#HRHappyHour LIVE Tonight - 'Recruiting in 2013'

The HR Happy Hour Show is back and this week we are really excited to welcome back to the show the great Gerry Crispin - an industry thought leader, influencer, and the man who has the pulse of the world of corporate recruiting. 

Gerry's influence in the world of recruting is immense - his firm CareerXRoads issues the definitive 'Source of Hire' report each year that is widely regarded as the industry benchmark.

Addtionally, Gerry is one of the driving forces behind the new Candidate Experience movement - spearheading research and awards that are pushing the recruiting community to improve and enhance how candidates are treated in the recruiting process.

This week we will talk with Gerry about some of the big-picture trends in corporate recruitng, hit upon what technologies are having the most impact, and what we can expect to see in the world of recruiting in the future.

You can catch the show in a few different ways - listen to the live stream starting at 8:00PM ET on the show page here, or using the widget player embedded below:

Listen to internet radio with Steve Boese on Blog Talk Radio

You can also listen via the call-in listener line - 646-378-1086, (if you are brave you can even join the fun).

After the show, you can access the replay anytime from the show page, or from the Apple iTunes store - just search for 'HR Happy Hour' in the podcasts area and download the show for free to your iDevice.

And just this week, the HR Happy Hour has made it on to Stitcher Radio - the leading iPhone and Android app for podcasts. Just download the free Stitcher Radio app and search for 'HR Happy Hour'.

I know it will be a fun show tonight - even if you are not a huge sports fan I think there will be some insights on how sports and HR and talent and recruiting and work are all interrelated that you will find interesting.

So this week we think you wil enjoy the conversations on all things recruiting with the great Gerry Crispin, of course also joined by the HR Happy Hour hosts - Steve Boese and Trish McFarlane.

It should be a fun show and I hope you can join us!

If the manager is so important, why does no one make it part of the ad?

I read a really interesting piece from Scott Berkun last week titled - 'Why You Should Pick Your Own Boss' where he lays out a case that the most important aspect in any job is the boss that you will be reporting to. But according to Berkun, most people don't evaluate a new job or a transfer with the 'boss' as the primary consideration, rather we think about compensation, job titles, and assignments first, (in varying orders, but these are the most important considerations), and maybe, if we can get a feel in the interview, think about the personality of the hiring manager/boss.

While I am not totally sure the boss is the most important element of a job, there is no doubt that the boss, your relationship with him or her, their talent, and probably most of all, their willingness and ability to help your development and learning is one of the critical aspects of any job, and as Berkun suggests, one that new employees and candidates often can find out the least.

External candidates can learn quite a bit about a company from reviews on Glassdoor, can examine career profiles and arcs of potential future colleagues and bosses on LinkedIn, and perhaps if they are lucky or persistent enough, talk to someone actually working at a company to learn more about the culture and the feel of a place. But rich information an details about a prospective boss - how are they as a people developer, how many of their past direct reports were promoted, how many internal people try to transfer in/out of their group, etc. - this kind of data is really difficult if not impossible to ascertain.

And, what I think is even more curious, is that if the 'boss' is such an important element for attraction, performance, retention, etc. why don't more companies actually talk about the boss in job advertisements? I mean, if your company did have a rockstar hiring manager, that everyone wanted to work for, wouldn't you want to emphasive that in the job ad? Wouldn't that be an incredible source of competitive adavantage in recruiting?

Because when you think about it, very few jobs are 'unique' in that there are not any other similar jobs at other companies. Every company has accountants, marketers, operations people - you get the idea. The differences between any of these jobs at Company 'A' v. Company 'B' boil down to tangible things like compensation, benefits, schedules; and intangible things like company culture, mission, and the personalities and talent of the actual people you will be working with and for.

But most job advertising is about 80% job duties and requirements, 15% generic pablum about the company, and maybe with 5% of the content that actually tries to distinguish the job or role from the hundreds or thousands of similar jobs at other places.

Just once I'd like to see a job ad that said something like - "Look you can get an accounting job anywhere. Take this accounting job, and you'll learn from the best Division Controller our organization has ever had, who has placed her last 4 lead accountants in bigger and better roles in the company. This gal is a star, and she will get the best out of you.''

I'd apply for a job like that, and I hate accounting.

Lessons from an Ad Man #3 - On Judgment and Research

Note: Over the holidays I finished off an old book that had been on my 'I really should read that' list for ages - Confessions of an Advertising Man by ad industry legend David Ogilvy. The 'Confessions', first issued in 1963, provide a little bit of a glimpse into the Mad Men world of advertising in the 50s and 60s.

This will be the last submission I think in the 'Ad Man' series, not because there aren't plenty more nuggets of insight from Confessions of an Advertising Man, but more that if I haven't convinced you by now you should score a copy and read it for yourself you probably never will.

I pulled this last lesson for its increasing relevance today - this new age of information, metrics, and Big Data, where we seem to be continually told, pushed, and cajoled into taking a much more analytical view of the world. Data, statistics, relationships, algorithms - these for many are the new coin of the realm and should be used to inform all kinds of decisions we make as HR and Talent pros.

Data can tell us where we should post our job ads to generate the best candidates, which of these candidates 'match' the job requirement, who might be a culture fit, what questions we should ask them in the interview, and how we should score their answers.  Even more data can tells us how much (or little) we should compensate our employees, how much we need to reward out top performers to convince them to stay, and which ones are likely to progress in the organization - making increased attention and investment in them pay off. And still more data can tell us where we should expand - what locations and markets have the 'right' supply of talent that fits our talent success profiles - and where we need to consider contingent staff or outsourcing to fill in the gaps.

