The BlueBlanketBlog

Why blog?

fleek@blueblanketblog.com (Chris Fleek) — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 17:35:00 GMT

When I first began to blog, I had visions of greatness in my head. I thought that the ‘Field of Dreams’ mantra “If you build it, they will come.” would hold true for my blog. Hundreds or even thousands would read my pontification, many in the HR industry would point to me as an expert and job seekers around the globe would be waiting anxiously for each new blog update. This massive web traffic would then surely drive new clients to Octane Recruiting and the creation of revenue would fuel the weekly, if not daily, BlueBlanketBlog entry. Oops.

Reality often does not meet the lofty expectations we set for an activity or project. It’s not that the results I listed above are an impossible dream; it’s just there is far more to achieving blogosphere fortune than writing occasional random thoughts and waiting for the traffic to pour in. Becoming an expert blogger means knowing how to ping search engines, network with other bloggers and basically doing whatever it takes to get attention…something I’m not used to seeking. In other words, I still have a lot to figure out.

Being a blogger does not have to equal being a world champion blogger…it doesn’t have to mean that I’m driving record amounts of traffic or revenue…and it doesn’t have to make even a blip on the radar of so-called blogging experts. Going forward, I’m going to be a blogger that writes for whoever might choose to read. All I can be is a voice for my business ideas, my colleagues, or maybe even my friends and family…but as importantly, I’ll blog for myself. By being true to my thoughts and experiences, perhaps I can create new dialogue whether that conversation ends up being between two or two thousand!

Thanks for reading today – I hope you’ll take a look at past entries and decide that what I contribute going forward might be worth reading. If you think so, please feel free to use the “Subscribe” function on the right-hand side of this screen. I look forward to continuing a dialogue with you.

Behind the Scenes

fleek@blueblanketblog.com (Chris Fleek) — Fri, 25 May 2007 00:11:00 GMT

First of all, I should admit to being a big fan of American Idol. Yes it’s far too commercial and sure the jokes and group songs are a bit hokey, but at its core, the show represents something we all hope is true…that anyone has a chance to be discovered. But this blog posting is not about the ideal of hope or the underdog story that is a 17-year-old winner this year (never mind that she’s the daughter of an ex-NFL football player who certainly has been provided opportunity along the way).

This is a posting about what it takes behind the scenes to make a successful event or project or television show. On TV, things almost always look slick. The host, the band, the lighting, the camera angles…all functioning in harmony to produce a high-quality product. It takes far more than the push of a button, however, to make it all work.

As I watched the Idol finale last night, I was struck by all the moving parts that are required in such a production. Here’s just a simple list I was able to come up with:

- The Host (Ryan Seacrest)
- The Judges (Randy Jackson, Paula Abdul and Simon Cowell)
- The Band (Ricky Minor and band)
- Lighting technicians
- Sound technicians
- Makeup Artists
- Hairstylists
- Wardrobe Consultants
- Procurement Agents to purchase items for the above list
- Stagehands
- Everyone working at the Kodak Theatre (including greeters, security, maintenance, ticket-takers, etc.)
- On-air production crew
- Programmers working with on-screen graphics
- Film crews, producers and writers for all the video clips/taped segments
- Advertising and Marketing for the show
- Account Managers for sponsorships
- Agents for booking talent

And I’m certain that I could list at least twice that number of roles if I did some homework. All told, how many people does it take to make sure an American Idol finale goes off without a hitch? 200? 500? Did 1000 people within Fox touch that event in some way?

The bottom line is that I’m amazed at what must go into a project like the AI finale in order for it to be a successful production. In reality though, I’m no less impressed by the simple projects that take place in any office or factory in any town around the world.

How many people does it take to give a presentation? If that presentation is given by a C-Level leader, I’m guessing it takes at least 8 people to make it happen. Someone handles the scheduling and logistics, someone prepares the PowerPoint slides, and at least 5 different employees (minimum) supply information that will go into the presentation. When all are added to the presenter him or herself, you’ve got at least 8 people on board in some capacity. So why is this fascinating to me?

