Jonathan McLeod Recruiting

On Job Titles and Responsibility

2010-06-01T08:00:00.001-04:00

I'll admit it; I have invented job titles for myself. However, in my defense I'll note that I either (a) gave myself a job title that more accurately depicted my role (I was once hired as a recruiter but quickly became an HR rep - it seemed natural to not the proper description of my duties); or, (b) was in a job without a title and needed to put something in my email signature (and when I appropriated "Operations Manager" for this role, my boss was completely on board).

Further, I have never adopted a title for the purpose of self-aggrandizement. However, I have known people who have.

In a past job, I had a senior staff member quickly attach the word "Manager" to his duties once a junior employee (me) was in the fold. Thus, the "Senior Recruiter" became "Recruitment Manager". Soon, he started adding roles and the "Recruitment Manager" became the "Recruitment and Proposal Manager". When he temporarily filled the role of a departed Branch Manager, the title "Interim Branch Manager" quickly came from his lips when he would speak to someone. I recently noticed on his LinkedIn profile that he had added "Human Resources Manager" to his list of titles at that job. This was news to me (and kind of funny, as when we had a complaint filled with the labour board from a former employee, I was the one who took care of it).

Also at this job, we had a sales person. The title sales person, account manager or account executive was never employed, though. She quickly adopted "Business Development Manager. To be fair, although this was never her official role, the owner told her to use it when dealing with clients; it made her sound more important, apparently. One shouldn't note that we had no other sales team and no official Business Development strategy, so what she managed, I'll never know.

Quickly, though, this title seeped into her identity. She became quick to throw it around, and started behaving as part of a management team with the "Human Resources Manager". Granted, she was the most junior employee, hadn't earned the respect she coveted (or even a sale of her own) and, most significantly, was vested with no such authority by the owner. Nonetheless, she was "Business Development Manager".

(Add to this, we had a bookkeeper who was tasked with the duties of an office manager, read: she placed orders for office supplies. She quickly got enamoured with being the "Office Manager"... to the point that she didn't seem think bookkeeping was a primary duty. Our year end financial reports - not too mention monthly payroll - were a testament to that. Yeah, it was a healthy work environment at that place.)

I have absolutely no problem with people seeking designations that most accurately reflect the work that they do. If they have a senior role (in more ways than just tenure), then recognition in the form a title seems appropriate. We all have egos. And occasionally, they all need to be fed, if only a little. Whatever, that's fine. That's human.

Issues arise when people get enamoured with titles. In the examples I have given, we are not witnessing people who had adopted titles to accurately reflect what it was they did. The Interim Branch Manager and Business Development Manager were more interested in holding the titles than executing the duties. In the end, we had more phony titles than we had clients, and that's no way for a business to survive.

So, what's my point? I'm not eschewing the use of titles, and I'm not even suggesting that wanting a nice title is bad. I'm just suggesting that it's best not to get too hung up on them. Do not fixate on your title. The more important it is for you to be something, the less important it will be for you to do something.

And if you find yourself working with people who seem to enamoured with their title, watch out. These people are unlikely to be beneficial to the health of your career or your employment.

Lessons From a Lost Season: Succession Planning

2010-05-12T00:15:00.000-04:00

I have written before about the most recent season of the National Football League's Seattle Seahawks and the actions of their previous head coach, Jim Mora Jr. The Mora saga offers a number of opportunities for reflection on topics relating to human resources, recruiting, management and leadership. Today, I though I'd focus on just one, succession planning.

Prior to Jim Mora, Jr., the Seahawks' head coach was Mike Holmgren. By far, Holmgren was the most successful coach in the team's history, leading them to a succession of division titles and one Super Bowl appearance. Holmgren led the team for 10 seasons. In the last few, there were always rumours of the coach's imminent retirement. Each year, he toyed with the idea of stepping down, but always decided to come back for one more season.

In 2007, the Seahawks hired Mora as an assistant head coach, and it was essentially confirmed that that he would replace Holmgren upon retirement. In 2007, the Seahawks had a mediocre season, and it was thought that it might be Holmgren's last, but in 2008 he returned. 2008 was abysmal. It was the worst under Holmgren and the worst the team had experienced in over a decade. There was, apparently, locker room dissention, with some players being "Holmgren guys" and some being "Mora guys". Following 2008, Holmgren finally retired. He claimed to have promised his wife, but many thought he was pretty much forced out by management.

2009, under Mora, was, arguably, even worse than 2008. It was not merely the number of losses, but of the poor effort put forth by season's end. The situation was so bad that Mora lost his job after just one year (very few coaches are terminated after one season). There are many reasons it went so wrong, but the poor succession planning was definitely a part of it.

Unlike many organizations, the Seahawks troubles in properly planning for personnel changes came from over-preparation, rather than under preparation. It is one thing to identify potential candidates for promotion within your organization, or shortlist some external candidates, should the demand for one arise. It is quite another thing to bring someone in ostensibly as a subordinate, but whom everyone knows will eventually be wearing the crown.

It's not unheard of to have a head coach-in-waiting. In the 1990s, the New York Jets had already tagged Defensive Co-ordinator Bill Belichek as the replacement for the current head coach, Bill Parcells (another former Super Bowl winning coach), should Parcells step down. However, The Jets did not bring Belichek in. He was a disciple of Parcells, having worked for him with the New York Giants and again with the Jets. There would be no concerns of "Belichek guys" vs. "Parcells guys" in the locker room, because Belichek himself would have been considered a "Parcells guy".

(It should be noted that this didn't quite work out for the Jets. Even though it was in Belichek's contract that he would be offered the head coaching gig should Parcells leave, when Parcells took a job with the New England Patriots, Belichek rebuffed the Jets to follow Parcells to New England to remain as his Defensive Co-ordinator. Nonetheless, it was a good attempt by the Jets.)
So, what should Seattle have done back in 2007, when they were concerned about Holmgren's potential retirement? There are a few possibilities.

First, they could have afforded him full control over his future and done no succession planning whatsoever. This may not seem like it would have been the wisest course of action, but it would have had one huge benefit: Mike Holmgren. Holmgren was one of the best coaches in the league, and had been for a couple of decades. He'd been to the Super Bowl three times with two different teams, winning once. He had done more for the franchise than anyone other than owner Paul Allen. He had certainly done more to raise the level of football that was played in the Pacific Northwest than anyone else. An organization could have decided that keeping this man around for an extra year was worth more than any succession planning they could have done. As well, the organization could have decided that, even if it left them in a potential hole, extending this courtesy was the proper thing to do. It would have said much about the character of the organization.

(Ironically, the man who ousted Holmgren, General Manager Tim Ruskell, always put an emphasis on "high character" players, often to the team's detriment.)

Second, they could have consulted with Holmgren when planning. The Seahawks Quarterbacks coach, Jim Zorn, seemed like a potential head coach to groom. Not only was he good at his job, but he was one of the first stars of the organization after their inception in 1976 (he was their first ever starting Quarterback). In fact, in 2008 Zorn was tapped as head coach for the Washington Redskins. Granted, it didn't work out too well, but that's probably more about the Redskins than Zorn. As well, Zorn may have been better suited for a head coaching job had he been given more mentoring by a potential Hall of Fame coach.

Beyond that, Homgren might have had some ideas of people outside the organization he would have liked to bring in as a replacement. This could have been someone, unlike Mora, who had the same philosophy regarding systems and personnel as Holmgren, thus easing the eventual transition.
Third, they could have done succession planning in secret. No, I'm not suggesting some deceptive covert operation; I just mean they could have started to investigate potential coaches they would have liked to hire without making any pronouncements. This could have been an on-going initiative that was regularly re-visited. Lists could have been revised as new information about aptitudes and availability came up.

Finally, they could have fired Holmgren. This seems rather harsh, and quite rude, but it would have been a lot more straightforward than the path they eventually took. In the end, it is a business, and if they truly felt that the future of the team lay with Jim Mora and not Mike Holmgren, it would have made sense to just turn the team over to Mora. It would have been similar to what happened to Brett Favre in Green Bay. The Packers had planned for his retirement (that still hasn't really happened), so they just parted ways with him. His replacement, Aaron Rodgers, went to the Pro Bowl. Yes, this sort of manoeuvre would have seemed unfair to Holmgren (and, arguably, it would have been), but it is, essentially, what they did; only they made it play out over two years.

Of course, maybe the question isn't what they could have done, but what they shouldn't have done. They shouldn't have made a hiring decision for 2009 back in 2007. They shouldn't have ignored the fact that the aspect of the team that Mora coached in 2007 and 2008 (the defensive backs) severely declined during his tenure underneath Holmgren. They shouldn't have ignored Mora's intention to hire his friend, Greg Knapp, as Offensive Co-ordinator after Knapp had a fairly poor run as Oakland's Offensive Co-ordinator. They shouldn't have decided to force the team's greatest coach out in order to bring in someone who'd recently flopped as Atlanta's head coach.

In the end, it seems that team’s management suffered from their infatuation with Mora, and it was quite understandable that they were initially infatuated with him. He’d had some success as an NFL coach. He was young; he was outgoing; and he was a hometown kid. It was exactly the sort of story you’d want to see. Unfortunately, this infatuation seems to have eliminated any critical thinking on the matter, and consequently, a team that played in the Super Bowl in February 2006 had become one of the worst teams in the NFL less than four years later.

This decline not only claimed Mora’s job; it claimed the job of the man who hired him, Tim Ruskell. There are fewer lessons that are as clear about the necessity of proper succession planning as that of the 2009 Seattle Seahawks and Jim Mora, Jr.

Week In Review

2010-05-08T01:29:00.000-04:00

As I noted in the previous post, I have started a new job. For a week now, I have been a proposal writer for a staffing firm in Ottawa. It seems like it will be an interesting job. It'll definitely be a new challenge.

A little over two years ago, I started with Microtime Inc. as a technical recruiter. My path to Microtime was rather long. I won't get into the details now (I've been planning to write a post on this adventure), but it took over two months from my initial interview to actually start working for Microtime. I put in a lot of effort to land that gig, and I planned to keep it.

At the end of my first week with Microtime, I sent a message to my immediate superior and to my boss (neither of whom are still with the company). It wasn't a long email; it was just a quick 'thank you' to let them know that I was happy to be at Microtime, and I was happy to be learning new things.

I did not send such an email today, even though I just completed my first week at my new job. The main reason: I had a ton of work to do. Also, this company had spent much of the week letting me know that they were glad to have me aboard, and that hey expect that I will be with the company - and thrive with the company - for quite some time. There was no need for me to send any sort of thank you email. I had sufficient interaction with everyone - from my peers to the CEO - that all sentiments had been properly expressed already.

When I returned to work after the first week at Microtime, I had a response to my 'thank you' email from my boss. She said that she was glad I enjoyed the week, but that I had a lot to learn.

This was pretty debilitating. I decided to send an email to reinforce - for my superiors - my enthusiasm for the job. In response, I was told that I was not yet quite capable of fulfilling my duties. It was a shot in the gut.

That boss is the worst boss I have ever had (heck, she's one of the worst people with whom I've ever had to work). She's been one of the few; I have been very lucky to have some great bosses.

So, what's my point? You're first week at a new job can be incredibly formative. You will be standing a standard against which you will be judged in the future. As well, you're setting the tone for the relationships you'll have with all of your co-workers, and, to a lesser extent, they're setting the tone for their relationship with you. This can be an incredibly important week. Sure, if you make some mistakes, you'll still be able to recover, but if you really set a negative tone, you'll be setting yourself up for failure.

As well, for supervisors it is an important time. Supervisors have the opportunity to set the expectations of the job, the atmosphere of the office and the terms of the relationship you'll have. They also have the opportunity to sour everything with one quick little email. If you're a supervisor, don't do this. Embrace enthusiasm. Nurture it. Don't take it as an opening to put someone down.

And by the way, I was a good recruiter before I joined Microtime.

The End of Jonathan McLeod Recruiting?

2010-05-08T01:13:00.000-04:00

Well, no. However, I have recently started a new job, and I will no longer be recruiting. I will now be proposal writing.

But, I'll be working for a recruiting firm, and I'll still have thoughts to share, so do not worry, JMR will continue.

Reruiting? What's That?

2010-04-16T16:15:00.001-04:00

This afternoon, we received word that we won the contract for a bid we submitted three and a half months ago (yes, we sent off the proposal on January 4, such is the way things go sometimes). Things have been slow this year, but on the bids we have made, we've got a good success rate.

Recruiting was definitely a part of this. Finding people, identifying skills, maintaining good relationships with consultants - these are all very important skills. However, we're not winning the contracts based on our recruiting acumen.

Our process for developing bids has turned greatly towards proposal writing. Recently, we've been spending more and more time making sure that the proposal was perfect, and less time worrying about getting the perfect candidate (rarely is there a perfect candidate, we generally have to find a near-perfect candidate and go from there). We have been winning bids with three things: proposal writing, competitive pricing and gumption. It is for this reason that I am inclined to turn my career sites more towards proposal writing, away from straight recruiting.

What?!?!? or Writing Poorly Reasoned Blog Posts Seems to be the Path to Becoming a Professional Blogger

2010-04-16T13:56:00.000-04:00

bNet currently has a very odd post written by Penelope Trunk about the bad career advice women give each other. Why don't we dive right in:

When I was starting my career, I was in the software industry, where there are few women. And then I moved into the tech startup world, where there are even fewer women. The whole time, I have found that older men gave me great career advice and older women gave me bad advice. I am not sure why this is, but I am pretty sure that most women around my age (43) have had similar experiences. They just won’t talk about it publicly.

Oh yeah, well I've had horrible advice given to me by men! Some of the worst advice I have received involves confusing anecdotes for data.

Anyway, let's move on to the worst advice this blogger has received from some women:

1) You can wait to have kids. There’s no rush.

Of course there’s a rush. Your chances of having a Down Syndrome baby skyrocket after you are older than 35. If you have two kids after age 30, you will probably have a miscarriage. Sixty percent of women do. And you’ll want time between kids. Most women do.

You know what, I'll give her this one, though I think something broader is required; it is important to strike a good and healthy work life/personal life balance. The appropriate balance is going to vary between people, but it is good to make such decisions thoughtfully, with as much pertinent information as possible.

Moving on:

2) Report sexual harassment, even if it’s just a minor infraction.

This was good advice for the 1970s, when people didn’t believe it was happening. But now everyone knows it happens all the time. Please find me one woman who did not experience some sort of inappropriate behavior from a man during her first five years of work. We all know it’s happening. But we also know that there is no longer a salary gap between men and women, and we know that there are more unemployed men than women. So it’s hard to show that women are actually victimized at work today.

Wait, what? There's no need to complain about sexual harassment because everybody knows it's going on? First off, no, they don't. Many people are not sufficiently aware to notice these things. Second, in an age where we are, generally, more aware of these things, it should be easier to report them. There should be fewer ramifications if you do (the key word there is "should").

Further, what on earth does the comparative salaries of men and women, on aggregate, have to do with anything? A pay raise doesn't make you a sex toy. Parity in the pay scale of men and women doesn't have anything to do with a specific incident of sexual harassment. The fact that male and female CEOs will, ceteris paribus, make the same amount of money does not change the power structure of a senior male employee harassing a junior female employee.

Mercifully, this post only lists three "bad" pieces of advice:

3) Read business books to become a good leader.

Forget it. Most business books are written by men, and the latest research shows that men and women lead differently. Above all, women who lead like women do better than women who try to lead like men.

So women shouldn't read business books because they're written by men and men won't give the best career advice for women. And this argument is coming from a female author who gets her career advice from men. Huh.

(H/T: Evil Hr Lady, who is a great source of career advice, also blogs at bNet and has a more detailed response to Ms. Trunk here. Further great career advice - from women! - can be found at Ask A Manager and Punk Rock HR.)

Seminar Review - The Job Interview

2010-04-15T23:28:00.000-04:00

There were fewer people out tonight, which, hopefully, was not a reflection of the value of the information that was gleaned the last two nights. Thankfully, those who were there were a lot more vocal. It's much better to help people with the issues they have, than to go over a lot of information they might already have.

So, without delay, the reviews...

The first three are solid. There is a suggestion that a seminar on job searching for new comers to Canada would be useful. This seems like a good suggestion. I'd need to do more prep work if I were to lead something like this, but I'd certainly be game.

The rest of them were good, too. It's nice to know that people found the seminars useful. There were a couple of reviews that suggested more time was needed. I completely agree, however it might be difficult for people to commit more time.

Another person suggested doing a mock interview, and then discussing it. This would definitely require more time, but if you have people who are interested in it, it can be quite useful. If people aren't really interested, then I don't think it would be quite useful.

So that's it for now. There may be more to come in September. As with previous seminars, I quite enjoyed this. Maybe, years from now, I'll try doing this sort of thing full time.

Lessons From a Lost Season: Jim Mora, Jr. edition

2010-04-15T15:09:00.003-04:00

It can be a curse to see the world through the lens of your job. It can also be quite interesting. At times, it can be rather insightful (see Punk Rock HR on the Jay Leno/Conan O'Brien affair here and here... and notice the prescience).

The National Football League's Seattle Seahawks suffered through an abysmal 2009 season, the first and only season featuring Jim Mora, Jr. as head coach. Much about his hiring, tenure and dismissal makes for great fodder for a recruiting/HR blog, and I've been meaning to comment on it for a while. I'll start with some comments he made last month.

As background, Mora was being asked about a new quarterback Seattle had acquired by trade from the San Diego Chargers since Mora's departure, Charlie Whitehurst. Now Whitehurst is by no means a household name, and, to Mora, this presented an opportunity to attack his former employer:

I had no idea who Charlie Whitehurst was until there was talk about him, I'd never heard of the guy. Then I was reminded that he was the guy that threw the interception to Nick Reed in the preseason. I don't know much about the guy. Obviously they saw something in him and think he can he successful. I have some friends on the San Diego staff, and they're feeling pretty darn good about the deal.

The audio of the interview can be found here.

(As further background, Nick Reed played for the Seahawks last year under Mora.)

There are a number of ways to interpret this, but it seems pretty obvious that Mora is still bitter. He attended the nearby University of Washington and made no secret of the fact that coaching the Seahawks would be a dream job, so the bitterness is understandable. However, a potential head coach in the NFL is constantly being evaluated. One does not merely submit a resume, go to an interview and then get the job. Coaches are high profile, and they are judged, in part, on the profile they maintain. I don't know if Mora wants to ever be a head coach in the NFL again, but if he does, he should be, essentially, in constant job interview mode.

