Wednesday, September 9, 2015

Does Everything Happen for a Reason?

I had a conversation with an ex-coworker today about the twists and turns that one's career can take. I know mine has seen constant change, too much actually. As I was writing her back, I typed "everything happens for a reason." Then I paused.

"Everything happens for a reason." Or, EHFAR.

Maybe you lost your job out of freaking nowhere. Maybe you learned your contract is going away in two weeks.

I wish I could believe everything happens for a reason. If you do believe that, it doesn't make you any more or less intelligent.

What life was like until 1980 or so
But my philosophy is that luck and pure chaos are responsible for like, 50% or more of what happens to us and the rest is self-made. The notions of fate, destiny and pre-ordained life paths are coping mechanisms.

50% luck and chaos. (And 50% is MIRACULOUS. Up until like 1990 when we were stuck in the dark ages, it was more like 80-90%).

We're 25 or so years removed from life expectancy being 30 and the risk of dying of horrible boils being a near certainty.

And now things are much better cause the internet and Netflix. But chaos and luck are still there, hiding until they decide to do shape our lives again. Thinking of tech...what would have become of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs had they entered the work force in 2009?

"Everything happens for a reason" is the brain's mechanism of trying to make sense of the chaos. People needed to make sense of it all in their minds, just to find the courage to face another day of fighting off wild boars back in the 90's.

Surprises happen in our careers and they can seem terrifying. I've been there and back. It's hard to see a light at the end of the tunnel sometimes. If you think everything happens for a reason and that helps, go for it, man.

Our lives and careers are going to be full of ups and downs, hopefully more ups if we're competent AND fortunate.

Instead of thinking it's part of a grander scheme, I like to think that chaos brings out the best in many of us. One of the most valuable traits you can have as a professional adult, perhaps just as much as a being able to invent a new programming language, is the ability to rally off the mat.

Most of us have been blindsided and brought down at some point and will be again one day. But once you look make it to the other side, you can rationalize it by creating a different narrative than EHFAR. No, you made it happen yourself, not some invisible hand and that's a pretty damn rewarding feeling.


Friday, July 31, 2015

What's the Best Way to Connect with Candidates? Whatever Works For You

"Recruiters are lazy nowadays, they don't pick up the phone enough. Real recruiting is done through cold calling."
...
"Cold calling is dead. Candidates don't like answering the phone, especially if it's a stranger on the other end."
...
"It's all about volume. Number of candidates you reach out to is the most important thing."
...
"No, volume-based email campaigns are dead too, you have to research each candidate and craft a personalized message now."

*****

These thoughts or similar ones are all theories I've heard on podcasts or read on recruiting blogs, Twitter and Facebook from respected recruiters in recent months. What is the best way to "engage" (bad word) candidates? 

My theory is this: the best way to be successful in recruiting is whatever works for each individual. For some recruiters, cold calling is the answer (usually they're over the age of 50...kidding!). There are recruiters who claim to be able to call an IT Engineer out of blue at their desk and get them interested in a job opportunity. 

And you know what? Great. More power to them. It doesn't work for me, I wish it did, but I'm sure it works for some.

Others are great at writing emails and have a tremendous response rate, so they don't need to send out a lot of messages. 

Another group might find more success blasting out 1,000 emails with the same message to everyone. 

Here's the deal, kids - there's no magic bullet in recruiting. Otherwise everyone would be doing the exact same thing. Maybe in a few years there will be conclusive studies that settle the "phone vs. email" debate for us, but IT recruiting is still a relatively emerging field, so for now we have this hodge-podge of theories and ideas, and everyone is super convinced that they're right. 

And successful recruiters are usually right when it comes to what they believe works, at least for them personally. That doesn't mean it works for everyone, however. 

What's the point of all this? I guess it's that it's OK if you have a method that works for you, but don't try and force that on colleagues, bosses, direct reports or recruiters on social media. The best way to approach recruiting if you haven't developed your own niche yet is trial-and-error - figure out what works for you. 

I'm more of the low-volume, specialized crafted email type. That's usually my initial point of engagement with a candidate, especially in IT. If I've developed a connection over email, I will THEN move to the phone stage and go from there. 

