HRevolution

After years of searching, wrestling with my food addiction, and wondering why I slump over my desk after lunch. I've found religion. Clarity at last.

http://www.venganza.org/

OK. New topic. By now everyone is aware of the effort to bring intelligent design into the science classrooms in schools. There are a couple of points worth making.

First, we need to point out that logic and empiricism are the essential building blocks of thought in science. That's where the "science" comes from in science class. Second, the divine intervention referred to in intelligent design is a faith-based approach to explaining why we are here.

Now, I have no bones with teaching religion. Let me say that again - teaching religion is OK. But I object to teaching it in a science curriculum. Injecing faith into science is evangelism and supporting it is verification of our society's capacity for ignorance. Note to self: NEVER underestimate the stupidity of a group.

At issue is how we come to believe things. Scientific disciplines seek to support ideas (nothing can be proven) based on what can be demonstrated and verified. Religious beliefs, on the other hand, come down to faith. One chooses to believe this and that. This choice-based belief has no place in scientific thought. It does have a place in other classes.

As a child, evolution explained just so much, the idea that God-touched-the-monkey and-Adam-was-born allowed me to reconcile what we were being taught in school and in catechism. It was all fine and dandy. Then I grew up.

Today I can hold both paradigms in my head and have no concerns over the conflicting notions. I also recognize the powerful ignorance of those seeking to force the conflicting ideas together based on their desire for faith-based theories to dominate our society. While these people argue for faith in the classroom, I don't hear them begging for scientific doctrine to enter their Sunday schools. Yes, Pastor Johnson, where is your proof that angels exist? That Christ rose from the dead and that there is only one God? I have a few other questions, but we can start with these.

The intelligent design movement doesn't refer to aliens designing the world. It is a fundamentalist christian movement. These christians (a different brand than mine) want to tell us who invented everything because they're sure they know. Not because they actually do know anything, the basis for their wisdom is that they have chosen to believe it.

So, the folks who want intelligent design taught in science class really want to teach our children what to believe in, based on a religious text of their own choosing. Never mind diluting empirical thought and scientific exploration. I mean, who needs a scientific approach when you get to choose what you want to believe? You know, we've seen this before. Education based on what the body politic has chosen to believe rather than free thought. They have lots of it in the Middle East. Religious-based education. Great. We could have that too. It's working out really well over there, isn't it? The religious wing sure has a lot of influence. Gosh. What are we waiting for?

Continuing the topic of influencing hiring managers, Steve Finkel has a lovely approach. In his seminar for executive recruiters, he says it is important for hiring managers to treat your time with the utmost respect. If they don't return your calls promptly, he says, "make them bleed". Here's what you say when you answer a late returned call.

“Yes, Mike, glad you called. The reason I called was that after we spoke, I went out, did the search, and called you to present an exceptional candidate. This individual was top of his class in -----, had cutting edge experience in----, and was the top ---- at his firm for the last 3 years. He was earning only $---.” (Great! When can we see him?) “Well, as I’ve indicated, I conducted the search, called you to present him, and you never got back to me. I assumed the position was filled, so I sent the candidate to another firm. I don’t mind saying, a fairly large competitor of yours, and it looks like an offer will be extended. By the way, how are you doing at filling that position?” Make him hurt for the candidate. Do not present candidate. Do not reward poor behavior or it will continue.

Now, nobody is going to confuse me for Finkel, but he knows how to get things done. Clearly, this isn't in the HR manual. My feeling is the HR influence is one of the biggest obstacles in things done. While we need to treat candidates fairly, we need not extend the same even handedness to internal managers acting as obstacles to a recruiter's productivity. Unless we can get things done, we don't deserve a seat at the table.

I get a kick out of questions like 'How to influence hiring managers?'. Jeff Bloch offers a reasonable treatment . The problem is that we don't always have time for a nice, neat program. To me, these limitations to my productivity are career-limiters. As such, being nice takes a backseat to being effective.

We solved this problem a long time ago. I had to, because without a solution, my career would have stalled (and I couldn't afford that). Once you have established a reputation for quality recruiting, it's easy to influence hiring managers. Here's how: the experienced managers realize their business depends on having good people. You merely need to establish that the talent they need runs through you. And if they can't reel it in, you can't afford to focus on their needs. You'll continue to troll on their behalf, of course, but a full-blown effort is not a good use of your time; you are a corporate resource, not their personal lackey. Inexperienced managers learn through the pain of understaffed offices. They learn fast, and they learn on their dime, not yours.

Clearly, you can't just blurt this out to your customer or you may be fired. The message is sent in subtler ways - like sharing the misadventures of some clod hiring manager who lost a recruit in some a colorful manner. Of course, you point out, you can't afford to send grade 'A' talent to the clod. Ha ha ha. They'll get the point. You should also ensure your clients understand that you work for the company - not hiring managers. Your primary responsibility to staff the organization. This is what you do to improve the stock price (it helps if you speak business). You have learned that hiring managers who fail to land the talent you bring to them are, in fact, hurting your productivity - wasting the company's resources invested in recruiting.

This is the leverage you have by owning the bottleneck. When talent is scarce, your power increases. Remember, you need to be doing good work in the first place. If you've established a reputation for laziness, it won't work. The caveat is you must only use your powers for good. But, you need to use them. In fact, you owe it to your employer to maximize your contribution. Too many HR professionals minimize their input by avoiding things like leverage. But when it comes to your livelihood, a pragmatic (and effective) approach is best.

After a long vacation and time away from the business, I feel refreshed. Refreshed enough to complain anyway. Today's subject is Monster Diversity, and the question is, why is there a market for this?

I recognize there are diversity boards out there and that part of the game is to allocate (waste) money to postings on them to show you're 'trying' to recruit minorities. We all know these postings serve no other purpose - its not like we get hires from these sources. This is all part of the landscape. So why does the market need this offering from Monster? I can see why Monster would sell it - it's a new revenue source from their existing inventory. Its also easy to upsell existing clients. New profits are a nice by-product. But why would anyone want it?

I'm trying to understand the mindset of the buyer. Does Monster have a good track record with niche products? No. MonsterTrak, their executive offering, and a host of other products flounder. So they're always trying to add the loser products into your purchase. They don't have a great business model, they don't field the best technology, and they're not innovative. Their primary board and resume dbase are good products. Generic Monster postings can be a good buy. Their niche products are not.

So, why does one buy the diversity product? I can only think that HR is so thoroughly afflicted by CYA disease that they can spend even more money on bad products because they come from the #1 brand. And nobody gets fired for buying the best. This is the kind of reasoning that keeps people employed - people who really should be fired. Hmmm... There's another by-product Monster can sell, the list of all the HR people who bought Monster Diversity. It's a 'don't hire' list. I might even pay for that.