And you never disparage a former employer or supervisor in a job interview. This is always a giant red flag.

There are a few reasons for this little rule. First, it's just bad form. There is no one there to explain the employer's side of the story. You're picking on someone who can't defend himself. That's just rude.
Tangentially, you're demonstrating your willingness to bad mouth someone behind their back. This is not behaviour that I would ever desire in an employee. Someone like that could be an automatic cancer for your company.

Remember, employers expect people to be on their best behaviour in interviews. If this is the best that we can expect from you, what would you be like when you're just being yourself?

I should note that I have, generally, been pretty blessed when it comes to companies and supervisors. I've had few bad bosses, and the companies I have worked for have, for the most part, treated me with respect. Nonetheless, I could find faults with pretty much every person I have ever worked with, as they could me. However, there is no way that I would ever complain about a previous boss or employer. If necessary, I could explain issues that I had with management (and sometimes this is an appropriate topic in an interview), but I would also explain how I dealt with those issues. I would do it all respectfully. This way, I would, hopefully, demonstrate the professional manner with which I deal with difficult and unpleasant situations.

After Monday's post, it may seem a little hypocritical to criticize Mora for his outburst, but remember, there is a difference between being candid and being an adolescent.

It is also wise to keep in mind that your interviewer might have some inside knowledge. It is bad enough to appear a bitter child, but you could also be proven a fool, as in Mora's case:

Although Whitehurst remains an obscurity to casual fans, it defies reason that Mora has never heard of him. During Mora’s first preseason game as a Seahawks defensive assistant, in 2007, Whitehurst threw 22 passes against Seattle. During Mora’s first preseason game as Seahawks head coach, Whitehurst threw 29 passes against Seattle.

Furthermore, Whitehurst, who holds most of the career passing records at Clemson, was a four-year starter in college; his final two seasons coincided with Mora’s first two seasons as head coach of the Atlanta Falcons, who make their year-round headquarters in Flowery Branch, Ga.

Clemson is 86.7 miles away from Flowery Branch. The coach on a crusade against lies and deception wants you to think he’s never heard of quarterback who starred on a campus that’s 86.7 miles away from where Mora used to work, who grew up in the same Atlanta suburb (Duluth, Ga., population 26,000) where Mora once lived, who retired as the third-leading passer in ACC history, who outplayed Jay Cutler in the Senior Bowl, who was drafted in the third round and went on to throw 51 passes against Seattle over two preseason games.

In this light, Mora's statement demonstrates he is either incompetent or dishonest, and I'm not sure which is worse. Nonetheless, I have a little sympathy for Mora. No one likes to lose their job, but his behaviour tells us more about him than he would probably want.

And this is my point. What you do and say will say a lot more about you than you intend. It is important to keep this in mind when searching for a job.

Green Shoots, Cosmetics edition.

2010-04-14T22:35:00.003-04:00

Coming home from tonight's seminar, I was walking through the intersection of Bank St. and Laurier Ave. Recently, a large apartment building/condo was built on the southwest corner. The main floor is home to a Shopper's Drug Mart. The drug store had relocated from the northeast corner of the intersection. It's now bigger and quite a bit nicer. This was definitely an improvement.

Unfortunately, that left a rather large storefront vacant. Considering the state of the economy, and the fact that a number of storefronts downtown had been vacant for quite some time, I assumed this would lie fallow for a while.

As you can see by the picture to the right, this is not the case. A new cosmetics store, Murale, is opening up. They're currently renovating the interior, and I don't know when they'll start doing business, but this seems like a good sign.

The storefront is quite striking. There's a long stretch of these white signs with purple lettering (along the side of the building that you can't see). It doesn't quite fit with the brown brick, but I think, overall, it works, in an odd urban-renewal sort of way. And regardless, I'm just happy that the site won't be empty and boarded up for months.

Seminar Review - Resume Writing

2010-04-14T22:10:00.000-04:00

So, tonight I led a seminar on resume writing. This is a topic that I find quite important. In my experience, most people don't like writing resumes, and many just follow some advice they received about writing resumes, without ever thinking critically about that advice.

This is not to meant to be insulting to people. I understand why people hate writing resumes. I used to hate it to. It's only as resume writing has become part of my job, and I've started thinking strategically about it that it no longer seems like a wretchedly labourious chore.

And that's what I should stress, as with the rest of your job search, you need to have a strategy when composing your resume. Be thoughtful and deliberate.

Anyway, this post isn't about resume writing, per se, it's about about the seminar. It's so difficult to judge these things. A few people were asking questions, and this is always a good thing; it keeps me from falling into lecture mode. I could talk about resume writing for five hours (literally... the last time I did these, the seminars were three hours, I spoke the whole time, and still had to leave information out).

So yeah, I feel pretty good about it, but let's go through the reviews from the participants.

The first few are pretty good. No one is completely dissatisfied, and most seemed please.

The rest are pretty much the same. All but one were quite positive, and even the worst review gave the seminar a mediocre grade. That's a pretty good batting average.

Unfortunately, no one had any suggestions. It's understandable. It's an immediate review, so no one has the opportunity to ruminate on it very much - and I imagine people were eager to get home - but it would be helpful to get some pointers.

(Ya know, I just re-read that, and I think it might come off a little ungrateful. I don't mean to demand that I get good reviews and constructive advice. I'm quite pleased that people liked the presentation. I just mean to say that I am under no delusion that I am perfect at this, and I am eager to improve.)

Well, that's two down. Tomorrow night, we'll be looking at interview tips. I think the class might be full, but if you're interested, you can try registering here.

And if anyone who has seen these presentations is reading, feel free to leave further comments.

On Leadership, Management and Vision

2010-04-14T15:10:00.000-04:00

Sometimes ideas pop into your head and pop out in an instance. Sometimes they linger for a while and fade. Sometimes, you'll be struck by a thought and you won't be able to shake it. It may find from your primary thoughts, but it will never completely recede. It will appear, suddenly, every now and then to shed light on a particular topic or situation.

I have found myself, recently, regularly revisiting the idea of leadership, in all its forms. I have begun thinking more and more about the divisions of leadership, and the various roles that can be a fit for each individual. I have thought more and more about the distinction between leaders, managers and visionaries. It seems to me that too few people in the realm of business take appropriate care to distinguish between the three.

I have written about leadership before, and I will, likely, write about it again. I have admiration for strong leaders, and I am confident that when I have been put in a leadership position, I have served capably. Nonetheless, I think this quality can become overblown... or at least conflated with other qualities, and sought out in a position that does not, necessarily, require it.

At this point, I am going to eschew any definitions of leadership. Others have already done that, both conventionality and otherwise, and I have no eagerness to follow that path. I will note that leadership is more than just being good at your job. It's more than just knowing what has to be done. The most important part of leading others would seem to be, at least to me, the others. I imagine a leader is not properly judged by the trail he blazes, but by those who are able to follow that trail.

It also seems to me that management and leadership are often conflated; a good manager will be a good leader and vice versa. So, someone in your employ who has shown quality leadership of a team will be the natural choice to take on a managerial role. Sadly (considering I have seen this decision made numerous times), there is not a direct correlation between managerial prowess and leadership. Managers will be called upon to execute a host of tasks that have little or nothing to do with leadership. They must set targets, balance priorities, oversee progress and allocate resources. None of this, necessarily, requires a strong leader. I don't mean to suggest that managers are merely caretakers, but, sometimes, that is what they are called to be.

Visionaries are a completely different beast. To have the foresight - the prescience - to discern a path for a company, or for a team, is a special gift. Especially when that path is murky and success is but an indiscernible speck on the horizon, the ability to set out a successful vision is a rare skill. In and of itself, this requires no ability to lead and no ability to manage.

So, what's the point of this long, rambling post? Well, I have no specific prescriptions for identifying each skill, nor do I have a perfect method for determining which is most important for a particular role (as it is rarely a choose-one-and-only-one scenario).

My only real advice is that, as with all human resource decisions and talent evaluation, it is important to assess the skills your team members actually have, not those you wish or assume they have. You will do them no favours by putting them in positions for which they are ill-suited. And you will do yourself no favours by not maximizing the rewards from the particular talents they do have.

Seminar Review

2010-04-13T22:51:00.000-04:00

Tonight I was at the Ottawa Public Library leading a seminar on job searching using the internet. It went fine. There was some participation by those in attendance, and that's usually a good sign. However, you can get really diverse groups for these sorts of things, so you never really know if everybody is getting something out of it.

...or, at least, that's how it used to be.

Tonight, for the first time, there was actually a formal review form filled out by participants. So I'll now go through them. This should be interesting. Hopefully, I'll get some good suggestions on how to improve the presentation.

Well, the first couple were positive. There are concerns about the pace of the seminar and the length of time. Both seem like fair issues.

Overall, the reviews were positive (though I assume that most people will tend to be err on the side of being nice, especially since they're going to see me two more nights). One person did suggest some other courses they'd like to see, including:

Facebook;
Introduction to web-based email (gmail);
Searching for beginners (Yahoo!, Google); and,
How to really find information on the net.

This highlights a potential issue with my presentation. I went into the seminar with some basic assumptions - that people were comfortable with the internet, used email, etc. I tried to touch on these things briefly, but with only an hour, I couldn't spend much time on basic internet use.

I think the final suggestion is quite interesting, and probably useful to more people than realize it. I have become pretty comfortable searching the internet (it is, after all, part of my job), and even I can benefit from some tips (by the way, if you need any, you can just google, google tips).

I'll be back at the library the next two nights, tomorrow for resume and cover letter writing, Thursday for interviewing tips. I don't know if there is still room, but, if you're interested, you can register here.

Finally, for any Algonquin College students out there, I might be making a visit to the Woodroffe campus next week. I'll post more information once it is confirmed.

Shortlisted Then Not

2010-04-13T14:38:00.000-04:00

A while ago (yes, I've really been neglecting the blog), a friend contacted me for some advice regarding a potential job. She had received an email asking to set up an interview. When she responded, she received a rather terse reply telling her that there was not, in fact, any intention to interview her for this position.

This is something that probably happens a lot. There's a number of ways that this could happen, and a number of responses. One could merely thank them and move on, apologize for bothering them, slink away without replying or send an angry email back. I suggested none of those options.

It seems to me that as long as communication is flowing between you and a hiring agent, you can still make a play. In this scenario, you can attempt to leverage the initial interview offer into, at least, a second viewing of your resume. You can also use this as a chance to expand on the reasons that you would have been a good fit for the job. You have be thoughtful, deliberate and focused in your reply (of course, you should be thoughtful, deliberate and focused in your job search, anyway), and you might need to tread a little carefully to maximize your chances of turning fortune in your favour. If you don't execute things properly, this will be your last shot at landing the job.

Of course, even if you execute this well, there still may be no hope. But if that's the case, why not take one final, desperate shot?

So, below is my response. It was a quick, off-the-cuff response, so it's not really deliberate or focused - it's more in the stream of consciousness style. If you have any thoughts or advice, please do share. Only once have I had to keep a job application of mine alive when it had appeared to be discarded, so I am by no means an expert.

Hi,

First question, how much contact had you already had with this organization? Had you just submitted an application/resume then received a message saying you were shortlisted?

Second (well, third, I guess) question, was the person who told you that you were shortlisted the same as the person who sent you the terse note? Was this the same as the person to whom you initially applied (or did you apply to a generic email address or through an automated system)?

Here's why I'm asking, there can often be some mis-communication within an organization if multiple people are involved in the screening, hiring and interviewing processes. If the person who told you that you were shortlisted (Person A) is different than the one who said you weren't (Person B), you have a potential ally in your candidacy.

If this is the situation, you'll want to contact both parties at once. If Person A is clearly higher up in the management chain than Person B, I would send a polite email to Person A thanking them for extending an invitation for an interview, but, unfortunately, it appears that you were not shortlisted. I would try to make sure that there is a full email string on this. The original message, followed by your response, followed by Person B's response. I would also cc Person B on this.

If Person B is clearly in a higher position, or you can't tell who is, I would send an email to Person B, responding to the curt message, cc-ing Person A. I would thank them for their response. I would also state that I had been looking forward to the proposed interview, but understand that they are currently moving forward with other candidates. I would then say that I would still be interested in the position in the event that none of the other shortlisted candidates were found to be a fit. Finally, I would finish the email by thanking them for their time.

Okay, now if it was the same person who invited you for an interview and who sent you the terse note (we'll still call this person Person B), I would say something like:

"Hello Person B,

I am disappointed to hear that. After you had proposed an interview in your initial email, I was quite looking forward to the chance to discuss this position with you. It sounds like an exciting opportunity, and something for which I would be well suited. Nonetheless, I understand that you are moving forward with other candidates at this time. Should none of them be deemed a fit, please feel free to contact me if you would like to re-visit my candidacy.

Thank you for your time,
The Best Candidate You Never Hired (or just your name)

This is similar to the previous message, but there are a few differences. In this last scenario, though I would thank Person B for their time, I wouldn't thank them for their response. There's no chance of mis-communication here (though the terse message could be a mistake), so you can be a little more forceful. This is also why I would pointedly mention the interview that Person B proposed.

Assuming you've only been dealing with one person the whole time, if I were to guess, I'd say that, unfortunately, the first message proposing an interview was a mistake on Person B's part. It could just be that Person B thought they were responding to another candidate. Then, when they got your message, not realizing they invited you for an interview, they thought you were just being pushy, thus the less than polite message saying you weren't shortlisted.

Here's the thing, though. If this is the case, it's actually a good thing that the mistake happened. You still have an opening - a very small one, but one nonetheless. Some people might decide to interview you anyway, because they initially offered. Others might wonder why they didn't shortlist you in the first place and take another look at your application. Some might decide that by not just slinking off when rejected, you are now more attractive as a candidate. Someone demonstrating motivation is huge.

So, in this situation, you need to be graceful, professional and strong. You have to be polite, but you have to show determination and confidence. Too many "thank you's" could make you look too mushy. That's why I would only thank the person at the end of the email.

Also, since the odds are against you in this, you don't have a lot to lose. This is probably you're one shot to get back in the game, so write something that emotes, "I'm a damned good candidate, and you want to interview me. You don't want to pass me over." Strength and confidence - tempered by proper manners - is the best way to do this.

Returning to the original possible scenario (that you were dealing with multiple people and the error was an organizational error by the church), you needn't (and shouldn't) be quite as bold. In that case, you've got a better chance because at least one person is on your side. You can act a little (but only a little) more reconciled to the rejection, because you might have someone on the other side to fight your cause for you. That's why I would thank the person for the response at the beginning of the email and thank them for their time at the end. This approach is less all-or-nothing.

Does this help? Feel free to send me some more specifics of the situation and I can try to tailor my advice.

Jon

(By the way, my friend is eminently qualified for this job, and I am certain she would be an excellent hire. The organization is probably making a mistake by not giving her an interview. Not that I'm biased or anything.)

I [Heart] Union Square Ventures

2010-04-12T21:21:00.001-04:00

They're hiring. And they know how to write a job ad:

It's Spring in New York. The pear trees and magnolias are in full bloom and everyone on the street is smiling, reminded again of irrepressible rhythm of the seasons.

That's the good news. The bad news is that another rhythm that shapes our lives at Union Square Ventures has also come full circle. A little over a week ago Fred announced that Andrew was following his fiancé to Boston where she will complete her medical training. Eric Friedman is also coming to the end of his two year stint as an analyst here and moving on to Foursquare. The three of us are staring at the possibility of being on our own this summer. In some ways that is not all bad. We have always believed in building a partner driven firm, where we all do our own work and can fully represent the firm to the outside world. On the other hand, Andrew and Eric have done a fabulous job finding holes and filling them and I, for one, am worried about running out of fingers to put in the dike when they leave.

So we are hiring.

...

We are not flexible when it comes to cultural fit. We are a small team in a small office and it is very important to us that the candidates for these positions share our conviction about the transformational potential of the web. They should also be prepared to forcefully defend thoughtful positions on potential investments, but to also consider carefully the positions of others and to be intellectually honest and open to persuasion.

Perhaps most importantly, the successful candidates for these positions will be "net native". They will use web services in their personal and professional lives. They will ideally have an intuitive feel for what works and what doesn't on the web. We assume that they will have a web presence, whether that is a profile on a social network site, a photo stream, an academic paper on social media, a blog or tumblelog, a lead role in an open source project, a reputation on Stack Exchange, or a spot on the leader board in Mafia Wars.

...

Don't upload a resume. Instead, share your LinkedIn profile and use the "cover letter" to provide links to your web presence plus a way to reach you. We can't promise to respond to every inquiry, but you can be sure that if the links you share show off your contributions to the web, we will get in touch.

By the way, we are not prudes. We expect your web presence to represent who you are, not who you think an employer wishes you were, so don't waste a lot of time sanitizing your web presence before sending us there. It will just confuse your friends.

We look forward to comments on this post, including suggestions about the roles, the qualifications and the process!

And it is, essentially, a blog post. This is awesome.

To be sure, this is not the sort of advertisement that just any company can post. This is not going to fit the corporate culture of every firm, and the demands it represents are not going to properly attract the type of candidate every firm needs.

It's still great.

It's great because it's fairly unique. It's great because it's honest. It's great because it breaks so many rules, it's pretty forward thinking, and it reflects the nature of the company. That final one is probably the most important. I always tell job seekers that they need to have a strategy when conducting their search, in order to find the job that's right for them. Well, we recruiters need a strategy, too.

And isn't it fantastic that they've told people not to sanitize their web presence? We're all on the net all the time, it seems, and if you're going to be hiring someone under the age of 30, you better expect that they've cultivated a full and open online persona. Personally, I've contributed work to a variety of web sites. I have written about sports; I have interviewed politicians; and I have written about recruiting. I'm on Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Plaxo, Naymz and MySpace... sometimes multiple times. I can't, completely, hide my web presence.

This is the world we're getting into. This is a world where more and more of our lives are going to be public. Where people used to go to extremes to hide their "real" identity online, we now trade pictures of our kids, argue openly about politics and trumpet our religious allegiances. Employers will still Google us, but, more and more, employers will know that this candid picture is just that, candid. We'll each have one, and it will be more extensive, more honest. And we will be judged by it less and less.

(H/T: Fred Wilson.)

