...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.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
I once drove across the city during rush hour to terminate a friend.
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.
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.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Am I a Headhunter?
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.
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.
Friday, May 8, 2009
What if I wasn't a tree?
I led a seminar on interview techniques for job candidates the other week. Wouldn't you know it that I don't come across this article until now (H/T Steve Levy)? So, does this article render all my tips moot? Thankfully, no.
First, I'll be honest, I gave some typical interview advice (stress positives, context-action-result answers, etc). Some are applicable no matter what. Some might be a little fluffy. That being said, it seems to me that most HR/recruiting/interviewing people don't follow strict or aggressive interview strategies, so if they're asking fluffy questions, fluffy answers aren't necessarily a bad thing (I'm writing really superficially here; I'm not advocating fluffy answers).
But I think I scored a few good points that this article backs up:
1. An interview can be confrontational.
I'd read in a government pamphlet that "interviews aren't contests, we're all trying to work together to get the best result we can" (I'm paraphrasing... and kind of sarcastically). You know what, sometimes the interviewer is messing with you. Sometimes s/he doesn't want to be your friend. Sometimes it is an uphill battle.
2. Don't lie
This is pretty obvious. Address deficiencies in your experience head on, but move past it.
3. Some questions are wretched, so your answers will be wretched.
There's often not a good answer as to why you left a job or didn't finish your degree. Not much you can do about it. Move on and do better with your next answer.
4. Stress interviews
I warned them. They may still react poorly to these interviews, but at least I warned them.
All in all, I think my seminar still stands up, but I definitely have some things to think about for the next one (assuming there is a next one - which I hope there is).
I agree with some other comments I've read about this article, that despite its title, it's not about going negative. Interviewers will challenge interviewees. That's life. I probably don't do it enough. I'll work on that.
First, I'll be honest, I gave some typical interview advice (stress positives, context-action-result answers, etc). Some are applicable no matter what. Some might be a little fluffy. That being said, it seems to me that most HR/recruiting/interviewing people don't follow strict or aggressive interview strategies, so if they're asking fluffy questions, fluffy answers aren't necessarily a bad thing (I'm writing really superficially here; I'm not advocating fluffy answers).
But I think I scored a few good points that this article backs up:
1. An interview can be confrontational.
I'd read in a government pamphlet that "interviews aren't contests, we're all trying to work together to get the best result we can" (I'm paraphrasing... and kind of sarcastically). You know what, sometimes the interviewer is messing with you. Sometimes s/he doesn't want to be your friend. Sometimes it is an uphill battle.
2. Don't lie
This is pretty obvious. Address deficiencies in your experience head on, but move past it.
3. Some questions are wretched, so your answers will be wretched.
There's often not a good answer as to why you left a job or didn't finish your degree. Not much you can do about it. Move on and do better with your next answer.
4. Stress interviews
I warned them. They may still react poorly to these interviews, but at least I warned them.
All in all, I think my seminar still stands up, but I definitely have some things to think about for the next one (assuming there is a next one - which I hope there is).
I agree with some other comments I've read about this article, that despite its title, it's not about going negative. Interviewers will challenge interviewees. That's life. I probably don't do it enough. I'll work on that.
A post a day? Will my head explode?
So I'm wondering if I should try writing at least one post every day (and begging for candidates won't count). In many ways this is a stupid quandary; no one reads this blog, so what's the point?
Well, there are a few reasons I'm thinking of doing this.
First, maybe someday people will read this blog. If so, regular updates will probably help it's popularity. On its own, this seems too optimistic (both of readership potential, and usefulness of potential content) to justify such an endeavour. So why else should I do this?
There is a matter of discipline. Having this task to complete on a regular basis will force me to stick to with this and stick with a routine. Theoretically, this will help keep me on task during the work day.
Further, there seems to be a real professional development aspect to this. Often, the demands of my job won't actually involve much writing. Maybe some editing, maybe putting together job ads, but not necessarily long form writing. I believe it is a good skill to have - and one that has helped me in the past (and one I should have put to better use in university). To improve or maintain this skill, I need to do it.
Writing these posts should help me focus my thoughts. I have put up some random thoughts on this blog. Sometimes, they're not well thought out. They're just musings or rants or off the cuff statements. I can't promise that everything I write in this blog will remain my opinion for time everlasting, but I can promise that what I write is what I'm feeling at the time (I write feeling because I'm not sure I'll always be thinking when I write). With these thoughts written down, I should be able re-visit them, or analyze my thought process. This should help me refine my thoughts (or thought processes), thereby holding better developed opinions in the future.
