Dan Erwin

When Your Best Career Theory is Wrong. Dead Wrong!

As a research-based consultant, I’m used to getting my ideas tweaked by new research. After all, I think of myself as a fairly flexible, open guy, so a small adjustment to my theories and ideas is usually illuminating. But unknown to Harvard’s Rosabeth Kanter, she took a Shillelagh, a big club to one of my big ideas. Her blog, Why running a family doesn’t help you run a business, knocked me back on my heels. And I yelled a silent Aaargh!, knowing full well that she was quite correct and I was quite wrong. So there, I admitted it Prof Kanter.

Kanter lays out her case with panache, acknowledging the conventional wisdom first. Here’s her argument:

In theory, those years of family work at home could look great on a resume. Consider the skills required: setting priorities, training others, organizing complex logistics and schedules, and using interpersonal sensitivity to handle difficult people problems. Indeed, some advocates have argued that the time women with advanced degrees spend out of the workplace managing a family is valuable experience for managing back in the paid work world.

I agree it is valuable experience — if the paid job one returns to involves managing a handful of people who are vulnerable and can't leave. Otherwise, the operating skills for family manager are nothing like the qualifications for workplace professionals.

Her reasoning and...

Do Stingy Benefits Matter?

No question but what America's labor market really boomed in 2014. In fact there were 3 million more people in work than a year earlier. According to a recent study reported in The Economist, the ratio of job seekers to actual job openings fell "from a peak of seven to one in 2009 to two to one in November 2014." Why is this? Or, What caused this?

In a fascinating piece of research from the National Bureau of Economic Research, the failure of congress to reauthorize those benefit extensions that were introduced during the Great Recession evidently impacted the unemployed significantly. On the one hand 1.8 million jobs were created due to the....

Giving Employers What They Really Don’t Want

Sometimes what we think other people think is not what they think. Michael Barnes and Bob Sternberg studied the extent to which partners in an intimate relationship understood what each other wanted. What the study revealed was that people in intimate relationships don’t know very well what each other wants.

Research also reveals that same problem between colleges and businesses.

Here’s what educators think employers want:

Can You Really Tell When Your Boss Is Telling the Truth?

The short answer to that question is rarely. Yet bosses matter a lot because nearly all employees have them.  And most bosses also have bosses. There are at least 21 million bosses in the United States.  Bob Sutton points out that estimates run as high as 38 million bosses.  Far more often than not our success is tied to that relationship with our boss.  It's invitable In organizational structures that we sometimes wonder whether the information coming from our boss is really the truth.

Bosses can be deceptive for any number of reasons: they lack permission to share information, they don't think we need the information, they don't understand our need for information, or they're defensive.

As a result, most of us prefer face-to-face meetings when there's a lot at stake.  We like to think we can gauge the truthfulness or sincerity of our boss's words by the look in her eye and the tone of her voice.  

So, how good are you, really, at ascertaining when your boss is telling the truth?
Paul Ekman, the well-known expert at non-verbal assessment and lie-detection, has found ...

Five Ways to Screw Up a Job Change

Since people are beginning to make a job changes, have started looking for a different position, or are giving serious thought to moving to another company, now's the time to call your attention to a superb HBR article on "bungling" a job change.

The article, written by Boris Groysberg and Robin Abrahams, reminds us that the average baby boomer will switch jobs 10 times according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (Gen-Y, 12 to 15 times, or more). It also calls attention to the fact that the worker as free agent will be a reality regardless of economic conditions--all of which means it's incumbent upon us to take greater control of our own careers.  And since there are times when most of us have to accept a less-than-perfect fit for financial reasons, it's very important to remember ...

Still Another Corporate Stumble on IT Workers

Back in March last year, I wrote about the inadequate recruiting practices of many organizations. It's becoming clear that as often as not the problem isn't so much the reputed skills-gap, but the barriers that organizations create for themselves. 

