WorkPuzzle

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. 

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.

Twittcrastination

In the last 6 months, we’ve received a lot of questions about a micro-blogging service called Twitter.  If you’ve not heard of Twitter yet, I am sure you will soon.

The service is similar to social networking sites like Facebook or MySpace, except the posts are limited to 140 characters.  It is estimated that Twitter now has more than five million users.
  
One of the big differences between Twitter and the common social networks is a powerful search engine that allows users to mine others' postings for useful information.  It takes on some Google-like characteristics in that sense.  In addition, Twitter can be easily accessed on a cell phone or mobile device due to its simplicity.

We’re not quite sure how a service like Twitter could assist in recruiting and coaching.  There are definitely some companies trying to figure this out (ex. www.tweetmyjob.com ).  Nonetheless, there are some signs that it may play a significant role in how information is collected and used.
 
One of these signs is the development of a “language” around the use of the tool.  Dominant companies and concepts in our culture tend to figure out a way to control the language.  For example, we now “Google” something on the internet.  If you need some information on a topic, you pull up Wikipedia.  How many people knew what “wiki” meant before Wikipedia?

Twitter users have gone overboard on this concept.  There is a whole language developing around the use of Twitter.  Here is an abridged glossary found in Business Week:

At Reply, or "@reply":  A direct tweet sent to another Twitter user.
Hash Tag:  The "#" sign. Allows Twitter users to group tweets by topic, making it easier to search particular conversations using Twitter Search.
Link:  Including a URL in your tweet.
MisTweet:  A tweet one later regrets.
ReTweet:  To re-post something that's already in the Twitter stream.  Usually preceeded by "RT" and "@[username]," to give credit to the original poster.
SnapTweet:  A tweet that includes a photo taken with a cell phone, uploaded to Flickr and posted to Twitter via snaptweet.com.
Twadd:  To add someone as a friend or follower.
Twaigslist/Twebay:  To sell something on Twitter.
Tweeter/Twitterer:  Someone who uses Twitter.
TwinkedIn:  Inviting friends made on Twitter to connect on LinkedIn.
Twittectomy:  To remove someone from the list of people you follow.
Twitterati:  The A-list twitterers everyone follows.
Twitterfly:  Twitter's version of a social butterfly, marked by the extreme use of @ signs.
Twitterlooing:  Twittering from the bathroom.
Twitterpated:  Overwhelmed with Twitter messages.
Twittfeinated, Twigged Out, Twired:  To be so hyped up on twittering that you cannot sleep

So, are you up for the new realities of a Twitter-infested world?  On the surface, it seems like Twitter is just another path to “Twittcrastination.”  Perhaps I just do not understand the possibilities yet...

Do You Have a Set of Hancuffs Handy? - Part 2

Yesterday, we discussed the idea of using self-imposed restraints to reach goals and improve performance.  There was an interesting study conducted by a doctoral student at Harvard that investigated the nature of how humans tend to act in this regard: 

“Katherine Milkman, a doctoral student at Harvard Business School, has studied the way customers wrestle with two kinds of products: 'wants,' which are things they crave in the moment, and 'shoulds,' which are the things they know are good for them.  For instance, Milkman studied the Australian equivalent of Netflix and found that when customers rent a 'should' film, such as Schindler's List, along with a 'want' film, such as Die Hard 3, they tend to watch (and return) the want film much faster.  We aspire to be the kind of people who watch Schindler's List, but two weeks later, it's still sitting on top of the DVD player, unwatched, as we rotate through the entire John McClane cycle.” (Fast Company)

So, even with the best of intentions, we’ll struggle (and often fail) to do the things that are best for us.  This is why some restraints are necessary.

With regard to your personal performance, start by asking yourself these questions:

1. Is there an activity that I could stop doing that would improve my performance?
2. Is there an activity that I enjoy and naturally gravitate towards doing that I could limit to improve my performance?
3. Are their restraints that I can put in place to keep myself from falling back into my natural tendencies?

Let me give you an example from my own life:  I enjoy learning about politics and popular culture.  There are a number of cable news programs that cater to this interest.  A couple of years ago, I came to the conclusion that I was wasting too much time watching these programs.  I learned that I could get the same amount of substance from reading a 10-minute summary of the news from the Seattle Times.  So, I stopped watching cable news programs.

While this was a good start, I soon found that I needed even more restraint.  I was still able to waste time, even with my conversion to the news summary.  There were times when I would read five or six articles at a sitting.  I would look up at the clock and notice that 45 minutes had passed.  I definitely needed another restraint.  I now limit myself to reading one article that catches my interest from the summary, per day. 

I was successful in eliminating one activity from my daily routine.  In addition, I found a way to replace it with an activity that has some natural restraints built into it (It’s a summary, rather than a whole show).  Even with my scaled-down activity, I hold myself accountable to a simple rule that keeps this activity from detracting from my personal performance.

For most of us, this is hard to accomplish on our own.  We need structure, accountability, and relationships to maintain our restraints.  We need help recognizing where time is being wasted and how to focus our efforts on the activities that will produce the best results.

If your manager or someone else in your organization is not providing this type of accountability, it is important to understand that you’re the one being hurt most by this arrangement.  Ask for some handcuffs during your next coaching session.