Slow Dance on the Outside: Unemployment and Career Change

2010-04-12T15:57:00.000-04:00

It's not great out there, as anyone looking for a job will likely confirm. Employment is on the rise (slowly), but unemployment was stable at 8.2% for the month of March (yes, that might seem a little odd, but to economists, employment is not merely 1/unemployment).

As part of my job, I meet with lots of people who are out of work. These are people who have contacted me about a specific job opportunity, people I have met at seminars and training sessions, and people who are contacting ant recruiter they can to find job leads and advice. Some people have been out of work for a few days, some a few weeks. Others have been searching for months or years. Some people have a regular tour that brings them back into work-life semi-regularly: the monthly check-ins, the seasonal job fairs, etc.

I've always told people that one of my favourite aspects of recruiting is that it is my job to get people jobs. When I can help - either with a job offer or with advice - I do. I don't treat my insights into the local job market as some sort of proprietary treasure; sure, I use it in the execution of my duties, but it's a public good. Giving it to someone else robs me of no utility.

Unfortunately, there are some people whom it is quite difficult to help. They have antiquated skills. Their absence from the workforce can be measured in years. Sometimes, they've been beaten down by their prolonged job search and they're not the dynamic candidate they used to be.

This is where things get hard. This is when the sad nature of the employment industry emerges. There comes a time when there is no more advice that you can give a candidate. The person has already re-vamped their resume. They have a targeted, focused, intricate job search methodology. They treat finding a job as their full time job, putting in nights and weekends to finally add that next item to the Work Experience section of their resume. These people are earnest in their search, and lacking no zeal. Unfortunately, their field may have passed them by.

I work, for the most part, in IT. I find people for web development projects, Information Management, network architecture, and a host of other IT-related jobs. This is not a field you can just hop in and out of at whim. If you disappear for any length of time, the demands and the standards of the industry will be beyond your sight. Your skills will have atrophied.

There comes a time when we, as recruiters, will have to tell you that, in all likelihood, you no longer have a future in your chosen field. It's tough for us to say, but we say it to be helpful. Dishonest optimism will be of no service to you.

If you have been out of the IT industry for more than a year or two, your skills are, likely, outdated or rusty. In this situation, you will not be a fit for any jobs that require any sort of hands-on work. There are a lot of people out there who have only recently lost their job, and whose skills are up to date. They will have an edge over you.

If you worked for one company for many years or decades, and this company, which was once cutting edge, is now a lumbering, dying dinosaur (*cough* Nortel *cough*), your skills - no matter how recently you used them - could very well be outdated. If you specialize in a fading technology, your chances of success in landing a new job are dim.

So, when I meet you, and you're wondering about what you should do, I'll give you some advice. You can take; you can ignore it; but know that I'm giving you an honest assessment. It may be time for a change. This could mean a career change (someone who used to work in web development can sometimes slip into technical recruiting - just ask this guy). This could mean going back to school to learn new skills. It could mean starting over at the bottom wrung as a junior employee. It could mean moving to a new city.

But if you've been looking for a job for two years with no success, something has to change. Something drastic.

Congrats to Procom

2010-04-12T10:23:00.000-04:00

Technical Recruiter for Procom (and friend of JMR), Tom Sweeney, announces some great news for Procom Consulting Group:

Branham Group published its annual Branham 300 List today and Procom was recognized as a leader in its industry for another consecutive year.

On the list announced today, Procom was named 6 on the list of the Top 25 It Professional Services Companies and 22 on the list of the Top 250 Canadian Tech Companies, taking the number one spot amongst its competitors.

Published annually in Backbone Magazine and circulated in the National Post, the Branham 300 List recognizes Canada’s best performing Information Technology firms. The rankings, which are based on revenue growth, recognize Canadian IT firms for their strong performance and industry leadership. It is considered one of the premier industry performance metrics.

“Recognition by Branham is a significant honour” says Procom’s President & CEO Frank McCrea. “We believe that our commitment to integrity, flexibility and responsiveness has created a strong foundation upon which our company is built and it is this strong foundation that allows Procom to leverage its core competencies and experience continued growth.”

Procom – Procom Consultants Group is a leading IT Staffing & Project Solutions firm in North America and for 4 consecutive years has been named one of the 50 Best Managed Companies in Canada. Procom has 12 office locations, over 2800 IT Consultants and is responsible for the delivery of hundreds of IT projects annually. Procom offers its clients customized services in IT Staffing, Payroll Administration, and IT Project Solutions.

For more information visit: www.procom.ca or www.branham300.com

Congrats to Tom and the rest of the team at Procom on this great achievement.

And don't forget to visit Tom's blog.

Career Seminars

2010-04-12T10:11:00.000-04:00

I will be leading some career seminars this week at the downtown branch of the Ottawa Public Library. Here's the schedule:

Tuesday April 13 @ 6:30 pm
Searching for a Job on the Internet

Wednesday April 14 @ 6:30 pm
Resume and Cover Letter Writing

Thursday April 14 @ 6:30 pm
The Job Interview

The Main Branch of the library is located at 120 Metcalfe St.

Registration is required (for each event). You can register here.

Speaking of Personal Branding...

2010-03-22T13:31:00.000-04:00

My mechanic's name is Otto. How great is that?

Management by Raising Your Voice

2010-03-19T16:01:00.000-04:00

Ever been yelled at? Ever been yelled at by a boss? It kinda sucks, doesn't it?

Over the course of my career, I've had, probably, about two dozen people who would have called me a supervisor. I don't think I ever raised my voice to any of them. Well, maybe a little, but I certainly have never yelled at an employee.

The other day, my entire team got yelled at. Our boss wasn't happy with the results we were getting, and he wasn't pleased with our plans to improve our results. He listened to us for quite a while, and, eventually, got fed up. He blasted us.

This is a man who, generally, speaks at a rather quiet and relaxed manner. He's generally content to allow others to lead the discussion, just throwing in some advice and guidance here and there. He likes to motivate his team, but he is neither the fire-and-brimstone type preacher, nor an Anthony Robbins-esque motivational guru. Quietly, he tries to instill confidence and comfort, allowing his team to go about their work self-assuredly.

But the other day, that demeanour was momentarily abandoned. He was angry; he was pounding the table; and he was right.

Not everyone can get away with this sort of behaviour. The reason he could is that he has, for years, earned our respect and treated us with respect. His anger was neither malicious nor denigrating. A manager who clearly articulates his team's expectations and affords them the necessary resources to meet those expectations has earned the right to raise his voice.

It can be tempting for managers to yell at their employees. It's an easy tool to which to resort in an attempt to motivate. However, there is a lot of work a manager must do before this can be effective.

You have to earn the right to yell at people.

Bill 139 Complicated: Tax Edition

2010-02-16T15:26:00.000-05:00

A while back, I wrote a (not-so-quick) post on Bill 139, Ontario's new-ish legislation that extends the protections of the Employment Standards Act (ESA) to temporary workers. I don't have a lot to add right now (nor the time to do it), but a new wrinkle has come our way.

The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) has their own thoughts on the matter of when an independent consultant becomes an employee, and thus, when they will be taxed as such, when they will have to contribute to EI and CPP, and when a company will be required to withhold taxes and contribute to EI and CPP. Like the Ministry of Labour, CRA isn't too specific about what constitutes an employee vs. what constitutes an independent contractor. Thankfully, they are more specific the Ministry. Further, they take into account the intent of both the consultant and the firm, something conspicuously absent from the information released by the Ministry of Labour.

From what information I have received, it seems that with Bill 139 there will be an inquiry only if one party complains. Which means that as long as a firm and their consultants are happy, no one will be bothered. However, it's a different beast with the CRA. They can launch an investigation without prompting, and they have a financial incentive to find people to be employees.

As well, there's no way to know what implications a CRA finding will have on a Ministry of Labour classification, or vice versa.

So far, we've never had an issue, but there's no way to know how long that will last.

You can read about the CRA's discernment process here (pdf).

There Might Be a Reason We Seem Distracted

2010-02-03T14:28:00.001-05:00

Ask A Manager has a new post up about showing confidence in your job search. In general, it's great advice, and there are some specific tidbits that should prove helpful for those looking for work.

A couple of commenters to the post have brought up an interesting subject. An anonymous commenter writes:

I wish this had been written earlier. As interesting as the personal stories are on here, it also helps to hear general advice.

However, I would like to see something added on to here: When does being assertive cross the line?

Why? There have been times in an interview where I wanted to point out something to the interviewer that I felt was wrong, but I kept my mouth shut. I've been on a couple of interviews that were interrupted or the interviewer was distracted. I wanted to say "hey, I'm over here speaking." But to me, that would've been the wrong thing to say and consequently not get me the job (which I didn't get anyway).

In response, reader a.e. writes:

Anon, I totally relate! I am a rather confident person, I would think, but I have definitely been in an interview and the other person is checking email, is reviewing some other material, taking 5+ min calls, etc. Good times! I always struggle with what to do. I have tried the, "would there be a better time to re-schedule this because you seem to have a lot on your plate right now", but that doesn't make a lot of sense when you traveled especially for the interview. Anyway, like I mentioned, I have been out of work for over a year and a half so its not as if I can say I have found a strategy that works particularly well.

Alright, a couple of things: 1.) No, you should not offer to re-schedule and imply that the interviewer isn't doing his job properly; and, 2.) No, you shouldn't even think about saying, 'hey, I'm over here speaking.'* Really, do either of those seem like a worthwhile course of action?

Though it is true that the interviewer might just be a jerk, there is the distinct possibility that something else is going on. First, and most straightforward, the interview might just be busy. He might be busy because he is understaffed. He might be busy because of the very reason that you are sitting opposite him; he needs to hire somebody. Rather than allowing your hackles be raised, just do your best to demonstrate why you'd be a good fit for the job, why you would lessen this burden.

There is another possible explanation. This could be a stress interview. The interviewer could be doing his best to get a rise out of you. He could be trying to see how you respond under pressure or in the presence of rudeness. In such a situation, he wants to see you phased. Don't give in. It doesn't matter how many interruptions, seemingly useless questions or barbs you have to endure. Take it all; let it roll off your back; keep answering questions. Interviewing may not be a game, but that doesn't mean you can't win.

As an aside, I used to conduct some interviews as if I was ill prepared. I'd jump around the resume, asking about school, then work experience, then volunteering, then back to work experience. I would do this for two reasons. First, I didn't want people to get too comfortable answering the questions, and just walk them through their resume. By jumping around, I would try to break them of the preparation they had done for the interview so that I could see the real person. Sometimes, people would let the guard down so much, they would tell me things that they would never usually dream of telling someone in an interview (I once had a candidate tell me that he generally had a problem following orders, and never had any respect for any of the bosses for whom he had worked previously).

I would also do this to see how they would react. If someone was quick to get in a huff the first time something didn't seem to go quite as they would prefer, I knew that was someone that I probably wouldn't want to hire.

I don't do this anymore, it's not really appropriate for my current job, but if I ever went back to my old job, I'd probably dust this little chestnut off. I found it worked quite well.

*Okay, as an interviewee, if you are inclined to yell at people and tell them that they have to do what you consider important, please do let me know during the interview. Terminations are never fun.

Entering the Lion's Den

2010-02-02T16:19:00.000-05:00

On Thursday, I will be leading yet another seminar. This one might be the most difficult of all, as I will be speaking to a group of...

High School Students! (Gasp)

My company is taking on a co-op student this term, and the co-op teacher and I have decided that I will come in to their class for one afternoon to talk about interview skills and how not to lose a job once you get it (a skill many people need to learn... and one that the teacher thinks will be quite useful for her students).

It should be interesting. I've presented to professionals, peers, and university and college students, but never have I ventured into a high school.

We'll see how this goes.

Brainhunter Purchased by Zylog (Yeah, I'd never heard of them before, either.)

2010-02-02T11:19:00.001-05:00

Here's the skinny:

Chennai-based technology integrator Zylog has announced the acquisition of Canadian IT consulting and engineering staffing services Brainhunter for C$35 million to expand its footprint in Canada.

The acquisition came through a bidding process for Brainhunter under the Canadian Creditors Arrangement Act in which Zylog put in the winning bid.

Brainhunter has a major presence in government, telecom, BFSI, and oil and pipeline verticals. The rationale and strategic fitment of this acquisition is given below.

Zylog will gain from Brainhunter's ready access to a large talent pool, its over 1400 contractors and more than 400 diversified customer base with extensive preferred vendor relationship and a ready technology platform.

Tha acquisition would enable the two Zylog the potential to save costs on account of offshoring of contracts, sourcing contractors from India for non government businesses and reduction in non-billable staff.

after [sic] the closure of the transaction, Zylog plans to delist Brainhunter.

I don't have any strong feelings about this one way or another, nor am I sufficiently versed in the operations of Brainhunter to pass any judgements on the purchase. However, if this is going to keep Brainhunter's staff employed, then I'm all for it.

At the time of posting, Brainhunter's web site made no mention of the purchase.

In Praise of Pedantry

2010-01-25T13:50:00.001-05:00

I just returned from a seminar on proposal writing, and something that was mentioned really didn't sit right with me. Our presenter, who has significant qualifications, mentioned that spelling and grammar are important, but not that important. Further, he suggested that you didn't need someone to proofread your proposal. In his words, 'if it sound right to you, it's fine.'

Sadly, that is not fine, so I must object.

Now, I'm a little pedantic. How pedantic? Well, I use the word, pedantry. Be that as it may, there is a valid case for employing proper grammar and syntax... even for you non-pedants out there. Basically, the reason we have these rules of usage is so that everyone understands the meaning of each other's words. Language can be quite ambiguous. We rely on these rules to ensure that other people understand that which we write or say. It is not enough that you understand the meaning; to adapt a phrase, it must sound right to your audience.

There's a Murphy's Law-esque phenomenon that afflicts many writers; it suggests that whenever you write a blog post correcting someone's grammar, you are destined to commit, at minimum, one grammatical faux pas. Thus, I fully expect that there is some sort of mistake in this post.

And I will take such a mistake as further support for my argument.

The Mathematics of the Familial Millstone

2010-01-22T15:33:00.000-05:00

Evil HR Lady has an interesting letter from a reader seeking insight into a hiring decision her employer recently made. It seems there was a candidate that should have been hired but wasn't. It seems that she wasn't hired because her sister used to work for the company and left on bad terms. It seems that there could have been no other reason not to give this person a job offer.

'Seems' is an interesting word. It's a great way to kick off an investigation, but a lousy way to conclude one.

Here's what EHRL said (in part):

That said, unless you were in on the hiring discussions you can't know for sure that this happened. Why did they bring her in for an interview if they weren't going to hire her, based on her relative? That makes absolutely no sense. If they refused to interview her, the relationship could have been behind that, but have you checked the unemployment rates lately? Honestly, if I had 300 candidate resumes (not unusual lately) and one was the sister of the psychopath we had to fire two years ago, I wouldn't put her as my top choice unless her qualifications were so phenomenally above the other 299 people.

And that's my point right there: Yeah, it's possible that her relationship hurt her, but there are so many people for each available job that it's not likely the only reason.

Makes a lot of sense (as is to be expected from EHRL). However, I do not think EHRL went quite far enough. Sometimes, your personal and familial relationships are sufficient cause for not receiving a job offer (or in a situation I've seen, losing your job). It is completely, utterly, 100% unfair to the candidate.

But it'd be completely, utterly, 100% unfair to those doing the hiring to force them to be blind to everything but a person's resume.

There's an old trope about, well, pretty much everything, but it gets applied to recruiting from time to time: recruiting isn't a science; it's an art. Unfortunately, that's wrong. It's neither; recruiting is, at times, mathematics. It's risk/reward; it's balancing probabilities; it's playing the odds. It's constructing an intangible metric that will maximize the probability that you will produce successful hires. You can't do that by merely going through a checklist.

When constructing a team, ability, skills and experience are only part of the calculus. One must take into account the dynamics of the working environment. You've got to figure out if this new person will be a fit. Employees do not always function rationally. Their emotions guide them, and their productivity can be affected by endogenous and exogenous variables, tangible or not. If an employee's relative holds a grudge against the company, it's not preposterous to imagine it could have a negative impact on the employee's productivity. Further, it's not preposterous to think it could have a negative impact on the mood of the team, detracting from the productivity of the team as a whole.

Certainly, there's no guarantee that such an outcome would occur, but 'there's no guarantee that I will destroy the culture of your office' or 'it's possible that I won't be a huge distraction at work' are not valid reasons to hire anyone. As EHRL eludes to in her post, with two satisfactory candidates of similar experience and ability, why take the one that could become the office cancer.

As I mentioned, I have known people in this type of situation. It sucks; it really does. Judged solely through the eyes of the jilted candidate (who knows that she'd be a great employee and that there'd be no taint from a disgruntled relative) this is an egregious wrong. However, if we take away the certainty of it - and the hiring process is riddled with uncertainties - no longer does the hiring manager seem like such an ogre. If we step back, we see that the manager is just a person trying to deal with the imperfections of life.

The Case for (Seemingly) Unfounded Optimism

2010-01-21T16:07:00.000-05:00

A little over a week ago, a contract opportunity came out from a government agency. For a whole host of reasons, we didn't think we had much of a shot (short response time, some ultra-specific requirements, experienced competition, etc). Nonetheless, we did our due diligence, and we contacted probably 20 to 30 consultants. Of that, only three thought they would meet all the criteria for which our client was asking. And even then, one of them removed himself from contention just a few hours later.

So, I was down to two. Both were experienced, solid candidates, with whom we had previously worked. Eventually, we settled on one candidate to represent. We'd been given a handful of days to generate a proposal and time was slowly fading away on us.

Even our candidate had the same reservations about the viability of this opportunity. Nonetheless, like us, he decided to take a shot.

I knew - knew - that we weren't going to get this. I also knew that our candidate could do the job and could meet all the requirements. There was no internal conflict; these thoughts were completely reconcilable. Unfortunately, the reconciliation was obvious. The optimism could not win out.

The IT consulting market in Ottawa has been pretty dead for the past year. We have seen fewer and fewer opportunities, and more and more consultants desperate for work. Prices for consultants dropped rapidly, with senior consultants taking rates that intermediate consultants may have balked at in 2008. Firms are slashing mark ups; no more is the much sought after 18% to 20% margin realistic. Competition brought on by a buyer's market has brought everyone's expectations to Death Valley-like levels. Optimism is in short supply.

Had the market been better, optimism would have been an abundant commodity. The most public of public goods, it would have been for all and for as much as anyone desired.