In a front-page article, the Star Tribune's Adam Belz nailed it. Although the skills-gap exists within pockets of the American workforce, he wrote, corporate transitions have revealed that firms are slow to hire and manage the tech workers they need. Of course, many institutions are convinced, wrongly, that their approach can't possibly be wrong. It's no surprise that many consultants with relevant expertise are slow to speak to execs until the problem surfaces through corporate analysis or frustration. You learn after a while that many execs take their time about accepting expertise from the outside. Although I see less and less of the "not invented here" syndrome, it still exists in some corporations. Understanding how to recruit tech people is especially important when non-technology firms hired more than half of the 400,000 computer and math jobs created over the past five years. But, as my Minnesota friends would say, "there you go." 

Belz did his homework. In a survey of more than 122 firms with 559 openings, he found that though organizations are quick to pin the problem on the shortage of people, more often that's not the problem. Indeed, survey responses found that firms are sticking to overly-specific job descriptions, pay too little, might have bad reputations for a place to work in IT, or plainly, don't know how to recruit.

Consultants in the know indicate that firms have antiquated thinking. They buy a new system and then rigidly look for someone with the specific skills of the software rather than considering someone who could quickly learn the necessary expertise. Implication? Firms lack understanding of the developer or the marketplace.

Some firms, one consultant said, also lack a strategic approach to consulting and spend their time filling out task tickets. Not too wise. But significantly, developers have little interest working for firms lacking a strategic orientation.

Still another piece of the problem, as I alluded above, is that major job growth is not in traditional technology and computer related firms, but in health care, transportation and warehousing, public administration and education.

Belz spoke to a number of mid-sized, non-software firms that are experiencing significant job growth in technology. Firms that are more successful in their recruiting of IT people look for those who know how to figure out programming and are quick learners.

What's all this mean? If you're an IT person, you're going to look for a firm that offers development opportunities,  pays well and lacks rigid-specific recruiting expectations. Small and mid-sized firms better pay attention to the IT consulting headhunters. Many of them have their head screwed on right and can help companies recruit and train more effectively. 

Best Thinking: “You Can’t Make a Mistake Before You’re 30,” and. . . “Undermining One of Civilization’s Greatest Social Constructs”

Once in a while a column yanks my interest away from my normal agenda, causing my gray matter to work overtime, engaging me at the level of “god, I never thought about that before.”

That happened twice this week.

First, with the Washington Post’s Ruth Marcus reflections on graduation and her own experience. It was a grizzled reporter who commented to her shortly after college graduation that “she couldn’t possibly make a mistake before she was 30.”

 Although I questioned her advice from the piece, I recognized rather quickly that in the age of Tiger Moms and Helicopter Parents, the counsel was underemphasized.

Marcus relates a recent lunch with Stanford President John Hennessy where she asked him what worried him most about students. “Stress is an issue,” he said. “We have kids, most of whom have never seen a grade on their report card that had a rounded curve. . . . Everybody’s expectation is that they’re going to the moon.” Then they encounter chemistry of another challenge, and “they’re shellacked.”

Whether parent or recent grad, this is one you’ll want to devour.

Second, with the Slate blogger, Matt Malady (I guess that’s his real name and not a pseudonym) writing in the NYTimes Magzine “About the undermining of one of civilization’s greatest social constructs:” the simple line that we stand in at least once a day at the coffee shop or the store.

Sadly, Malady points out that all is not well in the world of lines. In fact, this form of social ordering seems to be going sideways.

The article reminded me of a friend of mine, a young med student, who migrated from New York City for UMN’s medical school. After the first week of school, while still boarding at our house, he commented with some frustration that he’d never seen such orderliness in New York, with people lining up for all kinds of service. “It’s German orderliness,” I said. “But you ain’t seen nothing, yet. Before I drop you off tomorrow morning I want to take you to the Pillsbury foyer.”

It was about 7:45am and the elevator lines snaked out of the Pillsbury foyer into the main area with about 75 to 100 people in each line for each of the dozen elevators. He was actually shaken. He told me that in New York, it would have been a madhouse, rather than the quiet line of folk, standing, reading their newspapers or even knitting, waiting for their turn at the elevator. So much for Manhattan!

Well, I’ve never thought about some of the issues of ethics and orderliness that Malady brought up in his article. And I fully suspect you’ll find them intriguing also.

