Vacation Rewind: Some applicants ARE awesome and can do lots of pull-ups

Note: I am on vacation and while away this week I will be re-running a few old posts that for whatever reason I think deserve a second chance. Hope everyone has a great week!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(originally posted in February 2012)

Recently another 'clueless applicant' tale bounced around the interwebs, this one centered around what was described by Business Insider and Forbes as 'The Worst Cover Letter in the World', so bad that the applicant was 'laughed at by everybody on Wall Street.'

Give me 35

If you missed the story, and don't want to click through to the linked pieces above, here is a quick summary:

An unnamed student at New York University, applying for what was described as a summer analyst position with JP Morgan, included a cover letter that was a bit over the top, a bit long, had a couple of really kind of stupid mistakes, but mostly seemed, (at least to me), to be coming from a hard-working, positive, ambitious, and eager individual that is determined to get his career started.

You can read the full, (with personal identifiable details redacted), cover letter here, and I am sure you'll be as equally amused as Forbes, BI, and most of Wall St. was with the applicant's references to his bench press progress, 'double my bodyweight', and ability to pick up computer programming languages quickly, 'I learned a year's worth of Java in 27 days on my own.'

And if you do read the full cover letter, and the corresponding article ripping the kid for mistakes, bragging, length, and overall lack of polish and professionalism in communication, you'll probably agree with the conclusions and comments in the Forbes and BI pieces.

Ha-Ha-Ha. What a joke, what a doofus. What in the heck are they teaching kids at NYU anyway. Let's all have a good laugh at this kid who clearly doesn't get it that no one cares about how much he can bench press or how many pull-ups he can do.

Here's what I think. If I were looking to fill spots for one of these summer analyst programs, I'd bring the kid in for an interview. I know the cover letter was not technically perfect. And yes, the kid probably needs a refresher course in some basic rules and mores here. But that doesnt' take away from some important considerations as well.

Assuming the kid's grades and program of study checked out, (easy to verify), I would look at the bragging and the posturing in the letter as an indication of a kid that has drive, that had goals and met them, and is probably the kind of kid that has had to work hard to get as far as he has.

Bench pressing double your body weight is hard. No, make that really freakin' hard. I have known maybe 3 guys in my whole life who could make that claim. And 35 pull-ups? Good luck passing ten. So maybe I am overvaluing the level of effort, sacrifice, and commitment it takes to make those claims, but to me, they show some character. And that I think would make me want to meet the kid.

On a broader level, I sort of get really angry and frustrated when I read these kinds of pieces, and read the smug know-it-all comments and insults lobbed towards job seekers who in an attempt to make their credentials stand out from the pack, fail to execute in just exactly the way we 'professionals' want them to. I am not defending spelling errors, shaky grammar, and sloppiness, but I am standing up for making a claim as to why you're awesome and why you deserve consideration.

So yes, if it were me, I'd bring the kid in to interview. And I'd probably ask for some workout tips. 

Fun with job requirements: How many ways can an object be moved?

I have a friend in a job search and last week he forwarded to me an online posting for a position he was considering applying to, and wanted some feedback from me about the job, the organization, and whether I felt it was a potential fit for him. I took a quick look and it mostly seemed pretty standard, a technical system admin-type job working on company systems, some different programming languages they were looking for, working on-site in the company offices, etc. Again, nothing really noteworthy or quite frankly interesting about the listing until I got to the end.But can you do this?

This 'requirement' is taken word for word from the job description in the 'Physical requirements' section of the posting:

"Primarily sedentary work with the need to exert up to 10 pounds of force occasionally to lift, carry, push, pull or otherwise move objects."

For some reason, this requirement just about made me spit coffee all over the keyboard, if nothing else for its surface absurdity, but also the thought of someone sitting down, perhaps even having a conversation with a colleague or the hiring manager, when it came time to draft the language for this requirement.

Perhaps it went something like this:

HR/Recruiter -Ok, we have the skills, education, job duties down. How about any special physical requirements for the job?

Hiring Manager -  Well, it is a computer admin job. Just normal work on a computer, you know, typing, working a mouse, that kind of thing.

HR/Recruiter -Would the person have to lift or carry anything?

Hiring Manager - Not really, I mean the occasional report or print out. Maybe a technical manual now and

then.

HR/Recruiter -Ok, so lifting and carrying are needed.

                         How about pushing or pulling? Any pushing or pulling involved?

Hiring Manager - Uh, I don't know. Maybe. Sometimes we move the chairs and tables in the conference room around for meetings. 

HR/Recruiter -Ok, I better add pushing and pulling too.

                          Anything else?

Hiring Manager - I can't think of anything. I mean, how many different ways can an object be moved?

Classic. Maybe I am being too hard on the HR person here, maybe the conversation went the other way around and the Hiring Manager insisted the nonsensical requirement made the copy. Either way, the idea at some point, a conversation like the above might have actually happened was enough for me to take notice. Good times.

