LG & Associates Search / Talent Strategy

What Internal & 3rd Party Recruiters Can Learn From Steve Jobs!

When it comes to the business world, Steve Jobs is the Man.  Period. 

This guy creates value in just about everything he touches - Is every new product Apple launches a blockbuster? . . . No, but his track record is a laundry list of immense successes.  If you owned Apple stock just 12 months ago, I'm sure you'd agree.  12 months ago to the day, you could have bought AAPL at $95/share on the high.  If you sold off on New Year's Eve (at a price of $200/share), you more than doubled your money.  Now that's value creation, my Friend.

In fact, I'd recommend that Internal Recruiters and 3rd-Party Recruiters take a moment to read the following interview with Fortune Magazine.  Yes, we have great recruiting trainers in our industry, and there's always an industry-specific consultant that will offer new ideas . . . but what if we went outside our normal confines and really found out what Steve Jobs thinks about talent?  Would that be of value?  Sure, it would!  So here's what Steve says:

"When I hire somebody really senior, competence is the ante. They have to be really smart. But the real issue for me is, Are they going to fall in love with Apple?  Because if they fall in love with Apple, everything else will take care of itself. They'll want to do what's best for Apple, not what's best for them, what's best for Steve, or anybody else.

Recruiting is hard. It's just finding the needles in the haystack. We do it ourselves and we spend a lot of time at it. I've participated in the hiring of maybe 5,000-plus people in my life. So I take it very seriously. You can't know enough in a one-hour interview. So, in the end, it's ultimately based on your gut. How do I feel about this person? What are they like when they're challenged? Why are they here? I ask everybody that: 'Why are you here?' The answers themselves are not what you're looking for. It's the meta-data."

So the next time you're interviewing a candidate, don't focus on track record and track record alone . . . look for passion and whether you see that twinkle in a candidate's eye that says, "I can fall in love with this company."

SSF (Strategic Sourcing Framework) Implementation - Don't Just Play Better . . . Change The Game.

STRATEGIC SOURCING FRAMEWORK Implementation (aka "Proactive Talent Pooling"):

Feel like just another player in your local recruiting game? If so, don't focus on simply playing the game better -- Change the game instead . . .

* What if you were 'top of mind' among the pivotal talent pools within your sector?

* What difference could it make to your firm's performance if you had the first right of refusal (aka "first dibs") on all A-players in your market?

* What if your competitors only had access to those performers that your organization passed over?

Our SSF is THE way for your recruiting organization to change the game.

SSF is different because is not about technology in and of itself . . . and it's not solely about contract resources to help execute. It's a foundational philosophy & coinciding framework within which the technology and resources fit in depending on your particular needs and geography, etc.

Don't just play better . . . Change the game.

Pretty Cool - Joshua Letourneau of LG & Assoc To Present a Human Capital Institute Webcast on Strategic Talent Sourcing Innovation (4/18/08 at 1 p.m. EST)

Wow, this is not only quite an honor, but pretty cool as well - since our SSF (Strategic Sourcing Framework) has in many ways been met with raised eyebrows on the Talent Acquisition side of the fence . . . and fierce resistance on the Executive Search / Third Party Recruitment side of the fence.  Therefore, I admit I'm quite surprised, however humbly flattered, that HCI reached out for this.  Here's why:

     a. Talent Acquisition has raised some eyebrows because SSF stands to disrupt the normal order of things . . . in more progressive recruiting organizations, this is met with open eyes and ears . . . while in less progressive recruitment organizations, change is a little more painful.  And let's be honest: The majority of recruiting organizations do not fall into the 'more progressive' category. Having Talent Acquisition broken out from HR is a distinct first step in the right direction . . . (albeit only the first step in the shift from a cost-center focus to an investment mindset).

     b. Executive Search / Third Party Search isn't real happy as SSF stands to jeopardize their revenue streams that are built more on Internal Recruitment inefficiencies than on actually providing passive A-players for pivotal roles.  My timing for this statement is quite relevant as just last week, I tuned into a BountyJobs.com webcast featuring Lou Adler, in which he presented on Passive Candidate Recruitment to the Headhunter/Exec Search community. So many questions on passive candidates came pouring in that I asked myself, "If a Headhunter or Exec Search Consultant isn't providing A-level passive or semi-passive talent, then who are they providing???"

