Dan Erwin

Getting Newcomers Up to Speed Quickly

As the economy begins to loosen up, more and more companies are looking for new hires. And more employees are looking to leave that old job and find a better company for their future. On average, Americans will change jobs 10 times between the ages of 18 and 37. Furthermore, with the constant state of internal restructuring, managers are being continually pushed to assimilate waves of employees. 

The key question for new employees as well as for their new company is how to transform a new hire into a productive employee. 

In a cool piece of research, Rob Cross, Salvatore Parise and Keith Rollag studied that important question. The challenges are tough. From jump-starting productivity and tapping into the new hire’s creativity to keeping them long enough to justify their training. Of course, it’s the first few months that are especially critical for new hire since the probability of quitting reaches a peak at around 18 months.   

To figure out how to overcome those challenges, Cross and his colleagues interviewed both the newcomers and their managers at a number of companies. But they didn’t stop with the usual interview approach. Instead, using social network analysis, they explored the patterns of collaboration and information flow between the newcomers and managers. 

Initial training typically focuses on the organizational culture and the person’s job. This provides the newcomer with a smorgasbord of information about company routines and technologies. However, if you’ve been through that route very often, inevitably you’ve found yourself needing far more and spending a great deal of time trying to find that information. Research outside this study has found that many, if not most newcomers stop with the info about company routines and technologies, either incapable of or unaware of the importance of the network to their success. In short, they know what they want, but aren’t certain how to get that information. 

Cross and his colleagues' research is especially seminal in that it takes a far more holistic approach to assimilation and deals with all the issues. Instead, their research finds that the single most important step for getting a person up to speed quickly is relational. 

But, changing from an informational approach about the job and the company culture to a relational approach is not a simple matter. Instead of asking themselves, “What does my new hire need to know?” they have to ask, “Who does my newcomer need to know?” This will then help them focus on generating a strategic list of key experts and information providers with whom the newcomer needs to meet. From this they can then structure the necessary interactions into the new hire’s assimilation process. 

What’s fascinating about the process is that although it requires a different kind of mental and action effort, it doesn’t require any more time than the old informational approach. Of course, if newcomers can be introduced to a set of coworker relationships, they’ll have far less need to approach their own bosses for information. 

But what if your company doesn’t provide this for you? My clients and colleagues have found it especially useful to ask the relational question themselves and gain the assistance of bosses and others in building their relationship.  It’s as simple as “who do I need to know for my job success?” and “will you introduce them to me?” 

Photo by Flickr: jannetajeda

Why Job Search is Like Throwing Darts at a Target with Your Eyes Closed

Job seekers submit hundreds of applications online, but with little hope of receiving a response. The flip side of that, as a Wharton survey shows, is that blunt-edged tracking systems instantly weed out candidates, including well-qualified ones who don’t fit the software criteria. The process is frustrating for both human resources and the job seeker.

A “broken” process from the very beginning
Applicant-tracking software makes it almost impossible for a job candidate to stand out in the initial screening. And companies have become a victim of their success in using social media tools. For the candidate, problems with the hiring process are not new, dating from the 1970s and 1980s. Three-fourths of companies didn’t inform applicants whether a position was filled 40 years ago and still don’t today. Sure, there are strong legal limitations on what companies can say about why a person doesn’t get a job. But, as Gerry Crispin of CareerXroads says, if large companies continue to treat applicants poorly, then the best might spurn them as well.

Hiring always involves a bit of luck, even for the best companies
A recent Wall Street Journal article revealed that 7.6 million people applied to Starbucks for 65,000 corporate and retail positions last year. And nearly 1 million people applied to P & G for 2,000 positions, while 2 million applied to Google for 7,000 openings. Drill down into that candidate list and you see what big companies face: only 35% of the applicants met the basic requirements of the job they applied for. 

The other worrisome difficulty for firms is that the “formulaic hiring” of software can result in a less creative workforce. Companies relying solely on the “blunt tools” of software can unintentionally rule out candidates whose expertise might benefit the company in unanticipated ways. Companies using software that focuses too narrowly typically assume that college major provides a direct line to analyze the most useful expertise. It’s conventional, but wrongheaded. Anyone who’s studied research creativity and significant contribution knows that much of the finest contributions are at the nexus of science and the humanities. To flip the conventional gray matter switches, some of the most contributive scientists also read Proust. And, shock, some of the more effective pattern thinkers in technology, for example, are musicians and English majors. Does the software pick up on this? 