Enjoy!

A New Take on the Job Interview

The quality of your questions is more important than your answers.

As the economy heats up, more professionals are interviewing for new jobs. Although a recruiting manager usually initiates the questioning, the smart candidate guides the interview with questions. The fact of the matter is that recruiters are suckers for good questions. And it’s not merely that you’re in the know about an organization or that you want better information to make your decision, but quality questions impress more than quality information. That fact will put the interview into a different category and give your candidacy a leg up on the job.

Obviously, you want to be prepared for the interview by knowing as much as possible about the firm, its managers and the position for which you’re interviewing. Early in the interview, however, most recruiting managers will lob softballs like, “How would you describe your management style?” and, “What was your biggest work challenge, and how did you handle it?” But if you pay close attention to these early questions and answer them quickly, AND if you’ve devoted time to developing the conversational tools, you can pivot to your own questions and orchestrate the interview graciously and warmly.

Why do questions by the candidate work so well? It’s because recruiters and managers love to be asked to display their knowledge base. But the psychological underpinnings of these situations grant the questioner a great deal of subtle, usually hidden power.

So where do you start the interview process and what are the more useful questions?

Keep values up front: You’ll want to work for a firm that will provide new learning, values critical thinking, emphasizes transparency, expects adaptability, and uses smart technology. And if you’re not astute about those values, in a few years you’ll be on the streets.

Voracious listening: Stay alert to what their questions and their answers say about the organizational culture, its values, priorities and ways of working. What’s their rhetoric--what kind of language do they use? Techie? Strategic? Relational? Customer-centric? Results oriented? All of the above? How extensive is the vocabulary? (My rule: the quality of the vocabulary and sentence nuance tell you how effective the firm and its managers are at problem solving. If they’re using 8 word sentences and averaging 7 letter words, there may not be much to learn from the organization.)

Examples: Whatever the answer to your questions, always ask for examples. Recruiting managers can bullshit with abstract ideas until the cows come home unless you ask for concrete examples.

Decision-making: How effective is the organization at analytical problem solving and decision making? How do decisions get made and by whom? How willing is the organization to manage differences and conflicts? How do they manage people and projects? What prospects for growth do you see in their answers to these questions?

How good is the firm at . . . Seeing around the corners, identifying competitive advantages that other similar firms miss, building and maintaining competitive advantages, managing crises, managing results, managing growth? And how good is their follow-through? If they lack good answers to these questions, the organization is not long for this world.

Company expertise: What are their core technologies? Sales? IT? Logistics? Marketing? Finance? Research and development? Manufacturing? Don’t believe that they can offer more than two core technologies. If the recruiter tells you they have more than that they’re bullshitting. Best example: 3M Corporation has only one core technology: adhesives. They know more about adhesives (R&D) than any ten other firms. They’re poor at marketing, so-so at sales, adequate at manufacturing, ordinary at finance, and the leader of the followers in technology. But boy, do they know adhesives and they make $$Billions on adhesive products. Strategy?  “Make a little, sell a little.” Or, Ralston Purina: Marketing is really their only core technology. And they own the dry pet food business all over the world. (There’s a lesson in all that!) It can be argued that the reason General Motors got lost in the last thirty years is that they had no highly valued core technology, while other auto firms had focused on developing a technology or two.

Recruiters’ commitment: Why do the interviewers like working at the firm? Why is this important to them? What two things does the company need to do better for its employees? This should give you further insights into whether or not you want to work for the firm.

The job position: Parameters, responsibilities, reporting relationships, freedom to define issues, objectives, etc. Opportunities for advancement? Career ladders are largely non-existent today. But your ability to see opportunity is your real career future.

Compensation: Don’t be in a hurry to talk about salary. The more you understand the job, are able to segment it and talk about it from several perspectives, emphasizing its complexity, the better salary you’ll be able to obtain. In addition, what benefits and, especially, what training will the company provide or fund? Last, what are the things of importance that you want in a position?

