Hiring Managers

… And Yet More “Recruiting is Sales!” Bullshit

Yet another article, again predictably on LinkedIn, claiming recruiting is sales.

And yet another blog poster blaming HR for shitty results.  Now, to be fair to the author, Lou Adler, I have found his techniques very helpful in recruiting.  His Performance Based Hiring system is something I’d recommend everyone take a look at, because you’ll invariably learn something useful.  But when you read his stuff, it’s always a lot of anecdotal ‘evidence’ and very little actual evidence.  Up until recently he was one of those people who always claimed ‘passive’ candidates were better, but he and that view in general took a big enough beating recently that it seems even he backed off of that in a recent post.  Specifically because there’s literally zero evidence to justify that view.  Passive candidates are more numerous at any given point in time, that’s all.  How they have performed or will perform in the future is completely independent of their job search status.  I like to think my and others’ heckling of this bullshit on sites like Ere.net might have helped lead to this shift in rhetoric.

So, here in this article Lou wants recruiting to report to the CEO.  Here I’ll have to go Lou’s way and speak in anecdotes and experience, I’ve looked and I’m not sure the evidence on this subject.  My suspicion is he could be right, but there is a deeper problem; assuming recruiting is sales, and a lack of accountability, and sales people are aces at avoiding accountability.

The idea that HR is some obstacle is really not the case.  As both an agency and corporate recruiter, I’ve worked with HR departments that were helpful, and others that were obstacles.  I’ve worked with hiring managers that were helpful, and others that were obstacles.  In the C suite I’ve worked with execs who were helpful, and others that were obstacles.  The reporting relationships were generally not the issue, the issue was no one gave a shit and no one was accountable.  My suspicion is the problems with recruiting stem from the fact that no one really gives a shit about their employees, plain and simple.  Here in the US you’re “lucky to have a job,” our hours worked are up, our benefits are down, our PTO is basically non existent, and our wages are largely stagnant.  This does not indicate an environment that values employees, but rather one that sees them as disposable.

There are two views of sales in my world: good sales people are into needs fulfillment and will advise and consult with people to make good decisions, bad sales people are scum bags chasing a commission, who will do anything to get it.  The majority of recruiters, in my experience, fall into the latter category.  And even for the existing ‘good’ ones, few companies out there are concerned enough with meeting the needs of their employees in order to get them engaged and retain them, much less recruit them.  More often than not, they just work them to burn out and then replace them.  There’s just not that much to sell when the preferred approach to employment is churn and burn, to be blunt.

More ‘sales’ does not solve the problem.  Sales people are not accountable in good organizations because they’re good sales people, they’re accountable because there’s a good manager there bringing objective reality to the situation, so when they say their numbers aren’t at quota, s/he can look at their excuses and say objectively if they have a point or not.  There are objective stats to go over and measure against.  More sales will not bring that to recruiting, nor will changing the reporting relationships, but accountability will.

In Lou’s own method, you have to justify a ‘No’ vote on a hire as much as a ‘Yes.’  ‘No’ can cost the company as much as ‘yes,’ if it’s the wrong move.  But it takes an accountant to realize that, not a sales person.  Sales people are notoriously blind to opportunity cost, and the concept of accountability is often in direct contradiction in their minds with the customer always being right.  What’s missing from recruiting is supply chain and accounting principles that let people spot the cost of not hiring and bad hires, or poor retention, not a lack of sales.  They need to understand the cost of not having what you need when you need it, or having the wrong stuff there.  If anything there’s too much damn sales of the bullshit kind in recruiting, and too little objective reality, too few people calling bullshit on bad hiring decisions, whether it’s not hiring or hiring the wrong person.  A buyer in a factory who refused to buy materials needed to keep it going, and who gave vague ass reasons about ‘fit’ and ‘culture’ as to why they didn’t buy when the factory ground to a halt, would be fired.  As a manager or recruiter, you get praised for doing the same thing, and sales people facilitate this bullshit, they don’t check it.

As for reporting to the CEO, well you can go that route or not, I don’t think it will make a difference one way or another.  The real truth is the costs of poor recruiting and poor management are not captured by most companies except in the vaguest, most diffuse ways, much less are they factored into the bottom line calculations, so the costs of poor decisions are unacknowledged and unseen by most.  We live in a world where labor is increasingly seen as disposable, where the costs of treating labor as disposable aren’t even tallied in most cases, and yet where every company, regardless of how horrendously it treats its employees, expects to get Top! Talent! at bargain basement prices, and then to expend no effort whatsoever in the retention of that talent.  And they think this way, in large part I believe, because a bunch of sales people taught them too.