- It means that hiring the right people in ALL levels of an organization is crucial to its success
- It means that keeping a large number of people moving together towards one common goal is inherently difficult yet crucial
- It means that the leader giving the presentation has to have a great deal of faith in the other folks contributing to the outcome
- It means that a successful outcome should be shared by all involved; and all should be involved in any learning that can be taken away
- It means that it is very easy to take for granted the work of those behind the scenes in the course of daily work
It in turn means that any project or task or production requires strong leadership. That leader must hire the right talent and then motivate them to continually produce great work. That leader must trust his/her team and then share the praise and learning opportunities with all involved (not just a select few). And finally that leader must find ways to recognize and reward the work of those behind the scenes….those that do not see the camera or the audience or the accolades. If all do not feel recognition, all will not feel compelled to create a successful outcome in the future.

The American Idol finale provided me with 2 hours of enjoyable entertainment. When I think of the number of people, processes and working hours involved in making it all happen, I am in awe. That awe will no longer be limited to the big productions I see on television – I hope to reserve that same level of awe for the successful work projects I see around me in organizations I work with every day.

Greatness?

fleek@blueblanketblog.com (Chris Fleek) — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 02:17:00 GMT

How many times in your life have you witnessed true greatness? That greatness may have been an accomplishment, a lasting remark or observation, or just a person known for being great at something…so think back…when have you been in the presence of greatness?

I’ve been fortunate to have seen many great people along the way; people I’d consider to be among the best at what they do (or did): The Three Tenors, Bo Jackson, Eric Clapton, Dick Schaap, Jim Collins, Michael Jordan, Harry Connick Jr.,

Steve Ballmer and Jerry Seinfeld…. Each name is easily recognizable and their awe-inspiring abilities typically unquestioned. With their name, their aura and their reputation, just being in their presence and marveling at their abilities in action was, in each case, memorable.

When watching such superstars showcase their talents, I find myself sitting back and just soaking it all in. Whether “it” was the unbelievable fret board work of Clapton, the centering and motivating message of Collins, or listening to Schaap tell sports stories, it was easy to get lost in the moment understanding that I was witnessing something very few people could do at that level of quality. But what about the times when we are a part of greatness and do not realize it? What about the amazing people and experiences we’ve shared that just failed to register as anything but ordinary at the time? Unfortunately, it often takes distance or time to realize the quality of some of the not-so-obvious greatness in the people we’ve worked with or the accomplishments we’ve witnessed or even participated in.

Lee Johnson, Rudy Stoehr, Bonnie Robertson….three names with little meaning to most people but, to me, each represents greatness. Johnson was my Manager when I recruited for

Concordia College and I continue to be amazed at the recruiting lessons I put into practice today despite not having worked with Lee for nearly 10 years. Stoehr was the most passionate, energetic, empathetic and unique teachers I had in all my years. I’d venture to guess that hundreds of students from Lincoln East High School might call him their favorite teacher over the years but I’m guessing most, if like me, didn’t realize just how great he was until after we left school. I worked with Robertson at Great Plains (Microsoft) in Fargo, and while she would have no idea she had any impact on me at all, she re-affirmed my desire to maintain a career path driving results in the People side of business. Her skill, business acumen and value-driven work ethic remain a great motivator for me today.

It’s this second type of greatness that I’d encourage you to think about. Who are the people in your past who touched you with his or her greatness? As important though, I’d ask you to wonder if you’ve ever been considered great by someone else? If so, do you know what you accomplished to earn that respect? While it isn’t always comfortable to do so, I hope you’ll take the time to consider times when you have been great…what created the situation? What motivated you to perform? What did you bring to the table that those around you did not? And perhaps most important, have you been able to repeat that level of quality?

I truly believe that everyone has the ability to be great…it might be a fleeting moment of greatness, impacting someone in a way that you aren’t even aware of…or it might be an obvious greatness easy for all to see. The challenge for all of us is to find a way to create those moments of greatness just a little more often and to encourage those around us to achieve that greatness as well. Very few people possess the worldly talent of a Jordan or a Clapton…but I’d like to think that we each have some Robertson or Stoehr in us just waiting to be noticed.