I'll sign off with this question - Lift, carry, push, pull - what other ways can an object be moved? 

Have a great Tuesday!

No, let me see YOUR references

We have heard it time and time again - top talent always has options - they can play off one company against the other, play the counter-offer game to score additional pay and benefits, and particularly in hot technical fields, seem to remain immune from the tough employment climate. For the most part, talented technical workers, with skills in the 'right' areas, are in demand and will likely have many more options to consider than the one you are trying to recruit them into, or if they are currently on your staff, are probably getting weekly overtures to make a jump.Kandinsky - Title Unknown (someone knows it, just not me)

So in an environment where this sliver or subset of the employment market seems to be playing by a different set of rules that the broader world, it is quite likely that strategies, tactics, and candidate expectations also are unlike 'normal' and traditional processes. And in the recruiting/assessment process, no step is no more 'normal' than the good old fashioned reference check. Of course you know the drill - candidate makes it past the phone screen and rounds one or two of the interview process, and then it's time for some diligent HR pro to call in those references that are always 'available upon request'. Where the reference check goes from there depends mostly on your belief in the importance of such things and the level and scope of the position you are hiring for. But either way, the candidate is almost always the one on the hook to provide some level of external validation of how wonderful they are.

But for super-talented and in-demand technical and other folks is this model beginning to shift? Take a look at an excerpt from an interesting piece on the User Interface Engineering blog earlier this week:

The advice I’m giving to senior, more experienced folks is not to think about their next project as much as they think about their next manager. What traits should that manager have? How do they support their team? When things get rough, how do they deliver guidance? Do they regularly give out praise? Do they take a deep interest in the work and in their employee’s future?

I recommend folks interview the entire team and learn what it’s like to work for that manager. What happens when the going gets tough? What examples are there of team members growing, learning, and getting encouragement? Do team members talk about how the manager exhibits the desired traits?

My good friend, Amy Jackson, who works as a talent agent for wünderkind UX designers, suggests you take it a step further and ask the hiring manager for his or her references. Amy says to tell them you want to make the right decision and you need to check them out. Her thinking is that if the hiring manager isn’t secure enough give out sound references, they may be sending a signal.

Nice. A good old fashioned 'reverse-the-heat' scenario that some hotshot young, (ok they don't have to be young, but it reads better that way), one day soon is going to call you out, Mr. or Ms. hiring manager and ask you to hand over that one-pager with three of your references. The names of three people, that you managed or mentored that would stand up for your ability as a leader, manager, mentor, and someone that should be entrusted to the next step of the candidate's career, and likely much of their day-to-day happiness and engagement at work. Sure, many interview processes have the candidate 'meet the team', but the existing team members that are currently under the manager's control are not likely to be too forthcoming, particularly if the 'reference' would not be all that positive.

Interesting spin and a challenging one at that. Now I have never actually heard of this happening in the wild, but I bet it has.

What do you think? Has a candidate ever asked you to pony up some names of past employees they could run references on? 

Could you hand over three names on demand?

What might your former staff say about you?

Please welcome our new VP of Marketing. Yes, that's really him

So let's pretend you are a dedicated marketing pro at a low-key but solid wholesale grocery distribution company in Tennessee and you have seen notice or heard through the company grapevine that the VP of Marketing position is open. VP slots at small and medium size companies don't just open up every day, and as you learn more about the opening, you become more intrigued. Casual Friday in the Marketing department?

You've got over 10 years experience marketing in this industry, almost five at the current company, and you have been given progressively more responsibility, high profile projects, and control over a small team and budget. You like the company, love living in the area, and have cemented solid relationships in the local business community as well as been an active participant in a few industry associations, even serving as a conference speaker on a couple of occasions.  You have even let your Gen-Y staffers run with the whole 'social media' thing to support the company marketing efforts. It isn't for you personally, but you realize that times are changing, and empowering the right people to help navigate through these changes just seems to make sense.

All told, you have some really solid qualifications for the VP role, and if the company had one of those progressive HR constructs known as a 'succession plan', your name would almost certainly been in the 'Ready now' box for the VP of Marketing role. So as you sit down at your desk to have one last look at your resume before firing off an email to the CEO to forward your name for consideration for the VP position, you see a company-wide announcement drop in to your inbox.

It reads : Please welcome our new VP of Marketing - Bruce Pearl. 

You think - What? Bruce Pearl? The former University of Tennessee Men's Basketball Coach that was fired for lying to NCAA investigators during an investigation into the program's recruiting practices? A guy who has been a basketball coach for the last 25 years or so, and whose only knowledge and experience in the grocery business is that perhaps occasionally he shops in one?

That's our new VP of Marketing?

The bit about the Marketing Manager I just made up, but back in the 'real' world the aforementioned Bruce Pearl was indeed just hired by the wholesale grocery distribution firm H.T. Hackney as their new VP of Marketing.