Best approaches for companies
Smart employers are beginning to make their application very, very narrow. And lengthy. And seriously differentiated from competition. That discourages the thousands of folk who ship off dozens of applications. As Wharton’s Matthew Bidwell says, “The more questions an applicant has to think carefully about, the fewer applications he or she will have time to fill out.” It’s always important for employers to pull back from the mass market and focus on canvassing “internal employees, professional networks, job contracts where you work with third parties and even customers” to find the best recruiting leads and good candidates.

Best approaches for candidates
So what’s the job-seeker to do? A lot more than scanning online sites and hitting the “submit resume” button.  Since most companies have a recruiter and a hiring manager, your application had better be compelling to the recruiter-screener. If you can’t connect with the recruiter, you certainly won’t get to talk to the hiring manger.

The experts are advising candidates to make sure their resume addresses the “skills, capabilities and values” of the company. Pay close attention to the keywords of the offering and use them. Furthermore, try to find a connection within the company. Applicants for particular jobs should see if they know anyone who works there, anyone who knows anyone who works there, or even anyone who knows anyone who knows anyone who works there. A lot of jobs come out of extended networks. Take advantage of the network of the networks. That means, inevitably, that you’ll be talking to a lot of people you’ve never met. But, if you want a job . . . that’s the drill.  

Photo by Flickr: Army Strong PA

Michael Gerson: A Conservative Who Really Gets It

As an independent with a slight tilt to the left (translation: social and fiscal moderate), I've begun to really appreciate the thinking of Michael Gerson, Bush's speechwriter. What I most appreciate is that he's realistic. Not ideological. Not living in a filter bubble. 

Take Gerson's Post column this week as an example. Here, he evaluates the potential populist candidates of the Republican variety, and initially focuses on Huckabee, the Republican populist: 

Compared to his GOP rivals four years ago, Huckabee sounded like William Jennings Bryan — a comparison that would probably offend Huckabee less than it would most Republicans. He complained about overpaid chief executives and talked sympathetically of “people at the lower ends of the economic scale.” His own up-from-poverty struggle lent credibility to his message.

Free-market purists went hard after Huckabee’s record as Arkansas governor — his tax increases, his statewide smoking ban, his 21 percent increase in the state minimum wage. Conservative activist Richard Viguerie tagged him a “Christian socialist.” 

But Huckabee gave at least as good as he got. His dismissed the libertarian Club for Growth, which ran ads against him, as the “club for greed.” After an attack by Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform, Huckabee responded, “Grover’s never been in government, doesn’t have to balance a state budget. . . . Grover’s never been in a situation where he couldn’t borrow money so he didn’t have to raise taxes or tell old people he’s just going to take them out of the nursing home and drop them on the curb.”

Harsh language from one Republican to another. The article makes the point that economic populism and economic mobility are going to depend on the quality of education we can provide, market-based health reforms and business strategy. 

Along the same line, like Huckabee and Gerson, I respond thumbs down to Norquist and his ilk who are more interested in greed and the destruction of the lower ends of society. Societal intelligence seems anathema, perhaps completely lacking in the gray matter of some ideologues.

Because of my experience as an executive coach, I tend to almost unconsciously filter information from the standpoint of the worker's status and ability. I can't read a human resource blog without asking the question of whether a recommendation is realistic or not. Realistic in the sense that ordinary people or even executives have the skills to carry off a set of behaviors. It has nothing to do with capacity, but whether people actually have developed the skills necessary to achieve needed objectives.

A couple weeks ago I had to go to Social Security to gain power of attorney over my wife's affairs as a result of her Alzheimer's. I assumed that I'd need legal documents, a physician's statement and a number of other issues. Because of my experience and education, I anticipated the drill. The agent informed me up front that it usually took 20 to 30 minutes for her to complete the process with a client. We wrapped it up in 12 minutes (I timed it). When we finished I asked the agent why it would take so long. Her response was telling. Typically, she said, people can't predict the information we'll need, don't know how to check out what they should bring, haven't talked to an agent on the phone prior to coming, and will need more time to read the material before they sign off. The average client will need at least 30 minutes to go through the process, and then they'll end up coming back three or four times to bring all the material we need to complete the transaction. It isn't that our process is difficult, it's just that the 8 to 10 steps get easily lost, forgotten or misunderstood by most people. (I immediately thought of the difficulties of the lower end of the economic scale.)

So, I said to the agent, when politicans suggest that people can take care of their own medical and retirement needs and make the financial decisions without the support of government, it'll be a tough task for most? "For just about all," she said. "I don't know what planet some politicians live on. But I wish they'd sit in my seat for a few hours and then they'd get more realistic about their proposals." Sorry Norquist, but you're out of touch and way too self-centered. The issue is really not about lowering taxes, but about whether people have the requisite skills and the necessary income to manage life without any help. Of course, that implies a philosophical stance supportive of the community at large, rather than what's best for me and big business. Hey reader, don't misunderstand. I am a capitalist, but some of the time I try to be a responsible capitalist.