Time ran out on me for this proposal. I worked with our candidate. We covered all the requirements and ensured that he was satisfactory. We began building and formatting the proposal. But time was scarce. We'd been given so little time to respond that any snags were giant setbacks. We approached the deadline and there was much more that I wanted to do to make the proposal perfect. Don't get me wrong, it was fine; it was satisfactory. I wanted it to be perfect. (Did I mention the state of the market?)

Had the market been better, we'd have had no worry about this opportunity. Upon seeing all the challenges and disincentives to respond, we would have disregarded this request, instead working on requests from other clients - requests that seemed viable.

Had the market been better, we never would have won this contract. Score one for the contrarian case for optimism.

Labour Board Karma*

2010-01-21T13:07:00.004-05:00

A few months ago, I mentioned that one of our former employees launched a complaint against us with the Ministry of Labour (yet still thought it wise to come visit us and pretend like everything was just fine). I won't get into the specifics of the case, but this employee was let go for cause. There's really no way an impartial juror could think otherwise. Nonetheless, we didn't want to take any chances, and we knew that our former employee made a very sympathetic figure.

Consequently, I spent weeks preparing our case. I went through email logs, financial records, computer files and personnel files. It took quite a while, but I was able to present the labour board with a response that consisted of, approximately, 80 pages. Through her complaint, among other issues, the former employee had put a tremendous administrative strain on our office. No ethereal form of justice could possibly allow a finding against us.

Today we received a response. Justice, you'll be happy to know, is alive and well.

*And, yes, before Mrs. JMR, a student of theology, objects, I know that this is totally not what Karma is. I just wanted a title.

The Unfolding Mystery of the ESA: Bill 139

2010-01-19T16:09:00.000-05:00

Temporary Help.

Say it. Say it so many times that it has lost all meaning. Say it until the permanence of opacity. Say it one more time. Now you know the effect of Bill 139 on the consulting industry.

I don't mean that to be flippant or derogatory; I just mean that this bill has been passed with very poor definitions. In certain situations, the meaning is clear. If you run a temp agency, the bill applies; if you run a consulting agency, well, then maybe it applies, depending on a four test common law application, depending on the integration, dependency, control, appearance, whether we apply Sagaz or Re Becker Milk Co... (mumbles and trails off incoherently).

Okay, to begin with, a quick background. Bill 139 attempts to give temporary workers the same rights and protections afforded by law to permanent employees. This means such things as receiving holiday pay, vacation pay and notice of termination (or payment in lieu). It also means that after six months, the temporary help agency cannot prevent the client from hiring the temporary worker as a permanent employee. So far, so good. Well, one could rightfully debate the merit of the bill, but I think we all get the basic idea: temps need protection from exploitation (that's the non-cynical explanation and, for the purposes of this post, I'm going to run with it).

The problem comes with firms, like my current employer, who are not really temporary help agencies. We are not body shops that farm out desperate low-skilled workers. We do not trade in what is the generally perceived definition of a temp. We trade in the services of highly skilled (and deservedly highly paid) professionals.

Unfortunately, it is unclear if Bill 139 makes such a distinction (though, for some reason, it makes an explicit exception for home-care professionals... I have no idea why). It could be that this new law will make all or most consultants employees. Unfortunately, there is no way to know this. Neither the ESA nor the Ministry of Labour is willing to make a definitive statement as to what constitutes an employee. To a certain extent, this is understandable. Employment and work dynamics are changing so much these days that rules that had been in place for decades may no longer be applicable. Attempting to define 'employees' may be near impossible.

In Ontario's common law, there are numerous tests and criteria that are laid out to make such a determination. Unfortunately, none of the tests are considered definitive and the list of criteria is not considered to be exhaustive. The common law does not give appropriate guidance to firms and consultants. Worse yet, Bill 139 seems to be, at least in part, an attempt to codify the common law. Institutionalized Uncertainty: it's all the rage at Queen's Park this season.

One blog post is not sufficient space to fully explore all the issues surrounding Bill 139, but I will leave you with one final thought: The Ministry of Labour has responded to an inquiry I made about the nature of employment of an independent consultant; an agent of the Ministry wrote, "[s]uch a ruling can only be made by an Employment Standards Officer following an investigation into a complaint, by an arbitrator when a grievance has been filed by an employee..."

So, the only way to determine if a consultant is an employee is to lose a complaint lodged against you through the Ministry of Labour. For those companies who wish to abide by the law, this is of little comfort.

Stay tuned...

I Really Should See this Movie

2010-01-18T11:58:00.001-05:00

These days, I don't have a lot of time to pay attention to what movies are playing. Mrs. JMR and I have a lot of other commitments, and, generally, those things we do for fun are going to be toddler-appropriate. Consequently, I didn't pay much attention when the recent George Clooney flick, Up In The Air, was released. It wasn't until a few weeks ago that I learned that it was about something near and dear to my heart, sacking people.

From what I've read, it's a quirky movie that's more about human connections than employee terminations (and understandably so). And, apparently, it's pretty good, having just won the Golden Globe for best screenplay, and employing (no pun intended) one of the more amiable actors working today. Aside from all this, I'm interested to see how they deal with someone who's job it is to terminate people. It's been my experience that there is a general misunderstanding of the realm of employee terminations. I have been involved in the terminations of probably 20 to 30 people - certainly not a lot, but enough to gain a little insight into process.

Conducting terminations isn't easy, and it certainly isn't for everyone. It requires a seemingly paradoxical mix of empathy, detachment and the possession of a thick skin. To be properly motivated, one has to keep in mind the big picture, the fact that properly conducted terminations positively affect the workings of the company; to be efficient and effective, one has to remained focus on the narrowly-defined issues at hand, not allowing the employee to derail the process.

In the past, I have willingly taken on the role of terminating employees. I have done this because I was confident that I could handle the situation with tact, ensuring a respectful termination for the employee while also safeguarding the interests of the company. In fact, I'd be willing to have an Up In The Air-type job. I would have no problem being employed to terminate people... as long as I was also able to guide the company in their processes that lead to termination. Properly employed, such processes should benefit everyone at the company. They should lead to fewer terminations, and that's what every company should want.

So, maybe, in the coming months I'll watch the movie. And maybe I'll start a new feature at JMR, movie reviews.

Twitter Works

2009-12-02T16:42:00.001-05:00

In case you don't know what Twitter is, it's a social networking site that allows you to send out 140 character messages to - well - the world, if you will. Occasionally, I'll send out a tweet (that is the term for a Twitter message) about a new opportunity we have. Generally, these seem to go unnoticed.

But not today. Yesterday, I tweeted about an Information Architect position we have, and today I received an email from a candidate who read the tweet. I'm calling this a success.

If you want to follow me on Twitter, I can be found as jmrecruiting.

You are What You Do

2009-11-30T16:28:00.000-05:00

I have no formal training in Human Resources or Recruiting. In past jobs, I just gravitated towards such duties, and decided that this would be the realm that I would pursue for my career. When I worked as an HR Generalist (I didn't have that title, but it was, essentially, what I did), many people I worked with were surprised that I had no educational background in HR. It seems most HR jobs require some sort of certification.

I don't know if this is a good thing or a bad thing, but it's likely a mixed bag.

Along those lines, Laurie at Punk Rock HR notes that she has been taken to task for 'masquerading' as an HR professional:

I haven’t held a job in Corporate HR in over two years.

As I explained to Peter Clayton on Total Picture Radio, I left Pfizer in 2007. We planned on moving down to North Carolina and I had every intention of finding a real job. Seriously. I have a spreadsheet that outlines every job I’ve applied for during the past two years.

Then this blog happened and I developed a personal brand — something that never really happens to HR Generalists and Recruiters. I became known as a woman who provides common sense career advice from the perspective of a disaffected HR professional. I also became known as a crazy cat lady. Both observations are true.

Unfortunately, I was recently advised to drop the moniker of Human Resources professional. I was told, “You’re no longer a Human Resources generalist and you don’t recruit, anymore. You’re a critic and you give out career advice. No offense, but you are not HR.”

Peruse her blog. You'll see that this complaint is complete bunk. Laurie is an HR professional - and a better one than many I've seen actually serving as such in a corporate HR department.

As I was working as a QA specialist, I returned to university to study economics. I wasn't, necessarily, planning to get out of IT, but I liked studying economics. My professor - long-tenured, congenial and disdainful of gate-keepers of acceptable opinion (and who was friends with the head of the Bank of Canada at the time) - asked me, after class, what I did. I explained that I was in IT and just taking some more courses. He felt I should focus on economics because I seemed to be a fit for it.

My professor never felt that a title, an accreditation or a particular job defined anyone or anyone's place in a field. It was one's aptitude, performance and output that made such a determination. By those standards, Laurie is a leader in HR. By those standards, I confidently consider myself a part of the field.

I can think of many examples where people allow the categories and definitions of others to determine what they are or what they are not. It is no way to succeed and it is no way to build a career. If there is something you think you can do, you should not worry about artificial barriers that others erect. If you find yourself with the opportunity to perform, perform.

What's My Name? Personal Branding ed.

2009-11-26T16:27:00.000-05:00

People I meet regularly ask me if I prefer Jonathan or Jon. I always tell them I have no preference. Most people, and most/all of my family, call me Jon; it's what I tend to go by in a casual environment.

Professionally/officially, I use Jonathan. All business cards, email addresses and resumes display Jonathan. When I write emails to consultants or clients, I tend to sign off, 'Jonathan'. However, once I develop a bit of a relationship with someone, often resulting in more casual messages, I may revert to 'Jon'.

This is not just laziness (though typing three letters is easier than typing eight). It seems to me that switching to a short form adds a personal touch. It signals that you've moved past experiencing someone just as a potential candidate or client, and that you have made some sort of connection with them. Though I spend about 173% of my work day in front of a computer screen, personal connections are important.

More than that, there is an element of branding involved. Professionally, I am not Jon McLeod*; I am Jonathan McLeod. It may seem unimportant, but it lends clarity and consistency to my professional life - two attributes that, generally, I have found quite important throughout my work history.

But getting back to the matter of the personal connection: upon creating this professional "brand", breaking it down and introducing a nickname can be very important. Customers want to feel that they are valued. Dedicated customers want to feel that they are especially valued. There's not a whole lot that I can offer, but a I can offer a personal connection.

So, if you see me, feel free to call me 'Jon'.

*I hardly ever write or say 'Jon McLeod'. The truncated first name preceding the last name always rings quite odd (except when a few people - who have been employing it for years - say it). Just another reason that I pretty much exclusively go with Jonathan in any official setting.

Helping a Friend: The (Potential) Joys of Recruiting

2009-11-24T16:22:00.000-05:00

Last week, I was contacted by a potential candidate with a very familiar name. It was, in fact, someone with whom I had gone to school for about nine years. I hadn't seen her since high school ended, and it was nice to get back in touch.

She has spent the bulk of the last fifteen years in Waterloo, and has only recently returned to Ottawa. Looking over her resume, it struck me that her life has followed a similar path to mine (not that great a surprise, as we had similar academic aptitudes and extra-curricular interests while in school). She has a solid background in technical writing (having spent a number of years at RIM), but finds her career at a bit of a crossroads (which is likely aggravated by the return home). Unfortunately, her experience lies in the private sector, and my company tends to work exclusively with the public sector, so I'm not sure if we'll be able to land her a contract.

Nonetheless, I am determined to help my friend get a good job and rejuvenate her career. I'm not sure how I will do it, but I will try. I am going to send her all the information I have regarding job searching and potential companies in Ottawa to target. I'm also going to put her in touch with some friends who have similar career trajectories to what she desires.

I've always said that the best part about being a recruiter is that my job is to get other people jobs. Such an activity can be extremely satisfying. Now, I just have to be able to use my powers to help a friend.

The bulk of her professional experience is in technical writing, but she is looking to move past that, ideally, into more of a communication writing role. She has experience doing PR, contributing to Zines and writing fiction. She also enjoys working with the public, and is open to receptionist/office administration positions. From what I know of her and her experience, she'd be a great pick up for anyone who needs an office administrator who can also draft documents and edit copy. Despite her experience, she has no conceits and is open to junior positions.

So, here's where we I look to my dear readers for help. Advice, guidance, opportunities: if you have any please do not hesitate to leave a comment.

The Pain of the Google Interview

2009-11-18T15:03:00.000-05:00

The Business Insider tells the horror story of one new grad's interview with Google:

About ten minutes in, Oliver turned the tables. “I’m going to ask you a few questions that may sound strange,” he premised. I paused. Is there really any good response to a comment like that? He seemed to read my mind because he elaborated: “These questions are meant to test your analytical thinking.” Oh no. He was about to ask me the famous, ridiculously impossible Google questions I had been reading about online.

It's an fun read, and reminds me of a rather poor interview I once had with Cognos. Needless to say, I never got a job at Cognos.

Perhaps I should alter my interviewing style. Maybe it'd be good to start throwing in some Googlesque questions. I probably won't; I'd probably wind up feeling a bad for my victim.

By the way, if you want a sample of some Google interview questions, go here. I haven't gone through all the questions yet because I'm not in the mood to feel stupid.

Bragging, Lying and Writing a Resume

2009-11-17T14:02:00.000-05:00

About a month ago, Mrs. JMR applied* for a new job, one for which she was eminently qualified. The challenge came in demonstrating just how qualified she was. It had been a while since she had actively looked for a job, so it had been a while since she had updated her resume. Since the new job is of a different nature than most of her recent jobs, she decided to write a new resume. Like most of the world, she hates writing her resume, so she asked me to go over it before she sent it in.

This brought up an issue that was raised at the Q&A panel I attended a couple of months ago. I felt Mrs. JMR was not fully describing her role in a previous job. She didn't want to egregiously pad her resume. So, the question is, when describing your past experience, at what point does highlighting your qualifications become bragging and at what point does it all become lying?

The question centred around her experience as an assistant dance teacher (the new job is Youth Worker, so this experience was applicable). She was hesitant to claim to have taught dance, because she wasn't the teacher. I felt that she should say she taught dance, because from what she described, she was instructing the kids on how to dance... even if she wasn't necessarily doing the choreography or designing the lesson plan.

Similarly, when I began as a technical recruiter, I was assisting my boss. I was learning the trade and getting accustomed to the processes and methods of recruiting. Legitimately, I could say that I was recruiting. Had I been looking for a job at the time, I should have made clear that I was quite junior, but there would have been no need to downgrade my experience.

Still, one must be careful when writing a resume or answering questions in an interview. Although you should take ownership of all the tasks that you did in a previous job, and should make sure to present the facts in the best possible light, ensuring they support your objective, you do not want to get caught lying. Many hiring managers are subject manager experts, or will have SMEs sit in on an interview. They will be able to catch your embellishments, and if they do, that'll probably be it for your candidacy... even if you were actually qualified.

It can be quite a difficult game, job searching. Excessive modesty will limit your opportunities. Dishonesty will do much the same.

*Yes, I have put off completing this post for so long that she now has the job and I have had to change all the grammar to the past tense.

How not to Introduce Yourself to a Recruiter

2009-11-16T15:06:00.000-05:00

I received an email today from a candidate for a Business Systems Analyst. The first line read:

I am a devoted Christian who believes in hardwork, honesty and transparency,because i believe we will all die one day and give accounts of our stewardship to God.

I'm not really sure what to do with that.

When interviewing candidates, I often have people who begin telling me about their family life, their medical history or their faith - all things about which I am not allowed legally to ask. It is only in the rarest of circumstances that it would be appropriate for a recruiter to ask about these things. Correspondingly, I am often quite uncomfortable when people bring these subjects up, especially the matters of faith and health.

Here's why: In Canada, it is (or should be) fairly common knowledge that potential employers are not allowed to ask these questions, nor are they allowed to hire people on the basis of the answers. Bringing up your faith demonstrates that you have no regard for the situation I am in, and no regard for the predicament that you are causing for me. Such blissful ignorance will not serve you well should you find yourself employed and expected to function as part of a time.

Further, it is thoroughly unprofessional. One's faith has little or nothing to do with the job at hand - doing enterprise scale .NET development. If you can't keep focus during a 20 minute interview (or an email written in about 30 seconds), what 'faith' should I have that you will be able to remain focused through the course of your work day?

I would certainly never hire someone for reasons based on their family life, health or religious beliefs, but if you decide to bring them into the hiring calculus, don't be surprised if that decision turns out to be a mark against you.

By the way, the guy who emailed me was unqualified and lives in another country, so I couldn't present him to my client anyway. This could mean that the error was a cultural issue. Nonetheless, I have encountered this phenomenon with many people born and raised in Canada, so I stand by the intent of this post (and how do I know that they were born and raised in Canada...).

On Punctuality, Arriving Early and Not Getting a Job

2009-11-16T10:15:00.000-05:00

Everybody knows - or should know - that arriving late for an interview will harm (or kill) your chances of landing the job. However, many people do not understand that arriving too early can be equally harmful. The getpickd blog has a great, succinct explanation:

Why is arriving too early a blow to your chances of winning the job? The answer is quite simple. One of the primary goals of the interview process is to determine a prospective candidate’s understanding of, and ability to operate within, the norms of a professional environment. One of those norms is an understanding of how your actions impact others around you and your respect for your co-workers schedules and time.

The lesson? Arrive five to ten minutes early for an interview. If you arrive earlier than that, wait before you go in.

My First "Real Job" Was in QA, or, Testing Despair

2009-11-12T10:43:00.002-05:00

Coming out of school, trained as a software/web developer, my first job was working as a Quality Assurance Specialist for a local web company, non~linear creations. It was a pretty good job (though it was in 2000-2001, just as the tech bubble was about to burst), and I enjoyed working in QA.

My career has taken a few turns since then, and it is highly unlikely that I'll ever be a tester again... and considering the current state of my inbox and voicemail, that's probably a good thing.

We currently have an opportunity for a tester. I have a lot of applicants. I have a lot of applicants following up. I have a lot applicants following up a lot. In the past 18 months, I haven't had a lot of opportunities for testers, so I don't know if this situation is typical, or if it emblematic of the struggles that testers are having in the current job market.

My gut feeling is that when companies fall on hard times, the QA department is one of the first to go (often after the recruiting department). You can have your developers test each other's work, and considering that there might not be a whole lot of business coming in, they'll probably have the time to do that. Consequently, testers are seen as redundant.

This would make a lot of sense, but it won't, necessarily, be good for the long term health of a company. Just as the particular expertise that recruiters offer is valuable, so, too, is the particular expertise offered by testers.