Quick Follow-Up

fleek@blueblanketblog.com (Chris Fleek) — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 02:29:00 GMT

I just wanted to post a quick follow-up to a couple of items in my last posting and to offer a couple of additional thoughts that occurred to me during my recent business trip:

- Nearly every flight I've been on in the last six months has been full. I do not travel enough to say for sure, but it seems to me that the airlines have found a way to fly nearly every flight at full capacity. Unfortunately for me, flights seem to be filled with road warrior types. Before boarding my Northwest Airlines flight back to Minneapolis, the gate agent said that approximately 75% of the passengers on our flight had some form of elite status. His statement was proven correct when, after announcing that general boarding was ready to take place (after first-class, exit rows, passengers with small children and elite status members had all boarded), I was finally allowed to board the sold out DC-9 with exactly 13 other remaining passengers. Let's just say there was no space left in the overhead compartments.....

- After getting situated, I realized that the Neanderthal across the aisle from me had removed his shoes. I'm all for trying to be comfortable during a flight but can we as a society please agree on some basic rules? If we can, wouldn't "keep your shoes on while in a confined space with other humans" be one of them?

- A website that I have found to be extremely helpful when planning a flight can be found here - http://www.seatguru.com. There you can find the layout of most types of aircraft with most major carriers. The listed seat map will alert you to the best and worst seats on that particular type of plane and will also warn you of unfortunate nuances you otherwise wouldn't discover until seated (e.g. lack of a window in a particular row or close proximity to the lavatories). It's very easy to use and it's free.

- While I'm used to managing many business relationships over a distance, I was reminded that face-to-face contact can be energizing. I was able to spend time with many people at a client-site that I've worked with over phone and e-mail and in doing so, I was reminded of just how much my work impacts them on a daily basis...and how much theirs impacts mine. The one inherent challenge of conducting work virtually is creeping doubt. "Is my vendor working hard for me right now?" "Is the client benefiting from my work?" "When I'm not in a meeting with the team, is that person an advocate or an opponent?"

Being onsite, however, helped me fully realize that my clients do know that I have worked hard to support them. They do benefit from the work I've been doing and that they are my advocate even when I'm not there in person. Likewise, my presence was a good reminder to them that there is a person behind the phone and the computer, and that they can trust that I have their interests in mind in my day to day activities. Each of us has "felt" that our partnership has been strong all along, but a handshake and a collaborative strategy session goes a long way towards helping us to "know" it.

- There is one other way that creeping doubt is common...in the job search. One fear held by candidates is that the hiring team is going to do everything they can to exclude the job seeker or that questions will be designed to showcase the negative and that managers are trying to find reasons NOT to hire each candidate. Being onsite with the managers last week again reminded me of something I learned long ago...that hiring teams WANT to hire you.

You see, if a manager can make you his/her next great hire, the hiring process ends. And there are not many things that frustrate a manager more than a lengthy hiring process. Remember, these folks typically have 50 other things/people that they are responsible for in addition to filling the open position on their team. Hiring is not his/her full-time job but rather a distraction from their daily accountabilities. In other words, they WANT you to be the right person for the job. The sooner they can fill their open position, the better off they and their team will be.

So as a job seeker, I encourage you to turn your expectation upside down. Rather than go into the interview believing you have to overcome doubts held by the hiring team, instead believe that you are going into the interview to reinforce the positive things the hiring team already believes about you! You must believe that they would much rather hire you than be forced to continue with the job search process. If you believe you are heading into a room full of advocates, instead of a room full of doubters, I believe your odds for success increase dramatically.

Tonight's Random Thoughts

fleek@blueblanketblog.com (Chris Fleek) — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 03:57:00 GMT

Thanks again for visiting my blog. If you're a new visitor, please take a look at the previous postings and feel free to add comments if you're so motivated. I hope you find some entries of interest. My goal is to provoke thought and encourage evaluation of your own ideas/actions as they relate to a job search or work as a recruiter or HR professional. I'm interested in any feedback or suggestions you have to make this a better place for an occasional mental jog.

