The Perfect Fit

Compelling Resumes Help Reach Career Goals

I’ve been contacted three times this week by people who asked for resume writing help.  It’s remarkable that none of us has ever received any real education or “training” about how to write a resume . . . possibly the most important document you’ll ever have to write.  I always feel a great sense of satisfaction when I help a candidate present themselves in a compelling way to help them reach the goal of being hired for a job they really want!

 
The task of writing a resume is even more daunting, because your resume is likely being scanned by an “algorithm” as a first step, not a human!  Fundamentally, applying for a job online is almost a complete “waste of time”, because the results very, very, rarely are worth the amount of time spent or anxiety created . . . especially if you really, really want that job!
 
The online job application process is so broken that sometimes, the candidate doesn’t even receive a response that they’re no longer being considered.  It’s a nasty screwed up practice that is set up for the benefit of the employer, not the prospective candidate.  Do you even really want to work for a company that cares so little about their future employees?
 
There’s very little question or doubt about the fact that by far, your best approach to looking for a new job is through networking.  Talk with friends and colleagues and let them know that you’re open to a new opportunity.  If you want to work for a particular employer or brand, use LinkedIn to see if you know anyone who works at that company.  Ask them to please walk your resume to HR and say a good word about you . . .
 
When you apply online, if your resume is selected by the bot (algorithm), then you actually have to impress someone (likely in HR) that might be distracted by other tasks, or simply not really know what the job’s responsibilities entail.  It’s very, very difficult to succinctly say the right things and make someone want to actually talk to you about the job.  There’s a whole other set of interviewing best practices, if and when you get to that next step . . .
 
I take pride and get incredible professional satisfaction, when I’ve succeeded in helping someone take their next career step, or land the job of their dreams.  I consider myself lucky to be able to do resume and career consulting for as a profession!  Contact me to learn more . . .

Are You Being Taken Care Of, Or Taken Advantage Of?

There was unexpected good news lately with the nation's unemployment rate dropping from 10.2% to 10% . . . doesn't seem like a lot, but it's a start.  The forecasts for spending in marketing and advertising are trending up for next year.  There's already more hiring activity in the 4th quarter than many would have expected.  I'm betting that lots of employees are just biding their time, before they move to a new opportunity.

A survey by benefits consultant Watson Wyatt found that the "engagement" or loyalty, of top performing employees has dropped by 25% over the past year, largely because people who kept their jobs have been soured by layoffs, bonus and benefit cuts, and a stoppage in promotions.  Many employees are keeping their eyes open for their next opportunity.

Employers seem oblivious to making the necessary effort to retain those top performing employees.  While compensation and benefits are obviously very important, they're not the only drivers of employee satisfaction.  Employers could be creating better work cultures.  They could be more aware of what their employees are thinking, by engaging with them . . . yes, actually having a conversation with them in an effort to find out what's important to each one.  I'm not talking about those conversations that happen during "reviews", either!

They'll find that something as mutually valuable as training, or ongoing education is high on most employees lists of things they want more of.  Smarter employees add more value to their employers . . . seems so simple.  Many employees would also like the opportunity to diversify what they do everyday.  They'd like to work in other departments.  Many would enjoy a lateral move to another position in the same company . . . just doing something different can be refreshing and fun.  The result for the employer is employees who are cross-trained, and know more about how the company works, creating a beneficial redundancy . . . all while making the employee happy too.

I've stopped being shocked by hearing the things that consistently drive employees crazy.  At the top of that list is "micro-management" by the boss, or the lack of anyone listening to what are in some cases outstanding ideas to help efficiency or profitability or client retention.  Simple "communication" is a the top of many lists as well. 

My point is that I believe employees are getting ready to move as soon as they can.  It's similar to 2001 and early 2002, when there were huge layoffs, and very few real marketing "career" opportunities.  Employers had employees working additional hours, while being understaffed ("lean" as employers call it).  There was nothing an employee could do, other than simply be happy they're employed.

I know most who are employed today are thankful.  We're getting through the worst economic climate in any of our lives.  Being employed, even unhappily, is an ok thing.  Employers had better start paying attention, and working harder for their employees, or they're going to be very unhappy when the exodus begins.

What do you think?  Do you think your employer is taking advantage of you, or taking care of you?

Five Ways to Really Tick Off Your Employees

A recent blog by Fast Company expert blogger Roberta Matuson points out that a recent survey from Adecco Group North America, highlights the increased dissatisfaction workers in America have with their employers. According to the survey:

• 54% of employees plan to look for a new job as soon as the economy turns around.