A dangerous question: I’d be cautious about the use of this question, but it’s one of my favorites: “How would I get in trouble in this firm?” If you get an honest answer, you’re liable to find it quite valuable. Ignore the obvious responses like theft, “politics,” or “game playing.” If the answer is trite, sit there and wait through the silent nerves until you get an intelligent answer. If nothing comes, that’s important information too. One thing it means is that you need to interview with someone else at the firm.

Certainly, there are more than an hour’s questions here. So, depending on the situation and your interests, pick and choose. However, when you listen voraciously and you hear the recruiting manager come up with some unique, outlying information, then you can use those well-developed conversational skills to find out a lot more useful data. And it’s liable to be very, very good stuff.

Photo by flickr.com: angusmci

It's Still Not What You Know, But Who You Know

“Even in a digital age, word of mouth is the best way to find a job,” says Businessweek's Chris Farrell in the June 18 issue. That's still true for recent grads. I’ve been thinking for some time that I was wrong-headedly beating a dead horse on the issue of face-to-face networking. Especially with the all-present digital networking buzz. Turns out, says the research, I wasn’t off the mark.

The online networks are trying to replicate the word-of-mouth, face-to-face networking. But with limited success. A large body of research reveals that 50% or more of all new jobs are gotten through informal channels such as family or friends. And that’s still true today. Indeed, even Charles Purdy, the senior editor at Monster Worldwide, reinforces the fact that “Hiring has always been based on reputation and who you know.” 

Social networking tools, says Chris Farrell, allow people to build up a network. Ummmm. Not quite. What Farrell and many others fail to emphasize is that the ultimate key to success is a high quality network. The potential for a high quality network built solely on the web is seriously limited. 

Really effective networks provide information about jobs, work, organizational culture and useful company contacts. McKinsey’s James Manyika says that for recent grads, a quality informational network is difficult to come by. And as Wharton’s Peter Capelli has emphasized, employers control everything about the process. “They define the job, they create the requirements for the job, then they decide how the word gets out to people, recruiting-wise. They set the rate of pay, which helps determine how the attractive the job is, and then they handle the selection part where they look at the applicants and sort them out.” That makes for very poor odds unless you’ve got an internal company contact or just happen to be the purple squirrel a company is looking for.

On top of all that, the recent study by Capelli emphasizes that the hiring software really sucks. And further, companies tend to be looking for someone who has the exact experience they’re looking for—the so-called purple squirrel. That’s a very unique person. This means that you’re going to have to figure out how to get around the hiring software. So the best advice is to see whether you can get to a real person where you can make the case about why you’re the employee they’re looking for. Of course, once again, you need that quality contact or two.

Who you know: the “quality contact”
One route to the quality contact is through internships. It’s new and even tough for students to be thinking about internships early in their college career, but using summers for those internships is one route to quality contacts. Strategic thinking about an internship is a must. If at all possible, it’s important to intern at medium and larger firms with people in the know. Make certain you do your best and get to know the knowledgeable folk.

The second route is often overlooked: temp jobs. Temporary grunt jobs at middle-sized or major corporations can help with your finances, but also provide contacts who can recommend you based on your observed performance. Temp firms also provide a great deal of free training, what other companies are less willing to do. More and more, people who’ve been out of work for a long period of time are finding that temp jobs can offer a lot more than a few bucks: training and contacts.

The third route to quality contact is through volunteer work with strategic non-profits. Non-profits are always looking for free helpers. Non-profits inevitably have a few people in the know in the work community. They’re good for contacts—if you’ve performed well for the firm.

My little network secret
Few seem to be aware that the best networked folk are non-profit fundraisers. If a fundraiser has been in the business for a few years, she or he knows everybody of substance. "They know somebody who knows somebody."  But you’ll probably need a good contact to get to that fundraiser. They’re going to be very cautious about recommending someone.

Networking rule number one
Networking is all about giving, not getting. So before you start making those contacts, figure out what you can bring to that person. That’ll require some creative thinking and the insights of experienced folk. But you’re not going to get very much help unless you’ve got something to give. Networks are like banks: You can’t withdraw unless you’ve made some deposits.

