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.

Real relationships, not online connections, build true professional networks

Some of the top recruiters start 10-20
quality relationships per week.

I am in the IT and Healthcare IT recruiting and staffing business. I am also a self-admitted technology maven and admirer. So when I ran across a blog regarding LinkedIn's affect on the recruiting industry, I felt compelled to expand on the subject further. While Navid Sabetian says that LinkedIn's bubble will burst and briefly, in closing, that one needs to cultivate relationships with top line candidates and build them over the years; with all respect to Mr. Sabetian, I think both points are obvious.

Here is the bigger picture:

Yes, Facebook will have a billion users soon enough, which equates to a ridiculous amount of influence.  LinkedIn is probably the largest network of potential candidates and recruiters on the planet right now.  There are the 'old' job board standards (Monster, Careerbuilder, Dice, etc…), Google+, and 'who knows what else' emerging that I haven’t yet fully experienced.

 

There is no silver bullet: Meaning, there is no next or current 'big thing' that is the source to go to find the best candidates for all the open jobs out there.  This new market for talent is not about finding a single, or even two or three sources to find people.  It is about creating a network of real people, across all the relevant channels available to you.  It’s not about how many connections you have on LinkedIn or Facebook, but about how many people in your specialty areas with whom you are able to create some form of human interaction.

In fact, some of the best sourcing around is still done the old fashioned way; through direct, in-person communication. The internet has a host of tools for finding qualified candidates on paper (or on your monitor if you've gone paperless); however, it doesn't replace the legwork of striking up a conversation and getting to know them.

Sabetian claims to have a professional network with 16,000 direct connections with another 12,000 waiting in the wings, with whom he cannot interact due to a glitch on LinkedIn. It raises the question of how one would interact with the first 16,000. In one work year, assuming no vacation or holidays, you would have to interact with 61 people per day. Is it doable? Yes. Is it realistic each contact will be a good connection and suitable for an ongoing relationship? No. Some of the best recruiters make 50 to 100 contacts and start building 10-20 solid relationships a week with candidates.    

To me, as a few of the blog comments also eluded to, it seems that LinkedIn will likely become less effective as recruiters start to use connections as a database. The relevance you can have to one another on a human level in a sea of 28,000 connections seems to be very low for both sides; rendering the service less valuable to both parties. It brought to mind Malcom Gladwell's idea in The Tipping Point that we, as humans, cannot maintain more than 150 real social relationships with others at one time.

In fact, I think it is why I am of the opinion that LinkedInitself is having trouble remaining relevant to users today.

Is the idea of having a professional network with thousands of connections compelling? Certainly it is. But only if you maintain contact with your network, remain relevant its members, and interact with them on a regular basis. Otherwise it's just an overinflated database; not a true network.

Even with all the technologies and social 'networks' available, the basics of recruiting haven’t changed; or maybe they did for a while and now they have come full circle. The only difference is that now, we have more sophisticated tools to make the job of finding real people to develop real relationships with easier. 

I haven’t been in the industry long enough to know how things were done pre-Internet circa 1995, but I do know there couldn’t have been any option other than building a real contact network.  It must be much easier now to find the people to build that same network today; but people are still people and they want good jobs, with good companies where they feel valued; and they want the same when being wooed for a position.

All of the perks that many companies are starting to offer (benefits, higher than average pay, flex-time, daycare, healthcare, free lunches, etc.) to make happy workers cannot replace investment in relationships with those employees. We'll explore this idea further next week.

Good recruitment firms and recruiters become an extension of their clients' business and are often the first point of contact a candidate has with an employer; making relationship building with both even more critical.

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. 

Facebook vs. LinkedIn: An Unfair Fight for Jobseekers or a Lesson in History?

Is there a fight for candidates in the making?

I ran across a recruiting piece in Forbes last week that discussed the swirling rumors and challenges surrounding Facebook’s entry into professional networking to take on LinkedIn. LinkedIn already has the data, the tools, the recruiter functionality, and the reputation for being professional. Facebook is known as a ‘fun,’ almost completely personal, social media platform. Most in the recruiting field would call this an unfair fight.

Me? I am starting to experience déjà vu.

I seem to recall the days of yore: When a young, eccentric genius (and a Harvard dropout) was consistently told his work will never amount to anything. Microsoft will never be big because people won’t want PC’s.  Microsoft is not a threat because it’s only used in offices. Microsoft can never succeed in the gaming world because they are a ‘stodgy, uncool company.’ We all know where these predictions went.

I am willing to concede that it is a stretch to compare William Gates, III to Facebook’s Zuckerberg, but not too much of a stretch. That’s why, if the rumors are true, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt to see how things play out in the later rounds.