“No, no, Mr. Manager, it makes total sense to not hire someone because their degree is from a school that has a football rivalry with your alma mater, we’ll get you someone else…”

“Absolutely, Mr. Manager, turnover of 500% is normal, especially when your preferred method of managing people is screaming at them and calling them names, we’ll get you some more people for that position shortly…”

“No worries, Mr. Manager, paid time off is for pussies, and it’s totally alright to fire someone because their parents were killed in a car accident and they needed to attend the funeral.  Don’t worry, we’ll have a replacement for you soon…”

“You’re right, Mr. Manager, how dare that lady take PTO to see her child in the E.R. after an accident when she didn’t have enough time accrued in her bucket, we’ll get you a replacement by tomorrow…”

These are all real life examples I’ve either experienced myself or heard first hand from other recruiters and HR people.  I truly don’t think people like Lou are clued in to how horrendously bad most companies treat their employees and how little they give a shit about their ‘talent.’  And because of that lack of value, there is a lack of accountability in obtaining and retaining talent.  The reporting relationship doesn’t matter in the end, no one gives enough of a shit about the goal for it to matter.  They say they care, every company gives lip service to caring about its employees, but actions are what matter.  And, in action, most companies couldn’t care less about their employees.  They’d happily throw them into a wood chipper if it meant higher quarterly profits.

That is the root of mediocre hiring, not reporting relationships.  If Talent Acquisition reported to the CEO, they would still have jack shit to work with in terms of stats to convince the CEO that there was an issue, and the CEO will likely consider himself or herself a God among people, generously dispensing jobs to the lucky, and how dare they speak about market rates for labor, or paid time off for vacations, etc.  The new modern worker is expected to work 90 hours a week, never take a vacation, never work remotely, never leave the office, never get a raise, never have a medical problem, never have to do anything, ever, which might require leaving their desk for one picosecond.  That is the problem, and it’s not one a different reporting relationship will solve.

Again, my opinion.  But after ten years in this business, I feel confident saying that most employers couldn’t give a shit less about their ‘talent.’  And I also feel confident in saying that a lack of acknowledgement of the ‘sales’ aspects of recruiting isn’t the problem.  If anything, it’s too much sales and not enough incorporation of the principles of accounting, engineering, and management into the recruiting process.  We need fewer sales types in recruiting and more who are ready and willing to start using data and stats to hold people accountable.  When a hiring manager leaves a position open for months on end, they need to stop being praised for being ‘picky’ and an objective assessment of who they’ve interviewed and not hired, and what that’s cost the company, needs to be made.  When a manager has high turnover they need to stop being praised for being ‘demanding,’ and to start being held accountable for the extra cost of replacing people on their team more often.  When clients don’t return your calls or don’t give feedback on candidates you’ve sent, you need to stop labeling those accounts as ‘challenging,’ and instead drop them and find new clients.  When a company keeps losing people due to the fact that their hours or their PTO policies suck dog ass, it’s time they acknowledged that and were called out for what they are – sweatshops – instead of glossing it over or claiming people just don’t want to work hard anymore.  None of these things require more ‘sales’ or a different reporting relationship, they just require someone in a key position to give a shit, which very few do.

That is the problem.

EDIT: Also, Lou did make one incredibly good point in the article: the lack of a good system.  Most ATS systems are cumbersome pieces of shit, barely adequate for their purposes.  Most HR people work to make them even worse, requiring people to type and retype their life story forty ways from Sunday before being able to submit an application, after which sometimes a resume screener just looks for key words and kicks them out if they don’t match a profile.  The nature of most ATS systems is compliance oriented, they are not designed to get better performing hires.  If they were, it wouldn’t be so hard to apply for one, and they would be action oriented for another, with regular automated reminders built in.  One of the main problems, at least with agency recruiting, is the sheer number of people you deal with goes way pas Dunbar’s number, and it’s up to you to do everything in terms of scheduling follow ups, etc.  A simple ATS that just reminded people to call candidate X, or Hiring Manager Y, for a follow up would likely blow all the others out of the water with that functionality alone.

