Amitai Givertz’s Recruitomatic Blog

The Future of Work examines the challenges to conventional notions of work and organization brought on by new digital technologies and trends. As the velocity of change increases, institutions and individuals must adapt. Yet many structures, including those in education, government, business and the economy, often remain rooted in the past.

The report captures the insights of the Nineteenth Annual Aspen Institute Roundtable on Information Technology, where business leaders, technologists, international politicians, academics and innovators explored how global structures and institutions are being confronted by the 21st century realities of distributed knowledge, crowdsourcing, open platforms and networked environments.

Read the rest here [PDF] »

Recruitopian Footnotes [April 7, 2011]

1. Can you tell the difference between a) a donkey and a horse; and b) a candidate and an applicant? Calling all readers, Sharlyn Lauby — The HR Bartender — needs you!
2. Are recruiters idiots? Candidates say, “Yes,” applicants say, “No.” Suzanne Lucas — Evil HR Lady — says, “Maybe.” And what say you?
3. If 84% of employees are looking to change jobs I think we can safely say that employers’ retention policies may need updating, don’t you? “Fire the manager with the lowest retention” and other let-me-eat-my-arm morsels – in a beautifully bound eBook — courtesy of Ben Eubanks — upstartHR. Whatever…

Industry patriarch and beloved Dumbledorian John Sumser posts on HRExaminer another in his series on branding: Traffic Development. What follows will make more sense if you begin by reading John’s post and our exchange of comments. You may also want to use the restroom first.

I spent a good amount of time trying to post what follows to the original post in reply to a rebuff from John.  To no avail. Apparently a plug-in on John’s site may have become unplugged. Feel free to post your comments here or there, at this point it may not matter.

Anyway, reluctant to break the thread, or retire for the night with this undone, here is my closing argument…

Read the rest here »

Here is the slide deck from my opening remarks given at the Coalition for Independent Living Options‘ recent employers conference and job fair…

Read the rest here »

John Sumser forces the dim-witted among us to google the crypto-heading of his article ZPG to find it means “Zero Population Growth.” In his Electronic Recruiting News article, John Sumser bullet points some changes to note as the global talent shortage becomes even more acute. In a rare departure from protocol, he publishes a reply – not to save himself the bother of writing something before taking off a long Labor Day Weekend – but because Colin Kingsbury is one of the very few in the recruiting bubble who John Sumser endorses, and for heaven’s sake, why not?

In ZPG II Colin Kingsbury makes some valid points relative to population growth and reasons that under favorable conditions – George Bush leaving office,  migration to the U.S. of much needed talent, not patronizing younger employees, squeezing round pegs into square holes and so on –  the projected shortfall in talent may be averted. 

I cannot argue that Colin Kingsbury’s point of view is not compelling. It is. I cannot argue that he is wrong. I don’t know. What I can say is this: his hypothesis cannot be tested against alternate points of view or current trends because he offers no data or research to support it. Maybe there isn’t data out there. Who knows?

And, how will Colin Kingsbury’s speculation be put to the test without a debate of the issues? Again, John Sumser leaves the dim-wits hyperventilating for the ability to post a comment and develop the thread to engage his elevated readership – beyond the reach of the recruiting blogosphere – in a more involved process of thought-leadership? Don’t ERN’s readers deserve an answer to the types of question that could be posed to help develop Colin Kingsbury’s optimism and our own understanding of the issues? For example:

1. How are we going to reconcile the increased levels of U.S. xenophobia and racism arising form the threats of “Islamofascism” with the possible migration of teaching, healthcare, technical, scientific and engineering talent from countries like India, Pakistan and the Philippines? Is it as simple as waiting for President Bush to leave office in 2008? Will everyone stop hating Americans then? Will all veiled and bearded olive complexions suddenly morph from potential terrorists to potential hires? Or will their negative image persist, impede progress?

2. As over half of the U.S. government’s civilian workforce and C-level baby boomers are projected to retire in the next five years on their lucrative pensions – perhaps the last generation to have the option of a lifetimes investment in work to draw on – who is going to lead us? If it is the round pegs in the square holes, at what point are we going to address failed succession and workforce planning and social systems – like education – that have in large part contributed to the types of problems we face today? And who is to say employers are ready for a “misfit” workforce that anyway? Not me.

3. The job-hopping trend continues. 74% of workers are not “happy” at work, open to new and “better” opportunities. The trends continue to disadvantage the majority of employers. So, at what point does retention becomes a key issue for an organization’s continued prosperity in the face of ongoing talent shortages? Are we ready as a society to deal with the underlying issues that continue to threaten the U.S. economic engine like our insatiable appetite for everything on-demand including fulfillment at work and for career? How are Colin Kingsbury’s views of the talent shortage positively or negatively impacted by these types of workforce dynamics?

Addressing the issues of talent shortages and zero population growth and potential fixes obviously transcends a couple of posts on a couple of blogs. But I don’t hear the conversation being advanced anywhere else online. Points of view are easy to come by. A debate of the issues is a tougher thing to find, like a good conversation I guess. Another reason, Mr. Sumser, as to why we blog.  And why – long weekends aside – Recruitomatic applauds your posting of Colin Kingsbury’s post.

