CareerCurve™

In a previous post I listed a few of the challenges for both hiring managers and ex-military when it comes to transitioning to civilian work life.  I also very lightly touched on whether or not there is any responsibility on corporations to make extra efforts to bridge the language barrier that exists between the two so that it is easier for veterans to get hired.  Rather than get bogged down in a debate about corporate responsibility, I thought I’d just list some of the personality traits of those formerly in the military. Then you can decide for yourselves whether or not it’s worth it to make some extra effort at learning how to communicate with and understand what these candidates have to offer.

Understands Leadership.  Those in the military have witnessed the dynamics of leadership and understand how to manage people in order to achieve results, even in the worst of circumstances.  A lot of their training was lead by example which means that whether  they did the leading themselves or followed their leaders, there is a healthy respect and understanding for leadership in general.

Team Players.  Although there is a huge difference in the command and control culture of the military versus the collaborative culture of corporate America, military personnel are still ingrained with a huge sense of responsibility toward their colleagues.  This means these candidates can be natural team players.

Quick Learners.  Those in the military are often forced to learn things very quickly and under high pressure.  This can result in the development of an accelerated learning curve.  A faster learning curve means less time training.

Efficiency.  Similar to the way these candidates have learned, they have also had to perform effectively under high pressure.  This translates into efficiency.  Military personnel have had no choice but to get the job done not only correctly, but also quickly.

Tolerance.  Those in the service have a familiarity with diversity.  They’ve had no choice but to work with and for whoever happens to be serving next to them.  This experience makes these candidates sensitive to cooperating with different individuals.

Tenacity.  Veterans have the experience of performing their duties in less-than-perfect circumstances.  This means they have most likely overcome and experienced success even under the worst of conditions.  Having experienced triumph over adversity can make them great employees when things are difficult because they are less likely to give up or give in.

Appreciate Receiving Feedback.  Former military personnel are used to receiving direct feedback.  They have learned to absorb what they are told regarding their performance without taking it personally.  Because of this, they not only handle the feedback well, but appreciate being told how their performance aligns with expectations.

Give Honest Feedback.  Because of the experience explained above, you may also be more likely to receive honest feedback from veterans.  The culture in which they’ve been taught means they won’t have qualms about telling it like it is.

Yes, it can be challenging to interview former military and understand both what they’ve done before and why it is relevant to the current role.  Often, the difficulty in understanding is only matched by their ability to explain it in non-military terms.  But before you even get into detail on background, consider what personality traits you will see from a former service person that match what you look for in a future employee.

When you sit down and think about the characteristics you’re searching for when looking to hire top talent, how many of these fit the bill?  Are these traits valuable enough to make it worthwhile to do a little extra work when it comes to interviewing ex-military personnel?  Are there other positive attributes you’ve seen when hiring Veterans?

The number of retired military entering the workforce continues to rise.  This presents challenges for both those coming out of the service as well as those doing the interviewing, and for many different reasons.  It seems to me that there is a lot of pressure on veterans to adapt to civilian life but is there any responsibility on HR or hiring managers to bridge the gap?  I don’t know if there is a responsibility per se, but former military have a lot to offer in the workforce and aren’t companies missing the boat if they don’t invest a little effort into learning how to interview ex-military?  I’m not trying to suggest that these folks should get special treatment; I do think it makes sense to keep some things in mind so that companies can reap the rewards of their experience and veterans can have a better chance at employment. 

Here are just a few of the challenges presented when former military personnel interview for new roles.

•  Identifying skills.  Because the interviewees may have little or no experience with civilian jobs it may be difficult for them to see how what they’ve done is relevant to the role they are pursuing.  Asking the right questions or phrasing questions the right way can go a long way in making this experience visible.

• Translating skills.  The interviewee may know that what he/she has done is a good match but lack the vocabulary to explain it.  This is something you can work through together through the course of the interview.

• Assumptions about experiences.  Interviewing someone from the military may make you want to assume certain things, such as the fact that this person has been in combat and may be affected by that.  Fight the urge to interview differently because of these assumptions.  It is generally believed that only about 10% of troops have seen combat.

• Not team players.  Due to the hierarchal structure of the military it is commonly thought that veterans don’t make good team players.  While the structure IS different than in business, there is a lot of teamwork in the military.  From the time they enter basic training, these interviewees do things in groups. 

• They lack technological savvy.  This is not necessarily true.  Think about it this way:  our military spends a lot more money on training and development than corporations do.  In addition, veterans may have global knowledge of technical trends that could be very useful in the corporate world.

Veterans transitioning to corporate America face a unique set of challenges, but so do those doing the hiring.  What have you found challenging when interviewing former military personnel?  What have you found helpful?  Being aware of just a few of these can make it easier to bridge this gap and in a future post I’ll discuss why this is so important.