By the way, if my old boss at non~linear is any indication, being a professional musician offers more job security than being in QA.

"What Kind of Recession Employee are You?"

2009-11-11T15:05:00.000-05:00

Writing in The Financial Post, Eric Lam notes the various kinds of employees that exist in the current recession:

See where you fall on the sliding scale of recessionary employee archetypes identified by Douglas Reid, an associate professor of global business at Queen's School of Business, listed below in order of optimism — or cynicism (commentary in italics, to help you along):
The Engaged: the core of a company's renewal efforts. They understand the consequences of the recession and what needs to be done to help the business recover. If you fall under this category, you're a better person than most of us.
The Delighted: high performers who delight in the improvement in their situation relative to the average consumer via sales and discounts in the marketplace. It's not gloating if you keep it to yourself, apparently.
The Indifferent: this group is watching the recession occur and believe it is going to affect someone else. If I don't see it, it's not a recession!
The Longers: hoping for a severance package and optimistic they'll obtain rapid alternative employment. Turns out it is possible to be both cynical and optimistic. Go figure.
The Fearful: these employees believe they will be cut next. They are ready to search for a new job but cling tenaciously to whatever certainty their existing situation affords. As the poster says, Hang in there, kitten!
The Apocalyptic: a small group that believes that the recession presents a necessary "reset" for a myriad list of failures in the existing system of capitalism. Aluminum hats? Not so nuts after all.
The Terminated: while not physically present in the organization, their memories linger and affect those that stay. Especially if you leave something in the fridge.

I'd like to think that I'm part of The Engaged, though I don't claim to know what needs to be done to get my company through this recession. I understand my role, but I'm putting a lot of faith in other people, as well.

In a sense, I'm part of The Delighted. I'm happy to have a job, though I'm not happy that my relative well-being has increased because the actual well-being of so many has decreased (part of the reason I have little use for such concepts as 'relative well-being'). However, I am confident that my company will weather this recession and come out all the stronger. As Tom Sweeney wrote, "...I can foresee the need for requirement – on the large scale – once the economy comes back around and starts growing again. The challenge for many will simply to be around once that curve starts to climb." I'm going to be around for that climb.

As for The Terminated, we definitely have some ghosts in our office. I don't know when they plan to leave or if we'll need to call in a priest.

So, under what category do my readers fall?

(H/T: Jonathan Chevreau via Recruiting Animal.)

Does Recruiter = Slave Trader?

2009-11-10T15:28:00.000-05:00

Well, it might in South Africa:

Parliament's labour committee head, Lumka Yengeni, yesterday lashed out at labour brokers, likening them to drug dealers and slave traders.

“Nobody wants to be labelled an exploiter but you do exploit. It is a fact and it’s the worst form of exploitation – it is slavery,” Yengeni said.

This after various labour brokers told parliament that they were key to job creation, and that they provided skills for workers at their own expense.

I can't provide comment on the goings-on within South Africa, but I can comment on the industry in Canada. It should be obvious to anyone familiar with the industry that recruiting firms within Canada are neither slave traders nor drug dealers. Further, there is no more of a similarity between recruiters and these disreputable industries than there is between Girl Guides and the aforementioned industries.

(In fact, since Girl Guides use children to sell their wares, and do not seem to have the same burdens of accounting as recruiting firms, you might say they're more like drug dealers than we are. I wouldn't say that, but you might.)

This might seem like a pointless rant (and a tasteless joke at the Girl Guides' expense), but it's not, at least not entirely. There is, often, a sense that recruiting firms are parasitic: attaching ourselves to the job market, sucking out some profit, and offering nothing in return. Further, some recruiting firms are underhanded. They try to manipulate the market, don't always negotiate in good faith and look for some inside information to exploit. This doesn't mean we're evil; it just means we're like every other industry.

Moreover, we do offer value. We offer expertise in finding jobs, interview techniques and resume writing. We are the subject matter experts when it comes to our clients' needs and our consultants' abilities, and we're able to match these two when the individual actors might not.

Some of us even do some of these things for free.

It's very easy to ignore what we add. In fact, when we do our jobs really well, we might be hardly noticeable. However, to think we're dispensable is erroneous. As Adam Smith wrote:

The greatest improvement in the productive powers of labour, and the greater part of the skill, dexterity, and judgment with which it is any where directed, or applied, seem to have been the effects of the division of labour.

We're just one such division of labour... just like everybody else.

(H/T: Rayanne.)

Printing... Two Days Ahead of Schedule

2009-11-05T10:20:00.000-05:00

Recently, I've been working on a labour report. The final presentation is Monday morning, but I've already finalized the report, and it's off getting printed as I type. I'm quite pleased that I won't be running around at the last minute putting together each copy.

Take that, Parkinson's Law!

In Need of a Software Development Team

2009-11-04T09:50:00.000-05:00

We have a client that needs a development team of about six or seven. If you're looking for a contract, and might be interested, please let me know.

Here are the positions we're looking for (links go to specific job ads):

Programmer/Software Developer
Programmer Analyst
Business Systems Analyst
Tester
Technical Writer

Even if you're not looking, we offer a finders fee if you recommend a successful candidate.

The positions are in the Ottawa ON region. They're with the federal government, so they all require Government of Canada security clearance. They don't require bilingualism.

I can be reached through this blog or at jonathan.mcleod@microtime-it.com.

I have no idea how it got to be 4:00 pm so quickly.

2009-11-03T16:12:00.000-05:00

My labour report is, essentially, completed (just need to make copies of the report), but I have a number of job postings that I have to advertise. It's already past 4:00. I hope I'm not here too late completing this.

I'll be glad when the labour report is presented and I can get back to focusing on recruiting.

...and yes, I know; if I'm so short on time, I shouldn't be blogging. I'll stop now.

The Peculiarity of Shipbuilding and the Employment Standards Act

2009-11-03T11:28:00.001-05:00

As some may recall, I'm a bit of an HR nerd. I enjoy learning the intricacies of Ontario's Employment Standards Act, and contrasting them with the conventional wisdom. This post, however, will just point out a seemingly odd amendment to the act.

I'm doing some work-related research regarding termination (I may expand on that at a later date), and in so doing, I came across this interesting tidbit from Ontario Regulation 288/01:

Employees not entitled to notice of termination or termination pay

2. (1) The following employees are prescribed for the purposes of section 55 of the Act as employees who are not entitled to notice of termination or termination pay under Part XV of the Act:
...
12. An employee,
i. whose employer is engaged in the building, alteration or repair of a ship or vessel with a gross tonnage of over ten tons designed for or used in commercial navigation...

Huh.

I am sufficiently ignorant of the nature of shipbuilding to understand why an employee working on a vessel with gross tonnage of exactly ten tons deserves notice of termination, but an employee working on a vessel with gross tonnage just slightly over ten tons does not.

Anyone care to explain?

Maximizing the Marginal Revenue of Candy

2009-10-28T11:43:00.001-04:00

Writing in the Digits blog for The Wall Street Journal, Geoffrey A. Fowler notes a fabulous new use of crowdsourcing:

The folks at Zillow.com have created their first Trick or Treat Housing Index, which draws on the site’s real estate data to determine the top-five neighborhoods in Seattle and Los Angeles to maximize candy intake this Saturday.

How’d they do that? “There is a common belief that wealthy neighborhoods are the Holy Grail for harvesting the most Halloween candy,” blogs Zillow’s Whitney Tyner. But to provide what it calls a more holistic approach, Zillow factored in home values alongside additional data on population density, neighborhood walkability, and local crime. “Based on those variables, this Index represents neighborhoods that will provide the most candy, with the least walking, and minimum safety risks,” she wrote.

I'm doing my best to stay up on social networking and new ways to use technology to benefit both the masses and me. Once this service comes to Ottawa, I think we will have reached the pinnacle of the utility of new technology.

At least, I'm sure my daughter will think so.

(H/T: Radley Balko.)

Labour Board Etiquette

2009-10-08T15:04:00.000-04:00

Months back, my company released an employee. There was ample reason, and she had been given many warnings and opportunities to improve. She never did, so, sayonara. We knew that she might be the type of person to file a grievance with the labour board, so we made sure that we had everything properly documented. Though we assumed she would complain, we also knew she had no reason to complain.

And this morning we received a message from the labour board confirming our suspicions.

And less than an hour later, she showed up at the office to say "hi" to everyone. I am not kidding; less than two weeks ago she filed a complaint against us and this morning she was all sunshine and lollipops as she visited.

The issue will easily be resolved in our favour. We have a wealth of HR experience in our office and we consulted the labour board before we took any drastic measures. She will be rather surprised when my boss and I show up at the hearing and demonstrate just all the ways she let us down as an employee.

The thing is, we have a small office. We are owned by a large multi-national, but there were never more than five of us who worked in the office in Ottawa. She might think she is only going after the head office, but the tasks associated with this naturally fall on the representatives in Ottawa.

Oh, and did I mention that she asked to be called when the owners are back in town; she'd love to see them again. It was shocking; she was bringing action against these people, but also wants to be their friend.

So, here's my advice for anyone who will be lodging a complaint with the labour board: don't try to be friends with people against whom you are bringing action. (Let's call it, 'Jonathan's Law').

I can't believe that it would even be necessary to explain this. Well... I can believe it... but it'd be nice to be unable to believe it.

What's Your Best Offer?

2009-10-05T16:34:00.000-04:00

Working for a consulting company, negotiating pay rates with consultants is a regular part of my job. It's not my favourite part (at all), but it's gotta be done. Unfortunately, there are a lot of unethical companies out there; consequently, a lot of consultants are wary when it comes time to negotiate. This wariness overtakes them and rather than negotiate they ask for our best offer, and they'll either take it or leave it. I don't blame them (I really don't blame them, companies can be ruthless), but this isn't a question I can necessarily answer.

For much of our contracting work, our company has rate ceilings that are locked in with our main client - the federal government. Though we can't go any higher, we can often offer discounts. Generally speaking, we want to offer discounts. The environment today is incredibly competitive, and we're competing on price as much as we are on quality of proposal. Even if we had the leeway to offer the moon, we wouldn't want to as there would be little chance that our proposal would win.

However, if I explain this, a consultant might only hear me obfuscating - refusing to answer a straightforward question in the attempt to wring as much profit out of the proposal. Such an inference is reasonable (and, when dealing with some companies, accurate). So, when faced with such a blunt question, I give a definite answer, but - here's the thing - in all likelihood, I won't actually give the person the best offer I possibly could.

I'm not trying to play games, and I'm not being spiteful. On the aggregate, giving out "the best offer we can" is not feasible for the company. With our fixed and variable costs, there is a particular margin we need to maintain on our bids (granted, a lower percentage margin can be better if it leads to larger gross margin across the board). This does not mean that each proposal we send out must have the same margin (either in percentage or actual income). We'll never take a loss, but sometimes we'll make very very little profit if the circumstances dictate It's better that than no income at all, but I'd be making no friends with my supervisors if that was how I always operated.

When cornered, I have to balance the demands of the company and the demands of the particular proposal. Likely, the result will be a sub-optimal proposal or a sub-optimal rate for the consultant. It also means that if I am dealing with multiple consultants for one opportunity, someone with more flexibility will have a greater chance winning the day.

There doesn't seem to be an ideal solution to this. I could try to engage the consultant in negotiations anyway, but I can't tell them that I am giving them my best offer and then come back with a better offer; that will play into their existing suspicion of consulting firms.

The best of times, generally with consultants with whom I have an established relationship, there will be no debates about the pay rate; there will be a discussion. When consultants are unwilling to discuss the rate, I will give them best offer I can, considering the constraints they are placing on me.

But when we don't discuss the rate, odds are none of us will wind up too happy.

Another Day, Another Carleton University Event

2009-10-05T14:03:00.000-04:00

I seem to spending more time at the old school that I did during undergrad. Anyway, Carleton will be having two job fairs this week, and, again, anyone from Carleton who reads this blog should stop by an say hi.

Here are the details:
Fall Career Fair
October 6 & 7, 2009
University Centre Galleria
10:00 am - 3:00 pm

I'll be at the Microtime booth on Tuesday October 6 (we're only going the one day). It should be a fun time.

Basic Netiquette

2009-10-05T13:21:00.000-04:00

For those who don't know, 'netiquette' is a term for internet etiquette. Essentially, it is a guideline for not being rude in your virtual encounters. Being in an industry (and world) that relies so heavily on electronic communication, netiquette is quite important. Recently at work, issues regarding netiquette have come up. I won't bother going into great detail, but here are a few helpful hints:

WRITING IN ALL CAPITALS means you are yelling. There's pretty much no way around this. No matter what you think you are achieving, the result is the same. The person reading your message will take it for boorish behaviour.

Writing in bold is only properly employed in very specific circumstances (say, headings or maybe an email signature). Interspersed in the body of an email will come off as insulting or impolite.

Underlining words and sentences in the body of a message does not, merely, emphasize your point, it makes you appear condescending (and, again, boorish).

Writing in a different font colour achieves the same thing as writing in bold and underlining.

WRITING IN ALL CAPS, IN BOLD, UNDERLINED, IN A DIFFERENT COLOUR is ill advised unless you are notifying everyone that we've moved to DEFCON 1. If you want to emphasize something, try italics, or just write it and assume that the person to whom you are writing isn't a complete idiot.

Supertrain: Lessons From a Failed TV Show

2009-10-02T15:05:00.000-04:00

A few weeks ago, I watched an episode of Make or Break TV that told the story of Supertrain, a show that is regarded as one of the biggest TV flops of all time (it almost sunk NBC). I won't get into the whole story (which was pretty interesting), but a few things stuck out from an HR/recruiting standpoint*.

Fred Silverman was brought in to rescue NBC. He was a successful TV exec, who was a part of such shows as Charlie's Angels, The Love Boat and Three's Company (all of which were favourites when I was growing up). He was some sort of TV Midas, bringing success to all his endeavours. He was a natural choice to save the peacock. (Actually, NBC had gotten so off track that they'd abandoned the peacock. Silverman brought it back; for that alone he should be lauded.)

Unfortunately, Silverman had never been in a position where he had complete authority. In previous roles, he was always answerable to someone else. From the way the episode told it, Silverman was finally free to have the final say, and that final say included Supertrain. This is not an uncommon occurrence, at least if my experience is at all representative. People are rightfully elevated to new positions based on merit, but you can't always know how someone will react to new found powers. In such situations, oversight from some other authority is invaluable. Taking the whiz kid and setting him loose on your organization can have dramatic effects. This is not to suggest that companies should never take such chances - they certainly should - but some form of risk management (say in the form of an experienced consultant or mentor who can sit back and keep an eye on things) is prudent, lest you want your own "Supertrain".

Further, merit-based promotion is good (and certainly better than seniority-based promotion), but when judging the merit of various candidates, one must keep in mind not just the job that the candidates have done, but the job they will be asked to do. A mid-level manager who excels as a mid-level manager will not necessarily excel as a senior manager. The respective skills of each position could be quite different.

As an example, at a web company for which I used to work, the Vice President of development was promoted into the role (as the company expanded and required a VP of development) because he was the ranking (and best) developer the company had. He had the best programming chops, and he had a very good eye for new technologies that were about to blow up. Unfortunately, in his capacity as VP, his main role was to build the development team and make sure they stayed on track. His technical expertise was a minor aspect (both in terms of the time spent doing it, and the importance to the company). This man was not great at building or leading a team. From what I could tell, he had little leadership or managerial experience and, at times, it really showed. As the visionary VP, he was great. As the day to day team leader, he wasn't.

[As a post script, by the time I left that company they had laid off more than 50% of their employees (myself included) and were on the verge of insolvency (though they have since turned that around). The lack of a strong development team was a big factor.]

Finally, the importance of delegation was on display in the story of Supertrain - and this has nothing to do with Fred Silverman (and I feel bad that it seemed like I was picking on him; that wasn't my intent). One of the creators of the show (I can't remember his name) was a driving force behind everything to do with Supertrain. He was writing scripts (or re-writing them). He was directing episodes. He was dealing with casting, production matters and set design. This one man had his hand in just about everything.

Years ago when I was managing a wine store, our district managers asked all store managers to draw a pie chart depicting how much of their time was dedicated to work. I thought to myself, well a 40 hour work week, divided by 168 hours, equals about 25%. I thought this would be a little low considering all the unofficial hours I put in, so I upped to 30%. I figured I'd have one of the lowest numbers, knowing how dedicated/controlling some other managers were, but I thought I was in the right ballpark.

Wow, was I wrong.

Two other managers had numbers around 33% and 35%. Everyone else was over 50% (there were probably about 12 of us). One woman was at 75% (she was a great manager) - she was a workaholic and, apparently, was always thinking about her store no matter what she was doing.

Here's the thing, the two other managers with low numbers were probably the best managers we had. They had the best sales numbers, and their staffs adored them. The more we discussed this situation, the more we learned that most of the managers with really high numbers just didn't trust their employees with any responsibility. They also never challenged their employees with new tasks. Their stores suffered. Their employees suffered. Their personal lives suffered.

I was new to managing at the time, but I had already learned that the strength of my stores (most of us managed two stores) was always going to be my staff. Further, I knew that I could consider myself a good manager when I had multiple people at each store who could step in and do my job at a moment's notice. Where other managers were threatened by successful subordinates, I yearned for it. I wanted to seem redundant in my stores.

I was trained by the guy who noted 33% of his time was spent working. He was a big believer in delegation. He knew that it made his staff better, and he knew that it made his store more successful. As he mentored me, he made sure that I understood how important delegation was. It wasn't that he was lazy (he most certainly wasn't); it was that he could see the big picture. Further, he knew that his staff was a reflection of him, and that if his supervisors saw a strong and determined team, they would know that it was because he was a very capable leader.

Poor managers try to belittle their staff. They want everyone to know that they are the competent ones and their staff would be lost without them. They don't understand that this stance (and it is little more than posturing) will bring them little success in the long run and expose them for the inferior managers that they are.

Who says you can't learn anything from TV?

*ED NOTE: I am responding to claims that were made on the program; I am not commenting on the veracity of those claims.

So, tell me a little bit about yourself.

2009-10-01T15:56:00.000-04:00

Q&A Panel Question #2

At the panel last night, a student asked each of us to speak on questions that interviewees tend to flub. I won't go into all of them (I don't actually remember everything that was said, sorry), but here's my answer.