Dave Lefkow posted a great diversity recruiting story, saying there are great lessons for employers to be learned from the FBI’s diversity outreach. He’s right. But the warm fuzzies promised in the casual introduction to “Jericka Robinson. Mother, computer engineer, FBI special agent” are an unwitting peddling of Washington spin. Worse, we could all be innocently drawn into a wider conspiracy, a cover-up. Let me explain:

I quote Dave quoting from the original article:

“A recruitment poster on the FBI’s Web site tells a new story, with a picture of a black woman and the words: Jericka Robinson. Mother, computer engineer, FBI special agent. Today’s FBI. It’s for you. Visit FBIjobs.com.”

Well, I have it from a reliable source from within law enforcement circles that Ms. Robinson was – until recently at least – Supervisory Special Agent Jericka Robinson of the FBI’s Personnel Resources Unit. In other words, Ms. Robinson is literally a poster child for the FBI’s diversity program and not necessarily a result of it. Of course, it is possible that Ms. Robinson has been reassigned from an elite group of Glock-toting recruiters to an equally elite group of key-tapping computer engineers. Why not? It seems like a natural transition for a black working mother working her way round the Beltway, doesn’t it? If this extraordinary reassignment is for real, the FBI would be better served promoting itself as a champion of talent management. If they are capable of leveraging their human capital at a time when recruitment funding is being held at levels that would cripple any employer in the private sector, then there are lessons there we could all learn from.

Let’s look beyond Dave’s post for the real lessons here:

1. Metrics: We do not have enough data to draw any meaningful conclusions. However, I would submit that if only 18.8% of Special Agents are women, then the numbers do not support the notion that the FBI’s outreach is working. A spokeswoman for the FBI quoted in Dave’s post (who for all we know could be white) says: “There are no targets or quotas.” Then performance metrics for the FBI, like gender, is a “non-issue.” Good. No harm done.

2. Diversity Recruiting: The FBI used to be highly visible in print – even dominant. As far as I can see, they have gone undercover. I have long lauded LawEnforcmentJobs.com and the diversity sites that that engine powers as the best destinations for recruiters looking to attract qualified diversity candidates. Nada. On DiversityInc.com, another old stomping ground, the only sign of the FBI is the moonlighting it does for Fortune 500 companies. I found the CIA and NSA on LatPro, but, again, no FBI. Will the Men (or Women) in Black please stand up!

3. Employer Branding: Employer branding is not like product branding. It’s something that exists in the minds of stakeholders and constituents. It cannot be manufactured or even manipulated as such. Your brand exists – like it or not. If effectively managed, employer branding can be a tremendous contributing factor to optimizing the return on all recruitment marketing, including, of course, diversity. 9/11 did more to change the perception of law enforcement as a career prospect than years of trying by the FBI, NYPD, LAPD to transform a less than glamorous image. And the FBI, like all the agencies who saw demand for specialized talent skyrocket, missed a golden opportunity. Unfortunately, the whistleblowers will be remembered long after the FBI’s horn-tooting for an inclusive workforce. I say the FBI has really blown it. They should have looked to the gal next door and taken a page out of Condi’s book.

4. Sourcing Strategies: I know from past experience recruiting talent fluent in Pashto, Farsi, Swahili, Arabic and all dialects of Chinese is a cake walk. Russian and Chechen – old hat. You just run a few 4×6 ads in the Boston Globe (preferably with half of that ad taken up with a photo of a real diversity phenom.) and hey-presto! Yiddish-speaking mashuganas start clogging up your ATS. Today, the only ads you’re likely to see are band-aids put out by the field in support of their local initiatives comprised mostly of career fairs for students.

5. Screening and assessment: Here the agency scores big time. If you have the hard skills, can pass the physical and have never been caught chopping down cherry trees, you’ll get put through the FBI grinder. It doesn’t matter if you are a white male lawyer, accountant or cop, black working mother or Jewish Rastafarian, get this far in the process and the FBI does not discriminate. Scientifically developed staffing assessments to guide employee selection decisions – what a concept. For those of you who recruit salespeople, another lesson learned: polygraph your applicants.

6. The Special-Special Agent: You can train a man or woman to withstand psychological and physical torture. You can train them in the ways of the Ninja. You can arm them with sophisticated weaponry and state of the art surveillance equipment. But that doesn’t mean you can expect that person, however well-intentioned, to be an effective recruiter. When recruiting is relegated to being a second-rate desk-job, it’s not recruiting anymore. Sorry.

7. Retention: I used to see huge ads for Special Agents run in national papers with a TTY number as one of the response mechanisms. This is true. Polygraph me. I’m told that the prognosis for an Agent who can’t hear the words, “Incoming!” and “Duck!” is not good. Otherwise, the FBI could be a job for life. If you don’t meet the rigorous requirements for work in the field, you can join as a recruiter and end up in programming, or forensics, or business management. That kind of career progression speaks volumes, even to the hard of hearing.

But hold on! Hold on for just one cotton-pickin’ minute… Could it be? None of this is the FBI’s fault?

The FBI does a stand-up job under extraordinarily difficult (staffing) circumstances. That is an irrefutable fact. They should be commended for not giving up however tough the going gets. But, if there is one agency that should be held to account for the FBI’s failed diversity recruiting, it should be the Bernard Hodes Group. In my opinion – and no, I don’t know it all, and yes, there are always two sides to a story – in recent years Hodes has squandered what little money the FBI did have and left their diversity recruiting efforts – even on a continuing resolution (read: no commissions) – wasted. What’ll be next? Pawning the jewels in the FBI’s crown – the real gems like Jericka Robinson? You guys really rock.