Recruiters

Interviews, or How to Fuck Up Hiring

There’s a nice article here on interviewing, it’s short and sweet, but pretty much sums up my views on the matter entirely. The TLDR of it is, you’re wasting your time with interviews unless they are structured, consistent across all candidates, and aimed specifically at assessing skills you know are required for the job. If you do all of that, then you’ve slightly decreased the chance you’re going to fuck up, but only slightly. Which means you’re probably better off not interviewing people at all, and just testing for intelligence and skills.

Oh yeah, and there’s no point in doing references either. I’ve yet to see a single study which pegs their reliability at over 20%, which means they’re only predictive of job performance 20% of the time. The other 80% of the time they have either no predictive power, or are telling you the opposite of what’s going to happen. But recruiters and hiring managers and HR departments keep using antiquated bullshit ineffective methods for hiring people because… Well because they usually don’t know any better, don’t want to know any better, and even if they do know better, their boss would fire them for not using those techniques because s/he doesn’t know any better.

Advertisements

The Broken Window Fallacy and Sales and Recruiting

The broken window fallacy is simple, yet most people don’t get it.  Most news anchors will commit this fallacy whenever there’s a hurricane, and in the aftermath they say something along the lines of, “But at least the rebuilding will lead to a boost in economic activity for the area…”  It goes like this:

A kid breaks a window, the glazier comes and repairs it, and everyone shames the kid, but one person says, “No, look at the money the glazier earned, so the kid actually committed a ‘good’ for the economy.”  This comes down to what is seen vs unseen.  People see the transaction between the window’s owner and the glazier, they don’t see the suit, or the computer, or anything else he might have bought if he didn’t have to repair his window.  At the end of what’s seen, he just has a window.  He had to expend resources to the simply get to where he already had been.  If the kid hadn’t broken the window, the guy would have had the window and something else; a suit, a computer, etc.  The opportunity cost, in other words.  The opportunity cost is always unseen.

This is somewhat applicable to sales people who perpetually go after bad accounts, a massive problem in the recruiting industry.  They always want to ‘get in’ to that account, as if it’s the end all be all of existence.  Sometimes this works, they get in, and one in a million times the account starts to generate revenue.  The problem is most times, this does not happen.  The sales person is perpetually trying to ‘get in’, and wasting time and resources that are unrecoverable.  And even if they invest thousands of man hours and untold monetary resources ‘getting in’ with that account, even one placement is enough to make the Sales guy say, “See?!  See?!  I told you we could get in there!”  They’re so fixated on the moment of closure that they literally think that erases all the previous losses. Now, imagine the resources spent ‘getting in’ with that one account were spread over accounts with higher response rates, or developing new accounts.

It is necessary to be aware of opportunity cost when managing people and processes.  Sales people have no concept of opportunity cost, that is why they make such shitty managers.

More “Recruiting is SALES!” Bullshit

Here again, and predictably on LinkedIn, we have more Recruiting is Sales! nonsense.

First off, while the market has shifted a little, the labor participation rate is still absolutely fucking dismal, and many people are still under employed, or in jobs they hate and want to leave ASAP.  The market is not that good, and it is not a candidate driven market.  There are still way more people who want jobs than jobs for them to have.  Employers were bitching about a candidate ‘shortage’ when unemployment was over ten percent, so give me a fucking break on this shit already.  Please.

Second, what’s not mentioned once in the post? Honesty!  No, you need to get people excited about your Opportunity!, whether or not it’s something to be excited about is another matter.  This leads to a massive problem for companies: the branding gap.  There’s how they brand themselves in general, and with regard to specific jobs, and then there’s the reality, and the distance between them is the branding gap.  And, for most companies, it’s absolutely fucking massive.

The reality is most people don’t love, or even like their jobs, and never will.  The division of labor and comparative advantage dictate that what you have a passion for is not very likely to be where the market directs your efforts as most valued and most productive.  In reality people don’t follow their passions for the most part.  If they’re lucky they learn to get passionate to varying degree about what they do, for most what they do is mildly enjoyable to tolerable, and they’re willing to do it for a good while.  Most people work to live, they do not live to work, and trying to hire only people who live to work is a recipe for abject failure.

Reality and honesty are the two things that never get introduced into the recruiting process, and which are desperately needed in there.  Less bullshit Sales!, more raw reality.  You’re not going to get someone excited and passionate about an order entry job.  The guy who cleans the toilets generally does it to earn money, not because he loves other people’s shit.  So, my advice to companies is very simple:

Do an honest assessment of your culture using a third party who can measure it via some objective framework.  You will hear things you don’t like, if you gloss them over or ignore them, you will fail.

