Sainsbury Saga Continues

The soap opera over the fall-off at Sainsbury is still being played out in the British press

When last we reported on this story executive search firm Whitehead Mann was taking flak for placing a candidate who left within a week.

Now the recruiters are firing back.

Whitehead Mann, which was sacked by Sainsbury in the aftermath of the affair, defended its role and accused its former client of attempting to pass the buck over the disastrous appointment.

Taking the unusual step of talking publicly about a client, Stephen Lawrence accused Sainsbury of "wanting to deflect the criticism" when the appointment backfired.

Whitehead Mann had warned the Sainsbury board about Sir Ian's patchy reputation in parts of the City and only put him forward as one of a shortlist of five equal candidates, he said.

Sounds like a reference check was in order. Think I should send them my handy reference questions? Maybe he had a lot of reference letters and they believed them?

Mr Lawrence said it was agreed during the search that Sir George Bull, then Sainsbury chairman and head of the nominations committee, would take his own City soundings, rather than rely on Whitehead Mann to do it.

Is soundings a British term for references?

He also pointed out that his firm was "paid in full" for the job - a fee understood to have been about £115,000 - citing it as further evidence that Sainsbury had nothing to complain about.

Sainsbury had no official comment yesterday, though one source at the retailer said it would have been difficult to reduce the fee because it was largely paid in advance.

Heh heh sneaky British headhunters.

Assess Recruiter Quality

Here are some measures of performance for recruiters.

1) Performance of hires
2) Retention rates
3) Candidate satisfaction
4) Manager satisfaction
5) Fill Time
6) Offer acceptance rate
7) Recruiting load
8) Market Knowledge
9) Knowledge of Sourcing Tools

Find more here

How To Assess Foresight

If the job requires someone with insight, ask the candidate for her views of the future.

Give her a job-related situation and ask how she would expect to approach the problem differently as a result of upcoming changes in the industry.

It's not as important that she gets the forecast correct as it is that she continually thinks about the future and the changes that it might include.

Anyone who says she hasn't thought about upcoming changes should be rejected.

Find more here

At least the candidates don't lie.

Picture this, a priest sits on his side of the confessional booth. He hears a parishioner enter so he slides back the little window expecting to hear "Bless me Father for I have sinned" Instead he hears "Father I've been retained by a large parish to conduct a search for a priest".

Sound far fetched? Well not really, in the true American tradition of finding your niche David Lyons a former corporate recruiter decided that there was a need to provide recruiting services to help churches find pastors and other staff.

Called MinisterSearch Lyons says that

We have the ability to identify and attract better candidates than a church could ever do on its own," said Lyons, "because this is all we do, all day long."

"Sheer numbers" is MinisterSearch's biggest selling point. A typical church committee might select a minister from a few dozen resumes; the firm networks with thousands of ministers, including many that churches wouldn't know about.

"Typically the best candidate is a `passive candidate' -- someone who is not actively looking for a job," he said. Through its networking efforts, MinisterSearch develops confidential contacts with candidates who aren't job-hunting but who may be willing to relocate if the right position comes along.

And he is not the only game in town either. Apparently there is a website devoted to the same market called churchstaffing.com which allows churches so search for their next pastor via the Internet.

So how do you interview a priest anyway?

"Father can you give us a breakdown of how many souls you have saved in the last three years?"
"how's your conversion record?"
"Can you give us a sample sermon?"

Read the full article here

How Managers Should Plan To Respond to Terror

What to expect:

In the aftermath of a terrorist attack employees may fear working in tall buildings, especially landmarks. They will fear taking planes. Many will suffer from a general malaise and anxiety. Expect an overall decrease in productivity, an increase in hallway conversations and a desire to listen to the news. Expect increased absenteeism and late arrivals.

Employees perceived as being from certain ethnic and religious groups arelikely to fear blame. Some might actually be harassed.

Anticipate the need for grief counseling and immediate financial support in the case of people affected directly by an attack. Talk to your legal staff about any potential legal or insurance liabilities.

Expect a slowdown in recruiting and turnover because few people will be moving or looking during this uncertain period.

What to do:

Keeping people busy is important because it keeps their minds off of currentevents so urge employees to get back into their routine immediately.

Educate managers about possible anxiety problems and employee concerns. Urge managers to talk directly to their employees about these issues and respond rapidly to their requests.

Designate an HR person to be the primary contact for issues related to the event. Provide onsite or telephone counseling for anxiety. If individual workers are clearly being disruptive (because of their anxiety) send them to counseling or home.

Add an information section to your website which covers issues related to thisevent. Allow workers to take time off to work for charities or to give blood, in order to meet their need to "do something" to help.

Contact your employees in international locations. Ask them what they need andrespond rapidly to the requests.

Encourage employees who see harassment to report it immediately. Remind employees of the penalties for harassment. Assign an HR professional to handlethese cases and identify any employees that may be "at risk" of harassment.