Now I don't profess to know anything about H.T. Hackney, or the climate of the Knoxville area wholesale grocery distribution business, but taken simply at face value, the hiring of Pearl into a VP of Marketing role fresh off recent scandal, and perhaps more importantly, an entire professional career that had pretty much nothing to do with the grocery business or corporate marketing seems quite baffling. Sure, the company gets a short-term publicity pop, everyone in the area knows who Pearl is, and most probably never heard of H.T. Hackney before, but longer term, can or will a hire like Pearl cause more damage than good?

I wonder if there really is a H.T. Hackney Marketing manager that won't get his or her shot because of this move. Or maybe there is a slate of great marketing pros that are looking for their next career move that would have made a super hire for the position.

I guess time will tell, but I do think these kinds of stunt hires, particularly ones we see that are sport-related, don't seem to work out all that well.  

In Hackney's defense, this article from ESPN announcing the Pearl hire refers to a news release where Hackney officials refer to Pearl's 'marketing and economic background as a student at Boston College', as some justification and support for the hire.

In these tough economic times it's good to know that a solid education still carries weight in the job market. Even if, as in Pearl's degree, it was earned in 1982.

Have a great and long holiday weekend!

Mass Customization

Have you ever designed your own, personalized M&M's candies?

It's a pretty neat idea, choose the colors and combinations you like the best, have your own personalized message printed on the candy, have your creation shipped to your door.  Sure, it costs a bit more that simply heading over to the grocery store and buying 'standard' M&M's, but you end up with exactly what you want.  The end result, while sharing some essential commonality with all other M&M's candy, (they are not changing the recipe for you), has just enough personalization to be simultaneously distinctive and recognizable. The folks at M&M's are able to design for this ability to customize and personalize by carefully controlling just exactly what aspects of the product offering are personalizable, (color selections and messages), and what are not, (size and shape of the product, ingredients).

By offering this personalization service, M&M's can take some small steps towards making a commodity product into something more, and in so doing, forge closer connections with customers for which this ability to participate in the design of their M&M's is worth the price premium the company requires. At a transactional level, everyone wins.

Increasingly consumers appreciate, and in some markets and product segments, are coming to expect the ability to tailor and customize product offerings. A recent post on the Forrester Consumer Product Strategy blog argues that, 'Current and emerging digital technologies are turbo-charging mass customization, breathing new life into the product strategy', and that 'The time is now for product strategists in all industries to consider adding mass customization – including true build-to-order products – to their product portfolios.'

Forrester then offers a four-step framework that product designers and marketers should consider following in order to ensure that their personalization strategies are both meeting customer's needs, as well as being sustainable, supportable, and profitable for the organizations. You can read the Forrester piece for more details on the framework, but essentially it consists of:

1. Determining the context for personalization - what can and can't be defined or altered by the customer.
2. Creating a great user experience that allows customers to see and understand their options, and the consequences of selection from among their choices
3. Designing to solve a real need, not just the perception of a customer need
4. Remaining flexible to adapt to changing conditions, and to predict what customers will want for personalization options in the future

Whether or not Forrester is correct in predicting an increase in product personalization capability through more powerful web technology, and in their advice to organizations to consider pursuing personalization capability more broadly remains to be seen. But if they are right, or at least directionally correct, could there be implications more broadly for organizations, specifically in the design of work and in the value proposition employers make to employees and candidates.

Traditionally employers offer the 'job', the discrete unit of duties, responsibilities, etc. that they expect and require employees and candidates to meet and (mostly) fulfill. The components of the job tend not to vary too much over time, and are generally not particularly malleable or personalizable.  In recruiting, organizations tend to match the requirements of the job with the documented and demonstrated capability of the candidate, while considering whether or not the 'gaps' in experience or skills are significant enough to move on to the next candidate. Fail to have enough of the required traits, or even one of the most critical ones, and well, no match. Move on to the next candidate.

We tell candidates that we will keep their resume on file in case something more suited to their skills turns up, but in reality in the majority of circumstances that 'miss' represents their one and only chance. 

But what if the organization approached the recruiting and job design process more like our friends at M&M's, and if Forrester is correct, how more and more product marketers will address their markets? What if we could identify for a role, or really a role type, some essential and non-negotiable components or skills (size and shape of the candy), and then a more flexible and fluid set of variables (color, messages), that could be combined to create a more customized, personalized opportunity for the candidates? Might this be a step in addressing the 'skills gap' that might not actually solely a skills gap, but the results of a lack of institutional flexibility?

If a company could figure out a way to do this, they might get the benefit of discovering more committed and engaged candidates and employees (since they had some input into the design of the job), and also to lose less of their really talented candidates and employees because of really kind of slight and relatively unimportant mismatches between skills, interests, and job requirements.

Is it crazy to think organizations could be mature enough in their understanding of workforce capability needs to offer the ability for more personalization in the design of work?

Is it crazy that I can order twelve pounds of orange M&M's that say 'Steve is my hero?'