My dear, dear punker Laurie Ruettimann (who I love) recently had a post and thread on servant leadership over at Punk Rock HR in which she, and many others, portrayed it as a weak, soft and touchy-feely sort leadership that really wasn't wanted or needed in businesses that need to get results, drive revenue or be successful.  She says:

Here’s my message to anyone who calls himself a servant leader.

• You want to demonstrate empathy, bring out the best in people, and facilitate personal growth? Go home and spend some time with your kids.

I don’t need that kind of emotional baggage at work, yo.

The detractors of servant leadership preferred someone who only cared about results and didn't try to "serve" them in any way shape or form.  Too "nanny state"!  Servant leaders nurture bad employees and keep them around too long others said.  Oh, read the comments on that thread and you will see it all.   

The word SERVE and SERVANT are automatically associated with indecisiveness, weakness, subordinate and a bunch of other terms.  When the term SERVANT, and by extension the auto-associated terms, are combined with a power word like LEADER or LEADERSHIP it seems to be a paradox and people's brains malfunction trying to make sense of it.  Instead they just "got to guns" and start hammering away at what some might call the "softer" aspects of servant leadership while ignoring the essence of strength imbedded in the execution of servant leadership.  True servant leaders are, in fact and by definition, strong, decisive and results oriented.  At heart, the individual is a servant first, making the conscious decision to lead in order to better serve others, not to increase their own power.

The idea of servant leadership is not new. Sadly, so few leaders actually have the courage to lead in this way. The leadership model of today's business is wrong. In fact, it has always been wrong.  The prevailing top down leadership model is a very old concept borrowed from centuries of war, military hierarchy, dictatorships and monarchies. In most company's it looks like the chart on the right. 

Look who's on the bottom?  Customers!

In this traditional model the only logical conclusion to draw is that customers are the enemy.  With this model you could argue that many companies are at war with their customers.

In close second to the customer (enemy) are employee's. Guess who tends to spend the most time closest to the customer? If the customer is the enemy in this model then the employees are in the trenches. They are the front line infantry. In this traditional model everyone is focused on, indeed looking up at, the boss and away from the customer. Ask most employee's who they are trying to please and the answer often comes back loud and clear - the boss.  It should be the customer. 

While everyone is focusing on making the boss happy, who is focusing on the customer?  Your competitors are, that's who.

Likewise, in this traditional model, the majority of leaders are looking up to their superior and away from the employee.  Kissing arse, smoozing and jumping over their peers to get recognition from their boss while those that are doing the work on their teams suffer.  While front line, mid-level and senior managers are focused on making the next up happy, often at the expense of the employee.

Who is focusing on the highest performing employees? Headhunters (third party recruiters), that's who.

If you want different results you have to do things differently. That said, let's flip this antiquated model on its head. Now we put the customer at the top. This makes the employee's ultimate goal to serve the customer. In this new model, employees must stop looking up at, and trying to figure out how to please, their boss and get focused on pleasing the customer. Then the front line supervisors have to turn employee's into customers and meet their needs and so on down through the model.  It's the thinking and approach that have to change not just the organizational chart but flipping the chart and publishing it this way changes the approach of everyone and visually helps them to know who they are serving.  It would look like the chart on the left.

The role of the leader is not to rule and lord it over the next layer down. Rather, the role of the leader is to serve, support, develop, prepare, coach and sacrifice for the team.  Then know to get out of the way once that is done and let them do their job.

Act as an advisor when required and act as a manager when necessary. 

In this model, visually and literally, the most weight and responsibility for the success of the organization is on the leadership.  Notice how top heavy it is for the CEO.  He owns the role of serving and getting results from everyone.  No one bears a bigger burden or must be stronger.  What was that about servant leaders being weak?

The role of any leader is to make sure their team's needs are being met so they can produce greater results.  (Reference Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs)  So why use the term servant?   I know that servant leadership is often associated with Christianity and Jesus Christ (who I believe to be the ultimate servant leader) and so some want to drop it from use even if they agree with it in practice.  "Call it something else" they say.  Well, sorry!  using the word servant servant is an ego buster and puts the leader the proper frame of mind to truly execute well. It humbles the leader by definition and sets the tone for how to lead.