Here are some random thoughts for today:

- As I was sitting on a plane waiting for takeoff on Monday night, the plane was delayed. As it turns out, we were waiting for a passenger to board. He rushed onto the plane shortly after our scheduled departure time, talking into his Bluetooth headset and carrying his laptop case and carry-on. As soon as the flight attendant helped him get situated, a loud, "Oh crap!" was heard from this all-important passenger. Apparently he left his laptop at the security table. After asking the flight attendant if he can have the laptop brought on board for him, and being rejected, he gathered up his belongings and made a quick exit. Unfortunately, not being one to accept responsibility for his mistake, he loudly exclaimed, "I can't believe TSA didn't give me back my laptop!" I'm glad I don't have to travel for business very often.....

- With social networking sites such as facebook, myspace, xanga and friendster in the U.S., along with mixi (Japan), faceparty (Britain) and facebox (Europe) around the world, it is now easy to conduct even more online research about job candidates. While a simple Google search used to turn up a good amount of information about a person (and it still does), only a thorough scour of the social networking sites will allow a researcher to really dig into someone's online history. There have been a number of articles written on the topic, most warning job seekers about the "dangers" of publishing info on the internet that might sully his or her otherwise good name. Here are a couple of articles that I'd recommend:

"To Blog or Not to Blog" - http://jobsearch.about.com/od/jobsearchblogs/a/jobsearchblog.htm

"Employers Look for Online Clues" - http://morningsentinel.mainetoday.com/news/local/3060654.shtml

- Because I'm aware that online searches are routinely conducted to check out a candidate or new business associate, I check my own online history on occasion. I was very surprised, yet pleased, to find the following website - http://region12.nafsa.org/Multigenerations.NAFSA.pdf. There you'll find a presentation on the subject of Multi-Generations in the workplace. This presentation given at the NAFSA - http://www.nafsa.org/ - conference in Las Vegas, NV in November of 2006, was based on a presentation developed by Bonnie Robertson and me while we worked together at Great Plains Software back in 1998! Over the years I have continued to adapt and present the subject matter and am thankful that a presentation given within just the last few months, credits work we originally did nearly 10 years ago (slide #15)!! This is also a strong testament to the authors of "Generations at Work", (Zemke, Raines and Filipczak) as their original work remains relevant in today's workplace despite more research and exploration being conducted on the subject in recent years - http://www.amazon.com/Generations-Work-Managing-Veterans-Workplace/dp/0814404804/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-7864715-1723855?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174448876&sr=8-1.

- Speaking of Amazon.com, I have to recommend one of their services, Amazon Prime - http://www.amazon.com/gp/subs/primeclub/signup/main.html/ref=prm_su_lma/103-7864715-1723855. This service costs $79 for one calendar year, and provides you with free 2-day shipping on any Amazon item you purchase. Or you can upgrade to overnight shipping for only $3.99. This service would be a poor investment for a casual online shopper or one who is not loyal to one particular purchasing site, but ideal for anyone who is a frequent Amazon.com shopper. Note - this is not a paid advertisement. I may occasionally recommend products/services/sites that I happen to appreciate.

Thanks again for reading and I look forward to your suggestions and ideas!

R stands for Requirement

fleek@blueblanketblog.com (Chris Fleek) — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 02:54:00 GMT

Educational Requirement: Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science or Engineering is required.

Clearance Requirement: A current Secret Clearance is required.

Skill Requirement: Demonstrated experience with Java programming is required.

Not preferred….not desired….not hoped for….not wanted….required. Every job posting lists all kinds of things that the Hiring Manager is hoping to see in a qualified candidate. As a job seeker, you’ll see those things listed throughout the basic position description. But sprinkled within most job postings, you’re going to see that R word – Required.