Be more flexible in requests for using sick leave and vacation for the next week. Allow workers time to call friends and relatives and to talk out their concerns. Allow stressed workers to work at home or to use sick days until their anxieties subside.

Allow workers to postpone or cancel immediate business trips that require
commercial flights. Cancel or postpone upcoming conferences or events that may require a large number of people to fly commercial carriers.

Involve workers in the process of alleviating anxiety in order to lessen their fears and to get their "ownership" of the problem.

Contact your employee assistance program vendor to see what services they offer and if they are gearing up for the extra counseling that will be needed.

If you have people missing be prepared to offer immediate financial and counseling support to the families.

Review and upgrade your disaster plan.

Source Johnny Sullivan

A Reference Letter is Not a Reference

I was going through a box of old files this weekend and found a reference letter that a candidate brought with her to an interview.

The letter is dated 1987 I think.

Anyway this person was from Hong Kong and I guess women had a different place in the workforce over there because her boss ( a man) wrote that she was a good worker because she was:

"silent, diligent and obedient".

I still laugh when I read that letter.

But it got me to thinking about references letters in general. I have some candidates come to me with binders full of glowing reference letters that they are quite proud of. Some of them want me to read them right then and there (I don't) and some take them to interviews as well.

So as much as it hurts me to tell you all this, I feel it's important.

I don't care one whit about what's in your reference letter. It means zero to me.

If I want a reference I will call your former boss up directly and speak to him or her. Reference letters are often canned and are full of generalities and low on specifics.

I posted some of my reference questions in an earlier post but since our permalinks are screwed here they are again:

1 Did you hire this candidate – if so why? Did he/she live up to your expectations why/why not?

2 What did the candidate accomplish during his/her time there?

3 How was he/she perceived by internal stakeholders?

4 How would you rate this person’s influencing skills?

5 How would you rate this person’s ability to operate independently?

6 How would you rate this person’s time management skills?

7 What are this person’s strong points?

8 How do they compare to others who have done the same job?

9 How would you rate them overall on a scale of 1-10. What do they have to do to get closer to 10?

10 What areas were you coaching this person on? Did he/she improve? How does he/she take constructive criticism and feedback?

11 Did he/she ever disappoint you?

12 What motivates this person?

13 How does a manager get the best performance out of him/her?

14 Why did this person leave? Are they eligible for rehire?


Ask yourself is all of this information on your reference letter?

More importantly will the person who wrote this letter accept a call? Some people come to me with a reference letter and then tell me that it isn't ok to call the person who wrote it.

This is a major red flag.

First of all - what if the person didn't write it? Maybe you just put some stuff on company letterhead and signed it. I have no idea what your bosses signature looks like so how would I know the difference?

Second if the person believes in you so strongly that he or she wrote this letter why he would he or she not take a phone call in order to further expound on your greatness?

Don't get me wrong I am not saying that if you are given a reference letter from an former employer you should turn it down.

But you should really get clearance from that person to take a phone call from a recruiter or future employer to give you a real reference.

If they won't do it your reference letter isn't worth the paper it's written on.

MEASURING WORK-RELATED PERSONALITY

There are only a few personality traits directly related to job fit and job performance. The critical traits associated with job performance include:

Problem solving.
A person's attitude toward solving complicated problems. People with high scores tend to prefer jobs that require a mental challenge.

Idea generation / innovation.
Not everyone likes jobs that require freethinking and creativity. Some people just want to produce a steady stream of traditional work.

On the other hand, some organizations expect their people to continually generate new and better ways of producing work.

It would be de-motivating to put a person with high creativity interests in
a position requiring repetitive, unchanging work.

Administration.
Many jobs require methodical administration and follow through to see that tasks are accomplished on time and on schedule.

The traditional middle management position requires maintenance and oversight of systems. Other jobs require a more freewheeling style, such as sales. Sample item: I like to play it safe and go by the book.

Resistance to change.
Some jobs are steady, while others change from day to day. People who thrive on fast pace and change enjoy jobs that challenge them to keep pace. People who prefer stability would burn out with the pressure. This factor indicates a
person's resistance to change on the job.

Self-centeredness.
Being self-centered can be very damaging for both the organization and co-worker relationships. Self-centered people spend much of their time thinking about the impact of decisions on them personally instead of worrying about out producing and out-smarting the competition.

Teamwork.
Some people are more productive working by themselves. Some enjoy working in teams are naturally more productive and satisfied when working closely with other people.

Expressiveness.
Many jobs require outgoing personalities, such as sales. People must have an interest or willingness to stand out in social settings.

Impulsiveness.
Jobs that require fast decisions and quick actions require people who enjoy that
type of environment. Too much impulsiveness, however, can lead to the "ready, fire, aim" syndrome. Some people are driven to knee-jerk reactions that get them
into trouble because they did not think through the consequences of their actions.

Perfectionism.
People with high perfection scores may so fussy they cause unnecessary delays and reductions in output. People with too little perfectionism may be sloppy and unconcerned with quality.