Top down leadership is antiquated and needs to go. As we emerge from economic turmoil in this country (we are emerging right?), talent within organizations will crawl out from their hibernation and beging to look around after a long winter of dicontent.  When they do, part of how they will evaluate their readiness and willingness to make a change will depend in large part on their leader. People quit and leave leaders and managers not companies (or at least rarely). 

Robert Greenleaf is recognized as the father of servant leadership. He was the first person that defined the term “servant-leader” and he wrote about its implications for individuals, organizations, and societies. Greenleaf described servant leadership in this way:

It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead…The difference manifest itself in the care taken by the servant-first to make sure that other people’s highest priority needs are being served. The best test, and difficult to administer, is: do those served grow as persons, do they grow while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants?

As we face economic challenges of monumental proportions, identifying and retaining top talent is the single most critical strategic initiative in corporate America. Retaining top talent pretty much lives or dies with the strength of leadership. The traditional top down leadership model, ruling over and lording over employees and customers, has always been wrong and does not resonate with Millenials and Gen Y. Why do you think survey after survey of these two vital labor pools tells us they don't want to work in corporate America?  In part its the lack of autonomy and strong leadership. As we will see, creating autonomy for the team is mission critical for a servant leader. How much longer will corporate leadership continue to subscribe to an ineffective and counterproductive leadership model?

Unlike leadership approaches with a top-down style, Servant Leadership instead emphasizes collaboration (which does not mean decision stagnation - the leader must be decisive), trust, empathy, and the ethical use of power. What employee doesn't want those character and leadership traits in their leader?  At heart, the individual is a servant first, making the conscious decision to lead in order to better serve others, not to increase their own power. The objective is to enhance the growth of individuals in the organization and increase teamwork and personal involvement.

This is why the leadership teachings and model at the United States Military Academy at West Point work.  A new Cadet starts in Cadet Basic Training (affectionately known as Beast Barracks) and first learn to serve.  During four years at the academy (5 if you are General Patton) a cadet will advance through various levels and aspects of serving and following until prepared and ready to lead.  That experience as servant and follower provides keen and valuable insight into the heart and mind of the volunteer soldier which is one of many reasons why leaders with West Point backgrounds are so highly sought after, often more succesful, more well respected and more liked in corporate America.  Oh, and for those of you who think servant leaders can't be decisive tell that to the next West Point graduate you meet.  I am sure you will be in for an interesting discussion.

Want a little more proof that servant leadership is not weak?  Though I am not a fan, Donald Trump has a reputation for being fearless, aggressive, decisive and results focused as a leader.  Though I have not worked for him I would not describe him as a servant leader.  Mr. Trump did choose Kelly Perdew as the winner of The Apprentice 2 in 2004.  Kelly is a 1989 graduate of West Point.  He was a Firstie (Senior) when I was a Plebe (Freshman).  I don't think Mr. Trump would choose a soft, weak, indecisive, bad employee nurturer to win his show and run a portion of his business. 

Alan Whitford (@alanwhitfordfor the Twitterati) of Recruiting Community Europe became my new best friend when he talked about hanging out in "talent puddles" or the shallow end of the talent pool.

Talent Puddles - I love it!

I have always advocated hanging out in pools of talent rather than just with pools of candidates but Alan upped the ante here by talking about the idea of talent puddles.  When you think about it, it makes perfect sense and I want to expound on the concept.  Puddles are much more shallow and scarce than pools so there is less room to hang out.  Not everyone can get into the puddle. Getting in takes effort because there is competition to get there.  Talented high performers are rare.  They are the top 20% of their field and will be more easily found if you look in the talent puddle not the talent pool.  They will stand out amongst the throngs of suspects, prospects and candidates recruiters run into every day because the are in the puddle or at the part of the pool where the water is shallow. 