• Sentiment is even stronger among younger workers. Of those ages 18-29, 71% say they are likely to    look for new jobs once the economy turns around.

Further, the blog goes on to say:

These numbers should not be shocking, as most of us know at least one person who will be jumping ship as soon as they can. Employees appear to be getting angrier everyday and their employers keep throwing more wood into the fire. If you really want to heat things up, then be sure to do the following:

1. Daily reminders - Remind employees how lucky they are to have a job. Do this on a daily basis. Tell them how fortunate they are to be receiving a paycheck. Never mind their check is 10% less than what they originally signed up for. Remember to include this reminder at your weekly meetings, when you take them out to lunch to thank them for their efforts, and at this year’s office party.

2. Freeze raises and bonuses – Jump on the bandwagon. Everyone else is doing it, so why shouldn’t you? Doesn’t matter if your profits are soaring or if your employees know you’ve had your best year ever. This is a great time to reign in costs, even if your costs are already in line.

3. Renege on your promises – You told people their reduction in pay would be temporary. However, you now view these changes as permanent. Of course you’ve decided not to tell anyone, until they ask.

4. Put a moratorium on promotions – Ask people to do the work of those who have been let go, and insist on holding back a title change and pay increase. Call this “self-development,” since you are giving people a wonderful opportunity to increase their skills. Something few employers seem to be doing.

5. Send out mixed messages – Tell your employees they are your most valuable asset. Then remind them that everyone is replaceable. Just to prove your point, be sure to replace a highly respected member of your team, with someone who is less experienced and less expensive.

There are several other common reasons for employee discontent.  I hear these on a daily basis from candidates at every level in an organization, whether in an agency, or from executives on the client side.  Those include:

6.  Budget for staff development, professional growth and industry training . . . personal growth doesn't happen without professional growth.  Both are essential.

7.  "Don't micro-manage me!"  You hired me, I know what I'm doing and I'm good at it, let me do it! 

8.  Consistent, open and honest communication between management and staff.  "Tell us the truth and we'll respond like adults who want to contribute and help!"

9.  There is no "goal setting" and consequently, no consistent reward (or even acknowledgment of a job well done) system.  "Performance based" bonus programs are arbitrary and inconsistently distributed.

I could go on . . . you get the drift.  I also bet that you've experienced several of these situations in your career, if they don't exist right now.  The thing is most of these issues are an easy "fix".  It doesn't necessarily need to be expensive.  It comes down to a common sense approach to treating employees with respect and then doing what you say you're going to do.  It's really pretty simple.  It's also pretty inexpensive compared to having to replace the exodus of workers who will leave, as soon as they possibly can!

Are Employers "Paralyzed by Perfection" in their hiring?

This week I've started wondering if employers are literally unable to hire because of a need for "perfection" in candidates.  Some of the interviewing processes seem so complex with so many interviews, sometimes stretching out over weeks and including multiple senior executives, I don't see how they actually can get anyone hired.  It's like approval by committee, it never works!  There's such a fear of hiring the wrong person, that the company is completely paralyzed by the search for (their perception of) perfection.  They end up not hiring anybody . . . imagine what that costs!

As an example, a candidate I'm working with sent me the following email.

"Wanted to also let you know that I've made it to the fourth round of the interview process with a private company in St. Louis... a Director of Marketing position. After my resume made the cut, I've had three different telephone interviews (HR Director, interim Marketing Director and VP of Marketing). Got the call yesterday for a personal interview. As far as I can tell, they're down to 4-6 candidates so I've got
my fingers crossed. If I can pass this phase, I think there's one more round of interviews with the President for the last 2-3." 

It was about three days later, I received this note from the same candidate,  "So I made it through seven face-to-face interviews and five phone interviews in five different 'phases' with the same company, only to learn last week that they have renewed their search and still haven't found "the right candidate."  Said they'd received over 300 resumes.  Hard to believe they couldn't find ONE candidate they believed could do the job. Oh well, live and learn."  A total of 12 interviews before this company decided this isn't the right candidate?  Wow!  How could it possibly have taken that long to make a "No" decision?  What was everyone talking about for all that time?   Imagine the time and expense in that many interviews with "4-6" candidates?  Does that company have any idea what they're looking for? I think not. 

The same thought of "paralysis through perfection" comes to mind when I hear horror stories about putting candidates through "Personality Profile or Assessment Testing".  You know, the kind of test that's generally taken online (pr sometimes in person) by the candidate?  There are loads of them out there . . . Caliper, Wonderlick, DISC, Kolbe, Myers-Briggs.  Some companies have the candidate complete more than one!  In many cases the current employees of the hiring company haven't even taken the tests, so there's no benchmark for performance in their own culture.  It's a very good idea for those involved in the hiring process to take the same test they're asking candidates to take . . . or why bother?