Attitude to Work
Do they like to work. Are they able to pull together for a common focus on the customer. If not, their attitudes sap energy.

Truthfulness
Measuring this helps to assess the value of the rest of the answers.

Tips on Testing
People who are presenting themselves for a job don't answer questions about themselves in the same way as people who are already employed. So don't use tests whose scores are compared with a group of employed people.

Differential validity means you can probably trust unfavorable scores (i.e., "I am a closet psychopath") more than you can trust socially desirable scores (i.e., "I love working long hours for little pay").

A lie scale consists of questions the test developer knows have a normal distribution. If an applicant's score falls in either the top 15% of bottom 15%, the administrator can suspect that scores on the rest of the items were either abnormally high or low, as well.

Suppose you want to predict if a person is male or female. You could ask a single question about carrying a purse, or you could ask a series of questions
about shoe size, height, weight, wardrobe expenses, and mechanical skills.

A single test item would contain more room for error. A cluster of test items would be much more accurate. Be wary of any test that uses less than five items per factor because it is probably going to be inaccurate.

(Source is here)

It's Always the Headhunters Fault


Jilted British Land blames headhunter

British executive search firm Whitehead Mann are getting blamed because a candidate in a high profile search has accepted another position.

I don't know that it is entirely their fault since I am not privy to all the details but this type of occurrence isn't rare.

Many searches have gone aground because the candidate has taken another job much to the chagrin of the client firm and the headhunter. But it is often not the headhunter's fault.

Remember we want to make a placement happen and aren't in the business of incomplete searches.

One of the most frustrating thing that we as headhunters run into is company bureaucracy where we have a strong candidate who is being courted by numerous firms but the client company cant move fast enough in order to secure the candidate.

As a headhunter I think it is my responsibility to be aware of any other offers or situations that my candidate is considering and to make sure that my client is aware that the candidate has other possibilities.

I believe that this is important because too many clients act as if they are the only game in town and knowledge that they aren't often motivates them to move a little faster.

Plus I believe that they should be aware that the candidate has other options so that if he/she accepts another offer they aren't surprised.

Perhaps that was Whitehead Mann's mistake here?

Why Successful People Are Not Happy

Is Dennis Prager a sloppy thinker? You tell me.

When people who are affluent and live in a free society are not particularly happy, one cannot place the blame on society. It is not oppression or poverty that prevents such people from being happier - it is human nature.

Uncontrolled, human nature leads more to unhappiness than to happiness - because it is, in a word, insatiable. Human nature is designed never to feel satisfied. Whatever it wants, it wants more of.

Many years ago, I came across an ad in the Los Angeles Times: "If you are not completely satisfied with your sex life, give us a call." The ad was for a sex therapy clinic, and it was brilliant. Who in Los Angeles...was completely satisfied with his or her sex life?...

The truth is that we are completely satisfied with nothing. Imagine if the ad had read, "If you are not completely satisfied with your parents, give us a call," or "If you are not completely satisfied with your income, give us a call."

There is nothing that we want that we do not want more of. We are completely satisfied with nothing we desire...

This is not learned. It is part of human nature. I monitored the order of words my youngest child spoke. The first was "Mama." The second was "Dada." The third was "more."

That is why happiness depends on our learning not to allow our nature's permanent state of dissatisfaction to make us unhappy. No one proves this point better than the successful professionals for whom happiness remains elusive.

from Dennis Prager: Are Brokers Happy?

Here's Prager's logic.

He says that most people in business are taught to hold great professional expectations in order to succeed. But the more expectations people have the more they take for granted.

If they expect as a matter of course to be healthy, why should they be happy if they are healthy? If they expect to earn good money, why should they be particularly happy when they do?

He concludes: "If we get what we expect, we won't be especially pleased; and if we don't get what we expect, we will be angry".

His remedy: consciously minimizing expectations is the best way to achieve happiness.

Now, there's a trick here in his use of the word
"expectations". Prager doesn't use "expectation of success" to refer to confidence in your ability to achieve high goals and ambitions.

He is referring to a very narrow focus on "great expectations" which causes people to take anything but the extraordinary for granted which encourages them to focus on their bottomless needs.

But, in this regard he raises an interesting issue which he later ignores completely.

Whether having high expectations of success - as opposed to having high goals and ambitions, and making great demands on oneself - is truly necessary in order to succeed is a matter of conjecture.

It makes sense to think that people who have high goals and ambitions and make great demands on themselves necessarily take a lot of lesser things for granted. You might think that running five miles a day is a great achievement. But once you decide to become a serious runner five miles a day is nothing but a laugh, a blip.

I remember reading a profile of Michael Dukakis once and what amazed me about him was the amount of work he would do in university as a matter of course. But Prager, after raising the issue is content to just cast it aside.

I'd wager that many successful people are happier than others just because they are able to take so much for granted. It allows them to calmly face huge challenges that would surely intimidate lesser beings.

Economies of Scale

Who's doing better right now in terms of economic performance the United States or Canada?