Recruiting is an important piece of HR and hiring inexperienced recruiters could be having a big impact on your business.  A good recruiter does a lot more than ask a few generic interview questions, match up key words between a resume and a job description, and comment on whether the candidate presented well in the interview. 

Employees are the most valuable asset in any organization so doesn’t it make sense that your most highly qualified and expert talent is in the recruiting area? 

If you are a company that values creativity with employees who think outside the box, bring a different perspective to the table, and are problem solvers you should assess your recruiters.  Do your recruiters have a lot of experience?  Do they have solid business acumen?  Have they been well trained and do they use statistics and science or do they rely on instinct and operate on the surface level of filling jobs, such as matching key words?

Many times, companies say one thing and do another.  If you want to attract top talent and give your organization a competitive advantage you must be sure the people doing your hiring are of the highest level of talent themselves.   

Do your recruiters sit down with the hiring managers to understand in depth what the position entails?  Do they make recommendations that encompass not only technical expertise and previous experience but also the more difficult to identify soft skills? Do they consider strategic corporate goals when interviewing and discuss business objective such as performance management and succession planning? 

Good recruiters may be more important than you realize.  The more talented they are the more talented your staff will be and ultimately, the more productive and profitable your company will be overall.

You’re the PERFECT candidate for a job. You follow the directions to the letter in order to submit your application and resume for the role. You get a ding letter 15 minutes after you complete it. Why?

Applicant Tracking Systems are set up to centralize all responses to an opening and narrow the candidate pool into something more manageable for HR. If you believe you are a great fit for the job, don’t let an automatically generated rejection letter stop you. Here are some things to know about what you’re dealing with.

-  Most of these are set up to sort by keywords. Candidates are usually lumped into categories such as eligible, ineligible, or decisional. The category tends to be determined by the percentage of words or phrases your resume hits that the company has entered as criteria.

ADVICE: Read the job posting carefully, look on the company website and do your research. Use as many of the exact same words or phrases that they use on the listing and within their site.

-  Many times the posting is set up for a particular applicant. When a company has a great candidate that they know they want to hire, they still have to put up a posting for that applicant to complete in order to be compliant with corporate procedure. But doing this means it is seen by others (like you). What does this mean to you? There is a very high likelihood in this case that no one is even seeing your resume. You will automatically receive a rejection letter because the system is set up to reject everyone else but the person the posting was created for.

ADVICE: If you really want to work there and believe you are a good fit, Fed Ex your resume to a hiring manager in your area or a top person at the company. HR is only following the instructions of the hiring manager on that particular position, but it doesn’t mean you won’t catch the eye for that job or a different opening you haven’t seen if you try a different route. Start with the top down. If the President wants you in for an interview it really doesn’t matter what the ATS or HR group thinks, you are going to get an interview.

-Although this is technology and technology is limited in what it can do (the old garbage in, garbage out scenario) you still need to use it. If a listing or posting tells you to complete an application online, do it. The company has a protocol they follow and you have to play along.

ADVICE: Don’t get too creative in an effort to bypass the system. You may feel you’re getting further in the short term but ultimately, you’re going to end up there. You might as well cooperate right out of the gate. That being said, don’t let it end with your online submission. Use all the creativity you can to get in the door after you’ve complied with their wishes.

- Applicant Tracking Systems are a necessary tool for HR but the bottom line is it is still more who you know than what you know that’s going to get you a job.

THE BEST ADVICE:  Network. Try to know people in the organization, try to get introduced to the right people, call the hiring managers or decision makers in your department, be personal, and stand out! It is far easier to get a blessing and then deal with the ATS, than it is to get dinged by the ATS and then try to point out how perfect you are for the job to a stranger who hears the same from many other candidates.

One subject that I see over and over on Twitter, in LinkedIn conversations, and on blogs is workplace bullying.  It is sad to me that this is an issue at all, let alone one that has become more prevalent than discriminatory harassment.  Although similar to harassment, bullying is typically unable to be placed into one category such as race or gender related harassment.  The economy and unemployment rate seems to have turned the workplace into more of a competitive environment where it is every man for himself and if an employee must push others around to come out on top, so be it.

Seeing this topic over and over has led me to wonder at how much this must cost a company.  I can’t imagine being able to actually calculate with any accuracy the amount of money wasted when bullying is present in a company – I don’t mean to try.  But I am in awe of what that number must be when you sit down and think about the effects.  Talk about a downward spiral.