Embedded into the recruiter training programs we offer at Bearing Fruit Consulting is the idea that recruiters don't have an infinite amount of time so they must plan and execute their day around recruiting activity that generates a recruiting outcome.  A concept we term being RAD or Recruiting Activity Development oriented.  We actually teach recruiters how to build and execute their workday to maximize results based on business goals.  Inherent to executing this well is the idea that you can't have relationships with everyone and getting referrals from anyone but the highest performers can be a mistake. 

Here are three reasons why hanging out in puddles is better than pools.

Winners hang out with winners and losers hang out with losers. 

This epiphany came to me a while back when I was the Director of Talent Acquisition at FirstMerit Bank.  As some of you may know, the team I built and led at FMER was widely recognized as being one of the most aggressive and successful corporate recruiting engines in America. While there, I began to utilize and cultivate into our talent acquisition tactics an old cliche - "winners hang out with winners and losers hang out with losers".  I know the traditional, soft, "touchy feely" HR professionals (not all HR pro's) will hate this because the concept is completely contrary to their "level the playing field", equitable, treat everyone the same, social worker approach to human resources.

Any recruiter who has been in this profession longer than 30 seconds knows that talented people hang out together.  They form their own talent puddle that sits apart from, at the top or the shallow part of the talent pool.  Every so often it rains or a spring pops up to flush out those who are slipping or under performing in the talent puddle and refreshes the puddle with new talent. 

Smart recruiters hang out in the Talent Puddle For Better ROI. 

The Talent Puddle is where you should spend and commit time to building, maintaining and expanding relationships.  When you hang out in the puddle you also get to reap the benefit of referrals of other high performing talent and more business opportunities because winners hang out with winners.  Getting referrals from this group will have a much higher ROI and allow you to invest your time more wisely in activities that generate more results.

There are very talented and high performing people in the pool as well but you have to sort through the masses of low performers, suspects, prospects and candidates to find them.  That can take up valuable time.  If you go to the puddle and get referrals you are more likely to have little or no mess to sift through.   

You can't have relationships with all suspects, prospects and/or candidates. 

You don't have time for relationships with everyone and why would you want to have relationships with ALL candidates anyway? I don't know about you, but I am not in the search business to hire ALL candidates and my clients don't engage me to find and place candidates.  My clients (hiring leaders when I was leading corporate recruiting teams), and companies who care about moving their business forward with the talent they hire, want want me to find and place high performing employees who will add value to their business.  There is a difference in the two.  Not to say you shouldn't treat them all well, you should, but I say have relationships with talent.

Even the very best who execute this tactic well will find themselves searching the pool once in a while because some searches or clients are so unique they require that type of sourcing and recruiting behavior.

But a sustainable and long term business strategy, where you have high performing talent at the ready (high performers who are properly motivated and ready to make a career change or accept a new role) means you have to hang out in the talent puddle more than the pool.

Candidates are in the pool, high performing talent and star employees are in the puddle.

So what is your experience with this?

Do you prefer the pool or the puddle?  Do you see a difference?

Do you think shifting to this approach will improve your success as a recruiter in meeting or exceeding your client or hiring leader needs?  If so, how hard will it be to shift to this approach?

Not too long ago I talked about the A Really Goode Job recruiting strategy from Murphy-Goode Winery; raving about what a strong recruiting strategy the "competition" recruiting tactic is. 

Well, it turns out some people think there is phylloxera all over A Really Goode Job.  A recent San Francisco Chronicle article calls the strategy and integrity of A Really Good Job into question and infers that the folks at Murphy-Goode mispresented how the hiring process was going to work.  

I am not going to re-hash it all here because you are all smart enough to read it and decide for yourselves.  However, one aspect of this controversy does need a little Pulling The Cork. 

When the recruiting strategy was announced I read through all the details and no where - I MEAN NO WHERE - did it say the top 50 or the winner would be selected by popular vote.  This isn't American Idol or So You Think You Can Dance.  The leadership at Murphy-Goode are not stupid enough to leave the recruiting and selection of talent up to the masses.  