The details and title of the webcast are being ironed out, so more will come soon.  This is what I have at this point -- Date: Friday, April 18th at 1 p.m. EST. Please tune in and share your thoughts and opinions!

Quick Plug for Lou Adler: This was my first time listening to him present, and I tuned in to gauge his presentation style, energy, and content. I admit that I was very surprised - from my perspective, Lou offered very strong delivery, his content was relevant & focused, and his usage of graphics to convey complex concepts was superb. Although I have no personal experience with his programs, I believe that his Performance-Based Hiring program may be just-what-the-doctor-ordered for recruiting organizations to right the ship. Is it right for all recruiting organizations? No, probably not . . . but there is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all solution when we're talking about talent acquisition.  My point is that there is a large market that needs his solution . . . badly. I say that because I see them every day.  As a matter of fact, as a third-party, I often feel like half my sales calls are scenes from the Sixth Sense: "I See Dead Recruiting."

And here's the real deal: Anybody who knows me will attest that I don't condone or recommend a solution, product, or service unless I believe it stands to offer increasing value. I have no relationship with Lou, personal or professional (in fact, we've never even physically spoken), so I'm recommending his program from a standpoint of non-bias and respect for its propensity to deliver results.

Job Seekers, Beware!: Why Job Board Resumes Are Seen As Re-circulatory Garbage

Take a good look at the attached image and you'll begin to understand the analogy between Job Board resumes and Re-circulatory Garbage . . . Go ahead, click on it:

Take another look at let it sink in a little bit.  Many candidates I speak with do not truly understand the ramifications of having their name, address, and phone number, etc. public on a board like Monster, CareerBuilder, etc, for the whole world to see.  Think about it: Do you really want your information to be used as wallpaper for every corporate and third-party recruiter out there? 

Sure, I appreciate that by doing so, an opportunity may find you - after all, maybe you hate your job so much that you're willing to take the risk . . . and although this comment might sting, maybe you're part of that 10% of the job market that is simply ALWAYS looking for a new job (or new boyfriend/girlfriend, new home/apartment, etc., thinking that the solution/perfect job/soulmate is out there for you somewhere!)

If that's the case, I'm not a pyscho-therapist so I hesitate to provide advice . . . however, if this doesn't describe you, consider the following:

        a. Your resume may have been auto-downloaded by HR through a job-board bot - if you don't have the keywords necessary in your resume, you never wind up in anyone's email account or on their applicant-tracking system desktop (i.e. your resume is never physically seen, yet alone reviewed, however HR "owns" your resume for 12 - 18 months). What this means is that you did not make it through the keyword criteria in the first place, and if a recruiter presents you, HR steps in and says, "We have that resume in our system and they were passed over due to lack of match."

        b. An unscrupulous third-party recruiter (exec search consultant / headhunter / etc.) may have submitted your resume to a position without your approval.  Yes, there are dirty recruiters out there that will do this in order to get the OK to work on a position. They may attach your resume in an email to the hiring manager ("I found this candidate who may be a good fit for your open position"), and then when they get approval to work on the position, they then say, "Oh, that candidate failed a background check", or "That candidate took another job".  In other words, your resume became a marketing piece for a dirty recruiter to fill the position through one of his/her own candidates . . . to earn a fee on the placement.

        c. You may have inadvertently submitted yourself to a position a recruiter is working on, meaning in addition to the client company (as a headhunter's job is to find the passive seeker, not the active seeker) - If so, we will be given the red light by HR. I hear things like, "That candidate has already submitted themselves to 4 open jobs - they don't even know what they are looking for".  What happens?  It's simple - the headhunter is not able to create an aura of mystery and confidentiality regarding your candidacy.