Do an honest assessment of your salaries and benefits offered.  If your salaries are low, raise them.  If you can’t raise them across the board, raise them in a targeted fashion for top performers.  If you can’t even do that, you have to deal with the fact that you won’t get or retain top performers.  They know what they’re worth, they will go elsewhere.  There’s no reason why anyone should be killing themselves to work for you to get compensated at the same rate they would be elsewhere for just showing up and having a pulse.  Don’t like that?  Too fucking bad, it’s reality.  Do the same assessment with all other benefits like PTO and health, if you’re significantly below average this will lead to problems no amount of Sales! bullshit will be able to offset.

If you’re working your employees consistently more than 40 hours a week, cut back.  You are burning them out and will deal with higher turnover as a result.  Don’t like that?  Once more, too fucking bad, it’s the way the world works. There’s about a billion years of accumulated evidence to support this at this point in time, get the fuck over it.

Assess the actual desirability of working at your org using a tool designed for doing just that, a recruiter named Keith Halperin developed one just for that purpose.  Accept the results for what they are, if you are the private label toilet paper manufacturer that offers no PTO and low salaries, and you’re located next to Google, you are not going to poach their employees.  Fucking deal with it.

Now, armed with all this information, go after the candidates you can actually attract and retain.  Use structured interviews, do not trust your gut because it’s wrong.  Use validated tests of intelligence and integrity, and put the metrics from the interviews and tests together to view each candidate through something resembling an objective framework, and hire the best people you can out of the pool you interview.  And, above all else, do not use bullshit Sales! techniques to try to convince these people that working there entails something it doesn’t.  They will see the mismatch within minutes of being there and leave ASAP.  Long term relationships are built around honesty with diplomacy and tact thrown in for good measure.  If you work in a shit hole, you need to hire people willing to work in a shit hole, which are generally people who know they can’t get better jobs.  If you work in an average organization, you will get average people.  There’s no shame in this, the population of the world is mostly average by definition, myself included, and we do just fine running the majority of companies on the planet by showing up and doing our jobs reasonably well.  And if you’re lucky enough to work at one of those A+ corps, well you’re set and don’t need advice.

Point being, you’re not going to outsmart the market with Sales! bullshit without first taking a good, long, honest look at what you’re truly offering.  Ferrari doesn’t market the same as Honda, nor do the makers of those weird little cars they use in the third world market the same as Honda or even Hyundai.  And you need to know if you’re hiring for a Ferrari company, a Honda one, or a rickshaw one before you start trying to get a Ferrari candidate excited about working in a rickshaw company.  Because it’s not going to work long terms between you two, trust me.  There is an aspect of sales to recruiting, but it’s well past time recruiters dropped this Recruiting is Sales! bullshit and started learning from other fields, like supply chain and production planning.

Good LinkedIn Post

Definitely worth reading this, I’ll comment on it later, but I wanted to get it up here when I saw it.

Update: Ted makes some good points, but I think he misses the underlying problem: Sales!  The problem with sales, and specifically sales people, is they are detached from reality.  Sales people are notoriously disorganized, and they are ridiculously positive.  They are positive in the face of the most horrifying adversity.  Now, in sales that’s a good thing.  The problem is in any non-pure sales position, and especially one that requires management of any kind, it’s a recipe for utter failure.

Being positive all the time means a psychotic disregard for opportunity cost.  Sales people will pursue every method to make a sale, and the one time out of a hundred it works, they’ll say, “See, see, I told you it works!”  And they will ignore the costs of the 99 times it failed, even if the cumulative cost of those failures is  greater than the profit for the one success.  And if you have an industry controlled by sales people, like recruiting, it will be ridiculously slow to change, its participants will be psychotically averse to admitting error, they will all be psychotically averse to criticism and evidence based approaches that question the validity of their methods, and none of them will see a problem until it is so huge that it’s ready to destroy them.

That’s basically the state of recruiting today.  It’s dominated by agencies, those agencies are in the main run by Sales! types who will bend over backwards to fellate  the Almighty Client, however ridiculous and moronic their demands are.  When objective reality intrudes into the situation, they get confused at best, petulant and obnoxious at worst.  For example, if the prevailing wage for an Account Receivable person with 5 years of experience and a degree is X, and the Almighty Client wants one at 50% of X without compromising any on the person – same requirements for education, experience, etc. – it’s not a moronic white elephant hunt.  Nope, it’s a ‘challenge.’  The client is ‘challenging,’ not a fucking idiot.