I received at least 50 requests via Twitter, LinkedIn and Facebook from people asking me to vote for their video.  The voting essentially boiled down to a popularity contest among people who have nothing better to do all day than bombard me with a PR and media campaign to get votes.  Having the most votes doesn't mean squat when it comes to using social media to drive brand awareness and business.

In the end I hope the people at Murphy-Goode get the right person for this role.  It is a cool job with a ton of perks for someone who loves wine and social media.  I also hope they have some very strong tracking, data capture, metrics and meaningful ways to determine the ROI.  I mean, if they are investing so much time and money in one position when their parent company is laying people off they are going to have to defend it.     

The terms are suspect, prospect and candidate. 

The latter two are the most often used,  most often confused, most often transposed and the most loosely bantered about.  Looking back over my past posts, both here and in other forums, I may even be guilty of using these terms far too loosely.  Honestly, I think it is lazy of us (those in the recruiting space) to continue to use these terms so interchangeably.  That is especially true of prospect and candidate.  Suspects, prospects and candidiates are not the same and therefore should not be treated the same during the recruiting process.  Continuing to use these terms interchangeably is likely a reflection of a common recruiting mistake - applying the same technique and recruiting process to everyone being recruited. 

Fail! 

Let's define what each of these terms mean.  Once we define them maybe we can talk about building relational recruiting strategies for each as they journey through the recruiting process. 

Suspect

While there are some in the recruiting space that use this term I find that it is still the least used and least understood.  Suspect has been used most often in sales and business development roles.  Oh, and in criminal investigations.  Actually, we can probably learn something about that term as it is used in criminal investigations in order to help us apply it to recruiting.  Heck, go watch The Usual Suspects to learn a little about how suspects are viewed and treated along with the confusion of dealing with multiple suspects.  A key element of the definition is "believed to be guilty with little or no proof". 

So, how do we apply this to recruiting?  A suspect is just a name, title and phone number or email address without any proof or evidence that the person is a high performer or a match for a specific position or client/company.  The emphasis ought to be on high performer because great recruiters recruit talented high performers NOT just to a requisition or opening.  A suspect is someone "believed" to be worth calling without any proof of how good they are. 

Suspects are important to the recruiting process but they are hit or miss when it comes to making a recruiting call.  Just having a name, number, email addy and/or job title tells a recruiter absolutely NOTHING about the performance level or success of that person.  Calling a suspect is the truest form of cold calling there is in the recruiting business and should be a lower priority than calling prospects (see below).  Not that you shouldn't call suspects mind you.  They are a great source of referrals, networking and sometimes produce a prospect or two.  The ROI on calling suspects is pretty low however and a recruiter will not survive spending most of their time making these calls. 

Prospect

Again there is valuable information contained in the dictionary definition.  The part that stands out for our purpose is "an apparent probability of advancement, success...".  The only way a recruiter can adequately make some determination of probability is to have some facts, evidence and information.  These can be gathered in many ways (internet searches, LinkedIn, white papers, real world verifiable results, referrals) but the bottom line remains; there must be some evidence, some facts or some information about high performance or success.  

In recruiting then, a prospect is someone with a probability to become a candidate (and subsequently a team member/employee) based on evidence, facts and information of high performance, verifiable results and proven success AND is engaged in conversation with a recruiter or company.  It does not mean they have to have an interest in a specific role or company but they are engaged in conversation or a relationship. 

For example, when I talk to a candidate who is strong (someone I know to be high performer based on the above criteria) I ask them "who do you know that excels and is actively looking" and "who do you know that is NOT actively looking".  Essentially getting active and passive referrals.  The next set of questions is key to which category the referral should placed.

1. How do you know this person? (worked with, worked for or led them)

2. How do you know they are a high performer?

3. Give me an example of how you know they are a high performer?

Based on the answers to these question I know quickly if I am dealing with a suspect or a prospect.  Oh, and it also helps me to prioritize who I call first.  For more information on how to execute getting better referralls and making recruiting calls check out You Have The Names Now What: A Cure For The Common Cold Call (That is a .wmv audio and slide deck file by the way).