Gerson gets it. He understands that you don't toss people out of the nursing home, that a huge majority of people don't make the income to provide for their basic needs, that education and skills are at a premium, and that responsibility goes beyond me, myself and I. And thus, in some form, we have a responsibility to people at the lower end of the economic scale. 

Do You Have a Magical Network?

Rob Cross often reminds us that it's not what we know, but whom we know.  The fact is that those of us with top-drawer networks are dealing with a lot of magic.  As Cross writes in an HBR Blog, there's a great deal of difference in networks. 

Work since the 1970s shows that people who maintain certain kinds of networks do better: They are promoted more rapidly than their peers, make more money, are more likely to find a job if they lose their own, and are more likely to be considered high performers.

The secret, or the magic of networks has never been about size.  Indeed, building mammoth Rolodexes or Facebook accounts can be harmful to your health and your performance. 

The people who do best tend to have ties with those people who are not connected to each other.  If you've got a network like that, you're more likely to hear about unique ideas--ideas that don't echo around in others' networks.  Those are the ideas that will enable you to piece together really fruitful opportunities.  I detailed this stuff in a blog on social networking back in 2008, but thankfully Rob Cross is pushing the same buttons again.  

In his recent post, Cross and colleagues studied networks and innovation in social media.  Just like face-to-face networking, they found that innovativeness has nothing to do with the number of bookmarks accessed or even the number of people collected from social media.  Instead, the more innovative employees had what Cross labels as bridging ties--ties that connected them to other employees who were themselves not connected.     

So we want to focus our electronic links not on people we have known forever, or on those who are all spending time in the same interactions.  Bigger is not better.

The magic of new ideas will come from connections into different networks.

Choose Your Relationships Carefully

Three years ago, Jan Fawcett (a fictitious name) graduated from college and started out as a marketing analyst at a major consumer products company.  A year into her job she began to feel cornered.  Her boss paid little attention to the less-experienced employees and spent most of his time with his cronies in other groups.  Frustrated by the lack of feedback, Jan's career looked like a dead-end. 

None of her current friends or acquaintances within the organization was able to give her much in the way of constructive help.  But six months earlier she had met a quality control manager, Josie Stafford, at an organizational party.  They had really hit it off.  Both were avid outdoors people, loved the theater and liked Japanese food.  "Funny how we connected," Jan thought to herself. 

Even though she didn't know Josie very well, she finally screwed up her courage and decided to talk with Josie about her boss and her career frustrations.  Josie was familiar with her boss and his reputation, and told her in no uncertain terms that he was an asshole who wouldn't take care of his people, much less help them in her career.  Jan had several conversations with Josie about how to work with a really difficult person, how to take care of herself, and how to build a useful network within the organization. 

Well into her second year on the job, Jan located two other groups where she decided there might be career opportunities for her in the future.  She knew her boss would be no help whatsover.  Deciding to trust Josie with her problem, she set up another lunch date.  Josie was receptive to her request for help.  Over several conversations, Jan talked about differing career opportunities and especially about her interest in those two marketing groups.  Josie set up lunch with members from both groups, coached her on the conversation, warned her not to be negative about her current boss or job and helped her develop questions for interviewing and set up conferences with managers from both groups.

Initially, neither group was looking for an anlyst with her background, but within six months a couple slots came open.  Josie spent time with Jan on her resume, provided insights on the managers and how they worked.  Although Jan was eventually interviewed for both positions, the first opportunity went to another person within the firm.  But to her delight, she did well on the second interview and got the position.  It proved to be a fine job and put her career back on track.

Networking with friends and acquaintances can save time and even increase gains when we're working on joint projects.  But researchers have found that people are far more likely to reap real gains with "outside" networks than with networks made up largely of friends and acquaintances.

So, College Grad, Do You Really Think You're Going to Get a Job From Social Networking? Guess Again.

I've set my title question up for the obvious answer.  NO!  I was not surprised to see research supporting that conclusion.  An MSNBC blogger, Eve Tahmincioglu, says that CareerXroads, a staffing and recruiting company, found that less than 1% of external hires--including positions filled by people who are not in-house--could be attributed to social media sites such as LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter.  (Ummm. I post on Twitter and Facebook, and have a largely ignored my site on LinkedIn.)