Edit Again: Also, if you read the comments in Lou’s post, you’ll see a lot of bitching about HR.  Usually along the lines of how stupid they are, or how they are incompetent because they aren’t experts in the field in which they’re recruiting.  The latter is certainly correct, they can’t be experts in everything. However, over the last few decades they have been expected to be, and have performed pretty well living up to an impossible task.  At my last job, in order to truly hire for the company, I would have had to have been an expert in: accounting, project management, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, manufacturing engineering, supply chain, customer service, order entry, information technology, and likely some departments I’m forgetting.  How the fuck can anyone do that?  The answer is they can’t, and the fact that HR generally has done well, if not great, having to cover all those bases is pretty fucking spectacular when you stop to think about it.  And it again goes to the root of the problem, the fact that they have been tasked with that, when in fact it really is the unaccountable almighty managers who are supposed to be the technical experts when hiring their staff.  That they have sloughed off this responsibility on to HR and then blamed them for every fuck up while claiming credit for every success only goes to show how little talent is truly valued.  And the next person to complain about HR should consider that.  Those people have been hiring reasonably successfully for all areas and departments in your company for years, and that they’ve done that kind of shows they’re a hell of a lot more talented than you’re giving them credit for.

Here’s the thing…

I’ve noticed something, something people don’t seem to get, and that is that there’s a compounding effect among the factors that make a bad job bad.  Put another way, as jobs get worse, they tend to get worse more exponentially than they do linearly.

For example, a place that stresses people such that they have increased needs for ‘mental health’ days, is also far less likely to offer enough PTO to allow people mental health days.  The same bad and incompetent management that causes the need strangles the cure, and this goes across the spectrum of issues at work.  Companies that tend to have bad pay also tend to be the ones who think they’re most entitled to good employees.  The same overvaluation of their own worth is what causes them to devalue the contributions of their employees; at once they assume people should be breaking down their door to work there, and so refuse to pay assuming the market is in their favor, when it isn’t.

And it really all comes down to one thing: poor management.  Sometimes it’s just vacuous people with no idea what they’re doing, sometimes it’s outright malicious people who, finally tasting some power, make it their life’s goal to spread the misery they themselves feel.  Most Americans are living lives of quiet desperation, being ground down into shadows of their former selves with no hope in their future, their bosses happily ignorant of the effects of their sheer incompetence on the mental and physical health of their down line.  And there is absolutely no indication that this will change, ever.

A Recruiter.com Article I Commented On

There’s an article here at Recruiter.com that I decided to comment on.  Here’s the comment:

“‘It’s weird that we haven’t built any tools for team leaders at all,’ Buckingham says. ‘We have none – not even a few good ones. We have zero.'”

Team leaders themselves are employees, and at the root of this disengagement problem is the fact that companies do not actually value their employees. That’s why they don’t have the tools they need. Companies say they value their employees, they give lip service to doing so, but this value is not reflected in their actual actions; pay offered, benefits offered, work-life balance, having skilled managers, and opportunities for development and advancement. You have to actually have all those things to get people engaged, not just mention them in a speech every now an then but never deliver. Rhetoric is not enough, we are in the information age where reality trumps Sales! oriented rhetoric of promises with no follow through, and people can increasingly see through the BS on a shorter and shorter time scale. It takes them far less time these days to realize their CEO is full of crap.

As long as companies fail to deliver on the things that will create engagement, they can measure it all they want and it won’t get better. As mentioned in the article, you can’t make a pig fatter by weighing it more often. So, the message to companies who want to increase engagement should be, pull your heads out of your posteriors and start taking actions that will increase engagement instead of endlessly fussing about it, but not doing anything about it. Most will do nothing, because increasing engagement will mean addressing and valuing employees’ concerns which may not seem immediately tied to bottom line improvements, because few if any companies tally the cost of disengagement and factor that into their financial judgements. But, it’s an easy start.

Step one, examine your salary structure and make sure people are making market wages, perhaps pay more if you think you need to compensate for things you can’t deliver, perhaps a bit less because of other perks you do offer, but there can’t be a massive disparity between your pay and the market mean, or you’re screwed.

Step two, examine your benefits and again, make sure they are on part with the market. This is an area where you can make a big dent because while time off is not very costly to offer, it makes a huge difference in people’s lives. Examine your health plans, time off plans, and work hours, and make sure they are all reasonable from an employee’s perspective. Try adhering to it yourself, and if you can’t do so without availing yourself of the perks of ‘flexibility’ offered to higher-ups, how the hell do you expect them to live on it? If people are working significantly more than 40 hours a week on a consistent basis, find out why and put a stop to it, or they will burn out and turnover, plain and simple. If your vacation plan is the standard plan of Go To Hell, Get Back To Work, revise it. Talk to a few brokers and see if you can get better health coverage if that’s a factor as well, it’s not hard.