An analogy to drive this point home is college football recruiting.  The premier programs, my favorite being Notre Dame, don't recruit every high school football player in the country in hopes of landing some high performing talent.  No, they review film, talk to coaches, review output (statistics, 40 yard times etc.) and go to games to determine who the very best are.  Once identified they put their time, money and resources into recruiting the best rather than wasting time on the rest. 

The 2010 Irish recruiting class is off to a great start by the way with 11 verbal commitments in some key need areas.  Check it out!

Candidate

This one is pretty easy but let's talk about it anyway.  A candidate is a prospect who has made the decision to move into the recruitment, interview and selection process.  Essentially they have moved from passive or semi-passive to active.  They have made it clear they are open to exploring a new opportunity or they are open to considering the client or company you represent.  Once a prospect exhibits "buying" signals AND they are moved into the recruitment process they have become a candidate. 

Of course, those who apply directly to jobs on a website or other channels immediately become candidates.  I would argue that they are really not as a high a priority as prospects because they are essentially suspects who, by way of a low barrier of entry online application, have made themselves candidates rather than a recruiter qualifying them as such. 

Moving a prospect to candidate is the art of recruiting.  It is often the most difficult aspect of the recruiting process but often yields the best results.  This is where practicing exceptional TRM (Talent Relationship Management) with a prospect is critical.  Not CRM (Candidate Relationship Management) because they are aren't a candidate yet.  More on TRM and CRM here in the event you missed it in previous posts.  Once they become a candidate you need to execute strong CRM and I recommend a Candidate Bill of Rights. 

In an upcoming post we will talk about how the recruitment process and tactics need to be customized to meet the needs of talent in each of these categories. 

So What Do You Think?

1. How do you or your recruiting team define talent during the recruitment process?

2. Does it matter?  Is this just semantics?

3. If you do define talent categories during the process does that drive how you engage, treat and move them through the process?

4. Will the Irish win more than 10 games in 2009?

Maybe I didn't really know you. Maybe you were just a mirage. Maybe the world is full of food and sex and spectacle and we're all just hurling towards an apocalypse, in which case it's not your fault... ~ Lloyd Dobler

One of my favorite movies of all time is Say Anything and Lloyd Dobler, played by my favorite actor John Cusack, is my movie character hero.  Why?  Well there are many reasons but I love Lloyd because he is so transparent, honest and authentic.  He didn't hold back and he said what he meant.  That is just Lloyd.  Very few films have ever tried to be as smart, genuine, funny and authentic as Say Anything.  If you haven't seen it you really need to check it out.  It is genius!

There has been a lot of chatter in the recruiting and social media blogosphere on what it means to be authentic and have authenticity which got me thinking about Lloyd Dobler again.  With the explosion of social media it can often be a difficult chore to decide who you follow, put your trust into and whether or not those people behind the social media curtain really are who they appear to be.  If they aren't who they appear to be does that impact or change how valuable or important what they say and do is to you? 

The other day on recruitingblogs.com Maren Hogan organized a free for all discussion on authenticity and whether or not authenticity is even important.  It was lively and entertaining but I am not sure there was much consensus at the end of the day.  That is perfectly fine by the way as the mere "beating up" of ideas on this topic was well worth the investment of my time and I am sure the others who participated would agree. 

I don't claim to have this nailed down and I certainly don't believe I am completely firm yet on what it is to be authentic or demonstrate authenticity.  That doesn't even take into account the issue of whether or not authenticity is important.  That disclaimer aside I decided to offer some of my thoughts, which are still congealing, on this topic.

One of the more common dictionary definitions of Authenticity is:

The quality or condition of being authentic, trustworthy, or genuine.

It is interesting to note that in just about every definition of Authentic or Authenticity the word Trustworthy or some version of it shows up.  Trustworthy, according to most defnitions is:

Deserving of trust or confidence; dependable; reliable.