If you watch enough American news the picture has been fairly gloomy as of late with talks of jobless recoveries and offshoring and what not. Even the tenure of current President George W. Bush is said to be threatened by the same economic problems that beset his father.

In Canada the economic news has been for the most part positive. We have avoided the American "recession" (technically the American economy never went into recession despite journalists anxiousness to use the word) and if you took a quick survey I am sure most Canadians would tell you that our economy is doing far better than our big neighbour to the south.

Numbers however don't lie.

Unemployment in Canada is currently at 7.3% compared to the U.S. where it 5.6% (when is the last time our unemployment figure was that good?). Ok you might ask but hasn't the U.S. employment picture improved recently? Yes it has, the 5.6% number is an improvement over 6% a year ago. So that makes us (Canada) look a little better right? Well actually our employment was 7.6% a year ago.

GDP numbers also give us a clue to the health of the economy. Canada's GDP is currently growing at an annualized rate of 2.4%. Our economically challenged neighbour to the south? 4.4%.

The sluggishness of our economy relative to our neighbour is getting little treatment in the press. Considering that we are currently in the midst of a Federal election campaign you would think there would be more discussion about that.

The health of the American economy generally bodes well for Canada. After all we sell 80% of the stuff we produce to the U.S. But if our economy is slowing down it will bode ill for the next government of Canada especially if a different party takes over.

Look for any economic malaise to be blamed on the newcomers rather than the old guard.

Accepting Opposition

Semper Fi Consulting claims that Israelis take a healthy, matter-of-fact attitude toward being the target of hatred. Whatever you think about the Middle-East that attitude can surely be applied to conflicts at the office or plant, as well.

SF says that hatred isn't something Israelis ponder over; they don’t rack their brains trying to get to the reasons for the hostility ("Why do they hate us?").

Instead, they go about their daily lives fully aware that millions of their neighbours would like to kill them. What struck SF about the Israelis he met was an almost cheerful acceptance of hatred, and the deep confidence they have in their own (national) values.

SF says that the acceptance of being the target of hatred requires a profound psychological adjustment.

Knowing that somebody out there hates you, and knowing that there is nothing you can do, or should do, to dissuade the hater, creates a certain "adult state of mind". Some pleasant qualities, for instance, such as giving the benefit of the doubt towards a stranger, have to be replaced by a frank candor.

No one likes being hated, but you can adjust to the phenomenon, by recognizing more fully your personal value --rather than trying to change yourself fundamentally in an effort to appease the opposition.

Find more here

We Didn't Get This One....

Penney begins search for next CEO

J.C. Penney Co., still in a turnaround campaign started by chief executive Allen J. Questrom, has begun looking for its next CEO.

The department store company's board of directors has hired an executive-search firm to find a successor to Questrom, whose five-year contract expires in September 2005, a spokesman said.

Penney hired the firm of Heidrick & Struggles International Inc. last month, Lyons said. He said the company has used the firm to fill other executive vacancies.

Lyons said the board asked Heidrick & Struggles to consider both inside and outside candidates. He declined to say how much Penney was paying the search firm.

Well I can tell you that the fee is probably about 25-30% of the annual total compensation. If Heidrick is true to form they will recommend an internal candidate or a former Penney exec now retired.

Right Coca Cola shareholders??

A Manager's Day - in 1944

RANDALL: I was a second lieutenant. This means you have 40 men that are dependent upon you for their lives and they treat you as their father. And here, you're 22 years old and can't possibly be that smart...

I was given a mission to take a few men and reconnoiter a small dirt road, only about a half-mile long, and determine if it had on anti- personnel or anti-tank mines or if it had trip wires. And this was under a foot of snow and it was down right next to the river... in open country....

And when I got this news from the Battalion S2, the intelligence officer, I said, "But don't we have engineers to do this kind of thing?" And he said, "We have engineers, but they aren't doin' this kind of thing. They're on some other mission." And then I said, "Don't you have mine detectors that I can take down there?" He said, yeah have mine detectors. They're out on another patrol." He said, "Lieutenant, there are five snowsuits in the corner. You take those and go."

So I had four men and myself, and I threw the snowsuits to them and I tried to orient at them on this, thinking, "This is the worst situation I can think of." And the panic mounted in me. It was below freezing. My teeth were chattering so badly I could not orient them properly.

I couldn't talk. I finally resorted to the infantry motto, which is, "Follow me." I could say those two things. And then we walked through the woods, following a road for about a half-a-mile and came to the end of the tree line.

And then you could look out and see this completely untrammeled snow, a small rural road — you could see a depression in the snow to show where the road was, not a mark on it and it led right down to the river. And you look up... 450 feet high was the escarpment which contained all the pillboxes in our zone on the Siegfried line.

MOYERS: German pillboxes?

RANDALL: Yeah... And I thought, "My God, when we step out on this snow we're going to be visible, we're going to be moving, and immediately a magnesium flare will go up, a parachute flare... and then, naturally, you get machine gunned."...

