WorkPuzzle

What Can Salmon Fishing Teach Us About Recruiting? Part 2

Yesterday, we talked about how effective salmon fishing from anchor can be on rivers like the Columbia.   Although this type of fishing often results in catching large, beautiful fish, it is quite boring and many people do not care for these techniques.

To contrast, let me share the type of fishing my sons and I enjoy.  In Washington State, there are more than 2,500 lakes that are above 2,500 foot elevation.  These “alpine lakes” have trout populations and can only be reached by hiking mountain trails for several miles.

Because the lakes are iced-over for about 9 months of the year, the trout have a short period of time to eat as much as possible.    These fish will pretty much eat anything that moves!   With a fly rod and a couple of enticing imitation bugs, we can catch a lot of fish.  This is exciting fishing because it is visual—you can often see the trout take the fly right before you set the hook.

The problem with this type of fishing is that these fish are small.  Most of the trout are only 9 to 12 inches long and weigh less than a pound.  The Salmon caught on the Columbia using the anchor fishing techniques are quite large; they are over 25 inches long and typically weigh 10 pounds or more.

So, how does this apply to recruiting?  The secret of salmon fishing from anchor is executing a well-designed and tested system.  Eric Linde concludes his video by stating:

“This type of fishing is not difficult, and you will catch fish if you follow the system that I’ve described in this video.   The variables are not that complex.  Just follow the system, and you’ll be successful.”

The same is true for recruiting.   The people who you’d most like to recruit (the big fish) are focused on doing their job and will not pay much attention to your recruiting efforts.    There is often very little feedback offered as you try to interact with these candidates. 

Success happens when you’re in the right place at the right time.   When a candidate gets upset by something in their current job and decides to leave their organization, they typically move to an organization that has systematically built trust and credibility with them over time.  In essence, the successful hiring manager has their lure 18 inches off the bottom, right in front of the fish’s nose when they decide to make a move.

Why don’t people execute recruiting systems like this?  Because, as my son said, “This is the most boring kind of fishing I could imagine.” 

What we’d rather do is fish the alpine lakes.  It is much more exciting to talk with people who are desperate to talk with us.  And it’s emotionally gratifying to see people “take the bait” and listen to everything we say with excitement and interest.  

If you’re fishing for enjoyment, it makes sense to gravitate towards the activities that are most self-fulfilling.  If your livelihood depends upon catching big fish; it is foolish to let yourself be distracted by self-gratifying activities.   It’s better to do the work of a boring system that produces results.

What Can Salmon Fishing Teach Us About Recruiting?

Last week, we spent some time talking about the importance of developing and implementing a strategy for recruiting.  More specifically, we zeroed in on the necessity for the first-level hiring managers to execute consistently.  

Over the weekend, I was feeling under the weather.  I’m not sure whether it was allergies or baseball fatigue (I have four sons playing baseball on four different teams this spring).  Probably a little of both.    The downtime allowed me to do something I don’t normally do—lay on the couch and watch a video.  The video handy was an instructional video on that my 14-year old had borrowed from the library on salmon and steelhead fishing.    I’m sure he picked up this video with the same anticipation that I had when I saw it laying next to the television.  “I’m going to learn the secrets of catching the really big, tough-to-catch fish.”  We were both quite surprised.

The video was produced by Eric Linde.  He is a professional fishing guide on the Columbia River.  The video was not disappointing from a visual perspective.  The Columbia River   Gorge is one of the most beautiful places in the United States.  And, the results were quite remarkable.  Linde knows how to catch these incredibly large fish as they make their way up the Columbia River to spawn.

What surprised me was the comment  my son made after we finished watching:  “Dad, that looks like the most boring type of fishing I could possibly imagine!”

It’s true.  In this type of angling, the objective is to get your lure directly in front of a fish that really has very little interest in eating.  At this stage in their development, the fish are primarily focused on spawning.  So, unless you put something in front of their nose that is particularly annoying, the fish swim past without taking notice.

All this activity happens 18 inches off the bottom of a river that is 20 feet deep and moving very fast.  You can’t see any of the activity with your eyes.    You have to use your other senses to be successful, and a secret that was covered in the video.  This secret not only applies to salmon fishing, but it also applies to recruiting top talent.  More about this, tomorrow.

Implementing Strategies

Over the last couple of days, Dave has been discussing the importance of developing a system that reflects the strategy of your company.  The case in point for his discussion was recruiting, but the same principles apply to any strategy.