So, tell me a little bit about yourself. (Granted, it's not really a question, but a command, still, go with me on this.)

This is how I often start interviews. It's not a particularly deep question, and it really shouldn't be too tricky. However, recently, I have found that about three quarters of candidates can't string together an appropriate answer.

One point that came up multiple times last night (and which I have harped on in the past) is the need to have some sort of strategy or focus. In an interview (and in your resume) you are marketing yourself; you are branding yourself. You need to have some sort of idea of what you want to present to people making decisions about hiring. By asking you to talk about yourself, I am holding open a big wide door for you to shove your strategy right through. Tell me about yourself: I'm just begging for you to tell me all of your strengths, your desires, everything that would make you an asset to my company; all you need to do is offer up a semi-coherent value proposition.

But what do I tend to learn about:

Your dog;
Your family;
That you raise horses in your spare time;
Your ultimate frisbee team;
That you're looking for a job; etc.

Personal interests are great, and they could even be useful in selling yourself to a company. Details of your job search could be persuasive if they demonstrate what it is you're trying to achieve in your career. For the most part, though, these types of answers aren't telling me very much... well not much that you want them to tell me.

If, in telling me about yourself, you focus on your family life, well, then I know what you'll tend to be focused on during work hours. If you cannot maintain focus through the first five minutes of the interview, you have told me way more than you had intended.

It is important to prepare for this type of question. It doesn't matter whether or not anyone ever asks it. It matters that you are thinking about your strategy, that you are focused on your goal and that you are tailoring your answers to the impression that you wish to make.

Easy open questions like this are an opportunity for you to set the terms of the interview. You can set the framework by which your answers will be judged, you can set the foundation for other answers and you can (sometimes) lead the direction that questioner will take.

Goal. Strategy. Focus. These are important, not your dog.*

*Apologies to my dog, whom I am sure is a regular reader of this blog. Yes, Wembley, I always talk about you in interviews.

Q&A Panel Questions - Weaknesses

2009-10-01T10:56:00.000-04:00

I thought it might be handy to provide some follow up on some of the questions that were posed by Carleton University students at last night's panel. I didn't take copious notes, so much of this is running from memory. The analysis I'll give is a blend of my own insights and thoughts from other panelists. I won't bother to attribute each idea to a particular person.

The first question I'll mention is a pretty basic one: how do you answer a question about your weaknesses.

This is a "typical" interview question. I put that word in quotation marks because I don't know how often it actually gets asked any more, but it is one that interview trainers always prepare people for. Even if it is falling out of favour with hiring managers, it is good to prepare.

First, some don'ts:

Don't be a suck up. If I ask you this question, I do not want to hear, "I'm a perfectionist; I just work too darn hard for my own good; I put the needs of the company ahead of my needs." This is weaseling out. You're being too cute by half, and you're trying to avoid actually answering it. Worse still, you're insulting my intelligence by thinking that you'll be able to fool me. If this is the effort that you'll display on the job, I don't want you on the job.

Don't be brutally honest. You're going to need to answer this question but still get the job. If you suggest that you're lazy, openly hostile to authority figures or generally incompetent, you're not going to get the job.

Don't give me your strengths. I've actually had a candidate answer this question by listing her three greatest strengths rather than her three greatest weaknesses. And I'm not talking about saying she's a perfectionist and claiming it as a weakness. She actually said, "My three greatest strengths are...". Although, on reflection, I guess this did demonstrate three of her weaknesses: inability to listen, inability to complete a task, self-obsession.

Okay, how about some do's:

Be honest. Don't be brutally honest, but be honest. No one is perfect and demonstrating that you are sufficiently self-aware to identify any shortcomings is an attractive quality. Further, if you lie about your strengths and weaknesses, you are potentially setting yourself up to disappoint your manager. Considering that most jobs have probationary periods where it's pretty easy to sack a new employee, you don't want to give them any ammunition.

Turn it into a positive. I do not mean that you should masquerade a strength as a weakness, but you should demonstrate that you can take steps address problems. Everyone is going to mess up at some point in their career, so managers want people who can fix any issues that arise. When I was in school, our interview-prep person taught us to answer most questions about work using the CAR framework - Context, Action, Result. In this case, take a weakness you have, put it into a work context, tell the interviewee what you did to alleviate the problem (or what you learned from it) and tell them how that will guide you in the future so as to not fall into a similar trap. This sort of answer also has the benefit of ending your response on a positive. It's always good to end on something positive.

Address it head on. This goes with the previous point. Don't try to evade or deflect the question. Take it, answer confidently and let the interviewer know that you can handle uncomfortable or undesirable situations. This is why we will often ask these tough questions. We want to know how you will react under pressure. We want to know if stress or confrontation will debilitate you.

There's a lot more that could be said (and I welcome anyone reading this to add more advice in the comments of this post), and there was probably a lot more that was said last night, but I'd say this is a good place to start.

By the way, if anyone ever asks me, I'll just tell them that my weakness is writing long-winded blog posts.

Resume & Interview Panel at Carleton University - Tonight!

2009-09-30T13:19:00.001-04:00

If there are any readers from Carleton University, I will be participating in a Q&A session tonight. I believe the event is for students only. Here are the details:

Porter Hall
6:00 pm - 7:00 pm - Q&A session
7:00 pm - 8:00 pm - Networking

There will be five of us on the panel. I don't know who the other panelists are, but, no doubt, they will be useful resources for anyone in attendance.

I'm a little under the weather, so I may not stick around for the Networking session afterward, but if you see me and would like to chat, just let me know.

23 Down, 0 to Go

2009-09-04T15:33:00.003-04:00

So, you may be wondering where I've been for the past couple of weeks. Well, we've had a couple of proposals due in the past couple of weeks - one that required six candidates, and another that required 17 candidates. We're just putting the final touches on the last one (for 17), and, despite a bit of a SNAFU noticed about an hour ago, it looks like we'll get it sent off to the client quite soon.

Things should quieten down here a bit after today, so, hopefully, I'll be able to bring more quips and insights in the near future.

In case you're not following his blog, Tom Sweeney has some good recruiting-ish posts up over at his blog. He has a couple of posts on some bid rigging scandals. As well as some posts on employee turnover and retention. Do check them out.

Can't We Just Assume?

2009-08-21T10:44:00.002-04:00

Government clients can be quite picky when reviewing RFP resonses. If they say something is a requirement, you have to demonstrate explicitly that your candidate satisfies the requirement - often making sure to use their specific buzz words.

But, if they want someone with experience in Object Oriented development, and I've got a senior Java Developer, do I really have to write "Object Oriented"; can't we just assume that they have experience with OO programming since Java is, ya know, totally Object Oriented?

Sorry, just my little rant for this morning. I'm very tired of writing the words "object" and "oriented".

Resume, Interview Tips and Strategies Discussion Panel

2009-08-20T13:57:00.002-04:00

I will be participating in a panel discussion on resume writing, interview tips and employment strategies at Carleton University on Wednesday September 30, 2009, from 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm.

The discussion is for students looking to enter the fields of IT, Engineering, Science, Public Affairs or Communications students. I do not know if it is open to the public.

Here are the details:

Wednesday September 30, 2009
6:00 pm
Porter Hall, Carleton University
Ottawa, Ontario
It will be a 60 minute Q&A with the five member panel, followed by refreshments and networking.

If you're a student who might be interested in attending, I suggest you contact the Career Development & Co-operative Education Office at 410 Tory Building.

I do not know if they have confirmed all five panelists, so if anyone is interested, let me know and I can pass along the contact information of the person organizing the event.

How to deal with a health-related gap in your resume

2009-08-19T14:55:00.002-04:00

Recently, I was helping a friend prepare for an interview. This person had a rather significant gap in her resume which was related to a medical issue (which has been addressed and would no longer effect her ability to work).

Interviewers can be worried about gaps in resumes. It's something that everyone should be ready to address when going in for an interview. The question is, how much information do you give? I'm not a fan of lying in interviews. I find people who are forthright and tackle concerns head-on appear like much stronger candidates than those who try to obfuscate. Still, saying "I was sick for 8 months" isn't going to fill your potential employer with confidence.

Here's how I suggested she handle it: mention that you had a health issue that needed to be addressed, and that you refrained from gaining employment until you were certain that it was taken care of, so that you’d be able to focus 100% on a new job.

The run-on nature of the sentence aside, I'd love to know what people think. I often take the view that there are going to be questions you get for which there are no good answers, and you should do your best, move on, and impress them with your answer to the next question. Still, some things are difficult to just gloss over.

(And, yes, I know that they can't ask you about your health, and I don't recommend volunteering such information, but whether or not you're obliged to tell a potential employer something, sometimes there's just no way around it. My friend couldn't have answered such a question by simply saying, "I wasn't working and that's all the information to which you are legally entitled." Okay, she could have; but that would've moronic.)

New Monitor!

2009-08-19T14:53:00.001-04:00

Hey everyone, I have a new 20'' widescreen LCD monitor. If anyone reading this had seen my old monitor, they'd understand why this is so exciting.

Now I'll get back to work.

I Really Don't Mean to be a Jerk

2009-08-17T15:26:00.002-04:00

The other day, in a discussion with my wife, I learned that a close friend, in her job hunt, tends to do no follow up. If she submits her resume, then hears nothing back, she doesn't contact the company. If she has an interview at a company, then hears nothing back, she doesn't contact the hiring manager.

Basically, her reason for not following up will be one of two things:

The person is really busy, and I don't want to bother him/her; or,
If this person can't even bother to get back to me, I don't want to work for him/her.

Both of these sentiments are completely understandable, however, neither will advance your goal of getting a job.

Okay, okay, this is pretty basic job-hunting advice, and I don't really mean to get bogged down on this, I just thought I'd use it as a jumping off point...

Since I went on vacation at the end of July, lots of new RFPs have come in. We've been spending a lot of time on these, vetting resumes, writing resumes, writing grids, writing proposals, analyzing financial proposals and so on. Consequently, I have not had time to respond to all the kind consultants who have contacted me about job opportunities. And there are about 100 of them, according to my inbox.

So, if any of you are reading this, I just thought I'd say, I'm sorry. I will try to respond to everyone very very soon.

And It's Done

2009-08-17T12:53:00.003-04:00

The project that we've been working on for the past few weeks came back from the boss with a few recommended revisions. Those were taken care of pretty easily, and the entire proposal was wrapped up and sent in to the client. Now, we just wait for a response.

The timing of this is pretty good. Last week, one of our main clients sent us a request for six people. Now they've issued another request; this time for seventeen people. That's right, by the first week of September, we have to submit twenty three candidates. On the plus side, we have twenty three qualified candidates. So now it's just a matter of editing twenty three resumes and writing twenty three grids.

Oh, and my supervisor is away for the final weekend of August, so it should be a hectic few weeks. It's good that I got some vacation time in while I could.

Speaking of the weekend...

2009-08-13T15:13:00.004-04:00

If you're in Ottawa, you might want to check out the play, Birth. It's about, well, birth. It'll be touching on a lot of topics regarding birth, including breech birth - which is fairly topical right now.

Following each performance, there will be panel discussions, some of which will feature Mrs. JMRecruiting - though the specific ones haven't yet been confirmed.

Here are some of the details:

Birth - A play by Karen Brody
Friday, Saturday and Sunday at 7:30 p.m.
Saturday Matinee at 2:30 p.m.

Advance Ticket Prices: (DOOR PRICE: add $5)
Adults: $20
Student/Seniors: $15
Children/Volunteers: $10

CASH ONLY WHEN PURCHASING TICKETS AT THE DOOR

Note: While children are welcome, this play is not written for children. Some parts may be frightening, confusing and parents should know that there is swearing throughout the play. Discretion is advised.

If you're interested, I'd suggest clicking over to their web site.

Parkinson's Law

2009-08-13T15:06:00.002-04:00

So, a couple of days ago, our project to supply Business Analysts became much easier, seemingly.

But, in accordance with Parkinson's Law, we've decided to add some more elements to our proposal... and, thus, what would have been a pretty laid back week suddenly got a little busy again. On the plus side, the deadline for my part of the proposal is tonight, so it should be a pretty easy Friday, and a lovely lazy weekend (filled with sis-in-law's birthday, a lot of toddler time and some pre-season NFL action... it should be nice).

Green Shoots, Headhunter Edition

2009-08-12T14:11:00.002-04:00

Apropos of this post, a few weeks back I got a call from another recruiter in the Ottawa area (you could call him a 'recruiter's recruiter' both because of his recruiting acumen and because he focuses on placements for recruiting and HR positions). Things had been fairly slow in the past few months (especially in Ottawa), but he was starting to see signs of life. There was a new opportunity in Ottawa that he thought might be a good fit for me.

I'm happy at my current firm, so I declined, but it was certainly nice to hear that the recruiting industry (at least in Ottawa) might be picking up.

Now, if employment is a lagging indicator, what does that make employment in the employment industry? Is it like some sort of economic double negative?

One More Thought About Those Business Analysts

2009-08-12T11:01:00.002-04:00

In the previous post, I note that our client has altered an RFP so that we only have to submit one Business Analyst instead of four. I'm still confident we can win this bid, and it should mean that we will be able to secure contracts for all four BAs, so (fingers crossed) despite all the excess work, it should all be worth it in the end.

One thing I should mention is that all of our consultants have been fantastic throughout the proposal development phase. I bemoan all the time I lost working on resumes and grids that are no longer necessary, but I do not want to discount the amount of time that they put into this as well. If my time has been wasted, theirs certainly has been, too.

In order to effectively respond to government RFP's, there often needs to be a lot of back-and-forth between the recruiter and the candidate. They're the SMEs (Subject Matter Experts) when it comes to both the professional requirements and their work history. So, if I want to build the best proposal I can, I have to get this information from them. With each of the candidates with whom we were working, we'd trade emails and phone calls to hammer out all the little details to make sure that all the requirements were covered. Each consultant probably did two or three drafts of their resume, as well as little tweaking here and there.

One consultant in particular was really great about this. He sent us a resume reflecting the needs of our client. Unfortunately, it was not satisfactory. I looked through it, and I could tell that he had done (or probably had done) all the things the client was asking for, but it wasn't really spelled out clearly and succinctly in the resume. So I got worried - we didn't have anyone else to present, but this resume would get disqualified if we sent it to the client.

So at about 9:30 Friday morning, I left him a message saying there was a lot of work to be done. He called me back about 20 minutes later, and by 10:30 we were sitting in our conference room going through each requirement project-by-project, taking notes and writing adequate descriptions. For a lot of them, I would have to probe him for more information (what is obvious to the SME is not always obvious to the recruiter or, more importantly, the client). We were both still working on the resume yesterday when the amendment from the client came in.

There are a lot of candidates who would not go through such an arduous process. Often, understandably so. Consultants will have requests to complete these RFPs all the time, and most won't result in winning a contract. Some recruiting firms will ask consultants to fill out the RFP, make the submission, win the contract, then decide to sub-contract to another consultant who won't ask for as much money. If I were constantly going through this sort of thing, I'd probably be reluctant to give a recruiter too much of my valuable time.

Unfortunately, this time commitment is necessary. Things are getting really competitive out there, and clients can be extremely picky about the people they hire. Especially when dealing with government RFPs, we (recruiters) have to be meticulous when crafting proposals; one seemingly minor detail not quite covered can mean the difference between winning and losing the bid.

(At this point, I could go on a rant about why it is so important for recruiters to treat consultants with respect, lest we never be able to properly complete a proposal, but that's not my point right now.)

The bottom line is this: we've been working with four great consultants. They're not just great candidates (which they are), they're also great partners in developing a proposal. They've done a h*ll of a lot of work on this, and I hope that I can reward them all with contracts in the near future.

In the meantime, I can offer them my sincere gratitude.

And All is for Naught

2009-08-11T14:26:00.003-04:00

A few weeks ago, a big RFP came out from one of our major clients. They're looking for four Business Analysts, and the contracts will run for one or two years. For our little firm, this is a pretty big contract (sure, we've gone after bigger ones, but recently we've been doing a lot of three to six month single consultant placements).

We've got some really strong BA's that we work with, so we weren't too worried. However, we had a lot of work in front of us (and I missed the first week while I was away on vacation), so at the end of last week and over the weekend I spent a few hours each night working on a couple of resumes (I was up until about 1:30 or 2:00 am on Sunday night/Monday morning). Well, we got an email from the client today.

Don't worry; the RFP hasn't been revoked; they haven't cut the number of BA's they need. They have only cut the number of BA's that need be presented. They need four people, but they're only asking for one resume (one contract will be for the primary BA, and the other contracts are in slightly subordinate roles). So all the work we did on the three weakest candidates was completely unnecessary.

On Sunday, I turned a twelve page resume into a twenty-three page resume. All that was completely unnecessary.

Well, I guess that's not really true. We now have three extra consultants with vastly improved resumes, and I am now that much better at technical writing.

Of course, on the down side (other than the fact that the consultant can now shop that twenty-three page resume to other firms), this means that the bidding will be all the more ferocious and competitive. We would have had four great candidates; not every firm could have said that, but they probably each have one great candidate. We now have to have a fabulous candidate.

Oh well, such is life.

Legacies

2009-07-22T16:07:00.002-04:00

One of our client's managers appears to be moving on. This person has been in charge of a complex project, and, we're told the manager is getting out before the [expletive] hits the fan. I guess it's good time to make a change, then.

About a month ago, we had to let an employee go. Ever since then, problems have been arising from this employee's final month or two of work. Things either weren't done, they weren't done properly, or there was no follow up. I was not this person's supervisor, but I have to think that if a recommendation was expected when a new job search is started, the chances of one are seriously waning.

People leave trails, and these days, they're not like those fluffy white lines following airplanes that dissipate and disappear in a moment. No, our trails linger. It's good to remember that what you do in your job, and even what you do in your personal life, can have lingering effects. If you leave a mess behind, it might catch up with you, especially if you are working in a small community or a small industry.

On the flip side, if someone leaves a mess behind, that can be a perfect opportunity to show your ability. When I managed wine stores, I was transferred to a relatively new store that hadn't seemed to be able to reach it's potential. The manager I replaced was competent, but she had another store she was also managing that monopolized her time.

The company I worked for has about 160 stores. This store ranked in the lowest third in terms of sales by volume (the metric used was 9L cases), and due to its location, would probably never crack the top half of store rankings. However, in my first year there, the store ranked 6th in terms of the increase in sales by volume (they were using absolute numbers, not a percentage increase). This gave me a lot more leeway when I wanted to try new things, and it opened up more opportunities for me in the future (though I have always attributed the success more to the efforts of my team than to my efforts).