There is a perception of the boards that great candidates don't put their information out there for the world to see - the perception is that the best candidates are happy where they are and are not looking for a competitive opportunity. The other perception is that, at any given point in time, 10% of a given workforce is actively looking for a new opportunity, whether they are unhappy or improperly matched, etc. - the question for a prospective employer is, "Since this 10% makes up the job board resume database, is this the 10% you want working for your company?"

While I can personally say that while these perceptions are true 95% of the time, there are anomalies. Not everyone on the job board is a mediocre candidate - it's just that it's hard to find the good apple in the bunch.  Worse, the good apple is seen with a skeptical eye.  If you sleep with dogs, don't complain when HR or the Hiring Manager thinks you might have fleas.

At the end of the day, Monster (and the other boards) make their $$$ by selling two things:

        a. Access to the site by HR and recruiters (meaning access to the 5 million resumes), and

        b. Job advertisements.

The more people that post resumes on the site, the more they can 'cost-justify' their pricing. The best analogy I can make is nightclubs that realize in order to get the guys to come and spend some serious cash, you have to give the girls free admission and free drinks (well, maybe until 11pm or so!) Without the women, the guys won't show up. In the same respect, a database of 5 million resumes is quite the attraction to HR and 3rd party recruiters.

Moral of the story:  If you're going to put yourself on a board, at least put your contact info as 'Confidential' - it's a small conciliation, but at least communicates that you're aware of the re-circulatory garbage floating around in your midst.

Where Private Equity Collides with Donuts and National Security

Pop quiz: What do donuts and national security/intel have in common?  Better stated, what do Dunkin' Donuts and Booz Allen Hamilton have in common?

Answer: They may soon both have the same owner, the Carlyle Group.  Carlyle purchased Dunkin Donuts for a discount at $2.4 Billion back in December of '05 . . . and now is eyeballing BAH's government contracting business for around the same purchase price, speculatively valued at approximately $2 billion.

As they say, "Only in America" . . . Yes, you have to love the private equity game!

Notably Booz Allen is a key adviser and prime contractor to all of the major U.S. intelligence agencies – the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), the National Security Agency (NSA),  and – as well as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the National Counterterrorism Center, the Department of Defense and most of the Pentagon’s combat commands.

On the other side of the spectrum, Dunkin Donuts is an organization that sees 80% of its revenue come from the geography between Boston and D.C. . . . and well, makes donuts.

If you're interested, here's some more reading:

Carlyle Group May Buy Major CIA Contractor: Booz Allen Hamilton

U.S. Air Force Outsourcing Our National Security?

As LG & Associates Search / Talent Strategy works with a number of Defense Contractors, in addition to candidates proven to perform within the top 20% of their defense-sector peers, we admit there has been quite a bit of chatter and conversation regarding the KC-X Tanker award to EADS (Airbus).

Here's the short of the matter: Last week, the U.S. Air Force awarded EADS with a $40 Billion USD contract for the KC-X Mid-Air Refueling Tanker. Boeing was passed over. The cost to our economy is not only $40 Billion USD, but also approximately 44,000 jobs. Yes, 44,00 jobs . . . as we head deeper into recessionary times. Does this make sense to outsource elements of our National Security? EADS has already been busted for trying to sell aircraft to Iran, and in addition faces a WTO case from the U.S. Government regarding Airbus tactics.

Senator Patty Murray presented a case to the President last week and brings up another outstanding point:

What happens if France – or Russia, which is pushing to increase its stake in EADS – decides it wants to slow down our military capacity because it doesn’t like our policies? Do we want another country to have that kind of control? I think that’s one of the questions we need to decide the answer to now.

If you agree with Boeing employees that this is a "slap in the face of American workers" and want to see something done about it, you can House Rep Todd Tiahrt's (R-Kansas) online petition to voice your opinion at:

Tanker Outrage: What is Your Opinion?