Sandi Guy, parner and national director of human capital at BDO, the major accounting firm, says they use social media merely as supplementary to their recruiting processes. She recommends the following: 

• Go directly to company websites to get information about firms and apply for jobs.
• Post your resume on job boards.
• Take advantage of campus recruiting efforts.
• Join associations and go to events.
• Have a page on social networking sites such as LinkedIn.

But, she says, if you have to cut one out of that list, the social media piece would be the least important.

Still, if your interest is in organizations that rely heavily on social media such as marketing, public relations or the media, some suggest you should have a portfolio online.  One writer says that if you're looking for an IT or marketing job, involvement in social media or blogging is a definite plus.  Maybe, but no research supporting that notion either.  I wouldn't ignore social media sites, but I'd not get caught up in the media hype or even the personal branding hype.  When it comes to branding as part of your job search credential, remember that it's the customer who creates your brand, not you.  You may want to check out my non-conventional blog on that subject here: Second thoughts on personal branding.

Why do you think the return from social networking is so limited?  Here's my take.  First of all, nothing beats the face-to-face network.  Admittedly, most graduate from college without having developed a quality network and that's your real disadvantage.  Networking studies show that the best jobs nearly always come from network relationships (face-to-face).  Think about it, if you have something of importance and want something from someone, you're not going to get it from a letter or email.  At least the possibility of that kind of success is seriously limited.  It's like direct mail on phone or web.  I hang up or delete immediately.  Pathetic return on investment. 

As a consultant, for example, I rarely use the email for more than 3 sentences.  Social media, in my mind, is little more than interactive email.  If something is important, I won't even use the phone.  I always set up a face-to-face appointment.  And if necessary, I'll get on the plane to see the person.  It tells the other person that he/she is very important.  It's also the only way we have for gaining real commitment, feedback, insight or collaboration.  I want to be able to recognize those non-verbals so I can get a sense of what's really happening, and respond intelligently to make my case.  In any setting other than face-to-face, the other guy has nearly complete control and I can't really engage.  Electronic media and phone make it possible for the other guy to filter everything out.  It's like the very expensive public relations and advertising materials from 25 years go.  It's really just a waste of money and time.  I get all my business by word of mouth and reputation.  And that's the best way to get a job.

Here's the original post on MSNBC.com.  Social networking seldom gets new grads hired.  

A New Understanding of Reality for Paul Krugman

Having lived and worked in three very different worlds, and having grown up in Kentucky, Michigan and Minnesota, I'd have to be terribly naive not to understand that cultures differ in values, style, priorities and relationships.  Getting things done in a small setting can be difficult though possible.  But getting things done with two parties, a boat load of left and right extremists, and a few moderates, is very, very difficult.

So it was both amusing and intriguing to read what Paul Krugman, the Nobel prizewinning economist had to say after nearly a full year of Obama's presidency:

Now that we have people whose goals I share in power, I've seen what it actually takes to make policy change happen.  It's pretty revelatory.  It's one thing to do opinion pieces about the way things ought to be; it's another thing to think about, O.K., given the makeup of the U.S. Senate, given the difficulties of getting people on board and of communicating stuff to the public what can you actually do?

What can a president do?  He has to take what he can get!

Quotation of the Week: Ursula Burns of Xerox

The accolades that I get for doing absolutely nothing are amazing--I've been named to every list, literally, since I became the C.E.O.

--Ursula Burns, new CEO of Xerox.  First African-American named to a major American corporation, and the first time a woman succeeded another woman in the top job at a company of this size.

I argued about the strength and dominating power of self-deprecation in a post about Meryl Streep, earlier this month. 

A second thing that needs to be asserted about Ms. Burns is that she has had the good fortune to have been mentored all along her pathway.  It's rather clear that those who succeed at the highest levels have a long history of great mentors.  In today's world, your network is your mentor.  However, the dirty little secret about networks is that few people have really useful networks. 

Again and again, clients at major companies around the nation have asked for help in developing useful networks.  The operative term is "useful."  That would include people whose cooperation and compliance you'll need, as well as those whose opposition you would need to be able to manage.  That's an operational network, but you'll also need a strategic network that will include peers and execs who can help you see the big picture at your company and make outside contacts.  Finally, you'll need a personal network of those contacts that allow you to continue to develop professionally and to remain on the cutting edge of your profession.  These are the networks people often use when they want to make a career move. I detail the "useful network" in my post on who should be in my work network.

How Were Jobs Found Over the Past Twelve Months?

Who was successful in their job hunt?  The research, reported in the Wall Street Journal, reveals that in 2009, 51% of all full-time positions were filled with existing employees.  The study by CareerXroads, a staffing-strategy consulting firm, included 41 companies that employ 1.8 million U.S. workers. 