In general however, I have noticed some changes in the last three-or-so years, so here are my theories, feel free to disagree with these generalities if you'd like:

1) Voicemail is practically useless if you're cold-calling someone in IT who isn't an active job seeker

I've left hundreds of voicemails in the last year or so for candidates I never spoke with before, and the only candidates who call back are those who have posted their resumes or applied to a job. Even then, it's a low-percentage proposition. 

2) Cold-calling a non-job-seeking IT employee to try and recruit them out of the blue is a risky strategy and can actually backfire

Have you ever been at your desk at work and gotten a cold call from a recruiter that you weren't expecting? You were probably pretty pissed. Most people sit within ear shot of their colleagues and frankly, it's not all that beneficial for them to be heard talking to recruiters about new stuff. I'm not saying this can't work, but let's not train young recruiters to do this in their first year, OK? They're more likely to just piss people off. It's an advanced skill and even then I'm not sure it's the way to go.

3) Most people hate picking up cold calls

 Let's say you answer a call on your cell from a number you don't recognize, thinking it's maybe a candidate you want to talk to, and it's some sales guy from AT&T trying to sell you something. You're thinking, "Shit. Why did I pick up?"

That's the first thought that goes through someone's mind when they answer your cold call. So be mindful of that. You have like, five seconds to get over that initial "Shit, why did I pick up?" feeling or you're done.

Again, it can work for some people, but recruiting managers...do you maybe understand why a lot of junior recruiters are scared as hell to do something like that? I'm not sure it's good practice to train people to do it. We lose a lot of good people to other lines of business that way who might otherwise blossom into good recruiters.


Wednesday, July 22, 2015

More Recruiting Buzz Words That Are The Worst Ever

Engage 

This one is cropping up more and more in the recruiting lexicon at a disturbing rate. It's used to describe keeping in touch with a human being.

"Did you engage the candidate?" 
"Well I engage candidates all the time, how do you engage them?"

There's nothing wrong with using it as a word every once in a while, but it has become an office catch-phrase, and office catch phrases take years off your life. True story.

What happened to phrases like, you know "talked to"? Engage has become just another office buzzword that's dumbing down our language and the power of speech. 

Brand

When someone refers to their personal image or the company they work for as their brand, I IMMEDIATELY think to myself, "this person is full of it." I don't know when this became a big thing but it probably happened around the time that Social Media Manager became a paid corporate gig. 

"I'm trying to enhance my #brand by engaging candidates on a strategic level."

Ugh.

Disruptive

Why, why, why is this becoming a thing? I'm not sure who coined the phrase, but if you haven't heard it (lucky you) it refers to a technology that is supposed to "disrupt" the marketplace. So now, tech companies are describing themselves as "disruptive." 

Disruptive is a term my third-grade teacher used to describe my behavior in class. Now it's being stolen by the #Branding mavens in Silicon Valley and forced on the rest of us. It's the dark side of Silicon Valley that we all hate - the self-absorbed pretentiousness that's such a huge turn-off. The word "Disruptive" is why the show Silicon Valley is such a genius parody of the Bay Area.

Guys, I know a lot of us have Silicon Valley envy but not everything the West Coast does is cool. Please stop saying "disruptive" before it's too late.
  


Wednesday, July 15, 2015

"Exciting Opportunity" and Other Recruiting Phrases That Must Die

I met a web developer last week who has worked for some pretty high profile digital media companies and gets blown up on LinkedIN. He was astounded at how many emails and InMails he'd been getting that included the phrase "exciting opportunity." He wrote about his inbox:

I came up with no fewer than fifteen hits on "exciting opportunity" in the last year or so.  Yup.

Unfortunately, because staffing agencies often teach people to use salesey catch phrases and not disclose the client's name, a high percentage of InMails and emails to candidates offer little more detail about a job beyond bland, meaningless descriptors. 

Here's a message someone sent a Python developer I know recently:
Thank you for taking a minute to read my InMail. I hope you may be able to help me as I find myself in a bit of a bind. I am desperately searching for a solid front end developer with CSS and HTML 5 experience. This is a great opportunity for the right person looking for excellent compensation, stability and challenge. Hopefully you may be interested and if not I would be greatly appreciative if you would refer someone if now is not the right time for you. Again I appreciate you taking a few minutes to read this InMail. 