Here’s why:

1. There is huge power in numbers and influencers.   With 8x’s the users, Facebook’s launching point will be far ahead of any other company trying to take on LinkedIn. If it weren’t for the sheer numbers, I would be skeptical. Many argue that it’s not the same. Facebook isn’t the same audience. As stated before Facebook is for ‘fun.’ Need I remind you of the X-Box? How many LinkedIn users also use Facebook? Facebook can unseat LinkedIn.  With 8X the user base, it doesn’t take many people to join in the professional side and match the professional powerhouse immediately. 

2. Yes, people want to play in a play space and work in a workspace…wait…what? No. People play at work now. Offices have ping pong tables and masseuses.  People hop jobs like the Easter Bunny, and it’s become the norm.  Integrating your personal and professional lives into ONE brand of confidence, where the tool that the brand provides enables you to quickly and easily keep the two separate may be Facebook’s saving move. 

3. Integration provides a bigger punch than an app. Much is discussed about the advantages LinkedIn has over the various Facebook job apps. If the professional networking is integrated and not an application; we’ve got ourselves a whole new fight. What if Facebook is successful in producing a professional network AND a personal network?  A different purpose for both. With whatever crossover people WANT to have.  Right now it’s impossible: It’s LinkedIn OR Facebook. Personal OR business. (Too many words in CAPS? I’m rolling…) What if Zuckerberg has already begun to take on the question of ‘why?’ and said ‘why not?’

4. Geniuses have a way of always bouncing back. I’ve already mentioned Bill Gates and Microsoft. What about what Zuckerberg has already faced?: A division in the upper ranks, pushback to the timeline, email, other changes, and a shaky IPO. Last time I checked, Facebook is still the world’s largest social media platform and still in business. Yes, people are leaving but people are joining everyday too.

It’s kind of funny that I feel the way I do since I, and other colleagues, actually think Facebook may very well fade out, but integrating professional networking into Facebook might be exactly what saves it.

A fight is never over until the ref calls it or the final bell sounds and we’re only in the locker room warming up.

A Lesson in Accountability: Yahoo!’s former CEO, Scott Thompson, hurts his former company and an industry by deflecting

It’s tough at the top. It’s even tougher when ethics and integrity are called into question.

Former Yahoo! CEO Thompson. (Yodel Anecdotal/Yahoo! Inc.)

A ‘missed’ inaccuracy on a resume continues to worsen the reputation of top executives the world over and placed them at the front of the bashing line. Some of the ire is seemingly deserved.  

Accountability and integrity matter, not just at the C-level, but on every level.

A recent article by Business Insider writer Nicholas Carlson speaks of how former Yahoo! CEO Scott Thompson, although not naming the recruitment firm directly, threw the company that got him hired, first at eBay and then at Yahoo!, ‘under the bus’ while explaining inaccuracies on his resume. Carlson notes that Thompson took some of the blame, but ultimately, in my opinion he should have stepped up and taken all of the blame.

Here’s why.

In the IT recruitment game, resumes are often reformatted and reordered to highlight areas of expertise and to make it easier for client hiring managers to scan everything they need to know quickly. I talked with several members of our recruitment staff and am told the only edits made to resumes are to typos or to make the verb tense of the resume unified. They do not add information (like fictional degrees or continuing education) to CV’s to get someone hired.

Why would they?

It would be counterproductive to their success and to that of the company that employs them.  If you send just one person to an interview with false information it can change your relationship with your client forever and for the worse. Plus as one employee put it, “it just wouldn’t be right.”

As there are unscrupulous people out there who pad resumes there too are unscrupulous companies that can give the recruitment industry, my industry, a bad reputation. They are few and far between and usually don’t survive long.

Can mistakes happen? Of course they can, people are not infallible. There is always a possibility user error could come into play. Does it occur often or could it occur twice over a period of years? Our recruiters say no to both questions based on their experiences here and at other firms. It is a general industry practice and one of our best practices to ask for an updated resume every time we submit a candidate for a position, even if a month or two later. The chances of the same mistake being made twice with the same candidate are virtually impossible.

There is also the case of the interview stage of the recruitment process. Even if a mistake had been made, the false information would likely come up in a background check, although some colleges will not disclose degree type and only confirm graduation) or during the interview itself; or perhaps in an interview on NPR.

Guilty as publically ‘charged’ or innocent; Thompson is ultimately to blame for the second instance of his resume allegedly being submitted with false credentials. As a leader, it is his responsibility to hold himself ultimately accountable for the misstep and no one else’s. It is my opinion that he should have said as such. Unfortunately the damage has been done and several others potentially hurt, including the entire resources industry, as a result of his actions; and there is no turning back.

Rather than participating in the sport of CEO bashing, I am taking this discussion to a different level regarding the importance of accountability, integrity and honesty in our dealings with others as the headlines about corporate leadership continue to roll in.

Shifting blame or saying nothing can, more often than not, hurt others. Taking responsibility for ones actions or being honest from the get go is a much better practice on all levels. Had Thompson come out and said flatly, “it’s my responsibility no one else’s” my industry wouldn’t have been affected in the least. The end result is that the executive search firm in question, Heidrick & Struggles, is most directly affected by his comments. Some companies and job seekers have the idea that our industry is full of money hungry hacks that provide no real value. Thompson’s stance only further propagates this misconception.

