For the past 20 years our core clients have been crying about the lack of available talent, particularly for knowledge-based positions. Now, faced with the most impressive available talent pool in years, they are all tightening their belts, afraid to act, afraid to invest. Worse, they routinely quote the garbage that populates the various populist sites, such as Yahoo homepage, Marketwatch opinion pieces, etc., including all sorts of ridiculous ideas and rules of thumb that even naive children should recognize as complete and utter dross.
Newsflash: all other things equal, a salesperson with experience and contacts will sell more than one without. How about this one: getting laid off from a firm that goes under (presuming you are not directly responsible for the failure) does not in any way impact your credentials or skill set. Both of these were directly contradicted by recent Yahoo "news" articles allegedly written by, or resulting from interviews with, HR professionals. If true, those alleged HR professionals themselves should be reviewed and most likely discharged.
Talent is talent. There are two indications of talent - successful application thereof, i.e. relevent, successful experience, and the intrinsic skills that are necessary conditions for such success. Talent doesn't always generalize - in fact, it rarely does, so being able to sell retail goods is not the same as being able to sell industrial parts. Being able to sell yourself in a job interview is not the same as being able to sell industrial parts. That doesn't mean that there aren't instances where the skills are similar and performance can generalize, just that there is no reason to think it will necessarily be so. So if a high-performing electronics parts salesperson isn't an instant success at selling timeshares in a down economy, that doesn't disqualify them for an opening in electronic parts sales. Seems obvious, but the brain trust responsible for the "rules of thumb" articles don't seem to get that. 1) They think that being available for work is an intrinsic liability. 2) They seem to think that someone willing to take a chance on a new career direction is worth less than someone who wouldn't. 3) They seem to believe that anyone attempting to change industries is a poor candidate for all industries. Let's explore an example - "Jim", a top performer at "Monolithic Defense Sales" decides to join a startup with a couple of his peers selling "widgets", a new product invented by one of the partners, which is supposed to increase efficiency of heating systems in homes. They all have substantial savings because they were all talented managers at "MDS", and their contacts were strong enough that they weren't terribly worried about stepping back from entrepreneur land should their best laid plans fail. Alas, efficient heating units are not the super consumer draw they thought, and the business fails, but not until they have invested most of their savings and almost two years of their efforts into the company. They are now much worse off, and "Jim" is defaulting on his credit card debt, but now looking for a job back in the defense industry. Another news flash: Jim is a damn goldmine for the right company. He is talented, he is current enough with technologies for sales, he isn't afraid of a little risk, and he is hungry. He is more than willing to take a slightly lower base than he deserves, as long as the commissions will ultimately make up for it and he has the support and patience of management to establish a new book of business. Alas, he never gets the chance because the brain trust believes that he is "un-hireable" because he: a) has been looking for a job unsuccessfully for 6 months, b) failed to sell in his current position, c) took a job that was at best lateral, and likely downward, and d) (although they won't say it directly ) is too old. Better to hire a green idiot two years out of school according to the brain trust... cheaper, more current on technology, and more likely to succeed. Not a chance. Look - when economics turn in your favor you don't start questioning all the awesome opportunities that come your way - you thank your lucky stars and take advantage of each and every gift. Jim is a gift. He is a rare, wonderful gift who can rock your world. You may need to work a little harder on setting up incentive structures, be prepared to have a little push-back on areas where you are weak, and you are less likely to have a nodding lemming on your staff, but assuming creativity and experience count in your industry, he will outperform the newbies 9 out of 10 times. Yes, you may pay a bit more in total, but on a "per sales dollar generated" metric Jim is your salvation. Oh, and about that credit report thing - struggling to stay afloat, and seeking a job while doing so is not a negative towards employment. It shows confidence, more often than not. People who are talented are sure they will find employment, so they live a little riskier while they are "between". Sometimes that credit issue should be read as a positive.
"I never read resumes that are more than two pages". Then you are an idiot. Look - it might make sense to stop reading after the second page, but discarding the resume because someone is experienced is nuts! No, 20-year old experience in a completely different job may not be relevent, but it doesn't hurt. It doesn't make the current skillset less valuable. Are you hiring a resume writer, or is this position focused elsewhere? Yes, there are poorly written resumes that often portend poor communications skills. There are also wonderful resumes from wonderful candidates that are simply not trendy. Unless you are paying top dollar you will not hire perfect people. It's OK to take a few flaws in amongst the strengths, and if the main flaw you have found is that the guy is proud of his past, and puts his entire history on display for you, don't toss it - ignore it if you must, but for Pete's sake, take a look. Had the green newbie listed the entirety of his career (which he might have, despite the brevity), it would doubtlessly include a recent stint at a burger joint, some babysitting, and work-study tutoring. Compared to Jim's useless clerical job in the marketing department, give the edge to Jim. Knowing how things work in the real world trumps burping skills every time.
About those HR "experts" - take a minute to read between the lines. More often than not the articles are focused on circumventing the law and justifying unethical acts. Age discrimination is illegal, but note that if you follow their advice and ask the questions "just so" you can sneak out information that would enable you to make illegal hiring decisions without fear of repercussions. Good HR people don't toss out good talent, and don't focus their efforts on unethical acts. Instead, they focus on motivation, on clarity of communication, on setting appropriate expectations, and most importantly, on helping firms optmize their workforces to get the most performance, which generally correlates with the most satisfied staff. The last person you want advice from is the one advocating illegal or unethical acts, no matter how justified.
You should have hired Jim. One of your competitors just did. Jim has already had more sales meetings and follow-ups with new clients than the entire department did in the previous six months. Some of the support staff are a little annoyed that Jim is pushy and wants everything so fast. There are even grumbles amongst the other sales people that Jim is making them look bad. Most of them will continue grumbling, but a few will probably find some stones and get to work. Hiring Jim put a fire under the newbies who should never have been hired in the first place. It also woke up the older guys who now remember that they were Jim themselves once upon a time. Hire Jims. Stop reading "Ten things HR people advocate" articles. Or else you might want to start paring down your resume - two pages, that's the max.
No comments:
Post a Comment