External recruits (49%) found most jobs through referrals (27%).  Another 22% came through company website, while 13% of the external hires came through job boards. 

Mark Mehler of CareerXroads said that the data meant that networking remains the most effective strategy for new jobs.  “Job seekers should use job boards and corporate sites to find information about openings, but they should use their network to apply.”

More On Networking

Twitter versus real networking

Job Search: Clearing the human resource hurdles

Three steps for fleeing a dying industry

Why Is Defense Secretary Gates So Successful? And What Can You Learn From That?

Robert Gates has been startlingly successful as Defense Secretary, yet the odds were that Republican Gates would not be successful in a Democratic cabinet.  Why has he been so successful?  What unique, transferable skills does he have that anyone can develop and use?

Gates is an unusual professional in many ways.  He has been advising Presidents for 35 years: Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush One, Bush Two and now Obama.  Significantly, he is the only member of Bush’s cabinet to be asked to stay on in the Obama cabinet. 

 
I’ve encountered many analyses of his expertise, leading me to suspect that he’s a masterful professional.  An extensive article in Time magazine recently detailed Gates’ professionalism and expertise in laser focus.  (A free Time download for future reference is available here.)

Throughout this blog, I hope you’ll be asking what you need to learn from his expertise.

To set the context, as Time and many other articles point out, Gates may well be the single most influential person in Obama’s cabinet.  It was widely believed that Gates would have little influence in a cabinet populated by “lefties.”  That has not been the case at all.  Begin with the fact that unlike Rumsfeld (and Colin Powell), Gates has created a collaborative and supportive, rather than a competitive, relationship with the State Department.  He also maintains a close relationship with Hilary Clinton.  

Managing the Boss

Time quotes an aide who puts it this way:  Gates has always had a keen sense about who is the boss, ‘how they work, what their needs are and how to successfully contribute to their offices.’

That’s a classic statement about one side of managing your boss.  Kotter and Gabarro, who did the research and wrote the classic paper on managing your boss, underline Gates’ activities. They found that it’s important to focus on five issues: compatible work styles, mutual expectations, information flow, dependability and honesty, and good use of your boss’s time.

Gates has inherent similarities to Obama that were not shared with Bush:  cerebral, analytical and reflective.  Their fundamental policy agreement is that they both see terrorism as a long-term challenge.

Gaining resources and commitments

When Gates was invited to converse with Obama regarding the opportunity to stay on as Defense Secretary, he asked the President one question: “Can you trust me?”

When you manage up well, you’re able to get the resources you need to carry out your own job.  As a result, Gates has gotten the support and resources to shift spending from theoretical, conventional wars to the one the military is actually fighting now.  In addition, he helped execute a surge in Afghanistan.  “That’s pretty remarkable,” says a senior defense official.

Far too many employees and managers fail to be able to gain the resources as well as the support of their bosses and as a result also fail to meet their personal and organizational objectives.  This lack of attention given to their bosses and the organizational system keeps them from the opportunities and promotions they desire. 

The Kotter and Gabarro research emphasizes the need to be thorough in managing your boss.  That, they point out, means that bosses are available to link them to the rest of the organization, to help them set priorities and secure the resources they need.  

Managing your boss is not manipulation.  It’s forging ties based on mutual respect and understanding.

Mastering the organizational culture

“I have never seen anyone more effectively maneuver in the Executive Branch of the Federal Government than Bob Gates,” says David Boren who was the former head of the Senate’s select intelligence committee.  “He is extremely good at forming alliances with other people in the government to advance his point of view.”

Everyone believes in alliances and networks, yet few take the time to build them.  On numerous occasions, executives have asked me to help them with the skills for building a power coalition.  Translated, this is merely a network of well-placed contacts with whom you have built relationships of mutual understanding and mutual respect.

The research is exceptionally pointed about mastering the organizational culture through alliances and networks.  The world today is a network society.  My consulting over the years has shown repeatedly that individuals and organizations struggle to learn how to succeed in the network society.  Those who succeed in network and alliance building get better information, ideas, leads, business opportunities, faster promotions and make more money.

What that will mean at any level in the organization, or even as an entrepreneur, is that you need to set aside a significant amount of time building relationships so that as needs arise, you too can work the system to assist others and achieve your own career objectives. 

What that continues to mean is that all of us benefit by enabling our boss so that he/she can enable us, and then taking those same skills to build networks and alliances throughout the organization.  If you’re at entry level, it takes six months to begin to see it’s impact.  But in our flat world, the business person who wants to succeed will make these three competencies front and central.

What do you think?  Why is Defense Secretary Gates so successful?  And what can you learn from that?