I guess the point is: don't screw around, even if you're planning to leave your job; it'll haunt you.

Or maybe the point is: to all those who screw around at work, thanks for helping with my career advancement!

Sheds, Wine and Cycling

2009-07-21T15:12:00.002-04:00

Apropos of this post, The Wall Street Journal has a story up about sheds. Specifically, about sidewalk sheds and the recession-proof nature of the sidewalk shed industry.

I used to be in the wine game, and I never got too nervous about my job security if there was a downturn in the economy. When times were good, people were buying wine. When times were bad, well, that's when they really needed a drink. I'm perfectly willing to believe that an investigation of Vincor's balance sheet will show a direct relationship with economic growth and retraction, but still, I never worried about the financial health of my company while working there... especially compared to when I have worked at a web company, a call centre or a recruiting firm.

So what's my point? Learn to build sheds, I guess, less you risk drinking wine underneath them.

H/T: Megan McArdle

Why would you want this person working for you in the first place?

2009-07-21T14:02:00.003-04:00

Cleaning up my inbox, I found my letter of resignation from my previous job. Some might wonder, what the hell was I thinking?

Keep in mind that I liked the job, was good friends with my boss (and still am), and was on very good terms with the company... oh, and I wrote it in about a minute.

March 7, 2008

Corporation
Ottawa, Ontario

To whom it may concern,

As wisps of daylight blend and fade, and weeks, as shapes, contort and fray,
the time within all swells and seeks
and sputters to give us but two weeks,
and I shall give you my last day.

Light hands can heal through bounty and fast,
but not, for never, the floundering quell.
Your light, though beams, is sad as well,
for March 21st shall be my last.

In Certain Sincerity,

Jonathan

A recession is when your neighbour loses his job; a depression is when recruiters lose their jobs.

2009-07-20T15:40:00.003-04:00

Okay, maybe that's not how the line really goes.

This afternoon, my supervisor was on Monster and did a search for recruiters (we're not necessarily hiring anyone soon; he likes to check sometimes to see what's going on in the market), and his search brought 250 candidates. For reference, a similar search 18 months ago would have yielded about 100 candidates. We all probably have some guesses as to why this is.

The result was significant for two reasons. First, the sheer magnitude of it. Despite the faulty methodology of the analysis, a 150% increase is bracing. Second, the quality of the candidates was noteworthy. When he was looking through them, he wasn't finding people with only 5 months experience in an explicitly HR and recruiting role. He was finding candidates with 5 years experience with a variety of staffing firms or as in-house recruiters.

I have not done any sort of valid research into this (and I don't plan to), but I do have a couple of thoughts as to why this might be (beyond the simple, the economy sucks and everyone is getting laid off).

It seems to me that recruiting positions could be a fairly solid leading indicator for the job market. As the economy slows, stalls, grinds or implodes, employers do not automatically start clearing house. Not all employers are sociopathic villainous capitalists. Most of them are actually, you know, people. So, as a company's business slows, they'll generally still try to keep their employees. Most people don't like the idea of starving others, so they'll take a cut in profits (or an exaggeration of losses) in order to keep their team together (which can be quite useful if you think it is just going to be a short downturn - if you've got good people, you don't want to ditch them, have them get other work, then be out of luck when the economy starts churning again).

However, new hirings will cease in this sort of atmosphere. Not only will companies refrain from expanding their pool of labour, they may allow it to shrink by attrition. Eventually, though, this may not be enough, and the lay-offs must start.

So, now they've started lay-offs; what division should be first? Seems pretty obvious to me that if you're not hiring people, you don't really need recruiters. As such, we are the first fat to be trimmed. You can always tell your managers and team leads to do the hiring (assuming you're in a position to do any hiring at all). As well, even though some recruiters are better than others, they're often a dime a dozen, and don't, necessarily, require any special training or experience (compared to, say, a structural engineer). There's probably less concern about replacing the talents of your recruiters (especially if you had bad ones) than replacing the talents of the employees who actually 'produce' things.

Another hypothesis as to why recruiting positions seem to be procyclical has to do with the mentality of some corporations. From my limited experience as a company's in-house recruiter - and from some guesses about human nature - I'm quite willing to believe that a lot of bosses don't really see recruiters as part of the team. This isn't a slag against negligent bosses or the work of recruiters. It's just that if you work for a web company and the boss is/was a developer, he may see the contributions of recruiters as external to what the company produces and offers. It seems to me that a boss, even just subconsciously, is going to identify with the development team rather than the recruiting team, in this scenario. Thus, it'll probably make more business sense to him to release recruiters rather than releasing developers.

This is, of course, no great comfort to the 250 recruiters looking for jobs in Ottawa. However, it does make me want to hold on to the job I have all the more. I would hate to become #251.

Strategies in Everything

2009-07-15T13:39:00.004-04:00

In the past few months, I have led some seminars for job seekers. I have also given some advice to a family member as she goes after a new job. In these situations, I found everything coming down to strategy (or focus).

There was never any grand vision when I began these tasks. Really, all I was doing was compiling whatever wisdom I had gleaned as a recruiter and candidate, as well as any information I had from other sources. It was through this process that I realized the key was having a focus and having a strategy to support that focus. It's about knowing your goals and figuring out how to attain them. It's about projecting a value proposition to potential employers - not just that you would be great at the job, but that, in fact, the job is meant for you.

This plays into pretty much every aspect of your job search: how you search, where you search, how you write a cover letter, the information included in your resume, the format of your resume, the way you conduct yourself in an interview, etc. However, there is one aspect, it seems, about which few people have thought, or, at least, about which they have not thought sufficiently. It is, my friends, the title of your resume.

I'm not really talking about the document title (though the advice is certainly applicable). If you send me a thoughtful cover letter, with resume, explaining how you would be a match for an opening I have, I won't care that the document has a title like, "CV20090609BusDev_v1.doc". Whatever, I don't think that's that important.

However, if you are using Monster or Workopolis or something similar*, you need to have an appropriate title for your resume/profile. Regardless of what the document title of your resume is, when I am doing a search, I should not see CV20090609BusDev_v1 as a title. Monster suggests using something eye-catching like Eager Technical Writer or Experienced Project Manager for the title.

Such titles are fine - in fact giving some information about who you are as a candidate is a good thing - but remember that being too specific can also be a problem. If you're a project manager who can also be a business analyst, information architect, communications specialist, or whatever, titling your profile, Experienced Project Manager, will mean that I, the recruiter, am likely to skip over it if I am looking for a communications specialist. If you're a junior web developer who would like to advance, but is still open to junior positions, don't put down intermediate or senior web developer. If I need a junior candidate, I'm not going to bother senior candidates. In such a situation, just write, web developer.

Now, this can be tricky. You want to project a concise message (your focus) and you need a good way to do it (your strategy), but you have to make sure you are on point. Think about what the title says to the recruiter - what sorts of inquiries it will draw and what sort of inquiries it will repel. If, upon reflection, you are satisfied with the answers to these questions, then you've probably nailed down a good title. If you're a little bewildered and have no idea about the sort of title to use, you can always just use your name. If, in a search, I just see the person's name in a title, I'll generally click on it as I'm inclined to think there's a good reason they came up in my search.

Full disclosure: if you were to find my profile on Monster, I believe the title you will read is jdsmcleod. Yeah, not particularly helpful. One day, I'll change that. One day, I'll update the resume, as well (the one that's up there is pretty horrific).

*Thinking more on it, this advice may only apply to Monster - it's the only one I use, but I assume other career sites work the same way.

Summer Lull, Piggy-back Edition

2009-07-15T09:22:00.002-04:00

Tom Sweeney is right. Things are incredibly slow these days (and have been unusually slow for a while now).

You might think this would give me more time for blogging (which obviously hasn't happened), and you'd be right. Sadly, this slow grind gives no fodder for blogging.

Maybe I'll start doing some movie reviews...

Discrimination

2009-07-10T00:54:00.002-04:00

A helpful note to wronged employees out there (or those wondering if they have been wronged):

There are many grounds on which you cannot be legally discriminated. Such grounds include, but are not limited to:

Race;
Religion;
Pregnancy;
Parental leave;
Marital status; and,
Disability.

However, it must be noted that none of these grounds protect you from progressive correction, discipline or termination, if it is otherwise warranted.

Sadly, people do not seem to always understand this. Just because something seems wrong does not mean that, upon sober reflection, it is wrong.

Keep this in mind. No one is untouchable.

Progressive Correction, or, Saving Your Friggin' Job

2009-07-09T22:21:00.002-04:00

I have had a number of jobs, some of which I did better than others. Most of them had performance evaluation components and I have been on both sides the evaluations.

Nobody likes to receive a bad review, but, here's the thing, every review is an opportunity for the employee. If they don't sack you, you can still excel*. So, when you receive that (fair or seemingly unfair) bad evaluation, what do you do?

Well, first and foremost, engage. Tackle the issue. Your boss has just told you that you need to improve; find a way to do that. If you don't understand what you need to do to correct things, ask. Take the initiative to fix the problems. Work with your supervisor to develop a strategy, and remain positive.

In my time as a manager, I have given poor evaluations and I have given people verbal and written warnings (by the way, all of my "verbal" warnings were, in fact, written down). I have told people that if issues were not addressed and the behaviour continued, termination might be the result. It was never a threat; I was always ready to work with my team to help them improve their performance. However, many employees didn't take the opportunity to better their performance. Those were the employees I eventually had to fire.

About a 8 or 9 months ago, I submitted a weekly performance report. It wasn't great. I filled it out and realized that I was clearly stagnating. I wasn't being innovative; I wasn't thinking of new ways to attract or meet new candidates; I wasn't pro-actively making myself a better recruiter. Realizing this, when I submitted my report I added a little note to my manager. I told her that I realized that things weren't really working, and that I had become a little complacent as a recruiter - following the same processes even though they were no longer reaping good results. I told her that I was going to re-evaluate what I was doing and figure out a way to get better. She spoke to me about it briefly. I don't know if she would have even brought the topic up had I not (my performance wasn't bad, but it was mediocre).

This is what I mean by tackling the issue. I faced up to the situation and worked, worked, to improve. And I'm still with that company, and I have been a much better recruiter and employee ever since.

All that being said, if you are confident that you are doing a good job, don't be afraid to say so. This doesn't mean that your boss is wrong in his evaluation (there could be some mis-communication), but if you know you are a hard working employee, say so. At the same time, listen. You may work hard, but that doesn't mean things are working well. Being assertive about your abilities while also being open to opportunities for improvement should demonstrate to your employer that you are someone they want to keep.

I had a first-year English prof (geez, I wish I could remember his name) who told us at the beginning of the semester that he had never failed a student... however, he had a lot of students who failed themselves. Similarly, as a manager I never terminated an employee...

Don't terminate yourself.

*Assuming you don't have a boss who truly wants to undermine you (which most don't), or you're not in a job for which you are clearly not qualified.

Back on the Blogging-horse

2009-07-09T12:18:00.000-04:00

Well, things are settling down a bit these days, so it looks like I'll be able to resume regular blogging. I've still got much to do with the new house (including hooking up internet), so I won't have a lot of time, but it certainly is nice to be back at it a bit.

White Space

2009-07-08T16:00:00.002-04:00

I do not understand why people do not worry about the proper formatting of resumes. Specifically, I do not understand the aversion so many people have to white space. I first learned about "white space" in school. It was considered proper coding etiquette to use line breaks, indenting, and spacing to separate one's code so that it was presented in a fashion that was easy to follow when others would be reading it. White space is equally important when writing a resume (if not more so). Having words and sentences and lines and paragraphs mashed together without any spacing to give the reader's eyes a rest or to properly guide the reader through the information will not help. It is the CV equivalent of a poorly designed GUI. It is best to break up sections of your resume, using headings such as: (a) Profile; (b) Work History; (c) Education; (d) Awards; (e) Certifications; (f) Skills; and (g) Publications. Separate these headings with single or double spaces. Underneath these headings use sub headings, or order things in a neat and consistent way. On the page as a whole, work within the usual horizontal and vertical margins. Your text does not need to fill up every inch of the page; in fact, it is best if it doesn't. It will look less professional, and be more of an arduous task for the recruiter/HR rep/hiring manager to read. Paragraph breaks are good; spacing is good; bullets are good.

In case I haven't made my point...

White space in your resume is a good thing for the following reasons:

It will increase the odds of your resume being read in full;
It will guide the reader through your resume;
It will offer a pleasing structure and professional appearance to your resume; and,
It'll keep my brain from hurting when I'm reading it.

These are all good things. So go ahead, space out your resume.

Please.

Recruited a home

2009-07-04T21:26:00.003-04:00

Tomorrow at 4:00 pm, the wife and I are scheduled to sign a lease for a new home - a condo in the Lebreton Flats area. It's a wonderful little place, with some advantages over our last home. Nonetheless, we are sad to leave the home we had created this past 16 months.

We are glad that we are able to move on and begin again. We were very lucky, as we suffered no damage to our belongings, and have retrieved everything (though the piano won't be removed until next week). Most everyone else who lived in our row of houses lost more than we did, substantially more. Some have lost nearly everything. Though we are happy that we are able to start anew so quickly, we are heartbroken for those who have lost so much. Please keep them in your thoughts and prayers; they are most certainly in ours.

It appears that we may not have internet service at the new home for a week, so blogging will remain light.

Update

2009-06-25T12:59:00.002-04:00

We have learned that the row of townhouses has been officially condemned by the city. We will be able to get contractors in there to remove whatever hasn't been damaged. Hopefully, that means we'll be able to save my mom's piano.

Recruiting a home

2009-06-23T22:41:00.002-04:00

This is what I awoke to at 4:10 Monday morning. My unit is the closest corner unit. We're all ok, but not sure what's going to happen with the townhouses (they'll probably be razed). Consequently, blogging will probably be light for the next few days.

Can't somebody else do it?

2009-06-17T21:57:00.002-04:00

If we're talking about recruitment blogging, yes, Tom can.

Work has been mad busy for the last week. Throw in a bunch of other commitments, and I've had no time to blog. Thankfully, Tom Sweeney is running with the ball. Go to his site for all your recruito-blogger needs.

I'll be back when the man let's up.

2:45

2009-06-12T02:45:00.002-04:00

Well, it's a little over 12 hours since I first posted about this project, and it's now 2:45 am, and I just sent the proposal off to my manager.

There is still work to be done on it, but it's not due for another 12 hours, so we've got plenty of time tomorrow to put on the final polish. The grunt work has been done, and the resume is solidly grounded in organizational development, change management and organizational cultural change.

This one will be winner... it better be!

Good Night / Good Morning.

Same bat-time, same bat-channel

2009-06-11T14:29:00.002-04:00

It looks like this week's Thursday night will mimic last week's Thursday night. Our proposal last week was declined, but we've got another kick at the can, and the client has revised the specifications, so we have a better idea of for what they're looking.

Like last week, this thing is due at 3:00 pm on Friday, and it looks like we'll make the deadline - even though we've got less than 25 hours, and are still playing tag with a few different consultants to determine who'll be the best fit.

I guess it'll be another long night. I'm not looking forward to it as much this week.

P.S. Still no evidence that I'm not boring, but I'll keep looking.

We do this for a living, ya know...

2009-06-10T16:31:00.002-04:00

It never ceases to amaze me that so many candidates are incredibly unresponsive to resume and interviewing advice.

I work as a technical recruiter. I don't hire anyone to work at my company; I "source" people for contracts with clients (mostly the federal government). Consequently, a lot of my work is not about finding the right candidate, but making sure the right* candidate wins the contract. This means I not only search for people, read resumes and interview people, but I also edit resumes, write proposals and prepare candidates for interviews with clients.

During this process, it is often my duty to tease more information out of a consultant and have them modify or add to the information in their resume. Also, I will give people tips on basic interviewing techniques, and also try to troubleshoot potential issues that will be raised in interviews (occasionally, I may also have to calm someone down, or build up their confidence). Of course, some people just aren't interested. Their resume is already perfect, and they already know how to do really well in an interview (which might lead someone to wonder why they need to find a new job, but I digress...). Obviously, these people need no help from the rest of us.

Now, I will admit. For some, this is true. Some of them have awesome resumes and know exactly how to handle pretty much any interviewer they will encounter. Still, what's wrong in listening to another perspective?

And herein lies the twist. The good ones, they listen. We had a candidate in this afternoon who will be meeting with a client later this week. She knows what she's doing; she knows what they're looking for; and she presents herself quite well. Nonetheless, she came in taking notes, asking questions and generally soaking up any information she could from us.

There are very few of us who can afford to tune out the rest of the world. There are few of us who have such a high degree of expertise that they own the procurement process. The ones who do, are generally humble enough to make no such assumption.

A colleague has a blog that gives lots of tips in job searching and dealing with recruiters. If you don't think he can help you, that probably means he can.

P.S. In the middle of writing this post, I was contacted by a very capable consultant (whom I wrote about here). He's incredibly receptive to advice, despite the fact that he knows exactly what he's doing; I am certain such a character trait is a benefit in his career.

P.P.S. I am, by no means, suggesting that I know exactly what I'm doing. I welcome advice from others who have different experiences.

*Naturally, the "right candidate" is the one that I am presenting to the client.

I'd really like to give you all another post, but...

2009-06-05T00:50:00.001-04:00

...I don't really have anything to say, and I should probably get some sleep. G'night.

How boring am I?

2009-06-04T15:27:00.004-04:00

Here's some evidence that I'm a very boring person:

I think Economics textbooks are the funniest textbooks ever written;
I'm a fan of the semi-colon;
I was annoyed when National Post got rid of the game, "Add it up" in the Saturday paper (Sudoko is no substitute);
I wrote this post; and,
I enjoy technical writing.

Yes, right now, I am editing and re-writing a 35 page resume (I'll probably only work on about 11 pages of it). I may be up very late tonight finishing it, and I'm not horrified by the prospect. I actually find it an enjoyable aspect of my job (the writing, not the sleep deprivation).

At some point in the future I will present evidence that I am not a boring person... if I find such evidence.

[UPDATE: It's 12:42 and I just completed the first draft. A little more polishing tomorrow, and I should easily meet the 3 pm deadline.]

Business Analyst? Organizational Development Consultant? - This post is a two-fer.