And I was so scared I really didn't know what to do and I really didn't know how to find these mines. I knew this was important information because of the battalion going down these roads in a few nights carrying assault boats to hit the river.

So I really gulped hard in trying to conquer this fear, told all the men to get behind the trees and I just jumped down on the road. And I didn't blow up.

And I was pretty pleased about that. And then I just thought, "Well, I'll just keep going." So I walked another about 50 yards in the snow and motioned for the next guy — I'm thinking, "He probably won't come out," but he did and that gratified me immensely.

And we all went down with this big interval between us in case of one of us set off a mine. And, well, to make it shorter, we trampled the heck out of all that snow and got back to the tree line.

And by that time we were so relieved and happy that we were throwing snowballs at each other. And when we went back to through our own outpost lines, we completely forgot to pass word and almost got shot doin' that.

And I went back and reported this - that there were no mines to Battalion S2. And he said, "Good information, Randall." And I turned to leave... and he said, "Hey, Randall, how did you determine there weren't any mines on that road?" And I said, "We trampled the hell out of every square foot of snow on your goddamned road!"...

The war changed my self-perception.... All decisions in later life are viewed in the perspective of your early experience in the war, and I wasn't afraid to just make a major decision involving money or stuff because I'd say to myself, "Hell, if I lose it, I'm still alive and nobody is shooting at me."

I'd like to pay a personal thank you to those guys and others like them. (More of this interview here).

Addendum: I just read this article
(via Damian Penny and Andrew Sullivan) and it made me feel a little guilty. The author, David Gelernter, has it right that many young people in the post-war generation were taught to have contempt for anything military and were, therefore, unable to pay due respect to the veterans and those who lost their lives during the Second World War. However, I don't believe that anyone showed contempt for what they had done or thought that it wasn't worthwhile. The anti-military and the pro-WW2 attitudes co-existed in a form of shallow schizophrenia without the one truly affecting the other. Moreover, I believe that the anti-war attitudes of the post-war era were (well-handled or not) an attempt to continue the fight against unthinking obedience in the service of militarism. And, finally, as I told the Photon Courier a few weeks ago, the "greatest generation" were regular guys who were thrust into an extraordinary situation. Back in civilian life they weren't one dimensional heroes and could not be treated as such. Archie Bunker served in WW2. That being said, I don't think it's hypocritical to appreciate them now and to make up for any praise that was lost but due.

Voice Mail III

Just a couple more things on voice mail and then I’ll leave it.

1. When you leave a voice mail leave your first and last name. I can’t tell you how many times a candidate calls me and assumes since we have spoken before I know them by their first name.

“Hi, Anthony it’s Jim calling give me a call…..”

First of all I have many Jim’s in my database – don’t assume I will know which one you are. Additionally leave your company name as well. That will tie it in really quickly for me.

2. Always always always leave your phone number. It doesn’t matter how many times I have spoken to you before don’t assume I have memorized your number. I have it on my computer but make it easy for me – leave it on the voice mail so I can call you back quickly. I leave my number on every voice mail even when I am calling my Mother. It just makes it that much easier on the person that you want to call you back.

Remember the easier you make it for the headhunter the more inclined we are to look upon you favorably. We are human after all.

More On Voice Mail

I was recently called by a fellow in his thirties who came to Canada just over a year ago. He was a Chartered Accountant in India and his experience has included a number of years with large international firms. He has one year's experience in Canada with a small CA firm.

This guy strikes me as being an excellent candidate. His English is very good, he has a bright, energetic manner of speaking, he's not at all shy but he's very polite and he seems to have good experience. I would consider him a definite hire.

He told me that his goal was to get into a local CA firm as an articling student so that he can become a Canadian CA. He was calling partners in the firms to apply but he had the belief that it was necessary to actually engage the potential employer in a conversation and, so, he had not left one voice mail message. He wasn't having any success and asked me what I thought he should do.

Well, first of all, he seems to be calling at a bad time. Most of the firms have already planned on bringing in new students when the school year ends. So, he has to plan for the next hiring period which I think is in the fall.

Secondly, I told him that he has to leave voicemail messages. There are two reasons for this. First of all, as he had found, it's very difficult to get someone on the phone. And, secondly, even if you do, there's a good chance that you will be interrupting him when he is in the middle of something.

So, I emailed him the following advice:

I suggest that you call all of the people on the list once a month and leave them voice mail messages and email your resume to them after each time you call.

Below is a basic voice mail message. Naturally, you can alter it to suit your own manner of speaking. But I think it covers the main points in a brief, direct manner.

"Hi, my name is XYZ. I'm a Chartered Accountant from India with 14 years experience, including 4 years at [high-profile, international firm]. I have one year of Canadian experience and I'm looking for an opportunity to be a CA articling student so that I can work towards my CA designation in Ontario. What I can offer you is a lot of good experience for a modest salary. I'm hoping that we can have a chat about employment by phone or in person. I'd really appreciate a call. You can reach me at 416-111- 1111."

[I also gave him some advice about receiving calls at home].