As a job seeker, I encourage you to take that word at face-value. Unfortunately, many job applicants pay no attention to firm requirements in a position posting. It’s hard to blame them really. I recall that while working in a college Career , we routinely told students to go ahead and apply for positions for which they were not qualified. “If nothing else, it’s good practice,” we’d say in our most upbeat voice. “It can’t hurt to give it a shot. The worst they can do is say no!”

And to a certain extent we were right. There was no harm in giving the student practice in applying to jobs and to encourage them to reach beyond the obvious limitations of their lack of experience. Unfortunately, I’m afraid our positivity should have been tempered with a dose of reality.

The reality is as follows:

1) If a degree, clearance, or specific skill is listed as a requirement within a position posting, most companies will refuse to hire anyone not meeting the listed criterion. This certainly applies to large companies with well-developed HR policies (and legal teams) but should apply universally to companies of all sizes. If any particular requirement is ignored in the hiring process, the company is then exposing themselves to litigation on the basis of unfair hiring practices. If a candidate is hired that does not meet a listed minimum requirement then another applicant that was not hired may make an EEO claim, or worse, sue the company. I think there’s a good chance they’d have a case. [Note: I am not a lawyer nor do I claim to dispense legal advice. These are my opinions only.]

2) While there’s no harm in trying to get a position that is “above your abilities”, at least no harm to you, there is harm to the company doing the hiring. Time is money and reviewing resumes takes time. Every resume submitted for a position gets looked at by a human (or sometimes by a computer but that’s an entirely different article) and reviewed for relevancy. The initial screen is often only to see if each candidate meets the minimum requirements of the position.

Here’s a simple example of a position I recently worked with:

The company posted a position with three firm requirements. First, the candidate must have earned a Bachelor’s degree in a Business-related field. Second, the candidate must have earned that degree during the last two years. Finally, the candidate must have earned a 3.0 or higher grade-point-average. Simple enough requirements to follow right? There were 487 total applicants. I personally reviewed all 487 only to determine that just 158 met all three requirements. Only 32% of the applicant pool was eligible for hire. Subsequently, only those applicants that did meet the requirements were sent on to the hiring manager for review. All other resumes were immediately taken out of the mix.

So if time is money, how much money did it cost the hiring organization to have someone review the resume of 329 unqualified applicants? While there may be no cost to each individual unqualified applicant, short of the time it took to cut and paste his/her resume online, there is significant cost to the recipient of the sum of those resumes. Even if the most seasoned recruiter can scan a resume for those factors in, oh let’s say 30 seconds, that means nearly three (3) hours were spent removing the chaff from the wheat.

3) It used to be said that one benefit of applying for a job that is over one’s head is that perhaps the resume will be considered for some other opening within the organization. While that may have been true when all the hiring was done at the department manager level, I do not believe that is true today for many organizations as the initial resume review is conducted within HR. Most initial resume screening is done by an in-house recruiter or by running electronic resumes through a keyword search.

In theory the in-house recruiter would be able to identify talent in a resume and then be able to link that candidate to another opening within the company. The unfortunate reality is that most in-house recruiting teams deal with such a high volume, and are generally so overworked, that such linking that sounds so great in theory is rarely executed in reality. Only if an organization has tremendous processes and/or an amazingly talented staff, would you be able to count on the in-house recruiter to keep his or her eyes and ears open on your behalf.

In summary, I encourage candidates to be realistic in their career aspirations and apply for positions accordingly. There is little to be gained by “over-applying” for positions on a regular basis. In turn I encourage companies to craft their position descriptions carefully and make sure that when they use the R word, they mean it and are willing to abide by it. There is little to be gained by opening the door to potential litigation.

[While I typically will refrain from using this forum to pitch the services of either organization I work with, this particular topic has brought up a number of challenges that employers currently face. These include the crafting of accurate and legal position descriptions, the time spent screening large numbers of resumes, the difficulty in viewing organizational hiring with a global vision (linking candidates to positions throughout the organization) and the importance of proactively working to avoid litigation in the hiring process. If you would like to discuss any of these issues and how I may be of assistance to your organization, please contact me directly at fleek@octanerecruiting.com or visit www.octanerecruiting.com for more information.]