And, years from now, if someone from The Economist or The Atlantic finds this blog and loves it, maybe they'll pay me to sit in front of a computer and "think" all day long.
(It should be noted that posting every day does not include weekends; I am not that devoted to personal or professional development.)
[UPDATE: I guess I should admit that this regimen didn't hold up very long, sorry. I'll try to do better in the future.]
Well, there are a few reasons I'm thinking of doing this.
First, maybe someday people will read this blog. If so, regular updates will probably help it's popularity. On its own, this seems too optimistic (both of readership potential, and usefulness of potential content) to justify such an endeavour. So why else should I do this?
There is a matter of discipline. Having this task to complete on a regular basis will force me to stick to with this and stick with a routine. Theoretically, this will help keep me on task during the work day.
Further, there seems to be a real professional development aspect to this. Often, the demands of my job won't actually involve much writing. Maybe some editing, maybe putting together job ads, but not necessarily long form writing. I believe it is a good skill to have - and one that has helped me in the past (and one I should have put to better use in university). To improve or maintain this skill, I need to do it.
Writing these posts should help me focus my thoughts. I have put up some random thoughts on this blog. Sometimes, they're not well thought out. They're just musings or rants or off the cuff statements. I can't promise that everything I write in this blog will remain my opinion for time everlasting, but I can promise that what I write is what I'm feeling at the time (I write feeling because I'm not sure I'll always be thinking when I write). With these thoughts written down, I should be able re-visit them, or analyze my thought process. This should help me refine my thoughts (or thought processes), thereby holding better developed opinions in the future.
And, years from now, if someone from The Economist or The Atlantic finds this blog and loves it, maybe they'll pay me to sit in front of a computer and "think" all day long.
(It should be noted that posting every day does not include weekends; I am not that devoted to personal or professional development.)
[UPDATE: I guess I should admit that this regimen didn't hold up very long, sorry. I'll try to do better in the future.]
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Would this be a black fly in my chardonnay?
We regularly get calls for "ATIP" resources - Access to Information and Privacy (I apologize for the use of the cold sterile word, "resources"). However, we can hardly ever find any of them. I don't know where they are. This is the information to which I need access.
Does this count as irony?
(Sorry, reeeeeeally dumb post - deal with it.)
Does this count as irony?
(Sorry, reeeeeeally dumb post - deal with it.)
JAVA? ColdFusion? Senior Web Developer?
So it looks like I am doing it again. Sure, I could talk about the job seminars I led last week... or funny anecdotes from the recruiting and IT worlds... or offer some suspect advice on recruiting.
But instead, I will plea for applicants again.
I need a senior web developer for a public sector contract. I won't get into the nitty-gritty details and requirements, but you'll need experience with JAVA and ColdFusion. You'll also need government of Canada security clearance.
The job is in Ottawa and the contract will run for atleast a year. If you're interested, leave a comment or, better yet, send me your resume - jonathan.mcleod@microtime-it.com
By the way, if we're talking about sending resumes, here is a tip for everyone:
If you're contacting someone at a hiring firm (or in-house recruiters as well), don't ask permission to send your resume; just send it. I'm a recruiter; I vacuum up resumes wherever I can find them; I am never going to say, "no." If I don't want your resume, I'll just delete the email. No harm, no foul.
If I have a vacancy that is closing that day, I don't want to have to send you a message and then wait for you to send your resume. I want it there waiting for me.
Remember, making me do less work will make me want to help you get a job. I'm all about doing less work.
Later days.
But instead, I will plea for applicants again.
I need a senior web developer for a public sector contract. I won't get into the nitty-gritty details and requirements, but you'll need experience with JAVA and ColdFusion. You'll also need government of Canada security clearance.
The job is in Ottawa and the contract will run for atleast a year. If you're interested, leave a comment or, better yet, send me your resume - jonathan.mcleod@microtime-it.com
By the way, if we're talking about sending resumes, here is a tip for everyone:
If you're contacting someone at a hiring firm (or in-house recruiters as well), don't ask permission to send your resume; just send it. I'm a recruiter; I vacuum up resumes wherever I can find them; I am never going to say, "no." If I don't want your resume, I'll just delete the email. No harm, no foul.
If I have a vacancy that is closing that day, I don't want to have to send you a message and then wait for you to send your resume. I want it there waiting for me.
Remember, making me do less work will make me want to help you get a job. I'm all about doing less work.
Later days.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