Testing seems like just one more level of "CYA" on the part of the hiring authorities . . . one more hurdle in the search for candidate/employee perfection.  I understand how some in occupations, testing is a good idea . . . airline pilots jump to mind, but I'm skeptical about it's value in many, many other functional roles.

Thoughts?  Have an interview or job search horror story to share?

Empowering Employees

After my most recent post on team and organizational leadership, I started thinking about employees' most popular complaints about their employers.  There's an eerie similarity to most employees issues with their existing employer.  Yesterday I was going to write a blog on those almost universal issues employees have.  These are the issues most important to employee retention.

Before I had a chance to compose that blog posting, I received an email from a candidate I've worked with over the past couple of years.  His admitted "rant" and obvious passion do a wonderful job of saying many of the things I'm going to write about.  This gentleman is a new media Creative Director and Producer, with expertise in online communication and story telling by utilizing a myriad of various media.  Any employee can substitute their professional function(s) for some of these specifics and I bet they can wholeheartedly empathize.

The candidate wrote to me:

"I want an executive level producer position that will allow me to work on fun, high level, CREATIVE projects that include audio, video, web, stage events, etc.  Anything entertainment related! Projects that mean something!

I want to work for a company that RESPECTS their employees and APPRECIATES their talent and years of experience.

I want a position that will allow me to grow professionally, as well as help grow and build the company, with the possibility of ownership or stock.

I DO NOT want to write code any more!  I am more than happy to work with developers at laying out how something should function, but I do not want to be the guy to code it.

I DO NOT want to work for a company or clients that EXPECT you to find freelancers and talent that will work for FREE!  I respect the time and talents of people I work with and I want the company I work for to do the same.

I want a position that pays at least $75k per year plus benefits.  I would consider taking less for the right position, but there would have to be a potential up side down the road.

I do not care if the position is in St. Louis or out of state.  I am open to the possibility of relocating for the right position and the right salary and benefits.

I know that was a rant, but that is what I am looking for.  It may not be out there, but at this stage of the game, that is what I need.

I am attaching my promo kit as a refresher.  I look forward to your feedback be it positive or a smack in the head.

Thanks my friend."

I smiled when I read this, in appreciation of his honesty, energy and frustration.  It seems so simple to give an experienced, competent professional the support they need to do their job . . . then let them do it! It's remarkable how infrequently that happens.

So tell me, how many of you can empathize with his frustration?  Care to share some frustrations of your own?

Succession Planning or Getting Out Alive?

St. Louis is blessed to have a myriad of small to medium sized firms, many of which are doing absolutely outstanding work.  Some of them are creating "properties" beyond normal marketing communications, which will turn into "assets" and reap absolutely sensational sales and profit.  There's an exciting diversity of work being delivered by a wildly diverse group of organizations.  Some of those are more organized, than others.

Many of the principals and owners in this group of agencies (for lack of a better term) are in their 50s, some staring at 60 or more. (I should point out that the same thing is happening with privately held companies, and the phenomenon is not limited to St. Louis).  Some of those principals have done an admirable job of planning for the succession of leadership in their shops, many more have not.  It's surprising to me. 

The benefits of succession planning include the ability to plan for stability and growth into the future . . . beyond the working years of the existing leadership.  That is of course to say that properly executed means the existing principal can continue their income beyond their working years.  The additional benefit of succession planning is the retention of existing employees and the ongoing ability to recruit new ones.

Employees worry when there's no clear plan for succession.  They're not stupid . . . they "get it".  From the employee perspective, lack of succession means lack of stability which inevitably leads to a lack of long term security for them.  The obvious and logical next step for those employees is to actively be keeping their eyes open for new opportunities as they become available.

I know of cases where the only thing keeping existing employees (and I mean productive and successful employees) where they are is the lack of alternative opportunities.  Even though I make a living recruiting premier performers to other career opportunities, I'm continually preaching to my clients that they need to focus on retention.  If they have great employees, they need to keep them, period!

There are loads of reasons owners don't focus more time on retention, they're "too busy", it's too soon, they believe their value to be such that it can't be replaced, they can't "let go", or even worse they don't care, or believe that they're the ones who're actually going to get out of this alive!

There are probably others, but none of them work.  They're all excuses.  If an owner has a viable business and is not focusing how how they can keep that business stable in the longer term, one has to wonder why.

“RESUMES WITHOUT SALARY REQUIREMENTS . . .

 . . . WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED.”