Using those two definitions I would argue that, if you are not authentic then you can't be trusted.  Going another step further, if you are following someone who is completely different then their online or social media persona or brand then it is likely your confidence in their message will be shaken.  Lack of confidence leads to lack of trust.  If both of these are true then the messenger, regardless of how important or correct their position might be, loses credibility and the message may no longer matter. 

The issue for those who use social media for business, to recruit, to market or to sell is that the book definition of authenticity doesn't quite tell the whole story or address the key elements of authenticity in a business situation. 

As the discussion in the chat room progressed it became apparent that many did not like or subscribe to the idea that who someone is in real life must be consistent or congruent with who they are online.  Essentially ones persona, brand or how they are perceived, does not have to match up with who they really are.  Afterall, this is true with movie stars, rock stars, talk show hosts, athletes, politicians and just about anyone who enjoys a level of celebrity.  Your personal brand is critical and it does not always seem to match up with the real you.  The question is should it?

To me, this level of disconnect between who you really are and who you are percieved to be (your brand) makes your message less credible and less authentic.  At least for me.  Based on the definition above, the presence of a huge gap between the real person and the percieved person will likely lessen the confidence in the message and render the messenger less trustworthy. 

By definition not authentic. 

Others in the chat said that consistency is key.  They argued a consistent message with consistent behavior are THE key contributing factors to whether or not someone was authentic or had authenticity.  Detractors to this argument said it was possible to be consistently not authentic.  Good point.  But consistency does have a place in authenticity, doesn't it?  I mean being consistently not authentic is, by definition, not authentic.

Finally, others thought that owning up to being wrong and admitting it publicly was at the core of authenticity.  Making public statements or prophering ideas that were proven to be false as a result of fact finding or evidence is ok so long as you own up to it, accept it and make a public statement that you were wrong or have changed your mind.  While responsible and noble, I don't think this is the essence of authenticity but rather an element or product of authenticity. 

Claudia Faust, at least I think it was Claudia (if it was someone else please let me know so I can credit this quote to the right individual), made a money statement that jump started my own thinkin on authenticity when she said:

If you are true to yourself - your values, your beliefs - and your behavior consistently demonstrates that, then you are authentic.

Yeah, I know, good stuff isn't it? Read it again...it's that good!

Initially I thought to myself if someone is that definition then I will be inclined to trust them which, in my humble opinion, is a key to deciding if they are authentic.

The only issue I had with Claudia's definition is that ones values and beliefs may be different depending on their persona, brand or how they wish to be percieved. One can even be really consistent with that. Being true to yourself may not be all the way to the point of delivering authenticity if your being true to your made up version of yourself. If the foundation is built on shifting sand then the structure built on that foundation will be compromised.

All of this gave me this working definition of authenticity. Before I share this I am not claiming this is the proper definition of authenticity. I am just working through this in my brain and in my heart. I happen to be sharing it with you as I work through it. How transparent of me huh?

Ok, here it is:

Authenticity or being authentic is when the real you and your brand converge.

The real you is defined as your values and beliefs consistently being revealed by your behavior. Pretty much what Claudia said in the chat room the other day.

Brand is the persona, perception or, as Lloyd Dobler would say, mirage you or others have created about you.

When the real you and your brand converge it likely results in trust and others having confidence in your message or what you have to say. To me that is what being authentic is all about

The real Lloyd Dobler and the perception of Lloyd Dobler converge. That is why he is so authentic. People trust Lloyd, have confidence in what he has to say and know how he will behave. I guess that is why he is made the keymaster at the big end of the year party. You have to have seen the movie to get that keymaster reference but trust me it is spot on.

I don't know if this definition of authenticity will hold up under heavy scrutiny. It is a start. As I said above it is a work in progress for me. One thing I know is that I am ready and willing to change my mind and admit it publicly if I do change my thinking on authenticity.

Did you sense my sarcasm?

So what do you think? What is authenticity to you? Does it even matter?