For example, our company is constantly working on improving our candidate sourcing strategies.  If you’re not familiar with that term, it basically means the marketing work we do to get job candidates to notice ads, investigate opportunities, and initiate contact with given companies (our clients).

This is not something new.  We’ve been working on this for several years, however, the methodologies that produce the best results are constantly changing.  If we don’t continue to innovate and adjust the strategies that define our system as necessary, we’ll quickly find that the value we provide to our clients will start to diminish.

One of the parallels that we notice in our work is the strategies that online marketers (specifically, the companies who manage paid search campaigns) use to lure customers.  Some of these companies are quite remarkable at implementing systems to accomplish their strategies.  Here is an example from one of these companies, called Red Bricks Media.  This contribution was made by Joe Van Remortel in a marketing report I recently came across:

“Managing paid search campaigns is more difficult than ever.  Depending on the campaign, upwards of 20-25 distinct variables can influence performance and ROI.  What worked last week might not work this week.  Based on our research and observations, focusing on the four fundamental areas can give a real boost to paid search campaigns.  

1.  Understand the complexity and the relationships between variables and performance by implementing tests to isolate the variables with the greatest impact on performance.  You must segregate winners from losers using a scientific method and statistical significance.
2.  Make iterative improvements to campaigns with active management on daily and weekly basis. Over-reliance on technologies that act like an auto pilot is a sure way to overpay and under-deliver.  Every week should show incremental improvements.
3.  Messaging relevancy is the consistent and meaningful link between keywords, consumer motive/intent, queries, ad words, and landing pages.  There is no better way to increase conversion rates and quality score.  Messaging is how paid search connects with the customer.
4.  Avoid the natural inclination to organize ad groups in campaigns by theme.  Instead focus on organizing them into performance tiers.  When properly structured this way, campaign managers have far more control over budget allocations to winners and losers.”

Does this make your head spin?  If you’re not used to working in this arena, it may seem a little overwhelming.  But, I selected this example for a couple of reasons:

First, the content is intended to be complex.  This makes it easier to see past the details and concentrate on the underlying principles.  This company has boiled down their purpose (paid search) into very well-defined strategies.  I don’t know much more about this company than what is quoted above, but based on the detail provided, I would guess they have developed well-functioning systems to help implement these strategies.

Secondly, they seem to have captured the essence of “cause and effect” for their business.  While they talk about the importance of recognizing symptoms, they rely on testing, measurement and analysis to make changes that affect results.  Without systems to implement strategies, how do you “segregate winners from losers using a scientific method and statistical significance?”

Think of the strategies you’re attempting to implement in your business.  Then ask yourself these two questions:

1.  Are the strategies for my business (office, group, etc.) well-defined?
2.  Do I have a system in place for implementing those strategies?

As Dave concluded in the previous discussions, it is foolish of us to expect those around us to buy into a system that is not well-defined.  Additionally, it is unfair to then hold people accountable to strategies that are poorly implemented. 

We Have Some Lazy Managers! Part 2 - A Focus on Strategy

When I speak to companies regarding recruiting practices, it is very easy to tell the difference between those who have a well-defined recruiting strategy and those who don’t.  Frankly, I love when executives say, “Here’s our strategy, here’s how we’re implementing it, and here are our problems.”  We can then have a fairly quick conversation regarding whether we can help. 

More often than not, I hear a poorly defined strategy, no systematic steps to carrying out the fuzzy strategy, and thus no buy in from the given company.

In the words of one of my favorite recruiting gurus, Dr. John Sullivan (a fellow Psychologist termed the “Michael Jordan of Hiring” by Fast Company magazine), most companies:

"1. Can’t even define the term 'strategy'
2. Don’t know the available strategies in recruiting
3. Don’t have a name for their own recruiting strategy
4. Don’t know the steps involved in preparing a recruiting strategy
5. Have never written down their strategy so that others can follow it
6. Have never compared their strategy in recruiting to their competitors’ recruiting strategies in order to ensure that theirs is superior
7. Have never integrated their strategy with their recruiter selection, budgeting, and time allocation processes
8. Make no attempt to measure the effectiveness of their recruiting strategy"

I’ll add one more that I see more often than not:

9. Have a great strategy (to recruit high-caliber new agents), but utilize gimmicky tactics that only attract desperate and naive people.

If your company's strategy is to hire enough high-caliber people every year so you can politely dismiss 10% of your lowest performers (and still net a significant growth in agents), then you must have a system that can accomplish that!  The system must be scalable and demand consistent steps for each manager for it to work.  Once a strategy is established, you can better assess what interferes with the execution of the defined steps, and redirect managers to get back to agreed upon priorities.