Right now, the hiring process is essentially controlled by people who think it’s a pure sales process, when in fact it’s more of a supply chain process.  The Sales! types always want to concentrate on intangibles; culture, chemistry, job satisfaction, etc., etc., etc.  They never want to concentrate on objective reality: skill set and measurable ability within it, company structure, reporting relationships, time frames for delivery, etc., etc., etc.  Nor do they ever, ever, under any circumstances, want to talk about price, otherwise known as wages.  Because the Almighty Client doesn’t want to pay them, and therefore you’re not getting any.

We need to get the Sales! types out of control of the recruiting industry or it will die a spectacular death from them pushing it too far, pushing salaries too low, indulging the ridiculous requests of Almighty Clients who want people at rock bottom wages for 80 hour weeks, no benefits, no time off, etc., etc., etc.  People will get fed up with the bullshit and eventually hiring will come under the thumb of some bureau of the government who regulates every aspect of it, and quite frankly if this profession can’t kick these assholes out and get its collective shit together, we deserve no less a fate.

Recruiting Reality Check – Bulk Emailing

I’ve written on this before, but it bears repeating in more succinct terms: bulk emailing is a reality of modern recruiting, get used to it and stop getting pissed about it if you’re a candidate.  And, from the recruiting perspective, stop bullshitting people and admit it is now and for the foreseeable future will be a tool that will be used.

For candidates: recruiters want you to believe they know your life’s history when they first talk to you, they don’t, and that’s part of their sales pitch and it’s a load of shit.  Recruiting is like dating, and be real with yourself: when you’re dating someone, do you get their life story instantly, ask them their sex preferences, ask to inspect their apartment or house to make sure they’re clean, and then introduce them to your family and get their approval for marriage on the first date?  No, that would be fucking ridiculous.  You put out feelers and proceed on a step by step basis, first gauging interest, then dating and determining long term fit, and then you get married.  That is what a bulk email is.  It’s key word based, it’s impersonal, and it’s really just a large net the recruiter casts to say, “Hey, I’ve got this position available, are you interested?”  Getting pissed at that is like getting pissed at not being able to get a blood test for marriage approval on the first date, get the fuck over it.

You have every right to say no, you’re not interested.  You have every right to ask to be removed from future mailings.  You have every right to ask for, and to receive, the salary range and location and a job description if you are interested.  A recruiter who won’t tell you those things is full of it.  But please, stop acting like a bulk email is akin to someone walking up to you and politely asking if they can fuck your mother.  Stop buying the bullshit of recruiter ‘sales’ types and understand the reality; we aren’t going to invest a shitload of time and effort into getting to know you, or ‘building a relationship’ as they say, only to have you not be interested in a single potential opening we have.  We have rent to pay as well, and we get paid for placements.  Relationship building, real relationship building, is a step by step gradual process that begins with assessing interest.  Recruiters are not your personal career coaches, they don’t get paid for finding you personally a job.  If you get an email you don’t want, ignore it or say no thanks.  It’s really quite easy.

For recruiters: stop bullshitting candidates.  Few if any modern recruiters have a stable of candidates with which they’ve built relationships with over years of work.  That happens with consultants, not so much with permanent placements.  And, if you are doing that, congratulations.  I’m sure your clients are very comfortable knowing that within a year of getting Bob a job in their company, you’ll place him somewhere else, especially since that’s written in as an explicit prohibition in most contracts, I’d very much like to know how you’re accomplishing that.  When you do speak with candidates, tell them the God damn salary range.  They don’t pay their rent with a good cultural fit or job satisfaction.  And stop bullshitting about cold calling and phone work too.  This is the 21st century, email is a perfectly appropriate and useful tool and it should used.  If communication is the key to a good relationship, cutting off one mode of communication for archaic, luddite reasons is just plain stupid.

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?

More Advice for Job Seekers

I come across this all the time from job seekers, and it’s really annoying.  I send out a mailer via email to people who have specifically asked to be contacted about positions in their area.  Initial reach outs are very broad, that’s just the nature of the game.  Here’s examples of how people often respond that should be avoided at all costs if you ever want to work with that agency at any point in the future.

“No thanks, I don’t want to work at…,” at which point they put the company name they think is correct.

This response is the smart ass, the guy who thinks he knows what job you’re asking about, and since the client is almost always kept confidential, decides to one-up you by showing he knows more than you about the jobs that are open in the area.  The problem is, job descriptions get copied, quite often in fact.  Need a job description for a shit shoveler, and someone has likely written it up already, so you can just go on the web and find it.  Well over nine times out of ten, they’re wrong about which job I’m talking about.  However, the smart ass response annoys me, and most other recruiters, and we’ll just leave off after that.  It’s indicative of an attitude problem, not a good start.  Now, if you don’t care about ever having any kind of relationship with that recruiter, go for it.  However, there’s always the possibility that this person will be a gatekeeper for a job you may want in the future, so answer at your own risk.

