Amitai Givertz’s Recruitomatic Blog

Japanese business has a tradition of breaking the mold. Now, having earned that coveted “seat at the table,” it turns out to be quite entertaining…

Read the rest here »

As business involves more interactions on the internet, the legal and practical implications of what you say and where you say things online is changing. Access to information is instantaneous-thoughtful responses and time to consider are rare.

It used to be that something was written, set aside, edited and mulled over before it was published in one of a few media outlets. Today, information, including photographs and video, get Tweeted, posted, linked, YouTubed, Googled and emailed instantaneously.

The opportunities to create havoc and legal liability abound. Part of it is the disconnect of between the author and the audiences. There is a false sense of intimacy in being able to communicate so quickly to multiple audiences of one.

Posting our hearts out from a computer, we are completely removed from the checks and balances of body language and voice inflections inherent in in-person communications. We like what we’re saying. We think we’re right. It’s often difficult to know when we are completely out of line until it’s too late. And once you post, it’s pretty much too late.

Read the rest here »

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…

Dear Mr. Hoffman,

Thanks for your letter of recognition you so kindly sent me today.

The body is below.

My response is below that.

Read the rest here »

Recruiting.com has gone through many changes in the years since Jason Davis and friends put recruiting blogs on the map. So many in fact that keeping up with it has become quite a bore.

Despite this being possibly one of the most coveted domain names in the industry, like one of the corpses laid to rest in a Varanasi gutter, Recruiting.com has become one of those things stepped over by most everyone.

Long forgotten for its contributions to humanity, the drama of blogging CEOs, the experimentation with formats, threats of lawsuits, Canadian headhunters, and assorted industry louts, Recruiting.com has been reduced to a shell with no soul.

Read the rest here »

Recruitopian Footnotes [March 24, 2011]

1. Is “social recruiting” really such a new idea? I think not. After all, affiliate marketers [read: MLM] have been at it for years. Taking self-reference and self-fulfilling prophecy to the next multi-level…Black Belt Recruiting. Some lessons for us all.
2. So, you think “Sourcing Samurai” Glen Cathey can slice through the data on LinkedIn, huh? Think twice, no, three times: Understanding Web 3.0 as Data: Reid Hoffman, Founder LinkedIn.

   Conclusion: If Glen Cathey is an authority on LinkedIn it might just be question of semantics…if you know what I mean.

3. And now for something completely different…Cited in a social recruiting editorial, Florida is, indeed, among the best places to live and work:

   “We have all kinds of corruption, violence and scumbaggery. The 9/11 terrorists trained here. Bush read My Pet Goat here. Our elections are colossal cluster#@!*$s”

   And to think, I came from missing TruLondon to living in paradise…mind the gap! Personality matters more than platforms

I came across a rather curious feed today, all the more intriguing to find the post ResuWe Employer charges applicants $25 to apply for jobs had, apparently, been removed. I wondered if the author and vested interest, Dan Boersma, had second thoughts about posting dubiously self-serving drivel, or if this was an indulgence of a different kind.

Before a comment of my own, and in fairness to Mr. Boersma who I don’t know from Adam, here is the departed post in its entirety

“In an effort to cut down on the significant increase in unqualified candidate traffic, ResuWe Employer companies can charge job seekers $25 to apply to a job.  ResuWe Employer clients have been asking for this feature to reduce the time required to sift through countless resumes and to ensure each job applicant is pre-qualified.

Read the rest here »

No, not another post about the currently beleaguered Chief Jobster Jason Goldberg, or a commentary on his recent opacity, unless you want it to be, of course. I write – metaphysically – to please you I hope although on this blog, as previously reported, I’m almost done here.

Ding…

Read the rest here »

While everyone is inhaling to blah-blah-blah Jobster over the rumored downsizing, dehumanizing, rightsizing, realigning and pocket lining of the business – all probably in the works, concurrently no doubt –  I would venture to make a couple of suggestions as to where we should look for inspiration in what is about to unfold…

Read the rest here »

I see this year Time magazine’s lauded Person of the Year is “You.” Anticipating widespread annoyance at this editorial cop-out no doubt, the sub-title for their cover issue is: “Yes, you. You control the Information Age. Welcome to your world.”

Personally, I think this year’s choice and tag-line is dopey. If Time wanted to draw inspiration from the “Information Age” – that phrase is so 1970′s isn’t it, hardly inspires confidence in their thinking this thing through – there is no shortage of interesting people who have made a contribution to “our world” and who could have been profiled this year, made the cover.

So, my question is this: who from the digital-, virtual-, networking-, information-, cyber-, yada-yada-space would you have put on the cover of Time this year and why?

Joel Cheesman posts monster.com hates free speech following up on his previous and rather provocative monster is a crap product video starring Jobster chief Jason Goldberg. Joel Cheesman quotes Monster.com’s very own Rich Teplitsky who is the Director, Global Corporate Communications and who is seeking to have the video suppressed. Golly, isn’t that kind of gulaggy?

I called Rich Teplitsky but he wasn’t there. I called the covering extension and left a message for a delightful sounding Katheryn Burns. I’m sure she’ll call me back, I do hope so. She sounds very professional.

I want to ask whether Monster.com has accounted for the possibility that if some people take to posting/linking to the video they may have inadvertently created the potential for an altogether different kind of monster to raise its ugly head among the recruiting bloggers, and who knows where?  I mean, what if a lot of people started to post the video, or for neophytes like me, linked to it instead? This thing could get really big, you know, like really horrible. After all, we bloggers are very influential you know, we know crap when we see it. Some of us are well connected too.

Now, many would argue that Monster.com is not a totally crap product at all. Further reading of the blogs will attest to that, as would millions of satisfied users. But, as Mother used to say, “Handsome is as handsome does” and I’m sure we could say the same about crap behavior too, don’t you?

Anyway, in protest at this heavy-handed nonsense, as soon as I can find it, I am taking my resume down off Monster.com and posting it up on Joel Cheesman’s answer to every jobseekers prayer – Blogs With Jobs – as soon as I work out how to get it up there.

On the scene for some years now, it has never been easy to recommend FuckedCompany.com as a resource for recruiters even though the daily catalogue of firings, layoffs, furloughs and assorted corporate shenanigans makes it a great resource for identifying potential hires before their resumes hit the streets. For others, FuckedCompany.com has the industry scoops, ahead of the mainstream media.

I know, I know, in the interests of authenticity we can get away with the occasional “f”-this and “f”-that – keeping it real – but really, is it any wonder that otherwise perfectly good sourcing tools never make recruiters’ lists or get cited when they break important news?