I know I shouldn’t generalize but I can’t help myself in pointing out that readers of online recruiting stuff fall into one of three categories:

• The first are those who scan the content, hardly pay attention to it and leave feeling that they have just made an earnest attempt to improve their effectiveness as recruiters. In so doing, they believe they actually have;
• The second are those who read the content and decide as a result to act on it — invariably doing nothing;
• Third are those who mean to read their favorite gurus, get distracted and never come back, missing something that might help them become more successful — like understanding why we get distracted in the first place.

Interesting thing number one: Thought leaders cannot only get away with reposting stuff they published months ago but I see now that we should encourage them to do it:

• The readers in category one can reflect — just for a minute now — on what they have achieved in real terms since their first reading and go on with their accelerated development toward top-performerdom, unphased;
• The readers in category two either a) congratulate themselves for having had the exact same idea ages ago, deciding to finally take some action now it is being popularized, or b) acknowledge that they didn’t do what they were supposed to do and reaffirm to take action on this second reading. Again, invariably, nothing happens.
• The readers in category three see the article published for the first time, scan it and leave feeling they have made an earnest attempt to improve their effectiveness as recruiters. In so doing, they believe they actually have — or — they read the content and decide as a result to act on it, well, you know the rest…it’s the insanity defense.

I can’t think of a better reason to start writing stuff that I can repost at a later date. I will start doing it tomorrow.

Interesting thing number two: As one who reads a lot of what gets published in our space — and straddling all three categories of reader, I admit it — I get confused about what I read, when I read it and even who the blazes wrote it, had the idea before me.

Bothered by my befuddlement with Lou Adler’s repost I started digging around. I resurfaced Jeff Hunter’s gem Job Descriptions are Part of What is Killing Recruiting. Comparing Jeff Hunter’s point of view with Lou Adler’s I realize that I could synthesize the two and come up with something “original,” something that would make me look like a veritable genius!

Interesting thing number three: We should not overlook the huge number of places where sample job descriptions are available for plug-and-play recruiters the world over. There is obviously a huge appetite out there for job descriptions that come ready-made, requiring little or no thought, work or accountability.

This lazy approach to working with job descriptions suggests to me that while the thought leadership provided by Lou Adler [tactical] and Jeff Hunter [strategic] is compelling it could be one of the underlying reasons why so many readers end up falling into categories one and two to start with, left behind from one post to the next.

I think if we are to serve the causes of recruiting talent, managing a lean process, and for the abandonment of job descriptions too, the industry would be better served by arguing that job descriptions should be properly understood and managed from the get-go. You know, from the unglamorous task analysis to the one-dimensional candidate profile.

With the same passion Lou Adler and Jeff Hunter express in their posts insisting that everything is done by the book, as opposed to not doing it all — and reposting about it every six months — that should work like a charm if you want to get rid of job descriptions and those pesky one-size-fits-all job description sites, don’t you think?

“I am still searching for an example of being “too transparent” costing someone a company, where there are many examples of lack of transparency (or “being caught in a lie”) doing a lot of damage.”

Well, needless to say, I can’t think of an example where being too transparent cost someone a company either, but then again, I do have a migraine dammit! And, as for “being caught in a lie” and “doing a lot of damage” let’s consider for a moment the scandal de jour.

Ex-U.S. Congressman Mark Foley is demonstrating the cynical side of transparency, coming to full disclosure late in the game. Mark Foley resigned his office in disgrace over his sexually explicit text messages to underage boys, confusing the roles of Congressional Page with Washington call boy.  In damage control mode, Mark Foley is now being very open about his homosexuality – not a crime – and is sharing with the whole world his struggle with alcoholism, made worse by the unresolved emotional fallout resulting from his own being manhandled as a boy by a priest. Sound familiar?

In reply to Jeff Hunter’s post, one wonders how this type of “transparency” would have advanced the politician’s career had he made these revelations on his resume, before being labeled as a hypocrite and corrupt pervert. If Mark Foley had made his problems known up-front perhaps the resulting debate would have led to a more constructive outcome with the possibility of our being sympathetic, not as we are now, disgusted.  But of course, that would not have been possible would it? Who wants an emotional wreck – another drunk – at the seat of government?

Being “too transparent” – drawing a parallel between the ambitions and power plays in business and politics, as illustrated here – can be a decidedly bad thing. True, coming clean after the fact makes the offense seem more pathetic than sinister and one could argue there was some authenticity in Mark Foley’s decision to resign on-the-spot, without creating an even bigger circus of the whole affair but really, at this point, who cares?

The connection here may be tenuous, I accept that.  My question is, is there not a time and a place for everything, including transparency?