Are you the best?

fleek@blueblanketblog.com (Chris Fleek) — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 21:55:00 GMT

This morning I received a phone call from an applicant to a position I’ve been working with for one of my clients. The question she asked me is one I hear on a regular basis regarding hiring decisions. It’s always some variable of the following:

“I applied for X position and I received a no-thanks letter. I can’t understand why I’ve been eliminated because I’m highly qualified for the position. Can you tell me why the hiring managers aren’t interested in me?”

Interestingly, these questions are often coming from younger candidates, folks who have recently graduated from school or have been in the workforce for only a few years. This shouldn’t really be a surprise given a recent study that confirmed many recruiting and HR professional’s suspicions.

From the following article, ‘Gen Y's Ego Trip Takes a Nasty Turn’ as published in the LA Times (Gen Y's Ego Trip) :

“An Associate Professor at S.D. State University, Jean Twenge, and four other researchers from the University of Michigan, University of Georgia and University of South Alabama, looked at the results of psychological surveys taken by more than 16,000 college students across the country over more than 25 years.

The Narcissistic Personality Inventory asks students to react ot such statements as: “If I ruled the world, it would be a better place,” “I think I’m a special person” and “I like to be the center of attention.”

The study found that almost two-thirds of recent college students had narcissism scores that were above the average 1982 score. Thirty percent more college students showed elevated narcissism in 2006 than in 1982.

…researchers warn that a rising ego rush could cause personal and social problems for the Millennial Generation, also called Gen Y. People with an inflated sense of self tend to have less interest in emotionally intimate bonds and can lash out when rejected or insulted.”

If I could be 100% honest with the candidates that ask me that question, in most cases I’d want to say, “You’re delusional in your expectations and you over-estimate your own abilities”. Ouch.

I’m reminded of when I was speeding towards graduation from college. There was a time, thankfully a brief period, when I would answer “management” when someone asked me what I wanted to do after graduation. Somehow I had come to believe that management was something I could just do, not something I had to work my way into. I had taken a class called Leadership, which means I had all the answers, right? I wish I had someone willing to tell me I was being delusional in my aspirations just like I wish I could offer that admonishment to the candidates that call me.

The problem is that candidates all too often are forgetting that there is a 2^nd side to the equation (providing further evidence that candidates are self-centered). Even if the candidate is very talented and has relevant experience, he or she must try to anticipate and understand the wants/needs/goals of the hiring team. The position description might provide clues, of course, as it will list many skills and competencies required for success in the position. Those clues provide only some of the answers.

What can you find out about the organization in the press? From people you know in the organization? Does the hiring team have time to groom someone for future success or must they hire someone who can succeed from day one? What was not included in the position posting that you think should have been?

The hiring team is looking for very specific things in their search. While you as a candidate may fit some or even many of those desires, you likely will not meet all of their needs. That’s why, for many job openings, hundreds of resumes are reviewed to fill just one position.

The bottom line – the hiring process isn’t about you. It’s about the organization, their needs, and ultimately their success. I recommend that as a candidate, you view the entire process from the point of view of the hiring team. What will they want to see on a resume? What kind of person will fit well within the organization or on that specific team? What intangibles might they be looking for in the interview process?

You may indeed be very talented. In fact, you might be the most talented person you know…really! That doesn’t mean that you’re the best FIT for the job opening. If you don’t get hired, do not be discouraged…you will be the best fit during another search.

If you have a realistic view of your own abilities, and understand that the job search process isn’t really about you, you won’t be disappointed at open doors that close….you’ll understand that some other door will open and have your name on it.

For another perspective on this study of ego within Generation Y, and the impact of this narcissistic epidemic on our society, I recommend an editorial from the Daily 49er, the student newspaper at Cal State Long Beach (Get Over Yourselves).