Step three, start looking at your existing employees as resources and start considering advancement and succession planning. The institutional knowledge they have is often priceless, so capitalize on it and actually try to retain them proactively instead of waiting for their resignations and then wondering what happened. This can dramatically cut recruitment costs by shifting the need to back filling more basic positions. Always exhaust the internal pool of all possibilities before hiring outside.

These are not hard, and if done would correct most companies’ engagement problems. In many cases they’re not even costly, and yet companies still refuse to do them. That is an indicator of how much they actually care about engagement. In simpler terms, they don’t care, or it would be dealt with already.

More Corporate BS

Well, I’ve been absent for a while, the reason being I’m miserable and not in the mood to write much.  My current job sucks, we get near zero off time, and what little we get, I needed to use for medical purposes.  So, as with many Americans who work in this shit-fuck country where employers don’t feel any obligation to give people reasonable amounts of PTO, I will likely soon hit a conflict where it’s stay employed or go to that doctor appointment.  And for context, I’ve had to use five days so far, for the year.  That’s less than half of what the average US worker gets for vacation alone, with sick time added on, and I’m already through the majority of all the time my employer ‘allows.  But, I figured I’d drop a post for fun and to cheer myself up.

My current favorite corporate/recruiting bullshit phrase, “we want someone who has ‘lived in’ that world.”  You hear this when recruiting for all kinds of positions.  It’s yet another subjective, unquantifiable bullshit ‘requirement’ hiring managers throw at you to as a catch-all excuse to reject anyone and everyone they want for not having ‘lived in that world.’  Of course, why the fuck would you want someone who has lived in that world, in any function?  If they’ve already been in that world successfully, wouldn’t a good candidate want to move up and out of that fucking world, jackass?  And if they do want to stay in that world, do you really want someone with a complete lack of ambition or of such a narrow scope of experience working for you?  What value do they add?

The recruiting train of bullshit continues.  If you like my posts, a better way to get them is to check out my comments at Ere.net or Recruiter.com.  Sniping at all the bullshit written by many others in the industry is, right now, easier than coming up with original material.

New Year, Usual Shit

This past Friday I had a request from one of our clients for interview availability for two candidates.  Dutifully, I got availability from both for Monday and Tuesday, and of course never heard back from the client.  We all left for the weekend, I sent emails to both candidates saying that since we didn’t hear back to consider Monday off, and we’d aim to schedule something for Tuesday when Monday came around.  And of course the client emails my account manager at 10:30 PM on Friday wanting to set up interviews for early Monday.

To be frank, it’s this level of incompetence that is destroying the US landscape.  The assumption that people don’t have lives and are on call 24/7 has got to fucking stop.  Back in the sixties and seventies if you couldn’t get your job done in 40 hours, or for some reason insisted on working 70 hour weeks, people wondered what the fuck was wrong with you.  You were considered either inefficient, because it shouldn’t take 70 hours to do the job, or you were considered weird as fuck for not having enough of a life such that you could work 70 hours a damn week.  In Germany this is still the norm.  However, here in the US, ever since the silicon valley boom where the 40 hour work week was supplanted by the 70 hour work week thanks to a bunch of borderline Asperger’s types having nothing else they wanted to do but fuck around with circuit boards, that’s now considered ‘the norm’ in the US.

And, of course, this will reopen my employer’s repeated ‘requests’ I put work email on my private phone.  Because, of course, they want you to be available twenty four hours a day, seven days a week, but won’t provide you the tools or infrastructure to make that possible of course.  Oh no, use your own stuff which you pay for to do that, of course.  And since the ATS system we use is a relic from the 90s with no web access, it wouldn’t even really matter if I had access to email because at most I’d have past emails from the candidates, but no access to alternate contact info, unless of course I doubled up and created my own damn database from scratch in Excel to store information – twice – which is already in the work database but not accessible because it’s an antique piece of shit.

In world were people have no boundaries and more and more people are these lifeless fucks with no families or friends to spend time with, so they insist on making work their life instead of letting work support their life, it’s getting harder and harder to be a normal damn person.