I received an email from a loyal reader of this blog who brought up this hiring issue after reading my thoughts about Anonymous Job Postings:

“I hate when employers ask the salary question. There are so many
factors. And just because I might have made more in the past should
not keep one from being considered. Maybe there will be fewer
responsibilities, or more days of or other perks that one would be
fine with getting less money. Not to mention that agencies pay scales
are all over the board.

At a place like Acme, each title level has at least a 20k range
that people could fall into. So you could be looking at 2 people who
do the same job and are equally talented, but have a big pay
difference, because one negotiated better or had a more generous boss.

It seems the problem lies, in the employer wants to get the right
person as cheap as they can, and the employee wants as much as they
can get. but in early talks when salary is talked about without
details of everything else, one can either be out of the running or
screw themselves over and not get what the place might have been
willing to pay.”

I have to admit this is another “pet peeve” of mine.  I think it’s completely inappropriate for an employer to ask this question at this stage of the process.  How can a candidate give a salary requirement when they don’t know anything specific about the job.  Some posted job description does not suffice for that purpose.

My reader is right when they point out the employer is concerned about salary.  Salary is obviously a concern, and an integral part of the hiring process, but not at this stage.  Appropriate salary is based on market value, the company’s particular culture and pay scale and most importantly, the responsibilities of the position.  In some cases, prior salary history is part of the formula.  My reader is also correct when he mentions other elements of the compensation package like, vacation, benefits, other perks and bonus based on performance can all affect the “salary”.

My experience is that very few candidates are interested in a new job just because of salary.  As they say, “Salary isn’t everything” . . . and it rarely is.  People are interested in the contribution they can make to a new employer, the working environment, perhaps the clients or co-workers, opportunity for training and career advancement . . . a myriad of things that don’t include a starting salary.

Employers cheat themselves when they ask this question, because inevitably highly skilled and motivated employees will not be considered.  If employers would consider candidates based on their potential for contribution and growth, rather than a starting salary, they would certainly have a bigger and better pool of candidates to choose from.  Too many employers don’t care to expend the time necessary to really determine who the best candidate is through conversations and the interview process.  The hiring process is a complex and difficult task . . . it takes time to do it right.

In my opinion, candidates can tell employers what their salary history has been, in an interview.  They should also explain to the hiring authority those specific reasons why they are interested in the new position, and how they think they will contribute to the new employer.  The result should be an open and honest communication and negotiation resulting in the mutual satisfaction of both parties.

If you have any other questions related to the hiring process, please feel free and encouraged to email me . . . I’ll be happy to answer them in upcoming posts.  I’m also interested in hearing about any personal experiences regarding today’s topic.

Anonymous Job Postings . . .

Don't you have to wonder why?  Why on earth, would a company who is trying to recruit premier candidates at any level, not say who they are?  Wouldn't it seem like a good idea to leverage whatever brand equity or reputation a company has for the benefit of their recruitment efforts?  Doesn't it seem to make sense for the candidate know who the employer is, so they don't waste time applying to companies they don't want to work for?  I can only think of two reasons . . . the company is lazy, or embarrassed by it's own reputation.

When I say lazy, I mean that the hiring authority doesn't want to bother having to respond to the scores (or hundreds) of responses.  One of the reasons the huge job boards (Monster.com,  Careerbuilder.com, etc.) have lost some luster, is that it's almost impossible to deal with the volume of (unqualified) responses.  If the candidate/applicant doesn't know who they're applying to, they obviously can't expect a response.  The posting company feels absolutely no responsibility whatever to those people who show the interest and expend the time to respond/apply.

It's interesting to me that anyone would respond to an anonymous or blind posting.  I certainly understand that anyone out of work will apply to any and all opportunities in an effort to make ends meet and/or feed their families.  But how can that company who posts an anonymous job really expect to attract the best workers?  If a company has a strong reputation internally with their employees and externally with the public and their customers or clients, they should leverage that reputation for their recruiting efforts . . . and most do.  It's annoying to me that the company disrespects the candidates' time enough to tease them with the opportunity, but not bother responding.

There's a whole other rant I'll probably write shortly regarding the lack of any response to applicants from companies trying to recruit new employees.  I speak to candidates on a weekly basis who are frustrated and angered by the lack of response (respect) they receive, even from companies who put their names on job postings!

I'll admit to once posting a job on Craig's List anonymously.  I never did it again . . . I felt guilty.  I now will sometimes try to strike a balance by saying at the end of the posting: "With respect and our apologies in advance, we can only respond to candidates of interest to our clients."  I'm very interested in hearing feedback on what you think about that approach. 