The other day on Twitter a quick discussion occurred between me and Todd Mintz (@toddmintz) an SEO, Social Media and Marketing guy in Beaverton, Oregon.  Todd tweeted the following:

@toddmintz Job candidate yells at me for spamming him...the spam was the autoresponder message asking him to make sure to send in his resume.

Nothing about this candidates response surprised me given the result of our recently published survey results on What Prospects and Candidates Think About Recruiting Calls and the soon to be published follow up on what they think about the Recruiting Engagement. 

The autoresponder tactic is theoretically a good idea.  The objective is to help save the recruiter and the recruiting team time and effort while making them more efficient.  The autoresponder should allow candidates to get responses more quickly and efficiently as they reach certain milestones in the recruitment process or if information is lacking or incomplete. 

The false hope of autoresponders, and how they are often sold by the ATS community, is that they are providing some level of CRM or TRM.  Now I won't get into why Candidate Relationship Management shouldn't be your goal nor how the ATS products are terriblesince I have thoroughly examined both in the recent past.  There is nothing relational or Talent Relationship Management focused about autoresponders as they are executed and positioned out of the box with ATS products.

Autoresponders are cold, disingenuous, boring and transactional.  Prospects and candidates hate them almost as bad as falling into the long established black hole of no response that has tarnished recruiting teams and ATS products seemingly forever.  These autoresponders are dreaded by candidates because by their nature, wording and delivery autoresponders put into writing what candidates have always felt about their value to recruiters and recruiting teams.  That is, they feel like they are just a number or another resume/application adrift in a sea of others who are also getting either no response or the dreaded autoresponder.  

The warm and fuzzy HR types out there have even gone so far as to name their autoresponders something that makes them seem more relational or more human.  I have heard everything from TARA (Talent Acquisition & Recruiting Autoresponder) to SARA (Strategic Auto Response Application).  Most often female names are used and if anyone has a clue as to why this is true please let me know.  As if giving this autoresponder monstrosity a human name will cause the unsuspecting candidate to suddenly feel L.O.V.E.D. 

Ridiculous!

The Four Tactics We Recommend Are After The Jump

I am not a fan of autoresponders and I believe great recruiters hang out in pools of talent, which by definition are much smaller than pools of candidates, and therefore can provide a higher level of touch to the talent in the so called "process".  But, if you have to use autoresponders here are four things you can do, tactics we have actually implemented with clients, to make your autoresponder less transactional and more relational.

1. Take the time to survey your prospect, candidate and new employee population to learn about their experience with the recruiting process and the autoresponder.  Be sure to ask those that exited your process at various stages because in their responses you often gain the most value.  Ask them how and how often they want to be communicated with (a novel idea I know) and then build the autoresponder around your findings.

2. Build your autoresponder (or whatever female name you want to give it?) messages with action words and humanity in mind.  Not every candidate is the same so they shouldn't be treated the same.  Since autoresponders treat them all the same you have to live with that you got so take the time to humanize the messages you are sending with the key words and elements you learned from your survey in first step above.

3. Authenticity rules the day here.  Don't try to trick the candidates into thinking you care by giving them a bunch of fancy slogans, mission statements or pretty HTML email templates.  They see right through that crap.  Content is key and the words you use are critical.  Speak from the heart, be transparent, honest and authentic.

4. Provide useful information about what the process looks like, where they are in that process, when they can expect human interaction (foreshadow) and links or attachments that actually allow them to learn more about the company or the role they may be working in.  Give them your Candidate Bill of Rights (hopefully you have one) in which you outline your responsibilities to one another during their candidacy and engagement in your recruiting "process".  Even better, give them an actual phone number in the email where a human being answers the phone and interacts with them in the event they need help or guidance.  You will be surprised at how infrequently this number is used when the steps above are executed well.

I don't recommend using autoresponders right out the box.  Heck, I don't recommend using them at all if you can avoid it.  It is just a disingenuous attempt at communicating with candidates and they see right past it.  That said, if you do have to use them give these tactics a try and I believe you will find a happier group of candidates next time you conduct your next candidate experience study. 