The Black Hole

This would be a message to all ATS manufacturers.  Both recruiters and candidates hate the black hole.  Here’s how you avoid it, and here’s what recruiters need from the ATS system.

One, there’s always an automated response for submitting a resume available, it should be turned on and used so people at least know their application went through.

Two, applying should be as simple as possible.  Name, contact info, and an attached resume should be all that’s needed.  Any ATS system that asks you to retype your resume is, in short, a piece of shit.  Any recruiter or HR person who sets up an ATS system and doesn’t go through the application process themselves to see if it’s acceptable or a pain in the ass really needs to rethink their profession.  ATS makers need to address this issue and push simplicity in the process; consult, don’t just sell.

Three, there should be an automated process update option that shoots out weekly updates to people, at least letting them know if the position is still open or not, and if possible where there resume is in the process.  HR and recruiters can not do this manually, it would take all day.

Four, there needs to be an automated list generator for follow up purposes.  I lose track of as many people as any other recruiter.  It’s not out of malice, it’s because I can only update people so many times by telling them no, the hiring manager still hasn’t responded, before it falls in the priority list.  I do have to pay rent, as does every other recruiter.  Eventually following up on these jobs becomes something I just can’t do because I have real, paying jobs that are current.  But what would help me massively is if the system I’m using had a module specifically reminding me to contact certain people, so I can at least tie those off rather than forgetting once or twice and then realizing it’s been two or three weeks since I talked to them.

Recruiters need help on this issue, and once more it’s not malice.  It’s just that, so much more often than not, the damn hiring managers just disappear, and you can only give that same update X number of times to someone before you have to spend some time on shit that might actually pay off.  And it’s not one person, it’s well over 75% of the people we deal with.  So, if you’re a candidate, understanding this requires you put yourself in the recruiter’s shoes and realize that for 75% or more of the people he’s dealing with the story is the same: the hiring manager just isn’t answering.  Having to deliver that same message, to the same people, day after day, doesn’t pay your bills.  Placing someone with one of those rare hiring managers who gives a shit DOES pay.  So, it’s not malice, we need to eat is all.

However, having that list generator would help.  As I’ve said before, I like to at least give people a final yes or no, even if it’s me making the decision for the hiring manager.  But I’m not above admitting I need some help in this regard.

I am preemptively posting this here since somewhere critical comments tend to disappear or not get posted on Recruiter.com.  I have no idea if this is on purpose or just a glitch in their Disqus implementation, or if authors control their own comments and differ in what they allow, but I’ll always double post from now on because I hate typing these things out and then losing them.  This weekend I plan on writing a more detailed response to the Good Corporate Citizenship article from a while back.  The below is a response to this more recent article on how passive candidates should behave.

The difference is, the passive candidate has a lot more leverage than the active candidate, as it is clear that an employer needs to lure the passive candidate away from a job they are already comfortable with.

This is actually incorrect. All positions have a budget, and usually a salary cap associated with them, and this is not an official budget or cap, but that which is dictated by the capital return based on the company’s ability to utilize a person. A passive candidate has a little more negotiating power than an active candidate, or so it’s assumed, but at the end of the day there will be opportunity cost for every extra dollar invested in any particular hire’s salary, and pulling a super star passive candidate doesn’t necessarily benefit your business when you have to pay significantly more for them. This squeezes the ROI for the position, and that’s assuming you can actually utilize them to their full potential. Most companies can’t, because most companies are managed in an average to poor manner. In essence it’s like buying a Lamborgini for your daily commute over winding roads through stop and go traffic. You’ll pay more initiall, and use a ton more gas, and while the Lambo is great for open road driving, its gearbox sucks in actual traffic. Its performance is hindered due to the circumstances under which it is being used. The same goes for superstar candidates.

Another analogy would be to look at your company as a production line, and to consider where the rate limitation is. If the up-line is only producing 10 widgets an hour, and has no real hope of exceeding that, then you’re wasting money on any down-line equipment with a much greater capacity. Now, there may be plans to upgrade the line, but in terms of a workforce that’s a long haul, and most companies are not making that investment these days, at least that I’ve observed. All told, the supposed higher productivity of a ‘passive’ candidate is only of use to you if you can utilize them to their full potential, and every dollar you spend to get them above and beyond what you would have paid for an active candidate squeezes your ROI and demands that you utilize them at a higher potential to get the return you need. Earning 10% on a 60K candidate means 6K profit. Earning 5% on a 100K candidate means 5K, and half the actual margin. Spending more doesn’t mean you get more when it comes to investment. Most companies aren’t Lamborgini companies, as such, they should probably get the Honda model. The margin is actually better, and the profit higher, on a more appropriately utilized employee than one with massive potential thrown into a mediocre situation.