Folks, these are mind-numbing catch phrases. Nobody has a real conversation about a job opportunity using such vague verbiage.

"Good news honey, some recruiter has a really exciting opportunity for me!"
"That's nice, what's exciting about it?"
"Well, it's with a great company."
"Awesome. You should def. take that job"

Meanwhile, here's a list of companies who good developers and engineers have gotten messages from within the last two weeks.

****
Amazon
Google
Uber
Facebook
.
.
.
You
****

Some recruiters can get away with "exciting opportunity" in their initial outreach campaigns...provided they work for Amazon, Google, Uber or Facebook. If you're a recruiter at Jimbo's Garage Outfit Staffing Co., you might need to tweak your initial InMail JUUUST a bit if you have any prayer of being taken seriously. 

Think about it this way - have you ever received junk mail? Of course. Now, let's say you got five pieces of junk mail a day. Four of them say "Amazon," "Google," "Facebook," and "Uber," on the outside and one says "Exciting opportunity!!" 

Guess which one is getting dumped in the garbage can? So much wasted paper... 


Friday, July 10, 2015

IT Recruiters Are Terrible at Twitter and it Makes Me Sad

Anyone who regularly uses twitter can probably attest to the fact that, generally speaking, most people on twitter are terrible. Like, 95% of the population is terrible at twitter and that's probably being kind.

Amongst technical and non-technical recruiters, I'd argue that it's more like 98% of Recruiter Twitter is awful. What makes most recruiter twitter accounts awful? Well, in general, I think it's because recruiters on twitter usually fall into one of two categories:

1) The serial job tweeter 
Every tweet from this person is a link to a job ad. "I'm hiring for a Front-End developer! (long link)." Garbage. Pretty self-explanatory. NEXT:

 2) The external-links-to-numbered-lists-of-things tweeter
You know what I'm referring to, right? You'll see tweets like "20 resume tips that will attract employers! (long link)." Or "16 reasons why you should definitely use recruiting agencies so we that we don't all lose our jobs and have to go back to grad school (long link)"

 Basically, people are trying to be buzzfeed, linking to long, numbered lists of things. Why are both of these things terrible? #1 should be plainly obvious, but just put yourself in a candidate's shoes. Is some software engineer going to magically stumble upon your account (a longshot in itself for most recruiters) and, through some miracle, see your link to your job posting and think, "OMG, I WANT THAT JOB NOW!!"? Of course not.

         STOP TRYING TO BE LIKE BUZZFEED YOU GUYS

Nobody who's in demand wants to follow the serial job tweeter, folks. Remember, you're just another recruiter to these guys, and they're already skeptical of you.

 The problem with #2, and it's actually almost more offensive than #1, is that the "clink on my link!" recruiter is violating the basic premise of twitter, which is to fit in an informed opinion in 140 characters or less. That's it. That's what twitter is. It's a platform where people can post quick opinions and not think too much. That's what makes it so great. And when everyone tries to post links with every single tweet, it violates that subconscious agreement that the twitter user has agreed to by following you.

 I'm not saying you can't post links to your content - after all that's what I'm doing with this blog and the irony is not lost on me - I'm just saying that it can't be every one of your tweets. It should be like, one in every five or ten or even twenty of your tweets.

 Want to make money off twitter? Want to use it to better your career? Then you PROBABLY shouldn't be on twitter. If your primary goal is to commoditize your social media platforms then you're doing it wrong. You may get lucky once with a fluke candidate view or even placement (though I've never heard of it) but more likely, you'll lose credibility amongst potential candidates.

Be a real person. Come from a genuine place. Post links now and then, but not every freaking time, and maybe, just maybe, you'll start to slowly build a following. If you're a recruiter and using twitter for professional purposes, my suggestion would be to use it to humanize you - people want to work with a real person, not a recruiting tweet-bot. Cause tweet-bots are the worst and most people also don't love recruiters to begin with, so don't be BOTH OF THOSE THINGS!

Technical recruiters especially should know better. Don't be THAT recruiter, please. It's killing me. And making me sad.