The lesson here?

One simple statement to save face or keep your job can have an unseen impact on others far beyond those directly involved. This is true at the C-level all the way down to those closest to the work. While the story of his resume inaccuracy may have broken because of investor hostility, Thompson’s reaction, intended or not, affected Yahoo!’s public image, possibly the recruiting firm which he claims is partially at fault, the workers at that firm not directly tied to the alleged mistake and the industry as a whole.

A lie to cover you tracks at work can have the same effect no matter how small. Say you made a big mistake and let it go in hopes it would just go away. Then your supervisor is blamed for sloppiness. Then his or her supervisor is called into question. In the end it comes back to you, but you’re all let go.

You’ve just cost yourself, your co-workers and their families dearly. They keyword here is ‘you.’

We all make mistakes. Sometimes we make big mistakes. How you deal with them and holding yourself accountable is the key.  Although lying is hard to overcome, mistakes, even the big mistakes, are often an opportunity from which one learns and grows.

Is this the Beginning of The End for Job Boards?

Last week Monster Worldwide Inc. announced it has laid off roughly 7 percent of its worldwide workforce according to a recent article by Rodney H. Brown .

This brings to mind the question whether or not this spells the beginning of the end for online job boards.

Social media and online networking sites are quickly becoming a major player in the recruiting game. Referrals, references, resumes and recommendations are like Kevin Bacon except they’re only one or two network levels away. Candidates and employers are connecting in specialized online groups and micro communities. Instant messaging and proprietary network email can often cut steps for recruiting firms and hiring managers to find the right fit for their job. Let’s call it job boards “plus.”

Could it also be that the major players in the job board game are pricing themselves out of the market?

Maybe. Maybe not.  Make no mistake the boards are still a viable source for many companies to find exactly who and what they need. 

However, one can make an argument that for specialized positions, which are growing increasingly common, the job boards lose some of their luster. Productivity gains over the years have created new jobs with more individual responsibility and that require larger skill sets.

Increasingly specific job descriptions are also an indirect result of the recession. For the past three or so years, employers have been enjoying their pick of top candidates and rejecting talent for lack of a single skill. For these types of positions, job boards are more of a starting point than a means to find the next hire.

Small companies, start-ups and recruiting firms are still recovering from the economic collapse of 2008. Many are hard pressed to afford posting fees almost 10 times higher than they were when the majors were starting out.  The boards are seemingly forcing the little guys to get creative with social media and encouraging the large companies to consider a radical shift in their sourcing and recruiting strategies.

Put all these factors together and it’s looking bleak for the major boards.

The major job boards will begin to realize that getting back what they’ve already lost is significantly more difficult than sustaining their momentum would have been.  It’s easy to lose sight of keeping your momentum when everything is going great.  Now that the tables have turned, seemingly overnight to a candidates market, simply lowering fees again will not bring back what they have lost.  We know that economically jobs and housing are tied together, so just as plummeting housing prices did not bring back the real estate boom, reduced job board fees will not bring back the companies who have already been alienated.  Once bitten, twice shy… 

Is it the beginning of the end? No one knows for sure. That little voice in the back of my head says it might be headed in the same direction as Tom Brady’s Hail Mary in last night’s game.

High unemployment and major skill shortages. A problem with only one solution.

By Josh Kaplan

Is there really such a thing as the wrong kind of job?

With job creation on the lips of every aspiring and incumbent politician, it’s ironic that Washington DC itself is one of the main centers of the imbalance.

Washington DC has seen a boom in IT jobs in 2011

The DC area has experienced a steady decline in job opportunities since a slight peak in March of this year. Based on the number of jobs placed online by hiring companies and agencies, 2011 has ended badly for the capital’s job market.

But for Computer Systems Analysts, Web Developers, and Network and Computer Systems Administrators the outlook is much more positive.

A report this week from wantedanalytics.com shows a significant increase in IT jobs in the area.

The trend is likely to continue into 2012. The question is what to do about it. As we’ve seen across the engineering industry, massive requirements for skills only create jobs if there are people with the right skills to fill them. Without the right skills available in the market, you have urgent open vacancies that contribute nothing to job creation.

Bridging the gap between mass unemployment and skill short market places is a problem with only one long term solution: training. The shortage in IT has been self created. When healthcare companies – one of the areas at issue - moved to 1099 contractors instead of retaining their in house talent, they lost the skills they need with familiarity and experience of their organization to get the job done.

There is clearly a major opportunity to retrain large numbers of unemployed workers if proper programs are put in place either by the government or by the private sector.

As demand increases, project delivery will only suffer more. It’s time to look seriously at retraining options.

In the meantime, IT professionals would be well advised to pack a bag and head for DC.