Interviewing Exhaustion

I was interviewing a prospective Director of Marketing candidate last week and was amazed at how a company he had recently interviewed with botched the recruiting process.  Look, I know as well as you do that hiring is a very complex, expensive and essential part of every business. It’s never easy, it’s never perfect and it’s never without risk. Every company wants to try to minimize that risk and that’s understandable.  It’s the ways they do it that’s often self-defeating.

My candidate said to me “Hiring managers are unwilling to take any sort of risk with hiring”.  He said he understands how they need to closely match previous experience with the existing opening. His belief is that companies sometimes try to insure the “right” decision by having incessant interviews with “the team”.

There are too many people interviewing, in an effort to make sure that no one person is at fault. His first round of interviews with one company was with eight people.  There are instances when interviewing across departments has value.  That wasn’t the situation in this case.  The candidate decided he didn’t want to work for that company, everyone’s passing the buck and nobody seemed responsible for the actual decision.  None of the people he met with was prepped in advance of the meeting.  Most hadn’t even read his resume beforehand or had any idea why he was there.

I had a client who wanted to “make sure” that “everyone” liked the new candidate.  The candidate was employed, and I was attempting to recruit him to my client.  It was difficult for the candidate to get away from work very often without arousing suspicion.  I explained that to the client and they said they understood.

Nonetheless, they insisted on four rounds of interviews, conducted over four weeks and lasting over nine total hours with  (are you ready for this?) a total of 13 employees.  There were just over 30 in the entire company!  What’s the point?  Is everyone supposed to love this person?  Does one of these people actually have the power to veto the candidate (no!). 

The interview process wore out my candidate.  He couldn’t help but think that the company was unwilling to make a decision or, the process wasn’t important enough for them to make the time to complete it more promptly.  It became a committee decision . . . we know how those generally go.  The candidate wasn’t impressed.

The point is hiring companies need to be organized, efficient and careful in the hiring process.  They need to understand if the candidate will fit into their culture and most importantly, will they contribute.  It doesn’t take hours and hours of interviews with loads of employees to come to that conclusion. Conduct those interviews with respect, discretion, diligence and expediency!

Have you had a nasty experience interviewing or a phenomenally positive one?  We’d love to hear about it.

"Screw You!", Candidate

Client companies who don’t bother to respond to candidate inquiries and online submissions should be ashamed of themselves.  Not one week goes by where I don’t hear candidates skewer companies that haven’t had the decency to respond to their online job applications.  Who can blame them!  We all know how simple auto-responders are.  Companies simply don’t care enough to fix the issue.  I realize I’m painting with a broad brush here.  It’s unfortunate that the number of companies who conduct themselves in a caring way are such a small percentage of the whole.

I don’t understand how companies of every size, from the largest to the smallest can’t be bothered to thank someone for their time, whether there is ongoing interest in that person as a candidate or not.  This is a PR nightmare for those companies.  About 60 days ago, when we had a market where candidates were extremely difficult to find, you’d think that companies would appreciate the interest shown by someone contacting them, or applying for a position online . . . but they don’t.

Some companies are starting to get it, as evidenced in the CareerXroads 2008 Mystery Job Seeker Survey.  We can only hope the trend continues!  It’s safe to say that our regional companies are not doing as well as the companies in this survey!

I have to routinely tell candidates not to have an expectation of a response.  It’s the only way to keep their ego from being devastated, especially for those candidates who have lost a job and desperately need a new one . . .Now!  It’s no less important for a candidate expressing interest in wanting to work for a company, even if they are presently happily and successfully employed.  Maybe that target company can’t use the candidate now, but what about in the future?  Why not make that person’s experience a positive one?

It would be so simple for any company to deliver a prompt and respectful note to anyone contacting them either for employment or an information inquiry.  That company could generate positive feelings with those responses.  Candidates aren’t stupid.  They realize that they might not be right for a particular position, but they apply “just to make sure” or “you never know”.  It’s not impossible to turn a negative into a positive.  Frankly, it’s simple.  Companies should just respect everyone who shows an interest in them.

A lack of empathy for the candidate was one of the first things Kristen Weirick changed, when the director of talent acquisition for Whirlpool launched an initiative focused on improving the candidate’s experience.

“Every candidate who comes into contact with your organization is a prospective customer,” says Weirick. “There’s an old paradigm out there among some HR folks and managers that this is an employer’s market, so applicants have to conform to our process. In reality, the application process is really an extension of your employment brand. You should never underestimate the impact of negative chatter in the marketplace.” (Thanks to ERE.net for that example)

I’d be interested in hearing about your experience when contacting a prospective employer . . . whether positive or negative.