can be: A great idea thought up by some forward thinking entrepreneurs; only to be reverse engineered and squashed, without the time or resources to fight the battle.

5.      Job Boards Head ‘South’

Job boards will begin their decline; only they will hide it well. I’ve talked about how Monster was going to die. It is a former shell of itself. Even the great CareerBuilder, with incredibly valuable data may have seen its final curtain call.  They will use their partnerships with Facebook and the like to inflate numbers of browsers, but companies will be using less job boards as employee referrals, social media, and old fashioned relationships take hold as the primary way to hire. The market is turning from employer driven to candidate driven (more passive candidates) and with it so to will go the relevance of job boards.

6.      Contingent Workforce Growth

As has been the trend in the IT industry and IT staffing, overall, I feel 1099 usage will decline and contingent labor through agencies will increase.  With crackdowns on 1099 contractors, it’s not worth the risk for many small businesses anymore.  Also with the unemployment rates being on the decline, people are becoming are harder commodity to find; skilled people; and they will want flexibility and security.  For the most part that is not synonymous with 1099’s. (Although, with healthcare being a major issue, it could be that more companies go with contract labor but, if they do, the price will rise as fast as the premiums.)

So there you have it: My predictions for 2013. I’ve been wrong before; but keep an eye out for news regarding all of these topics, and those we’ve touched upon in 2012, in the coming year. I wish the best to you and yours this season.

Josh Kaplan writes on various subjects including management, information technology breakthroughs, healthcare IT recruitment and innovations, big data, IT staffing and recruitment, and technical news and trends.

The Myth About Contingent Employee Engagement

A new survey says contingent workers are engaged with
hiring companies. Despite a small sample, it may have merit.

Last week we talked about worker loyalty and engagement when it comes to employers. Hours later, I received my daily email from a staffing feed with a report that says contingent worker attitudes toward hiring companies are quite favorable. It seems reasonable given the fact that contingent workers need to prove themselves because their livelihood as an independent relies upon performance and results. What benefit would they get from not going 'above and beyond' and being truly engaged in the efforts of the company for which they are working?

While not the same as loyalty; the numbers were quite surprising given the fact that a much larger global workforce study (1,000 times as large) suggested that two-thirds of employees are unhappy and disengaged with their current employer.

So I asked myself, 'Was I mistaken? Should I possibly scale back my way of thinking regarding this matter?' The fact that contingent workers are happy with the organization for which they work, own employer problems as their own, and over 41-percent of them would like to finish out their career with their current company certainly makes a strong case for using my contingent IT staffing offering and goes a long way to break the myth that they are just there for a big payday.

Then I looked at the numbers: 346 employees surveyed, all of whom were from Australia, responded to the favorable survey. With that, I had to ask myself if the favorable data was remotely credible. Given the sample size and country (I have yet to meet an Aussie who wasn't positive and persevering) my first thought was that last week's idea was on point: employee engagement is a problem and social media and the Internet have something to do with it.

However, I do think the positive survey does have some credence and reinforces another of last week's points. There are loyal workers around the world and forward thinking organizations that put employee happiness and engagement at the forefront of their efforts to improve results.

Both studies also support another point from last week:  What is the norm for one type of worker may not be the norm for another. Personally, I don’t see the difference that conventional 'wisdom' holds true about the differences in FTE and Contractors (barring 1099 situations).  I’ve worked with contractors who are no different than their internal FTE counterparts. They have a job to do, and engagement and happiness often depends on their current situation. Whether either type of worker decides to be loyal depends on something more.

I think it all comes down to two factors. The first of which is what the hiring company breeds as far as culture. What the level of trust is like, the management structure, and the role teamwork plays within the organization all factor in to the equation. If employees feel like a part of the team, contingent or otherwise; if they feel like their opinion and expertise is valued; if they have the ability to make decisions on the way the business or a project is structured; they will perform and feel engaged.

The second factor comes down to who the company is hiring, contingent or otherwise. It’s not a question of whether or not they are a contractor, but the type of people for which they are looking. A problem arises when employers are looking to hire the best of the best only in terms of a skill sets at the potential expense of enthusiasm, engagement and loyalty.

A candidate's personality and engagement can be hard to gauge during the interview process; that is…unless you ask. It's important to find out a candidates real motivation for wanting to work for you.

There's a big difference between a worker who was attracted by what you do as well as how you do it and one what is looking at how much you pay and what they'll be doing for you. A good interviewer can usually get an inclination of intent by asking questions about former employers and what the candidate liked or didn't like about working for them.

I am not a professional economic prognosticator, but being in the staffing industry and, due to the hints the recession seems to be slowly subsiding, I can firmly say the days of A+ employees for less are over. Companies will no longer get the best of the best in both terms of culture fit and skill sets for a song. However, that's not to say they aren't available. It all depends on what companies offer in terms of value and engagement potential to candidates.

Companies that have had the luxury of retaining top talent, contingent or otherwise, should do whatever they can to hang on to it: offer a stable environment and keep workers engaged and happy. If you don't, someone else will.

Josh Kaplan writes on various subjects including management, information technology breakthroughs, healthcare IT recruitment and innovations, big data, IT staffing and recruitment, and technical news and trends.