I would also pose these questions, regarding Katherine’s hypothetical experience. If her current company really does value her, why are they not offering a comparable salary? Why did they not proactively raise her rate to what she could get from a competitor in an proactive bid to keep her? Would her company show her as much loyalty should she come into health problems and go on FMLA, or require off time? Or, more to the point, would they should such loyalty should their bottom line start to indicate her salary should be cut, or her entire position scrapped, not due to her performance but to the company’s own lack lust performance, more appropriately laid at the feet of her managers? While Katherine’s hypothetical current employer seems wonderful and may in fact demonstrate loyalty, most real world companies will ditch you in a second if keeping you meant sacrificing a fraction of a percent to their bottom line. A job is a mutua exchange, that’s all. The employer gets a work product they want more than the salary they pay, the employee gets a salary worth more to them that what they produced or the time it takes to produce it. Neither one owes the other anything, and in the real world the only people who do usually show loyalty are the employees, not the employers, whose loyalty is first and foremost to their profit above and beyond their employees by such a wide margin it may as well not exist.

Companies are not guided by ethics, but by profit. So should employees be guided. Keith Halperin is right, and employees should act like CEOs, and companies should stop bitching and moaning about loyalty which they never reciprocate on, and start treating and paying people well from the get go if they want to retain them, instead of only addressing the issue when they’re already leaving. The sad truth is that companies that act like Katherine’s hypothetical employer are so rare they may as well not exist. As a practical reality employees should not strain themselves to do the right or ethical thing by employers who will never spare a thought for doing the same by them. Employers have enough of an edge in the market without employees giving them even more based on one-sided assumptions of loyalty and ethics which they will never see returned to them.

Employees should get as much money and perks as they can, and then ditch their employers in a heart beat when they’ve made a prudent judgement they can get more, because their employers will do exactly that to them. Tit for tat, employees treating employers as badly as employers have historically treated employees is the only way the labor market will ever balance itself. As long as employers see their employees as disposable, employees should reciprocate.

Another Denied Comment

I like Recruiter.com, but they definitely seem to put a stranglehold on the comments to make sure everything is nice and shiny.  Here’s an article they put up concerning dress code, and my response:

The problem is that people latch on to something like dress code, which may or may not influence performance, and define that as performance in and of itself, and this leads to the focus wandering from actual performance. Which is what leads to ridiculous situations like two employees of roughly equal performance getting different raises because one wears suits and the other just collared shirts, when their revenue impact on the company was in fact equal.

“Why did Joe get a better raise than me, don’t we produce at roughly the same levels?”

“Well, yes, Jimmy. But you see, Joe wears extraordinarily uncomfortable clothing, including wool suits in the middle of summer, and is always sweating like a hog, unnecessarily so, yes, and I can’t quite put my finger on why that should actually matter, but he does it, and it does matter… for some reason, and he blows most of his income on his wardrobe rather than rent and food for his kids, so therefore he must be a better performer on some level than you, regardless of what the actual metrics say…”

Dress will influence people to varying degrees and in different ways, which is exactly why it has nothing to do with performance and should not be a part of a performance requirement, because one standard does not fit all, nor work for all, and imposing one standard will then by definition narrow the pool of people who can and will be successful in your organization, which limits your ability to be productive. How in any way shape or form is that beneficial to a company, to hinder or in fact close off access to an entire portion of the labor pool because they don’t like wearing a full suit? Maybe with rising prices everywhere for food and gas and housing the last thing many people want to hear is they have to blow half their income on fitted suits for no perceivable objective reason other than the fact that the boss wants them to.

So keep it simple. Define performance in terms of actual work product – what needs to be done, when does it need to be done, and to what quality standard – and manage to that as your standard of performance. Dress code, aside from being clean and presentable and not smelling like ass, will most likely not be a part of that. I think most people will find it utterly amazing how productive their workforce gets when they stop trying to run their employees’ lives to the minutest degree and just concentrate on what’s expected of them in terms of their deliverables at work.

Dress code is like any other irrational and useless metric that’s there for no discernible reason, and it’s mostly used as an excuse for incompetent managers to prove they are managing!, even if it’s connection to actual employee performance is tenuous to nonexistent.