Consider these factors when thinking about the cost to your organization:

1. Distraction from tasks by the bully, the victim, and by witnesses.
2. Poor performance by victims given inaccurate or incomplete information to do their job by the bully. This results in decreased motivation and low energy.
3. Increased stress, which leads to poor health, which leads to absenteeism, which leads to insurance claims which can also lead to Worker’s Comp claims. 
4. Increased insurance costs due to claims listed above.
5. Turnover – both by the victim and by the witnesses.  (Witnesses quit two-thirds as often as victims.)
6.  Inability to reach corporate goals due to lack of communication by the staff.  When bullying is taking place your team will not collaborate and problem solve so goals cannot be met.
7. Legal costs
8. Settlement fees for successful litigation by victims or wrongful termination litigation by bullies.
9. Loss of revenue due to low engagement, a toxic corporate culture, and an inability to attract top talent.
10. Waste of time.  Look for a future post on the ways bullying wastes time.

Do you have a policy in place to handle bullies in your organization?  Have you considered the dollars and cents that are lost when bullies are present?  Can you imagine what that total cost must be?

YouTube is a platform that is fast becoming a huge tool for recruiters, hiring managers and job seekers.  There are many different ways this tool is being utilized.  The days of YouTube just being a collection of Funniest Home Videos are over.  Here are a couple examples of how video is being used in the job market.

Video Resumes – Yes, people are making video resumes and spreading the link all over social media.  While I wouldn’t recommend simply posting a video resume to YouTube because no recruiter is going to take the time to search for a candidate there, it can be effective if included as an additional link like an email address on ALL correspondence with your organization of choice – emails, cover letters, paper resumes. 

A video resume should be short, a minute or two, and should be explain your background in a story-like fashion.  It should also specify why you are the best person for this job and what value you would bring to this organization with the skills you possess.  In other words, the most effective video resume is one that is tailored to a specific job and organization just like a hard copy resume.  You should only do this if you have a lively and outgoing personality.  If you don’t think you could be comfortable enough to be engaging, don’t do it.  Remember the goal is for this to help you, not hurt you.  It is simple to upload and because you are in control of when it is uploaded, you can try it many times until you are happy with results before you choose to post it.  This should be one piece of an overall marketing plan, but if you can create a good one it will really set you apart in the job market.

Recruiting Videos – Many companies are using YouTube to create recruiting videos.  As you are targeting organizations you may like to work for, do some searching.  Search YouTube using the name of the company and other keywords such as recruiting, employment, or careers.  You will find videos on job opportunities, interviewing, working at a company, company culture, and benefits.

Video Interviews – Many companies are beginning to use video interviews.  Here is an example of the process:

• The company selects candidates for video interviews.
• Arrangements for an interview are scheduled – either at a company office, an off-site location with a webcam setup, or via a webcam sent to the applicant.
• A tutorial will provide instructions on the webcam and the interview.
• There will be 10 – 15 questions related to the job the company is hiring for.
• The applicant will have 30 seconds to read the question and two minutes to respond.

Here are suggestions for how to prepare for a video interview:

• Review all the instructions. Ask for help (which is typically available online or by telephone) if you’re not sure how the webcam works or if you have questions.
• Follow the directions.
• Dress appropriately in professional interview attire, just like you would for an in-person interview.
• Practice – if you have a webcam, record yourself to see how you appear on camera.
• Be aware of your surroundings and the lighting.
• Look at the camera, not down at the desk or table.

In short, treat this exactly the same way you would an in person interview.

Video in the job search allows you to be creative.  It also allows you an inside peek at what it might be like to work for a particular organization. 

Have you had an opportunity to use video in your search?  As an HR professional, has your organization invested in creating corporate videos to show your culture?  Has it been an effective interviewing tool?

Social Media is creating quite the stir for businesses on multiple levels and bringing up a lot of questions that haven’t had to be answered in the past.  There is the challenge of how an organization can use social media to boost sales, how it can be used effectively for customer service, how to not only institute policies and governance for your employees but then how to enforce these rules. And then there is the question of ethics and acceptable usage in the hiring process.

Many human resource departments consider it unethical to Google a potential recruit.  I don’t really understand this position mainly because each candidate has a fairly decent level of control over what information exists about them in social media.  If a candidate chooses to put something out there, why would you, as a human resource employee, have an obligation not to look at it?  I understand that there are times when things may appear about an individual that he or she doesn’t want on the web, but it is possible to take steps to remove these things, or at the very least, hide them from view.  My position is that if you put it out there, I’m going to read it and I don’t see how that is unethical.  I also use common sense and understand that it is the internet and you can’t believe everything you read.

That being said, I do think it is absolutely unethical to try to “friend” someone for the purpose of being nosy and attempting to learn things that are none of your business.  A candidate may feel obligated to accept a request whether they want to or not to get a job and that is not a fair position for the candidate to be in.  There is a line between things that are work related and things that are personal and using your “power” to cross over that line and use personal information to screen someone’s ability to do a job is wrong.