Do You Have a Set of Handcuffs Handy?

The bestselling authors of Made to Stick, Dan and Chip Heath, write a monthly column in Fast Company.  This month’s column caught my attention because it is so counter-intuitive.  The premise of the article is that people will pay you to restrain them.

The classic example is the purchase of a piggy bank for a child.  Let’s suppose that a piggy bank can hold $25 in spare change.  The purpose of the piggy bank is to prevent the child from spending the loose change until the $25 goal has been reached.  The piggy bank is really a restraint system that restricts the child from giving in to short-term impulses.

Of course, it is not just kids who lack self-control.  Some alcoholics are willing to consume a drug called Antabuse that makes them sick if they drink.  Some people who struggle with obesity undergo gastric-bypass surgery, restricting the size of their stomach.  In both cases, individuals are investing resources for the purpose of being restrained from their own behavior.

Researchers have gotten in on this as well.  The article sites this example:

“In one study, students were told they had to turn in three papers by the end of the semester and were given the option to assign earlier binding due dates for the work.  Almost three-quarters of them jumped at the chance, thus saving themselves from a frantic Red Bull-and-Wikipedia bender in the last week."

How can this principle be applied to both your personal performance and the performance of those you’re required to coach and manage?  Tune in tomorrow for more on this topic....

Avoiding Incompetence

Yesterday, we reminded you that the Peter Principle has a logical corollary:

“Peter's Corollary states that, in time, every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out his duties... Work is [therefore] accomplished by those employees who have not yet reached their level of incompetence.”

I met with part of the executive team of a very large real estate company in the Seattle area yesterday.  During part of the meeting, the discussion focused on how some people are “wired” to perform certain tasks with a high level of proficiency. 

As the discussion progressed, the General Manager of this group mentioned that their company had collected assessment data demonstrating that their best managers had substantially different make-ups than their best sales people. 

I was shocked.  Why?  Because this company naturally acknowledged this reality. It was refreshing because we work with the executive teams of so many different companies who have still not grasped this concept.  They may acknowledge it on the surface, but their actions reveal their true beliefs.
 
Let me give you an example of a more typical encounter - A couple of years ago, the owner of a regional insurance company looked me in the eye and said:

“I will never use an assessment for hiring because I took the [common surface trait assessment] and it suggested I would not be good at sales.  But I was the best salesperson this company has ever had!”

In this case, the assessment he took was not built for hiring, and the profile that was being used as a benchmark was not designed for his specific company.  These are both tactical problems that would need to be solved, but the bigger problem is this executive’s basic belief system.
 
He believes that his remarkable capacity to start and build a successful insurance company would be very similar to the recipe of capacities necessary to successfully perform the day-to-day sales function in his company.  This is right where Peter’s Corollary comes into play.  Remember....

"Work is [therefore] accomplished by those employees who have not yet reached their level of incompetence.”

If the Owner hires people like himself, he will likely end up with new employees who perform well quickly, but then get bored and want to do more than just sell.  If an interesting, short-term opportunity is not available in the company, they’ll leave to find that opportunity.  These people simply are not wired to perform the day-to-day sales function for a long period of time.

Let’s suppose that at some point in the future a Sales Manager position opens up.  With the Owner’s paradigm (“I was the best salesperson this company has ever had!”), who will he choose for the position?  That's right, someone who has a proven sales record!

You can see how seductive our natural tendencies are concerning the realities of the Peter Principle.  If you’re coaching or managing people, acknowledge that their highest and best contribution at work will be below their level of incompetence. 

Don’t arbitrarily push people into an arena where they do not have the natural capacities to perform.  Instead, work on helping them gain proficiency in the area where their natural talents already align with the tasks in that role.  Certainly, there are times where a job change makes sense, but careful not to react in a manner that would make a good illustration for the next Dilbert cartoon.

The Peter Principle Turns 40

It is rare that someone unveils something so profound that it continues to resonate with us 40 years after its discovery.  When Dr. Laurence Peter published the “The Peter Principle” in 1968, he did just that. 

If you manage and coach people, you’re probably familiar with this principle already.  If not through the formal name and description, then you’ve become familiar through observation.

The Peter Principle is the principle that:

" 'In a Hierarchy Every Employee Tends to Rise to His Level of Incompetence'...It holds that in a hierarchy, members are promoted so long as they work competently.  Sooner or later, they are promoted to a position in which they are no longer competent (their 'level of incompetence'), and there they remain.  Peter's Corollary states that, 'in time, every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out his duties... Work is [therefore] accomplished by those employees who have not yet reached their level of incompetence.' " (Wikipedia)

Peter reached his audience through humor.  There is something funny about how people view and participate in work.  He was able to capture this in his book, but he also inspired others to find humor in work as well. 

“Peter's book contains many real-world examples and thought-provoking explanations of human behavior.  Similar observations on incompetence can be found in the Dilbert cartoon series (such as The Dilbert Principle), the movie Office Space, and the television show The Office.  In particular, the Dilbert Principle seems to be an extension to the Peter Principle.”

Dr. Peter died in 1990, but his book is being republished this year. 

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.