Recruiter.com Reply

Since Recruiter.com keeps deleting my reply to Art on this article, I figured I’d post it here.  Just got back from a Caribbean trip and catching up with work, missing the blue water.

Reply to Art:

I think you missed the point, Art. The title of the article is, “Is Passive Talent Better Than Active Job Seekers?,” and is not asking whether or not a passive strategy is a good, and sometimes necessary thing, which it is. However, the incessant harping on passive! talent by many recruiting ‘thought leaders’ leads to just that problem: people think ‘passive’ means ‘better.’ It doesn’t. It just means the person in question wasn’t actively looking for a job when they were contacted.

The best qualified person is the one who performs better, it doesn’t depend on how they were sourced. The correct approach is to always employ both active and passive strategies to varying degrees, depending on the needs of the particular position as in the situations you mention, and pick the best person from the pool of people you get regardless of how they were sourced.

The problem at base is that thanks to the incessant harping on this issue it has been reframed in the minds of many people outside the industry as passive = inherently better, when in reality it’s just a marketing distinction to delineate strategies for reaching as wide a candidate pool as possible. It is not a determinant of job performance. But, that’s how many see it. That’s the problem, because people then pass over ‘active’ candidates who could very well be superstars because, well hell, they’re not passive!, so how good could they really be? Hell, they’re looking for a new job.

After all, we wouldn’t want to employ anyone who actually wants to work for or with us, would we?

Myths That Need to be Busted

If there were two myths in hiring I’d say absolutely need to be busted, I’d say it’s these two:

1) Employees are a Cost.  This is utter bullshit.  In any exchange, it happens because of a reverse valuation; which means each person wants what the other has more than what they’re giving them in exchange for it.  If you value two things equally, there’s no need to exchange because it doesn’t matter.  In the context of employment, the employee wants the salary more than the time spent on the job, and the employer wants the work product more than the salary paid for it.  As such, employees are an addition to a company’s revenue stream.  When any individual trades something they have for something they want more than that thing, they have made a return, or a profit.  Same goes for employers.  So companies need to stop acting as if employees are a cost and see them for what they are: additions to their revenue stream.  They need to start realizing vacancies have a cost, both in lost revenue from that position, but also lost revenue for everyone who has to pick up the slack and so potentially not performing their primary duties to the best of their ability.  Over staffing is certainly possible, but as long as employees are seen as a cost, all companies are always over staffed, because at least on an accounting level, they would be better off without everyone.  Of course, if that happened then the company is gone too.

Newsflash for employers: you’re not doing anyone a favor by employing them.  It’s a mutual exchange that benefits both parties.  Pull your heads out of your asses and start treating your employees as what they are: revenue generators.

2) There’s a labor shortage.  Pure bullshit.  There’s a documented labor surplus, and I and other recruiters have routinely seen multiple instances of tens, hundreds, and sometimes even thousands of applicants for an open position where the hiring manager claims none are qualified.  It’s not the candidates, it’s not a labor shortage, it’s not the recruiters.  The problem is no accountability for hiring with the managers.  There’s plenty of qualified people out there, your hiring managers are not accountable, nor do you have an honest, realistic assessment of what you offer as an employer.  Every employer thinks they deserve the Fabulous 5%, the top performers in any industry.  Horseshit.  You’re an average company with average salaries and average managers, you’re going to get average people.  Fucking deal with it.  You’re not Google, you have no benefits, you offer mediocre to no time off, who the fuck do you think is going to want to work for you?  You had better do an honest assessment of where you stand.  Think of yourself as a manufacturer of employment opportunities.  And then realize that, if it were any other product, that if your market strategy was to bitch and moan about how inept your customers were for not being willing to buy your clearly superior product for the ridiculously high price you charge, you’d be out of business in a heart beat.  In this case the high price you’re charging is the ridiculous discount to the mean salary offered in the area that you expect people to take for the ‘privilege’ of working at your company.

It’s time for employers to pull their heads out of their asses and start taking ownership of the hiring process.  If employment at your company isn’t attractive that’s your fault, and you need to correct it.  Control bad managers, up your salaries to something more reasonable, and start holding people accountable for getting positions filled.  And for those places with screaming, abusive owners, have the balls to be the one who explains to them how pathetic that behavior is and how horrible it is for their own business.

And if you aren’t willing to do those things, then don’t blame everyone else for your problems.  You aren’t serving your customers right, and that’s your fault, not theirs.