Maybe the issue isn’t as simple as whether it is ethical or not, but whether the intention when it is used, is ethical. This creates a whole new challenge.  If an hr person is viewing the accessible information for the purpose of getting the “dirt” on someone, that is wrong.  But if he or she is doing research in the hopes of finding documentation that supports the information they’ve been given by candidates or seen on a resume, I just don’t see a problem with this.  So how in the world can you assess this with your hiring managers?

Even given the issues surrounding the ethical usage of these platforms for screening candidates, isn’t a large part of this whole equation the candidate’s responsibility?  Where is the accountability?  Is it with the person who is doing the reading, or with the person who is announcing their personal information all over the web? 

I vote that each potential hire is an adult capable of making choices.  If he or she chooses to call in sick to go to the beach and announces it on Twitter, or chooses to bad mouth their colleagues on Facebook but NOT ensure that this information is not viewable by anyone in the free world, I am not going to feel bad about reading it.  And it will color my impression of the candidate in a professional sense.  This provides a lot of relevant information about this candidate that I would have to take into consideration.  At the very least, he or she is irresponsible in using social media at all, whether due to ignorance or just plain lacking the common sense.  Edit yourself!  This is not an ethical concern for me but a responsibility concern for the interviewee.  Although common sense by the reader does come into play here as well.  Was it one tweet out of a hundred?  Or is there a constant stream of disparaging remarks about the employer or the co-workers?

What do you think?  Do you use these tools when screening potential hires?  Do you feel bad about it if you do?  Should candidates be held accountable for what exists about them in the world of social media?  Are you obligated not to use these tools for ethical reasons?  Do you have hiring managers on your staff that use social media for the purpose of evil rather than good?  How do you handle that if you suspect that is what’s happening?

I am interested in hiring managers’ thoughts on functional resumes.  I always hated these!!   It just always felt more like bragging because the idea was to summarize skills in a more abstract way (and will I be believed?) rather than just stating facts, such as I produced x dollars in revenue for the company in the year 2000.  I like facts that cannot be argued.

Although I haven’t had a need to create a resume lately, in my operational role I see  a number of resumes.  I also look at them for recruiting and I am slowly but surely changing my tune.  Do hiring decision makers find these resumes more helpful when searching for new talent nowadays?  Is the fact that many new opportunities are a combination of prior roles affecting the way resumes are read?  If you were to advise a job seeker on what it is you look for, what would that be?

Based on the information in my previous post, it seems like this type of resume would be MUCH more effective in today’s job market.   Is this the type of resume that hiring managers find most helpful when searching for employees?  If so, has this always been true or are we witnessing a shift?

As I continue to read about “Jobless Recovery” I have been coming across another term, “Job Evolution”.  Based on what I am reading, this seems to be a bad thing initially and then becomes a good thing for both employers and employees.  My understanding of this is that in a nutshell, it refers to the ways jobs are different during a jobless recovery and how that difference creates jobs that have never existed before.  Yes, it means that certain jobs have disappeared and are not coming back, but the jobs that will be available are changing and there are some benefits to this.

Basically, there is a need by organizations to analyze resources and allocation of these resources.  As this analysis takes place, the focus on the organizations is to restructure internally to operate more efficiently – a need for the company, technology, and industry to become more efficient.  It seems to me that there is a trial and error aspect of  this by the company, which is making the process take longer.  This means the job opening are slower to arrive.  Although it is taking longer for a company to define their needs in these new positions, once they do, they are seeing benefits to combining different responsibilities into one job.  When they find the right person for the opening, they are seeing a more efficient allocation of resources, more efficient operations and a lower employee headcount – three things necessary for the company to thrive in the current economy. 

For job seekers, this can be a very good thing as well. One change that results from this is that the search criteria changes for employers looking to bring in new talent.  Now sourcing for new employees will not be constrained as much by industry background but more by experiences.  It seems like it will be more of a big picture assessment of a candidate based on the skills they have acquired rather than a search for someone who has done the exact same job in the exact same industry.  Employers will be unable to search for new hires that way because the jobs they are creating have  never existed before.  This opens up more opportunities to find a position, even though there are fewer jobs available.  It sounds contradictory, but my sense is that if a job seeker is open-minded and flexible about a new role, they will actually have the ability to apply for more jobs than they would have in the past.

The challenge, I would think, would be for the hiring managers to define what they are looking for.  Once they determine what skills the new hire will need, they have a larger pool to choose from and job seekers now have more opportunities to throw their hat in the ring.

Can anyone comment on their experience in defining these new roles?  Or has anyone looking for work noticed the ability to apply for positions that wouldn’t have been available to them in the past?  Is this actually a benefit all the way around?  In theory, it seems very positive to me (although I am the kind of person who does not like to be constrained by whatever I’ve done in the past) but I don’t know if this is all conjecture.