This recruiting scenario is just one example that identifies strategic weakness.  If you have managers reporting to you, and you don’t insist on figuring out if everyone is in agreement regarding recruiting strategy (and then hold them accountable to their agreement), then who really is the lazy one?

We Have Some Lazy Managers!

I can't tell you how many times I have heard this statement over the years!  I just Googled "Lazy Managers" and came up with four full pages of content.  What do we make of this trend?

If it is indeed a trend, then there is something seriously wrong with how the jobs of managers are managed.  It is highly unlikely that all of these people get away with being lazy up until the day they are promoted into management. 

I presume that most people who claim "Some of my managers are lazy" probably really mean that, "They are not motivated to do what I have asked them to do."  If we were to go one step further, it means, "We don't share the same priorities."  Another step... "We don't agree on strategy."

If you agree with the latter explanation for those we perceive to be "lazy managers," you can help your organization begin working toward a solution.  Specifically, this entails working collectively to establish priorities and develop a strategy that is aligned with your company's goals. 

Below is one example of a difference in priority with regard to recruiting.  You will see how differing beliefs can quickly spiral into poor business decisions from both ends - managers and those to whom they report. 

As most of you know, we at Tidemark have worked very hard at solving some of the problems that plague most recruiting strategies.  We strive to provide a consistent, scalable system to attract, follow-up, and recruit high caliber new agents.  We've built a non-gimmicky system that simply works. This is an outsourced system - We source the candidates and deliver high numbers consistently.

One of the obstacles we face is the belief among Owners or GM's that having sourcing, appointment setting, and follow-up provided for managers, will make them "lazy."  To me, this is like saying that letting your college student use the internet for research, will make them lazy.

You can quickly see that the real problem is not laziness, but a difference in agreed upon priority, and perhaps fuzzy strategy. If managers don't really buy into their priority of recruiting new agents, they won't do it- no matter what.

Those who do view recruiting as a priority and central to their strategy, will use Tidemark's HiringCenter to augment what they're already doing (not replace), thus gaining a competitive advantage.  We clearly see differences in recruiting priority in the numbers that are generated by our clients, including differences between offices.

So, it really comes down to agreeing upon priorities, which begins with agreeing on strategy.  Tomorrow, I will discuss the advantages of having a clear recruiting strategy...

Are You Networking or "Not-Working?" - Part 2

Yesterday, our discussion focused on how social networking tools, such as LinkedIn, can hinder the development of a true network.  While these tools are not inherently counterproductive, they often provide limited assistance in equipping a person to do the “real work” necessary to build relationships.

In Peter Weddle’s discussion of the topic (see yesterday’s discussion for more background), he states:

“Now, if you've ever been in a relationship, you know two things about them.  First, you quickly learn that they are hard work.  That's why the word is spelled the way it is:  it's netWORK, not net-get-around-to-it-whenever-you-feel-like-it.  And second, you come to appreciate that relationships take time to develop.  They don't happen with the click of a mouse, whether you're on LinkedIn or Facebook or any other social or professional "networking" site.

You see, the Golden Rule of Networking is that you have to give as good as you get.  It's fundamentally an exchange of information, ideas, and/or assistance from which both parties derive value.  That mutual allocation of benefit establishes familiarity and trust, and those two factors are the twin pillars of a relationship.  When networking is working, that's what creates a relationship.”  

Peter does a great job of boiling down this issue to the most important point:  People who are truly in your network are those in which you have developed familiarity and trust.  Of course, those same people have also developed a common level of familiarity and trust with you.
 
In reality, most people have very small personal and professional networks.  They don’t dedicate the time and maintain the focus necessary to put together something more significant.  For most people, that’s OK.  They don’t have the bandwidth or the strengths to do more.  Most of us would agree that it’s better to have a close group of real friends than 1,000 contacts on LinkedIn.

However, if your job as a Hiring Manager or Recruiter depends upon networking for success, then you do yourself a disservice by focusing on shortcuts that amount to “not-working.”  Here are some ideas that may help you be more effective at networking:

1.  Dedicate a certain amount of time every day to real networking activities.  Unless an activity is scheduled, it seems to get pushed back by urgent matters.  Schedule a time each day to work on building and maintaining your network and stick to it.

2.  Focus on providing something of value to the people around you.  Reread what Peter said above:  “[Networking is] fundamentally an exchange of information, ideas, and/or assistance from which both parties derive value.”   He’s right. 