“Do I look like I’m…?!?!” followed by indignation that you’d contact them for this particular job.

This is the pissed off candidate, one who doesn’t seem to realize that we, as recruiters, often have to contact hundreds of people and then whittle that down to a few.  The initial reach out will be broad, it will be keyword based, and it will unfortunately hit people who are too senior or junior for particular roles.  Yes, this sucks.  However, if it pissed you off that much I might suggest you have other issues to tend to, because it really shouldn’t.  If you want to answer, a polite no will do.  Again, this is indicative of an attitude problem and…

Then, there are the psychotic callers.  You send out one email and this person calls you thirty times over the course of the next hour.  Answer in kind, one call is enough.  This is indicative of a borderline psychotic and we simply will not want to deal with you.  Ever.  There is such a thing as too aggressive.

Then there is the snorting exacerbated job seeker.  This guy gets on the phone with you in response to the email, you ask one simple question and the answer is, “Well, let me tell you…,” followed by several snorting laughs, followed by their entire life story and indignation at how hard it is to land a job.  They never answer questions, ever.  They dominate the entire conversation with their tale of woe and indignation.  They’re being discriminated against!  Or, maybe they just come across as assholes, honestly bemused by why the world doesn’t recognize their brilliance.  Whenever I hear that distinctive, snorting laugh this guy invariably follows.  Don’t be this guy.  Please, for the love of god, I understand how hard it is to get a job these days, you don’t have to tell me.  Just answer the fucking questions I ask so I can tell if this job I have right now is the right one.  It may be, but if you don’t answer the questions and instead regale me with the finest but ultimately irrelevant details of the last six months of your life, I am just going to give up.  I only have so much time in my day, as I’m sure you do.  Please stay on point.

The best advice I can give any job seeker is ATFQ: Answer The Fucking Question!  And for the love of god stop getting pissed off because you got an email you didn’t want.  Ask to be removed from the list, you will be.  You never know who is on the other end of the email chain, or the phone, and what that person may be able to do for you in the future.  If you want to sour the relationship through rudeness or very often misplaced arrogance, well that’s your prerogative.  But you might want to consider just why the hell you’re so pissed off… over getting an email.

Opportunity!

This is advice for candidates.  Recruiters are always trying to sell you on a great Opportunity!  Yeah, the pay is maybe better than what you’ve got now, usually not.  The benefits are about the same, or worse.  The commute is about the same, or worse, maybe a little better.  Work-life balance is something most companies never heard of, so it’ll be the same.  But it’s such a great Opportunity!  So, you gotta take it, right?

Wrong.

Now, you may or may not take any particular job, that’s up to you to judge.  However, when making that judgement, know that Opportunity! is what a recruiter sells when there’s nothing else to sell.  It’s kind of like when those credit card protection hucksters sell you Peace of Mind.  Peace of Mind is an intangible load of BS, what it means is they’re selling you something you’re probably never going to need.  Incidentally, the only reason they sell those credit card protection programs is because the fee usually works out to the equivalent of adding 10 points on your interest.  The ‘protection’ they offer is usually something you already get via some law or regulation, of in the contract you already signed.

When a recruiter tries to sell you on the Opportunity! of a job, ask questions.  One, ask why it’s such a great opportunity.  If all you get is some happy horseshit about it being a great company, etc., then they’re full of shit.  If they get more specific and talk about the company’s technology, market position, tenure of existing employees, advancement, then that’s worth considering.  But keep in mind, most of that is bullshit too.  Two, ask yourself if, even if the recruiter is telling the truth, is that the opportunity you want and need?

You need to judge where you’re at in your career, and what the Opportunity! is worth, assuming it’s real.  Recruiters, bless their hearts, will call 55 year old electrical engineers and try and sell them the Opportunity! for advancement in their career.  A 55 year old engineer likely doesn’t have much career left, nor is s/he usually looking for one.  A 55 year old engineer has already had their Opportunity! and proven themselves, and now just deserves to get paid what they’re worth off the bat.  Which feeds into the last point…

Opportunity! is usually just an excuse to pay you less.  It’s another way of saying, “Yeah, technically the mean salary for position X in area Y is 75K per year and we’re only offering 50K, but the Opportunity! is tremendous, so please take the job at a discount!”