Finding the Gems in all the Junk

fleek@blueblanketblog.com (Chris Fleek) — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 23:35:00 GMT

I used to rely on a Hotmail account for most of my non-work e-mail but have since graduated to more grown-up e-mail accounts. Unfortunately, because I’ve yet to figure out how to actually get rid of the Hotmail address, it still exists and continues to collect e-mails guaranteed to provide cheap medications, extend my something-or-other, or cheaply refill my printer cartridges.

Last night I decided it might be time to once again look at that hotmail account and check out the electronic wasteland I’ve let it become. Amazingly, amidst all the clutter, I found a couple e-mails from old friends. Thankfully they were easy to identify with relevant subject lines and familiar e-mail addresses. It was great to read these messages but I hated having to take the time to wade through the garbage to find the gems.

For hiring managers, going through a candidate pool is like wading through my hotmail account. There is typically far too much “junk” and far too few relevant documents. My best estimate is that 50% of any candidate pool can immediately be considered clutter. These resumes either aren’t relevant, contain numerous errors, or just don’t meet the requirements of the position. Another 30% may be relevant but clearly aren’t deserving of consideration when stacked up against other candidates.

That leaves 20% of any candidate pool that is worth consideration from the hiring manager (and that figure may be optimistic). So if 100 people apply for a position, I believe only 20 resumes are worth looking at. Unfortunately, it takes weeding through all 100 just to identify that top 20!

In my work with one large corporation, I continue to be baffled at the number of managers who elect to review all applicants for a position, rather than utilize a recruiter’s pre-screen to weed out the clutter. These managers are highly compensated individuals responsible for the performance and results of large teams and multi-million dollar budgets….yet they are CHOOSING to spend the extra time it takes to read through 80 sub-par resumes in addition to the 20 that are truly worth their time.

A hiring manager reading every resume is like using an e-mail address with no junk-mail filter. If you do either, you’re wasting precious time. Whether it’s an in-house recruiter/HR specialist, or a contracted recruiting resource you could utilize (such as http://www.octanerecruiting.com), I strongly encourage hiring professionals to let someone else filter out the resume clutter. Imagine how much more effective managers could be if 80% of every resume review suddenly vanished from their scope of work!

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have a couple of old friends to catch up with…….

Big Problem Might Need a Simple Solution

fleek@blueblanketblog.com (Chris Fleek) — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 21:27:00 GMT

Many organizations look to consultants to provide "big fixes" for their HR organization. If the processes being used are not producing efficient and positive results, then there must be a big problem or two hanging around the HR department, right?

After working with many inefficient HR organizations, particularly large ones, I'm not convinced that all big problems require big solutions. I was reminded of this today when the following discovery was made by one of my colleagues:

One of the organizations we work with has over 100,000 employees. As you can imagine, the hiring process can be cumbersome and the number of resumes in the system is astronomical. Unfortunately, there are quite literally thousands of old job postings in the system that have been forgotten, were intentionally ignored or otherwise have become "lost" in the employment/HR systems.

Our team has been asked to "clean-up" a large scope of work that has been transferred to us. Today, in reviewing a number of older forgotten electronic documents, my colleague found a record that was intended to shift an employee from one position to another. It was created back in 2005 but then never acted upon. When she discovered this old request for action, she contacted the listed Manager to determine what action, if any, needed be taken. She was told that the employee that was to be involved in the transfer had passed away well over one year ago!

The request to move the employee was never acted upon, the employee subsequently met an untimely fate, yet the request for employment action remained in the system as "New - waiting for action"...and it's been summarily ignored for over one year!

How can an organization possibly expect to act in an efficient manner when the employment system is FILLED with no longer valid data? A simple way to improve efficiency in any organization is to look inside the databases and HR Management Systems. If the information you find is not helping you, it is most certainly acting as an electronic speed bump.

In order to act with true efficiency, outdated and invalid information must be stored appropriately or expunged from the system. This is a "little" solution to what is often a big big problem. Large organizations do not have to live up to their slow, plodding, inefficient reputations. Instead, by keeping systems free of cyber-litter, employees can access data, evaluate information and ACT in a more timely manner.