3.  Say "thank you."  If you’re struggling to find ways to provide something of value to those around you, try simply expressing gratitude.  A personal hand-written note or personal email is a great way to do this.  In the note, let people know you appreciate them, or you’re thankful for something they said, or you’ve heard something positive about them and you’re thankful to have friends with good character like them, etc...
  
4.  Ask for something.  Remember, true network relationships are two-way streets.  If you’re always providing the information, ideas, and assistance, and there is never any feedback from the other person, that’s a red flag.  Occasionally, ask for something and see what happens.  It could be something small, like a recommendation for a restaurant or advice on a problem.  If a person is not even willing to help you with something small, you may need to find some new network contacts.

There are many more ideas out there.  You’re welcome to leave a comment if you have a good idea that you think I’ve missed.  Just don’t suggest that I spend more time building my contacts on LinkedIn!

Are You Networking or "Not-Working?"

I wanted to follow-up on Dave’s article yesterday concerning the proper place for social networking tools in a job search.  He approached the topic from a candidate’s perspective.  Today, let’s look at it from a hiring manager / recruiter’s perspective.

A couple of months ago, I introduced you to Peter Weddle, a recruiting expert that I admire.  If you recall, Peter had some good insight concerning social networking tools in his bi-weekly newsletter that I thought was worth sharing.  For our current discussion, we’ll use LinkedIn as the example because it is the most common business social network.

As the name implies, social networking tools are supposed to assist recruiters and hiring managers to better network.  But, the reality is quite different:

“LinkedIn advertises itself as a networking tool for professionals.  That's fine.  But building up a huge (or even a small) address book of contacts is not networking.  In fact, given that networking is actually a form of dialogue that is most appropriately practiced as an integral part of one's business day, what's going on at LinkedIn today is best described as 'notworking.' "

Actual networking has some very significant advantages, but it is a lot of work.  The struggle is that we want the benefits of true networking, without doing the work.  Peter puts it this way:

“Now, if you've ever been in a relationship, you know two things about them.  First, you quickly learn that they are hard work.  That's why the word is spelled the way it is:  it's netWORK, not net-get-around-to-it-whenever-you-feel-like-it.  And second, you come to appreciate that relationships take time to develop.  They don't happen with the click of a mouse, whether you're on LinkedIn or Facebook or any other social or professional 'networking' site.”

Tomorrow, we’ll talk more about how relationships are built and identify a “value equation” that makes them work over time.

Beachcombing For Talent

Answer the following two questions honestly:

(1)  When did you find your company's best talent?

(2)  If you're in the real estate industry, did you find them during the real estate heyday when anyone could sell a house and everyone wanted to be a Realtor?

My favorite Uncle, Byron Cobb, loves to beachcomb.  "Beachcombing" involves searching the beach regularly for rare and interesting valuables that have been washed ashore.  In doing this, he has found some valuable articles over the years.

While Uncle Byron can be found "combing" on any given day, he claims the best time is the morning after a huge and dangerous storm.  On these mornings, the ocean spills out all sorts of interesting treasures.  It may not be the most comfortable time to search, but it is the most rewarding.

Finding talent is no different.  If you survey your own company, you might find that your best performers were "found" during the last recession.  Three of our clients have confirmed this theory recently.  I bet many of your most reliable, lowest maintenance, and most consistent producers were found during the early 1980's.

The reason is quite simple:  When people lose their jobs or are shaken to their core due to some devastating life change, they tend to re-evaluate the direction of their lives, asking themselves:  Have I really enjoyed what I'm doing? Is this consistent with who I am and what I want to achieve?  During down times, you are much more likely to hire someone who has given the change a lot of thought.  It's during this angst and hardship that talented people emerge and begin to make these life altering decisions.

During economic booms, you're more likely to attract people who are after the latest vocation fad.  These are the people who jump from job to job trying to chase easy money rather than determining to work hard and persist.  Others, who you may really want are too fat and happy where they are.  The golden handcuffs are more difficult to cut when things are going well.  People are too complacent and life is too easy during those times to consider a new call.

So ask yourself - Am I going to delay my beach combing for talent until the weather is nice and I'm competing with everyone else who combs when the weather is nice?  Or, am I going to put on my rain slicker now and find gems that are being washed up?

Those who invest resources to search now, will be the ones who are rewarded later...

Sidestepping the Hiring System

Yesterday, I discussed the fact that standard hiring systems, by nature, create a lot of frustration for people seeking employment.  Most people just endure this hardship, and eventually they do find a job.  Others make an effort to sidestep the hiring system.