Remember, the average company is average.  They have average salaries, average management, average jobs, average commutes, average benefits, and average opportunity.  If the salary and all else is below average, usually the Opportunity! is too.  Recruiters want you to think you’re one job move away from the Opportunity! to become the next Steve Jobs or Bill Gates.  You’re not.  The chances of you becoming that filthy rich are less than winning the lottery.  However, if you work your ass off and never see your family and give yourself an early heart attack, you may have the opportunity to get into a slightly higher pay bracket.  Assuming it all doesn’t disappear into taxes, what reality boils down to is if you truly work your ass off you’ll be able to afford an Acura as opposed to a Honda.  You will have a two and one half bath house instead of a one and one half.  And, the chances of even that happening are still pretty much lottery levels.

So, instead of using the Dollar and a Dream approach to career planning, my advice as a recruiter is to always demand to paid what you’re worth now.  Don’t settle for the Opportunity! to get what you’re worth now in five to ten years if you work your ass off and if your boss decides to acknowledge it.

Fuck Opportunity!, get paid what you’re worth now.

The Real Recruiting Revolution Has Nothing To Do With Recruiting

I modified a comment I made on Ere.net slightly to make it a post here. I feel it’s right on the money, other opinions vary of course.

It’s not a revolution in recruiting that’s needed. There’s plenty of people out there, it’s getting easier and easier to connect with them via old and new school methods. What’s needed is a revolution in the interview/hiring process. It’s there and then that the process is most likely to go off the rails with multiple, sometime endless interviews, tests, and endless requests to, “see more people,” well above and beyond what should be necessary to fill one position. We need to start pushing back against poor managers, bad decisions, and out of control processes as much as possible. As long as our role is to facilitate the bad practices and decisions of others, we won’t be taken seriously as a profession. So, as a profession, we need to take a stand and start pushing for a quality process as much as possible. My suggestions would be these:

1) Any vetting method with no clear evidence supporting its effectiveness should be dropped, period. Credit checks and drug testing come to mind immediately, with the latter allowing exceptions for sobriety testing in safety critical situations. Nor should this step be limited to such ancillary processes; if interviewing itself is found to be ineffective, then drop it or change it so it becomes effective. I only recently looked, but I’ve yet to see evidence that interviewing itself does much if anything to ensure a good hire and subsequent good performance.

2) Push for standard, open salary requirements. Throwing money at people doesn’t solve problems, but lack of money does create them. Honesty and openness in the realm of salary from both companies and candidates is necessary and the topic should lose its taboo status. “Competitive compensation and benefits,” is a phrase that’s on par with, “cozy,” in real estate; the latter means small space to house/apartment hunters, the former means low pay in the world of the job hunters.

3) Develop evidence and research based standards for a more regular hiring process. We need hard research demonstrating what techniques work and where diminishing returns kick in. Otherwise the hiring process will continue to be an out of control monster with 1 step in some companies and 40 in others, one or two interviews here, ten to twelve there. And real research based on effectiveness is what’s needed, not LinkedIn surveys for God’s sake.

4) Treat recruiting and employment as steps in the same life cycle process for all employees. Accountability needs to be on the managers for engaging in the hiring process, accountability beyond the date of hire needs to fall on recruiters too for quality purposes. There should always be a presumed DSLA in place, and there should be hard research done into when and where in the process accountability for retention shifts from the recruiter finding a good person to the manager/company being able to keep them.

5) Push for better treatment of workers in the US. Recruiters and HR leaders need to stop being Yes men and women for the whims of whoever happens to be in charge and develop professional standards based on evidence for how much time off, hours worked, etc., should be offered. As the workforce increasingly globalizes people in the US are inevitably going to notice that their European counterparts get twice the time off and then some, and yet, through some miracle, the companies they work for don’t collapse into dust when they take a week off and don’t answer their cell phone and check email every ten minutes. In the US we are burning out our workforce with lower and lower pay, fewer and fewer benefits, and more and more hours worked. When people are dealing with capital equipment they know the machine’s limits and tolerances and maintenance schedule, and respect it if they want the equipment to last. But people are considered to have no limits, no need for real down time, no maintenance, and are just terminally pushed for more and more and more with no regard to burn out. We treat our machines better than our workers, that has to change.

Recruiting feeds people into a machine that is largely beyond our control. There is no talent shortage, there is no lack of willing and able people. There is a severe problem with hiring; it’s a meandering, standardless maze of conflicting and redundant and often useless processes that people get thrown into and it grinds them down. That’s where the revolution is needed.