If someone is at home during the day and picks up your calls, he or she should be taught how to answer the phone and take a message in a businesslike fashion. If someone is at home who does not speak English, your calls should
definitely be allowed to go straight to voice mail.

You should have Bell Canada voice mail service. It costs about $5 or $6 dollars a month and can take messages even if someone is on the phone. It would probably be best to get an Identicall number. This is a second number for your
same phone line. It costs about $5.00 per month and rings differently so that your family members will know not to answer any call that comes in with two rings.

Voice Mail – Friend or Foe?

Most books or articles that you read will tell you that if you send someone a resume you should follow up with a phone call.

I think a lot of people know that because I get lots of phone calls from people who send me resumes.

Typically it happens when I have run some type of career advertising on behalf of the client.

Most people - actually all of them don’t help their cause at all when they follow up and here’s why.

90% of the time the person following up reaches my voice mail and they leave me a message. This is how the message sounds 100% of the time:

“Hi my name is X and I sent you a resume last week. I just wanted to follow up and make sure you received it. Please call me back at….”

I never ever will call this person back. Why? They have not given me a compelling reason to. Think about it, I get hundreds of resumes from one ad. I have a stack of them sitting on my desk. Why should I go leafing through each one to find yours just so I can call you and tell you that yes I have your resume?

I mentioned on an earlier post that you should approach a job search with the end goal in mind. So every step you take has to result in an action that takes you closer to that goal. If you have sent a resume to me then your next step is to get an interview. Does the above phone call increase your chances of getting an interview?

Well if I call you back maybe you can turn the conversation into a semi-interview and I will be so charmed that I will have you come in. But it isn’t going to happen because you haven’t given me a good reason to call you back.

If the purpose of your call was merely to check to see if I received your resume then if I called you and said “Hi X it’s Anthony. Yes I received your resume” click and hung up then you would be happy right?

Let me suggest to you that you have a valuable tool available to you that can increase your chances of getting an interview if used properly: voice mail.

When you get the voice mail of the person you are trying to reach consider what would make that person excited enough to pull your resume out of the pile and call you.

First they have to know who you are. It is no good just to leave your name you must leave some details. Like I send you my resume it is on light blue paper and I used to work for X and Y.

However just doing that isn’t enough. You must used the voice mail to sell yourself. Think about it the person who is listening can’t interrupt, they can either listen to your message or skip it. So make your message compelling.

I suggest leaving one or two tidbits about your background that are germain to the position description and highlight how you fit the role. You want the person to think “hey this person sounds good, I think I will call them” remember no HR person wants to plow through a stack of resumes. If you can make things easier for them you will increase your chances of landing the position substantially.

I did sales recruitment for a large publicly traded firm for many years. I used to advertise many times and never received a good voice mail message follow up from those who had sent in their resumes. Here is the voice mail I would like to have heard (customize this for your own position):

"Anthony, my name is X and I sent you a resume last week on the sales position you advertised for Toronto. I don’t know if you had a chance to read my resume but I wanted to call and tell you I believe I am very qualified for the position.

I have 5 years sales experience in the industry and have always achieved quota. Last year I won a company award for most new customers and I have been promoted twice since I have been here. I have strong cold calling and closing skills and excel at penetrating new accounts.

I would love to meet with you to answer any questions you might have about my background. Please call me at ……"

Now that is a voice mail I would have returned. In the 6 years I recruited for this client I never received one like that. So if you do it imagine how it will make you stand out from the herd.

Rational Life

Generally, what Anthony and I seem to recommend is a relaxed, orderly approach to thinking about one's work.

At any time, you should be able to state about four of the main functions of your job and supply examples of your achievements in those areas.

You should be able to state a few examples of how your work supports the business by saving it money or making it money or making it work better.

You should be able to give a few examples of what you like in your work and give reasons as to why you like those things.

You should be able to tell someone what your career plans are, at least in the short term.

You don't have to be fanatically analytic to be able to this. You just have to give a little thought to what you are doing and the logic behind it.

People are supposed to start every day like this aren't they? With an idea of their priorities for the day, the reasons for them, and an ability to describe what they are doing in their technical specialties to business people in other departments.

It really just sounds like a natural part of taking a practical, orderly, common sense approach to life in general. But is this what's taught in school? No one taught it to me (many will swear to that) and I don't think it's being taught now.

How do I know? Well, how about this. Canada is currently involved in a federal election campaign and one of the main topics you hear repeatedly on the news is the lack of interest in voting among people aged 18 to 35.

Last week I saw part of Play, an entertainment program on one of our national television networks. The host is a MuchMusic-style Vee-Jay who probably thinks he's dealing with real artists in the sense of seers as opposed to mere entertainers.

He's a real puppy dog of a guy who seems to need to show how cool he is by aligning himself with the most popular of moods (eg. on Iraq). So, this time, he got himself a sign that read "Screw The Vote" and went around asking young voters about their lack of interest.