In 2013 and beyond you as an HR and Talent pro will simply have to get more comfortable with data, (big or otherwise), and taking a data-driven approach to workforce planning, staffing, performance management, and rewards. This reality seems clear, and few would dispute the impact and influence that data and analytics will have on HR.

There was plenty of data back in Mr. Ogilvy's day as well. Sure, maybe not the voluminous amounts that we capture today, but still lots of data, and with the more crude tools available back then to aggregate, analyze, and derive insights - it is quite likely than business leaders of that age might also have felt they had a 'Big Data' problem.  Back then Ogilvy sensed a growing tendency for many in his field to become over-reliant on data and research - at the expense of reasoned and experienced judgment. Here is Ogilvy's take on the matter, from a section of the book subtitled 'The Image and the Brand' -

How do you decide what kind of image to build? There is no short answer. Research cannot help you much here. You have actually got to use judgment. I notice increasing reluctance on the part of marketing executives to use judgment; they are coming to rely too much on research, and they use it as a drunkard uses a lamp post, for support rather than illumination. 

Nice shot from the Ad Man, and certainly one that will continue to resonate more and more as the available amount of data and information that will be available to us at almost every part of the talent management process will only increase.

The data, as Ogilvy suggests, has to illuminate, it has to lead us into making the best decisions and even into dreaming up brand new ideas. It can't only be a prop or a justification for a lack of imagination or of daring. If we let data and data alone drive our actions, well then we can easily be replaced by it, and by technology that can process it much faster and more efficiently than we ever could.

The data will consume us if we allow it to I think. 

Use your best judgment on this...

You call it 'culture' - to the talent it might just be 'policy'

Fresh off last week's launch of The 8 Man Rotation, 2012 Season free Ebook on all things Sports and HR, I am stocking the pond for the 2013 edition with another dispatch from the sports world - but one that I promise has more broad relevance and applicability.

In baseball, and perhaps in all of North American major professional sports, the New York Yankees are the most famous, most successful, and most storied franchise in history. Legendary players, achievements, 27 World Series championships, and the occasional bit of controversy have been the hallmarks of the team throughout its long history.

With this long history comes tradition certainly, and traditionally the Yankees have continued to reinforce elements like their uniforms, which are the same design, more or less, as they have always been, and with no player names on the back, only numbers. The Yankees shun most of the other 'entertainment' elements that have become a fixture of professional sports - they have no costumed mascots or cheerleaders. They try for the most part to project a sense of professionalism in how they play the game, and how their players, (employees really), also project themselves when they are representing the team.

For players this means (among other things), an 'appearance' code - uniform shirts buttoned and worn a certain manner, and curiously enough still in 2013, a ban for players on facial hair.  Yep, you read that correctly. If you want to play for the Yankees that means no mustaches, beards, goatees, Van Dykes or facial hair of any type.

The Yankees ownership obviously feels, and has for a long time, that the facial hair ban helps to ensure and support their company brand and culture - professionalism, attention to detail, and very 'corporate' in nature. To them surely this 'rule' really is not so much a rule or a policy, but an outward manifestation and expression of that culture.  And it is entirely up to them as an employer to feel that way.

But one man's (or company's) culture is another man's policy - and in some cases this culture/policy has the effect of deterring otherwise 'top' talent from the organization. The latest example of this in action for the Yankees - check these quotes from the Tampa Bay Rays' pitcher David Price. Price is one of the best pitchers in the league, and when he becomes a free agent in a couple of years, would be precisely the kind of talent the Yankees would pursue. 

Here's what Price has to say about the Yankees and facial hair:

"If I ever did hit that free-agent market, there would be teams I wouldn't sign with simply because of the stuff that I've heard -- every rule they have."

Taking note of his beard, I told Price he'd have to shave if the Yankees traded for him.

"I wouldn't stay there very long then,” he responded. “I wouldn't sign a long-term deal there. Those rules, that's old-school baseball. I was born in '85. That's not for me. That's not something I want to be a part of."

Sure, you can get a little cynical here and tell me - 'If the Yankees offered him $10M more than any other team, he's shut up and sign the contract and shave the beard.'  That could very well be true, but that isn't really the important point to me. 

One man's 'culture' is another man's policy. Sure in this case maybe the culture/policy is having its desired effect - preventing what would possibly be a bad hire. Price, if he went to the Yankees would bristle over the facial hair ban, and probably lots of other culture/policy issues as well.

Not judging anyone here - the Yankees have been really successful for a long time doing it their way, and Price has an absolute right to his opinion and his desire to be treated as a professional.

Not judging, but just reminding that living up to and reinforcing your culture means sometimes turning away some fantastic talent that doesn't see your culture the same way you do. 

VIDEO - On how ridiculous you 'big thinkers' sound

Take two minutes of your Friday to watch the video embedded below, (Email and RSS subscribers please click through), titled 'Outside the Box', by director Joe Pelling.

Outside the Box from Sherbet on Vimeo.

Classic.

Hysterical.

Familiar?

And hopefully a good reminder to any of us, (me too), who might occasionally take ourselves too seriously.

That's all I've got for the week.

Have a great Weekend all!