There are many techniques that some very smart people have developed on this topic.  If you haven’t done so already, it may be helpful to look at some books on this topic, such as, "What Color is Your Parachute" or something similar. 

The most common “sidestepping” techniques involve some sort of networking.  People often hire people they know, or those who are known by others in their personal or professional network.  I think of our own company — more than 50% of our employees and working partners were initially identified by someone’s personal connection to the company.

But, what if you’re not good at networking?  You may not have a large number of contacts from which to draw, or you may have a personality that doesn’t make it easy for you to make connections.  One way to solve this problem is to find, and then work short-term “gigs.”

If you’re not familiar with this term, it is traditionally used to describe a temporary job (usually one night) for a musical performer.  But, it recently has taken on a more general meaning.  There are now “gig sections” on many job boards, including Craigslist.
 
These short term jobs can be a great way to earn some money, but they can also help build your network and help you become known by others for your talents.  Here are a couple examples from a recent article in the Seattle Times:

“When she didn't get tenure, English professor Diana Bloom used [Craigslist] to advertise herself as a tutor, editor and translator-for-hire.  She's been able to make a living through the work the Website directs her way since 2002, while staying home with her young son.  All that without ever having to pound the pavement.  ‘I'm not very outgoing and getting my foot in the door to companies would have been hard,’ said Bloom, of New York."

“Boston musician Will Knox managed to parlay [a gig] into long-term employment.  He found an internship on Craigslist as a Promotions and Marketing Manager for a country singer.  They ended up playing together, and the singer introduced him to his first guitar students.”

Both of these are examples of individuals who started their own businesses after working gigs. However, there are plenty of cases where gigs have led to traditional jobs as well.  The underlying principle is that opportunities seem to surface when you’re around other people.  It may be that it is easier to demonstrate your talents in real life rather than depend solely on your resume to do the job.

This is just one of many ideas that could be used to proactively increase your chances of finding employment.  Taking matters into your own hands by trying something different may shorten your job search and lessen your frustration.  One thing is certain, bemoaning the fact that companies mismanage the hiring process is not going to help you get a job.

Warning to the Job-Seeker: Most Companies Screw Up Hiring

I ran across the graphic in this posting a few weeks ago and thought it did a great job of describing the reality of the job hunting experience for most people.  The posting was in a newsletter sent out by Electronic Recruiting Exchange (ERE).  Here is a link to that newsletter if you care to read it.

This image came to mind after receiving an email from a person in my professional network who is currently job hunting.  I had sent her a note earlier in the week asking her how things are progressing. 

“Still looking and sending out tons of resumes and applying to jobs. It is so hard.  I just don’t understand it. There are so many jobs posted, but they take forever to get back to me.  I received a call yesterday from [a major insurance company you’d recognize] that I applied for 2 months ago!”

If you’re one of the 13 million people looking for work right now, you probably have experienced similar frustrations.  As the graphic suggests, you’re not imagining things.  

Most companies are pathetic at hiring.  It is bad enough that there is a huge amount of inefficiencies (the wasted money could be used to pay the wages of more people), but it is even more disappointing to realize that the candidates are the ones who suffer the most. 

Unfortunately, this is reality, and it is not going to change in the near future.  Is there anything you can do to make the most of this reality?  I think so.  Here are a few ideas:

1.  Adjust your expectations.  If you’re responding to job openings posted by companies, expect delays, poor communication, mishandled paperwork, and other problems.  It doesn’t matter who you are or how qualified you are for a position; companies will still botch the hiring process.  People experience disappointment, discouragement, and even a sense of despair when expectations do not match reality.  Lower your expectations.

2.  Remember, it’s a numbers game.  If your hope is to see one perfect job posting, send the prospective employer a resume, and then get hired; what happens when thing don’t work out?  You’re devastated.  What if you’re working on 20 different opportunities and one doesn’t work out?  You still have 19 more opportunities.  Concentrate most of your efforts on keeping the opportunity bucket full.  Something will eventually work out.

3.  Sidestep the hiring system.  If companies are going to screw up the hiring process, maybe you should sidestep the process all together.  There are career gurus who espouse the benefits of looking for a job outside traditional techniques.  The most notable is Richard Bolles, but there are many others, as well.  Some of these techniques are worth investigating because they acknowledge that the system is broken and provide solutions from this premise.

Tomorrow, I’ll cover one of these techniques in detail.