I've seen this kind of thing on regular news programs as well and the replies are always passive and cynical. All you ever hear from people in the "Canadian street" are complaints that the politicians aren't doing enough for them to be interested. There is never any sense that they live in a democracy so they can take a practical approach to politics themselves.

Why is that? Well, when I was in high school we spent one term in grade ten on how the government worked. That was it. There was no education as to how a citizen can take an orderly, rational approach to getting things done. And, so, I've always found the popular attitude to politics is always one of resentment against the boss as if you were still living at home and your parents were too strict about the car.

Sometimes, in job interviews, the discussion of hobbies can be used to find out something about what the person is like generally. After I saw the interviews on Play, I wondered what it would be like to be able to discuss politics with young candidates in interviews.

It would be interesting to see if they could state a few ideas in a clear orderly manner and then support them with evidence. Or if they just whined. I also wondered if the ability to do so would reflect anything about their ability to do the job or if it was just an extraneous matter.

Listening Skills.


Do you have good listening skills?

"Of course!" You reply. "It is one of my strengths."

In an interview we are all ears and anxious to demonstrate our listening skills. But the screening process happens not just in the interview but during all points of contact with the candidate and the recruiter or client company.

For example I am currently working on a fairly senior search at the VP level. I contacted a potential candidate who told that she wouldn't be interested in the position unless it was a minimum of $150,000.00. I told her that was no problem the client was willing to be very competitive in order to attract the right person.

I sen't her a position description.

She replied with an email asking questions about the benefits and some other details including potential for growth. I emailed her back with answers to those questions.

A week to 10 days went by and I heard nothing from her. So I picked up the phone and left her a voice mail asking her if she was still interested.

Minutes later an email (not a phone call) appeared saying she would need more information, in particular benefits and growth opportunities AND "we haven't talked about compensation yet".

Even though this person is working directly for a competitor she isn't impressing me with her listening skills.

For me I already have some reservations about her even if she becomes a candidate.

Remember the screening process is as much about how you act outside the interview as opposed to during the interview. Consider the whole process an audition. The interview is just the final act.

World of the Day: Mondegreen

My first misheard lyric came at the age of six, when I learned to sing "Row, Row Your Boat." I was convinced that the line after "merrily merrily merrily" was "life's a butter dream". I wasn't sure what dairy products had to do with a boat trip, but I didn't have the courage to ask.

The term "mondegreen" was coined by Sylvia Wright in a 1954 Atlantic article. As a child, young Sylvia had listened to a folk song that included the lines "They had slain the Earl of Moray/And Lady Mondegreen."

As is customary with misheard lyrics, she didn't realize her mistake for years. The song was not about the tragic fate of Lady Mondegreen, but the continuing plight of the earl: "They had slain the Earl of Moray/And laid him on the green."

Mondegreens can be found in every area of the spoken word.

Find more here. And see Pompatus of Love for a great story.

Joel On Interviewing 14: Ending the Interview

Finally, ask the candidate if she has any questions. Some people like to see if the candidate will ask intelligent questions, which is a standard technique in the interviewing books.

Personally, I don't care what questions they ask; by this point I've already made my decision. The trouble is, candidates have to see about 5-6 people in one day, and it's hard for them to ask 5-6 people different, brilliant questions, so if they don't have any questions, fine.

I always leave about 5 minutes at the end of the interview to sell my company. This is very important even if you are not going to hire the candidate.

If you've been lucky enough to find a really good candidate, you want to do everything to make sure that she wants to come aboard.

Even if they are bad candidates, you still want to get them excited about your firm. Think of it this way: these people are not just potential hires; they are also customers. They are also salesmen for our recruiting effort: if they think that this is a great place to work, they will encourage their friends to apply.

Represent, Yo!

Regular reader and commenter Gautam asked the following question in the comments section recently:

Do headhunters represent job seekers or job-fillers?

In other words do we represent the candidate or the hiring company?

Simply put the client companies pay our bills while the candidates get our services (such as they are) for free.

Gautam also asks:

That is, do you start the process after you get a good CV or after you get an opening from an organization?

This is a good segue to illustrate the types of recruiting firms you will encounter in your career.

Basically recruiting companies are divided into two main types: contingency and retained.

Contingency firms work on contingency (natch) which means that they don’t get paid unless they actually fill a position. Typically they don’t have exclusives on a particular assignment but will try to juggle as many openings as possible in order to increase their chances of filling a position and getting paid a fee.

Client companies rarely use contingency firms for senior positions and are more apt to use their services in areas where they have multiple openings in areas that they need to get fast turnaround (information technology for example).

Those who work in contingency firms are often paid on 100% commission and are usually very motivated to fill a position. The upside to this from your perspective is that they will work very hard to get you in to see their clients.

Often if they have a candidate that they feel has a skill or experience profile that is in high demand they will pick up the phone and start making what are called “marketing calls” or “MPC calls” (MPC means Most Place able Candidate) if you fall into that category the recruiter will be working on your behalf to try to get you as many interviews as possible.