But keep this on the front lobe: It's not what you know, but who you know.

Flickr photo: malbordesign

The Skills Gap Is Bunk

You name the business pundit or educator. They’re all saying that the US labor market has a skills gap, a gap that has a heavy impact upon the unemployment rate. But how accurate, really, are those statistics. And more significantly, when you drill down into the jobs data what does it reveal?

The basics are scary. Four years after the start of the Great Recession, US business is making record profits. But we have a “jobless recovery” with unemployment stubbornly high. Two-thirds of manufacturing employers decry the lack of qualified applicants. Fast-growing companies say that finding really qualified candidates is a huge impediment to growth.

On the flip side, there are stories about employers who can’t find qualified applicants. Here’s one intriguing story from Peter Capelli: One of my favorites is a job ad for a cotton candy machine operator—if you’ve never seen cotton candy made, it is not rocket science—where the requirement for applicants was demonstrating prior success operating similar cotton candy machines. To test whether his company’s hiring standards were too high, a Philadelphia-area human resources executive applied anonymously for a job in his own company. “I didn’t make it through the screening process,” he notes.

I learned years ago that nobody, but nobody, understands the work marketplace from a macro/micro, employer/employee perspective better than Peter Capelli, Wharton’s GW Taylor Prof of Management and codirector of the National Center on the Educational Quality of the Workforce during both Bush and Clinton’s administrations. The statistics and the story above are from his brilliant, 100 page, readable analysis of what’s actually going on in the marketplace, Why Good People Can’t Get Jobs: The skills gap and what companies can do about it. If you’re in HR or a corporate exec, I recommend that you don’t let the sun set before you pick up your copy. You can read it in two hours.  Use your red pen, but be ready to find yourself more than a little unhappy with what he has to say about companies, execs and HR departments. Nobody comes out unscathed. Obviously, I’m going to have to revamp my thinking and some of my approach.  Aaargh!!

So why can’t good people get jobs? Among the conclusions which Capelli draws from his in-depth analysis of the data are the following:

• Higher productivity is a culprit. The simple math is that productivity was 6.7% higher at the beginning of 2012 than it was in 2008. Some of that is because companies work people harder—which has its limits. The new normal is partially impacted by higher productivity, which reduces employee need. And that's structural. 
• Population and workforce keep growing. US population is 4% (140,000 new people per month) higher now than in 2008. Fewer jobs and more people aren’t in sync.
• Employers are unwilling to pay the market wage. They shop around to see who’ll do the work for a lesser wage.
• Employers are defining job requirements in such a way that applicants have to have done the job previously before they can get hired. This is a distinct departure from the past, getting past the HR folk because of the downsizing of HR groups.
• Employers ask employees to move geographically to get a new job, but they won’t/can’t guarantee the job will last. Put yourself in the employee’s shoes. Who wants to relocate when the job may not last long, and up jobless in a community with no contacts?
• Hiring software sucks.  Really bad stuff. As Capelli’s anecdote above reveals, not a chance even in your own company.
• Employers now expect the feds, the states and the schools to do the training. In 1979, young workers on average received about 2.5 weeks of training with the company. By 2011, Accenture found that only 21% of employees had received any training whatsoever in the past five years. A huge proportion of training also used to be supplied by unions, but you know what business has done to the unions. 

So overall, employers can afford to be picky, applicants need to be overqualified, and employers focus on the skills associated with work experience, not education.

In sum, software driven hiring is a mess. And employers are unwilling to do the training that they once took for granted. It's a training gap, not a skills gap.

Capelli’s recommendations
This is too important a book for me to tell you everything Capelli has to say. Check the book list on the side of my blog to purchase it from Amazon.com. Capelli has built-in recommendations (very practical and feasible) for employers. And some very strategic recommendations for those in the job hunt.  

Capelli's little monograph grew out of a Wall Street Journal article where he ruffled more than a few feathers (441 comments, but thankfully, not all negative) by saying rather bluntly, “The real culprits are the employers themselves.”  So don’t pay too much attention to the business pundits or company representatives—about jobs or education.

Flickr photo: by Pat Rafferty