LG & Associates Search / Talent Strategy

What the 2008 Presidential Elections Have to Teach Us About Video Interviewing

Today's BBC News article titled "Americans turn to online videos" has some pretty eye-opening stats; stats that may prove quite indicative of the growing phenomenon of online video, particularly as it relates to video interviewing.

- "According to Pew Internet nearly half (48%) of US net users visited a video sharing site during 2007."
- "On a typical day, some 15% were either watching or posting video."
- Some 54% of American adults now have a high-speed connection at home, compared to 45% at the same time last year.
- "According to the Pew Internet Project, men are slightly more likely to use a video-sharing site than women - 53% compared to 43%."

- *** But it is the young who are really driving the increase with 70% of people under 30 using such sites." ***

- "The dramatic rise in the number of video-sharing sites and other websites that incorporate video has had the knock-on effect of increasing the number of amateur video makers."
- "Some 22% of Americans now shoot their own videos, with 14% of them posting at least some of that video online."

- *** "Video sharing sites are also getting more closely involved in the issues that affect everyday Americans." ***

So let's see how this translates to video interviewing (and gasp, video resumes in the future!) -

1. Online video is growing in viral fashion among people under 30.
2. Birth rates are below replacement in “developed” economies.
3. Large segments of the U.S. population are at or near retirement ("Baby Boomers")
4. As the 'World Gets Flatter', there is increasing global competition for talent (i.e. The U.S. isn't the defacto destination for top global talent anymore).
5. "In the summer [of 2007], YouTube co-hosted a presidential debate with TV giant CNN -- The two-hour long broadcast featured all eight of the declared Democratic candidates and consisted entirely of questions that had been submitted online."

If the upcoming Presidential candidates have learned that campaigning can benefit from online video, perhaps we should take a closer look as well. Instead of resisting change and blindly adhering to many of the 'status quo' hiring principles (developed in the Henry Ford era), maybe the time has come to start start talking about the future of hiring and how video fits in.

Search Strings: "Some People Call 'Em Strings . . . I Call 'Em Monuments"

“Some people call ‘em strings, I call ‘em monuments . . . “

“The signature is about doing big things -- It means you’ve worked so hard . . . that someone wants your string as their string!”

“Are we gonna search with your string?”

As a member of the Talent Acquisition community (Recruitment, Sourcing, and all things Human Capital), I have reached my personal saturation limit with marketing messages, 'whitepapers', and webinars suggesting that I can make more placements and/or help clients make better hires through the latest and greatest search string. It makes me think of . . . . Air Jordan sneakers!

Now, I admit it - when the first Jordan's first came out in 1985, I wanted a pair. Then, when MJ won the slam dunk competition in 1986-87 (and Nike switched the logo to the familiar JumpMan logo of today), I REALLY wanted a pair! When I finally saved up enough cash through my paper route at 11 yrs old, I headed off and had my first experience with consumer irrationality - yes, it was good ole' 1987, and I was fully convinced that these Jordans would make me run faster and jump higher. Nike's marketing had worked . . . I believed their commercial that "It Was All In The Imagination."

It was probably here in life when I was introduced to what experts call the 'placebo effect'. Did the shoes make me run faster? Unfortunately not. Did they make me jump higher? Again, unfortunately not (yes, yes, I admit being quite upset when I wasn't able to dunk from the foul line like I thought I was going to be able to!)

So, when it comes to search strings, I have to let you know - Air Jordans don't make you jump higher, and search strings don't help you recruit better. Is there any impact on Quality-of-Hire? (meaning can I now dunk?) . . .

When you watch the commercial here, do me a favor and each time you hear "shoes", replace it in your mind with "strings" - you might get a laugh out of it ;)

- Josh Letourneau ("The Human Capitalist")

Where Guitar Hero III, M&A Activity, And Recruiting Strategy Intersect . . .

We've all seen it before: Company X acquires Company Y . . . and all the talk about supposed 'synergies' dominate the press and analysts. Do the synergies pan out in most cases? Nope, not really (but they sound cool at first and definitely get the shareholders to vote in favor of the desired course of action!) As Human Capitalists, all of us here know that the talent profile of the organization is likely due to change as well - at the end of the day, lives are affected . . . many times on a grand scale if it's a high-profile merger or acquisition anyway.

I admit that I am a Guitar Hero junkie . . . which has little to nothing to do with M&A activity, right? Well, Guitar Hero has quite a few junkies like me out there. Because of GH III's record sales in the last quarter of 2007, Activision had a monster year (~$125+ Million USD in GH III sales alone since 11/07 the last time I checked). For a little history, GH was originally created by Red Octane, who was acquired by Activision in mid-2006. Just 18 months later (December 2007), Activision then merged with Vivendi SA's Blizzard Entertainment Inc. (which leads the market for subscription-based online video games with the World of Warcraft series.)

I don't want to include 'too many' numbers here, so I'll try to keep this at more of a high level. Activision's blockbuster product is Guitar Hero III - if you look at GH III's % of total revenue, it is easy to see where Activision should be allocating its top and most talented resources. A basic rule of business is to allocate your 'best' resources to the areas in the organization that most drive share price and sustained profitability (in large, publicly traded companies, this is absolute . . . while not always easy to execute on, the notion is still correct). It's not enough to just have top talent if they're allocated to areas that are less meaningful to the organization - the goal is having the right talent in the right place at the right time.

My question is this: How do you identify NOT who your best people are, but rather, which positions are most critical to shareholder value, sustained profitability, and/or short-term/long-term business objectives, etc.? Do you begin with identifying which roles support your most profitable (or just revenue-producing) products? . . . or which roles support not just your cash cows and stars, but your question marks as well? Do you judge which roles are most pivotal by looking at EVA of a product line, customer segment, or business unit?

What I've noticed over the last 3 months or so is that as the conversations get more strategic, many Recruitment Leaders and HR Leaders get more and more honest that the volume of active reqs is so high and administrative tasks ('red tape') so daunting that they don't have the time or inclination to stop and take a breath.

As for me, my personal strengths include a knowledge of marketing & strategy, including how we can begin defining profitability per differing customer segments. The more we get into this conversation (i.e. seeing your company as different segments of customers and less as functional-silos or product-silos), the more we begin to see what customer segments are creating shareholder value versus which are destroying it. As a result, we are able to identify which roles, positions, and individuals within the organization are most closely responsible for creating value through supporting the most profitable customer segments and/or highest margin or revenue producing products & services. We also have situations where there may exist short-term imperatives, like implementing a new SAP module within the Procurement function. Therefore, if SAP Business Analysts, New Product R&D professionals, and/or Mid-Market Sales Professionals are most critical at Company X, we can then begin sourcing efforts (and/or passive recruiting efforts) at these roles which are most crucial.

Will this work in the traditional 'reactive' recruiting organization? No, it will likely not . . . but there is application for certain types of organizations. Now, I'm a 3rd party service provider, so I'm not surprised when some of what I'm saying generates nothing but the sound of crickets in the room at meetings! ("We have 75 open reqs and they're all of the same importance!") For all of you who consider strategy prior to jumping into the trenches and hitting the web & phones, how do YOU go about the process of prioritization?