The downside to this is that because they are purely focused on making deals happen they often will be so focused on getting interviews that they will send you out on positions that aren’t even remotely a fit.

Remember because they are on contingency the client has no allegiance to them and has no risk in receiving resumes or candidates from them. Often a contingency recruiter has called a hiring manager because the company was advertising and had maybe a 10-minute (or less) conversation about the job. Their understanding of the company and the position may not be that deep.

This is why when you are working with a contingency firm you should ask a lot of questions and don’t go out on interviews if they don’t seem to be a fit.

Retained Search firms are often known as Executive Search firms because they are usually focused on more senior positions. They are hired by the client to perform a specific search and are paid a “retainer” up front to start the search. They are paid regardless of whether the search is successful or not.

You are more likely to encounter these firms once you move into management roles and you will notice a difference in their style and approach.

Typically the type of consultant who is employed by an Executive Search firm is one who has worked in industry in some sort of management capacity and has fairly strong expertise in general business concepts. This enables them to have a greater understanding of the client’s requirements and of the candidate’s skills. They will have spent a fair amount of time face to face with the client discussing the needs and often will help the client develop a position description. When I worked in contingency we rarely met the clients.

Also Executive Search firms because they are on retainer will have exclusivity on a particular assignment. So they will go to market and perform a thorough search, interview as many candidates as possible and then recommend a short list to the client.

The client has a certain loyalty to the process because they are paying money up front. If the search is a retained search you know that the client is serious about filling this position.

Generally if you are dealing with a retainer firm you wont be sent on interviews that you aren’t qualified for. And you will find the process to be more professional.

The downside is that some retainer firms are often unwilling to look at candidates who are “outside the box” as it relates to the job description or “spec”. Some of them will even disqualify candidates who are lacking in something that is very minor.

Also the process can take much longer. But often this is the case with more senior roles – the hiring process is a bit more involved.

Both types of firms ultimately have to adhere to what the client wants and both types also have to represent you in a positive light to the clients if they want to get you in for an interview.

Ultimately the demarcation between which types of firm you deal with more often is going to be where your own career is progressing. The more senior you are the more often you will be dealing with retainer based search firms. The more junior you are the greater the chance you will be working through contingency firms.

Joel On Interviewing 13: The Challenge

This is fun. Throughout the interview, you look for the candidate to say something that is absolutely, positively, unarguably correct. Then you say, "wait a minute, wait a minute," and spend about 2 minutes playing devil's advocate. Argue with her when you are sure she is right.

Weak candidates will give in. No Hire. Strong candidates will find a way to persuade you. They will have a whole laundry list of Dale Carnegie techniques to win you over. "Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you," they will say. But they will stand their ground. Hire.

Admittedly, in an interview situation, you are not equal parties. Thus there is a risk that the candidate will be afraid to argue with you because you are in a position of power over him. BUT, good candidates will tend to get fairly passionate about the argument, and they may momentarily forget that they are in an interview, and they will get very involved in trying to convince you. These are the people we want to hire.

Describe your job.

I interview a lot of people by phone and in person. Most of them are very poor at describing what it is they do.

I think most of them assume that I know what their job is all about since I am supposed to be a “specialist” in whatever field they work in.

Most headhunters have never actually worked in your field before so we only have a rudimentary knowledge of what your job is all about. This also applies to HR professionals as well. They have a little more info on the internal workings of a company but don’t expect them to understand what a cost accountant or engineer really does.

For example let’s say you are a materials manager. Your resume states that your position requires you to “ensure integrity of material flow”. Ok but what does that mean?

How is integrity defined? Where is the material flowing? What are the steps you take to ensure this miraculous “integrity”?

Before you go to your next interview ask yourself this question: How would I describe my job to a complete stranger who had no experience in my field. Let’s say you are visiting your parents and the next-door neighbor asks you what your job is all about. Now let’s say he is a retired bus driver who has no business experience. Can you make him understand your job? You should be able to.

I’ve met a quite a few managers and senior executives who seem to get annoyed if you don’t immediately understand on an intuitive level what they are talking about. This doesn’t help the process because if I feel uncomfortable asking you to clarify things then I will assume this is how you deal with subordinates who ask questions that annoy you or who don’t “get it” as fast as you would like.

My co-blogger Mike will not let you away with this. He will ask you for examples repeatedly (and I will also). Be prepared with examples from your daily work that illustrate what it is you do.

This may seem onerous but remember as headhunters we have to be able to go to our client and represent you as best we can. We are your agent. The more you help us with details the better we can sell you to our client.

And we can’t sell the product if we don’t know anything about it.

France says 35-hour week is failing

The French government described the 35-hour working week as a financial disaster that was costing the state billions of dollars and promised to reform the system despite fierce union opposition.

The finance minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, said that the 35-hour week had burdened the state with additional social charges and that it had demoralized millions of workers.

The 35-hour week came into effect in 1997 as an idea for reducing unemployment. Unemployment now is just under 10%.

Source via Catallarchy.net