2009-06-03T21:56:00.002-04:00

Those are the people I'm looking for right now. Unfortunately, in both situations, we're looking at pretty low rates (it seems that's the way things are going right now - you'd think we're in a recession or something).

Anyway, if you're a BA with about 8 years experience (or more), and are interested in a long term contract, let me know.

If you're an Organizational Development Consultant with experience in Change Management and exposure to a Learning Management System, let me know.

As always - jonathan.mcleod@microtime-it.com.

The interview's the thing...

2009-06-03T10:49:00.005-04:00

A woman has been sitting in our lobby for 71 minutes. Patiently waiting. Sitting and chatting. More precisely, a candidate for our administrative/bookkeeper position has been sitting patiently for more than an hour. Part of this is her own doing - she was 20 minutes early; part of it is happenstance - our branch manager had another meeting this morning that is running muuuuuch longer than expected. She's not concerned; she's willing to wait.

This is a huge point in her favour. She has been speaking with our recruitment manager and our current administrator, and has been demonstrating how personable and professional she is - two key points to this position.

But I'm not writing this to talk about her; I'm writing this to talk about me (is there any topic more important?).

I have held positions for the last 5 or 6 years that have included recruiting and interviewing as main tasks. This is no coincidence. I like doing this. However, recently, my interviewing is more straightforward. Often, it comes in the form of "networking", so that by the time I am proposing a candidate to a client, I have already met and spoken with this person a multitude of times. The final "interview" acts more as a fine tuning of a proposal, rather than a qualifying interrogation. This process works for me, but I am kind of missing out.

Years ago, when I was in retail, my district manager suggested that at the end of all interviews I could ask candidates to "sell me this pencil" (referring to the mechanical pencil I had been using during the interview). It was a pretty great question. I learned next to nothing about the candidate's sales ability, but I learned a lot about the person's temperament. It was a frivolous question, but I wanted to find people who would take the request seriously. That would say a lot about how they would approach the job.

I have done other "tricky" things. I once had a candidate for an admin position express an interest to eventually get into HR. At the end of the interview, I asked her to grade my interviewing techniques (since hiring can be part of HR duties). Out of the corner of my eye, I could see my colleague (who shared the office space) shuddering as he tried not to laugh.

The point of this blog post is that I miss doing a lot of these things - these interviewing tricks - and I think I should re-focus and try to work them back into my interviewing process. The problem is that when I'm interviewing a Project Manager with 30 years experience, I can't really ask him to "sell me this pencil". I guess I'll just have to learn some new techniques.

P.S. Regarding "sell me this pencil", it was a damned nice pencil. I looked through all the pencils at the office supply store and picked that one out for a variety of reasons. When a candidate couldn't think of at least one good thing to say about my pencil, it irked me. How dare they be so dismissive of my pencil!

Bookkeeper Bleg

2009-06-02T10:28:00.002-04:00

Things are pretty slow these days, but there is one project hanging over the collective head of my company. We need a Bookkeeper/Administrator - ours is going on parental leave soon.

Ideally, we're looking for someone bilingual, with Secret level security clearance, with plenty of experience.

Realistically, if you've got about 6 months of Simply Accounting experience, we'll take a look at your resume.

As always, anyone interested can leave a message in the Comments section, or contact me directly at jonathan.mcleod@microtime-it.com.

The art of networking... Art-working?

2009-05-28T23:43:00.005-04:00

A little while ago I posted a blog on Recruitingblogs.com about hobbies and whether or not they should be on your CV (I re-posted it here; it's the very first post on this blog). There was some discussion that followed, with, generally, a good-natured back and forth. I thought some people made some good counterpoints, and I was certainly willing to re-visit my opinion.

One guy, though, decided that a respectful debate between colleagues (it is a recruiting site, after all) just wasn't for him. Here's a segment of his post:

Believe it or not but I have experienced a couple of occasions where listed hobbies triggered a conversation (that’s something people will have when they show an interest in each other)...

It may not read the same out of context, but it was quite the snarky riposte. (I know what you're thinking - shocking that poor manners were shown on the interweb.)

I'm not posting this to try to start a battle, since (a) I have no interest in one, and (b) I doubt he reads this site - if I were to respond, I would have done so in the comments of the original post.

No, I'm trying to point out what bad form this was - not in some grand vision of manners and polity, but at an individual level. A group of colleagues were discussing a topic quite professionally, despite disagreements. This is what grown ups do. This is what we all should do in the workplace.

Recruiters live by networking. That's how we do our job. Why on earth would a recruiter want to poison a relationship with a potential colleague in order to get off a here's-what-the-meaning-of-the-word-conversation-is jab? It's silly, and it reflects poorly on him.

So what's the point? The point is you're always, potentially, networking. You're always, potentially, branding yourself.

(I should note that I am willing to admit that the original post of mine was perhaps a little snarky - it was a rant after all, however I think a fair reading of it would determine that the joking manner in which I described things was more frivolous than attacking. Further, it certainly couldn't be considered personal, as I used no derogatory examples from actual resumes.)

It's not that I'm lonely, but... (Contact Information)

2009-05-28T12:47:00.005-04:00

I realized that I probably don't have any contact information on this blog, and even though I'll read any comments that are left, it's probably best that I give out some contact info, just in case.

If anyone wants to reach me, you can email me at jonathan.mcleod@microtime-it.com .

There's no excuse for typos, Part II

2009-05-27T21:40:00.000-04:00

A few days ago, I noted that there is no excuse for having a typo-laden resume. Well, there is a b-side to this record; there is no excuse for typos by recruiters.

People's names are important. When contacting a candidate, or entering her into a database, make sure you have the right name and the right spelling. Calling Cecile "Cecil" isn't acceptable (just as calling Jonathan "John" isn't acceptable). This is especially important when your colleagues are relying on the information you provide about the candidate.

Counterintuitive Job Security

2009-05-26T22:37:00.004-04:00

It has been noted in a few places that EI was up for the month of March. Obviously, that's not good news, though I can't say whether it's a leading indicator or a lagging indicator of our short run economic prospects.

I will, however, touch on another tangential subject, job security. I have been laid off in the past. I have been in other situations where I have worried about my job security. Before my current job, I was on a three month contract (which wound up lasting for about five months). I know what it's like to have an uncertain employment situation.

Many candidates come before me looking for permanent employment (unfortunately for them, my company deals almost exclusively with contract opportunities). I understand where they're coming from. They like the benefits; they like the permanency; they like the certainty.

Sadly, they're wrong. Permanent positions are lumbering towards extinction. There is no job certainty in a permanent position - termination, lay off, insolvency, any one of them can put the lie to your job certainty.

Contract positions have the same potential pitfalls, but with less risk of befalling any of them. Many of these positions are budgeted for; the money is set aside - the money "exists". (At this point, I should note the at my company deals mainly with government contracts, so I'm sure I have a different vantage point than people in other industries and other cities.) If you sign a 12 month contract, you may not know what you're doing a year from now, but you know what you're doing for the next year. This is certainty.

In today's job market, most people are going to be changing jobs every couple of years, if not more frequently - what is the difference to your career if you have two contract positions within a year or two "permanent" positions. There are certainly pro's and con's to both permanent and contract positions, but when it comes to duration and job security, it's probably a wash.

It may seem incredibly counterintuitive to suggest there is equal or greater job security in contract positions, but many truths are counterintuitive.

Some times, they get it right.

2009-05-26T15:50:00.004-04:00

Right now (most likely), I have a senior consultant sitting in an interview with three representatives of a government department. Anonymity isn't a big priority at Jonathan McLeod Recruiting, but in this case, I won't divulge any more information.

I have worked with this consultant in the past. A few months ago we were preparing a proposal for a different government agency (at the last minute, we hit a snag and had to abandon it), so when this new opportunity came up, I already had a head start in preparing his resume and the "grid". All tolled, I have probably spent about 20 - 30 hours on his resume - which grew first from about 10 to 14 pages, then to 17, then finally to 19.

Here's the scary part - I hadn't had a chance to meet him in person. Many phone calls, many more emails, but never anything in the flesh, as they say.

I gave him some interview tips (though apparently I neglected to send him one document - though it shouldn't make a difference), and I made sure he knew the importance of appearance and making a good impression. Still, you never what that person is going to be like when he shows up at the client's office. We've had senior people come into our office in a suit and tie, then show up for a meeting with the client in a t-shirt; you can guess how those went.

This opportunity is pretty important. It's not a long contract, and won't make a lot of money, but it should give us a good chance at getting more work. Plus, having been up until one or two in the morning many nights, I have a bit more of a personal stake in this proposal than some others.

So our guy stopped by the office today before his interview with the client - shirt, tie, suit... he'd even come straight from the barber. It was great. We sat and spoke with him for about 20 minutes. We gave him some tips; he talked to us about what he was looking for from the client; we focused on some specific points in his work history that he should touch on. This is how the process is supposed to work.

So, kudos to you, "Mr. Consultant." I know you'll represent us well.

Of course, now I'll be checking my email constantly tonight to find out how it went.

[UPDATE: I just got word from the consultant; indeed, it went well, he tells me. Now we just have to wait for confirmation from the client.]

[UPDATE II: Yup, he nailed it. Apparently the technical authority was really pressing him, and he was able to win her over. He'll probably be starting soon. Things are pretty slow these days, so it's nice to put one in the win column.]

The Three Hour Rule

2009-05-21T23:01:00.004-04:00

I am not suggesting that if you drop a chocolate bar on the ground, it's fine to eat it as long as you pick it up within three hours. That's nasty.

I'm talking about one of those myths about the ESA (the Employment Standards Act - the labour law in the province of Ontario). There's a notion out there among hourly workers that if you come in to work, you have to get paid for three hours no matter how short the duration of your shift happens to be. This is wrong - or at least not quite right.

First, you can be scheduled for a shift less than three hours. If they book you to work from noon to one, you get one hour's pay. That's it. (By the way, if your boss does that without a good reason, s/he probably wants you to quit - it's probably constructive dismissal, a topic for another post.)

But now to the real crux of this myth: if you are scheduled for a shift longer than three hours, and they send you home before three hours, you are not necessarily entitled to three hours pay. The ESA states that you are entitled to the amount you earned at your hourly rate for the time you were on duty or three hours pay at minimum wage.

I can't remember what minimum wage is right now (it's been changing a lot in the past few years), but let's say that it's $10. So what if you get sent home after 2 hours? Let's look at two scenarios:

1. You make $12/hour
In this situation, 2 hours work at $12/hour gives you $24.
3 hours work at minimum wage gives you $30.
So, your boss has to pay you $30.
(If s/he's on the ball, you'll wind up working an extra half hour doing some boring task so that they get the full $30 worth of work out of you.)

2. You make $16/hour
Now, after 2 hours, you have earned $32.
Since 3 hours at minimum wage is $30, your boss has to pay you $32.

This is quite progressive legislation. The lower your wage, the more likely you are to benefit. Depending on your outlook, this will either be a way of protecting the little guy, or a situation where a bunch of people get screwed - but if this happens to you a lot, it is a blessing in disguise, as it will give you a lot of extra time to search for a new job because the current one just ain't gonna cut it.

New grad or unemployed?

2009-05-20T10:24:00.002-04:00

My boss and I are on our way to Algonquin college shortly to lead an open house for students in the school's IT program. So, do we tell them that if they work hard and search diligently, they'll be able to land a job in their field? Or do we tell them that right now the market sucks, the economy sucks, and there are a bunch of experienced junior and intermediate level developers looking for work who will jump at entry level positions in order to make rent?

We figure we'll be realistic, but also try to give them a pep talk. Here's hoping it goes well.

Nerd, or, The Unfolding Mystery of the ESA

2009-05-14T10:32:00.004-04:00

I find Ontario's Employment Standard's Act quite interesting - or, to clarify, I find the comparison between the popular interpretation of the ESA and the actual language and strictures of the ESA to be interesting.

Having been in management, HR and recruiting, it has been handy to have a solid understanding of the ESA. The more I have read it, the more I have found that society seems to have a very poor understanding of it.* I'm a bit of a nit-picker; I'm kind of pedantic, thus my interest in the ESA.

Every now and then, I will probably put up a post investigating some aspect of the ESA that seems to be popularly misunderstood. For now, this post should serve as a warning that even if you think you know what your rights are as an employee, you might be mistaken.

I know that this blog has already blurred the line between recruiting and HR, but I am broadly defining the objective of this blog. I feel comfortable with this decision.

(*This is purely anecdotal; I have no data to back it up.)

Every 20 days

2009-05-13T14:33:00.003-04:00

It has been working out that every twenty days one of our clients sends out the exact same request - a bilingual RDiMS trainer. Apparently, they can never find one, but that does not stop them in their search.

Unfortunately, their insanity fosters my insanity. So here I am again, looking for a bilingual RDiMS trainer. Are any of you guys out their?

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

There's no excuse for typos

2009-05-13T09:48:00.002-04:00

Please, everyone, when writing your resume, proofread!

I understand that in a 10 page resume there might be a typo or two; that happens. If you have 15 in 4 pages, that's unacceptable. Your resume will be the first example of your work that I see. Keep that in mind, please.

Just a little rant for your morning commute.

By the way...

2009-05-12T16:13:00.001-04:00

...it's day three of my plan to do a post a day, and, so far, I am succeeding.

I know I'll fail at some point, but if I can make it atleast a week, I'll be happy.

I once drove across the city during rush hour to terminate a friend.

2009-05-12T15:40:00.004-04:00

It's true; I did. She was once my star employee, but in the end had too many other things going on to properly focus on the job (it was a part time job, and it did not pay enough to support her). She knew she was going to be fired, so she brought a letter of resignation. I didn't accept it, and just let her go right then. It was my second last day on the job; I'd already given notice.

This is kind of funny. I certainly tell it in a light-hearted manner when recounting it to other managers or HR people. The fact is, I went through all the steps of "progressive correction". I gave her lots of chances and clearly defined my expectations and the consequences of failing to meet them. And anyway, she had other jobs; this really didn't ruin her life.

But a termination could "ruin" someone's life. It can be a really tough thing to deal with - on both sides of the situation. Nonetheless, I have terminated a lot people for a lot of different reasons, and though it may seem ghoulish, I generally derived satisfaction from it.

An HR VP at the company I worked for at the time used to tell us that we owed it to poor performers to fire them. It was in their best interest to be held accountable for their actions. They shouldn't be allowed to goof off forever without any repercussions... or so the logic went.

I didn't totally buy into this. I never had any notion that I was doing someone a favour when I fired them. Moreover, by the time it got to termination, I never felt I owed them anything. As a manager or HR rep, I always made sure that employees received a fair chance at succeeding in their job. Some might think I was a little quick to fire people, but, as a manager I worked with people before I fired them, and as an HR rep I made sure their supervisors worked with them before termination.

No, my satisfaction came from what I was doing for the rest of the team. These people, who were diligent, prompt, courteous, and competent did not deserve to share the workplace with deficient employees. My job, when doing a termination, was to make things better for them. Short term, it might inconvenience them (someone would have to cover the extra work), but in the long run I would have created a better work environment. My team knew that. They appreciated what I did.

Still, some situations are really tough. Sometimes, even if you know you are doing the right thing, it can feel like the wrong thing. However, if you have addressed performance issues head on, and have given the employee every chance to succeed, eventually a time may come when you have to let that person go. The specific situation of that employee matters not; the boss has an obligation to ensure that everyone on the team is contributing appropriately.

It's about justice on an aggregate level. It's also about justice on a personal level. And it's absolutely true that a good manager never has to fire anyone - poor employees will fire themselves. It's just that circumstances can make things hard.

And in case you're wondering, I'm still friends with that employee, and I have little doubt that she will have success in her professional life.

Am I a Headhunter?

2009-05-11T15:07:00.007-04:00

A couple of weeks back, I was at a friend's housewarming party. Her significant other, Kevin, asked me what I did. It's interesting; when I say I am a "recruiter" or a "technical recruiter" (and especially when I throw on "...with an IT consulting firm"), I get a lot of blank stares. Everybody understands the words, but few really have much of an idea as to what it is that I do. (Another friend noted, this weekend, that it seems like a job that anyone should be able to do, but probably can't - a fair assessment, and maybe a topic for another post.) Anyway, back to Kevin...

Kevin didn't know what, specifically, I did, but he knew enough to ask, "would you be considered a Headhunter or is that a derogatory term?" I had to think on that for a second or two.

My response was, "that wouldn't be a completely inaccurate description."

A while back I had a meeting with an experienced recruiter in the city. He runs his own shop which specializes in placing HR and recruiting personnel. We were chatting, and he asked if I would have a problem with headhunting. I had never thought about it at the time. Headhunting seems so very distasteful, and I'm at a point in my career where I can pick and choose a bit, and avoid tasks and positions that I have a deep moral objection to. My instinct was that I probably didn't want to be a Headhunter.

However, instead of giving a definitive answer, I discussed what was meant by headhunting. In the end, I said I'd be willing to be a Headhunter. In fact, through the course of my day, I'm regularly headhunting.

We get into a problem of definitions here. There are some very unsavoury tactics that Headhunters have been known to use. I am not willing to lie or manipulate in order to steal away the top talent from other organizations. Further, I'm not going to hack into another company's database to harvest all their resumes (of course, I do not have the technical skill to do that, even if I wanted to).

But I'm willing to headhunt.

Through research, networking and any legitimate recruiting tricks, I will do what I can to find the superstar candidates. When I find these people, I will be diligent in my attempts to bring them on with my company. Again, no lying, no misrepresentation, no harassment - just a straightforward dialogue (with negotiations, of course) to let them know what kind of opportunity I am presenting.

These people are not slaves. They do not have an eternal debt to their current employer. Very few of us will stay with one company our entire careers. I would never ask someone to renege on a contract, but if the contract has an "out" clause (eg giving two weeks notice), then it is up to the candidate/employee to decide on the appropriate option.

People want to be found by recruiters. They're on Monster or Workopolis or LinkedIn. They have their own blog or online web site. If they publish their professional profiles on something as public as the web, recruiters will find them - and they might have a great job to offer.

One of the reasons I decided to focus on recruiting as my career was because I liked the idea that my job was to find jobs for other people. I have found jobs for people who were in desperate situations, hadn't worked for a while or had some other obstacle to gaining employment. I always enjoyed helping these people. I still enjoy helping people get the next great opportunity.

For me, this is what headhunting is about, and I'm fine with it.