Be Careful What you Wish For.....

fleek@blueblanketblog.com (Chris Fleek) — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 17:11:00 GMT

When getting ready to make a new hire, HR or the Hiring Manager puts together a list of skills and competencies they are looking for in their new hire. Many of these are cut and dried - specific software skills, the ability to manage a project, communication skills, etc. These things are typically easy to identify and evaluate.

Managers often make a secondary "off the books" list as well. In addition to all the skills listed, a manager might want someone who "won't back down under pressure" or will "challenge the status quo" or "bring new ideas to the team". Not only are these things more difficult to identify and evaluate, the person possessing those abilities may struggle integrating into the existing team.

Unfortunately, many managers get exactly what they're looking for and indeed hire someone willing to provide the challenge that management says they seek. So how can that be bad? All too often the person hired to "challenge the status quo" is NOT considered to be a team player or is chastised by colleagues and peers for trying to rock the boat. While management may have identified that a strong "challenger" is needed in the open seat, the rank and file may be expecting the new hire to just go with the flow.

I know someone who was recently hired into a more traditional industry (mortgage/insurance/financial services) in exactly this situation. While she was hired specifically for her strong will, her ability to communicate new ideas and to challenge the established processes and norms, she has struggled to receive positive recognition for her efforts. Her management has not fully supported her efforts and her colleagues have openly questioned her dedication to the team.

It's easy to say you are looking to hire an anti-establishment candidate, but I encourage you to understand the extra effort it will take to support the newly hired employee. Expecting a person to enter an organization and challenge the institution, without very visible public support and reinforcement from management, will make failure for the new hire (and the team) inevitable. However, providing such support and allowing that new hire to create positive change and encourage new norms, will create far more growth than hiring the seemingly safe candidate.

Do you want sheep or do you want a wolf? The meek want a sheep and hire accordingly. The pretenders hire a wolf and seem shocked when the hire doesn't act like a sheep. The truly strong hire a wolf and support his/her efforts. While the meek continue to wallow in self-fulfilling mediocrity, the strong learn and grow faster than ever before.

Career Momentum

fleek@blueblanketblog.com (Chris Fleek) — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 16:30:00 GMT

I found out today that a friend of mine has accepted a new job...with a new company...he's heading into a new career really. So what prompted him to search for a new job? He's not even sure why he started looking for new opportunities. What he does know is that he had an itch that needed to be scratched. His instincts told him it was time to seek out something new and he trusted himself to be right.

From what I've seen, most people are afraid to listen to their instincts. My friend didn't necessarily know why the timing was right, or where the sudden desire to seek out something new was coming from, but he didn't need to. All he had to understand is that it was time to act. It makes me wonder if spending time trying to figure out the why and the where is what keeps people "stuck" in their careers.

Trying to answer all the questions that come with change creates inactivity. By spending time trying to come up with all the answers, you give yourself an excuse to delay action. When you start to ask yourself, "Is it time to leave?" or "Should I see what else is out there?", it's probably time to listen and act! In other words, turn your instincts into forward momentum, rather than questioning yourself into stagnation. You may be content in your current situation, but if your mind starts telling you that you aren't truly satisfied, it's time to act! Best of luck!

So how do you get started? Here's one resource that might help: http://www.fastcompany.com/guides/reinvent.html.

Welcome to the BlueBlanketBlog v2.0!!!

fleek@blueblanketblog.com (Chris Fleek) — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 16:04:00 GMT

Welcome to the 2nd generation of the BlueBlanketBlog! I'd like to thank everyone who took interest in this blog the first time around, all three of you, and welcome you if you're a new visitor. I hope you like the new design and feel of the blog. As always, if there are any topics you'd like me to cover please drop me a note at chris@blueblanketblog.com. Your ideas, thoughts, contributions and feedback are always welcome. I can't learn from myself very easily, but I sure can learn from what you have to say!

Thanks for your continued support and I look forward to our continued dialogue.