You do do those right?

Oh, one more thing.  Don't name your ATS or autoresponder some ridiculous female name to make it all cute and seemingly more relational.  Why not name it what it is - CRAP (Candidate Relationship Attempt Process)

I wanted to point you to her post today on whether or not you should be using social media, blogging etc. as part of your sourcing and recruiting strategy.  She uses the quote from the Michael Crichton film Jurassic Park (one of my all time faves) where Jeff Goldblum as Dr. Ian Malcom questions the idea of cloning dinosaur embryo's with frog DNA to create living dino's - "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think about if they should..."

Amybeth drives the analogy point home with this set of MONEY statements:

• Anyone CAN start a blog. But should YOU?
• Anyone CAN set up a Facebook Fan page. But should YOUR company?
• Anyone CAN tweet on behalf of their business. But are you ready to give up that much official control?
• Anyone CAN decide to implement mobile marketing. But is your audience going to be receptive to it?

The right to do something does not mean that doing it is right. Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should. Practice some patience, do your homework, and find out if it’s right for you, your team, and your company first before pressing forward. Otherwise you run the risk of ruining your reputation or your brand image. Look before you leap!

I work with many clients who, the moment I arrive on site, start talking to me about how they need a social media strategy, need a preence on Twitter, need a Facebook page etc. etc. etc.  It like herding cats to get them to slow down and stop talking Buzzspeak and think about what they are saying. 

Amybeth sums up what I feel and think on this topic.  Sheer brilliance from my fellow Buckeye!  Go read her entire piece over on her site...

Oh, and before I forget, here one of my favorite clips from the movie Jurassic Park. 

When you were a kid, what did you want to be when you grew up?  Me, I wanted to President of the United States.  Good thing for all of us that didn't happen.  I can promise you this; you probably didn't want to be a recruiter when you grew up. 

Little kids don't grow up wanting to be recruiters.  They don't call their friends and invite them over for a nice game of "Headhunter", "Sourcing" or "Let's Hire Someone Today". 

This is a calling that seeks YOU out. 

It is not for the faint of heart and it's not a place to tread water until something better comes along.  It is also not a place to start your "HR Career", though sadly many do just that.  Many companies throw gas on this misinformation fire by making recruiting the entry level position to human resources when exactly the opposite should be true.  HR roles should be the entry level roles to recruiting. 

So many start recruiting and try it and so many fail to succeed.  It is the Ironman Triathlon of careers. 

Recruiting provides unsurpassed and unlimited opportunity for anyone who is prepared to commit themselves.  This is especially true in third party recruiting. 

In this "opportunity" lies the great trapping of recruiting.  It lures in the uncommitted with promises of large fee's, excitement and adventure; the thrill of the hunt. 

It teases you into "giving it a try".   "I love to work with people so I decided to be a recruiter" are words like nails on a chalkboard to seasoned recruiters. 

Those drawn to this craft without a firm grasp of real commitment, without knowledge of the ups and downs, close their eyes and visualize success as though it has already happened.   

But guess what?  Your degree doesn't matter.  Your profession doesn't matter.  Your title doesn't matter.  Your specific industry or position specific expertise doesn't matter.  Who you know doesn't matter.  What you have read doesn't matter.  Your qualifications and test scores don't matter.  Your resume doesn't matter.  How much money you have made doesn't matter.  None of these will be of help to you in the recruiting world.

What matters is you - how committed are you?  How hard will you work?  Will you focus on recruiting activity development (being RAD as I call it) or just focus on activity?

Only YOU can help YOU.  It is YOU. 

This is what levels the playing field.  This is what separates those that DO and those that DON'T; those that win and those that lose in recruiting. 

It all comes down to YOU. 

How hard are YOU willing to work?  How often will YOU pick yourself help when you fall or make a mistake?  How much perseverance do YOU have?  How thick is YOUR skin?  How willing are YOU to learn and try new things?  How much time will YOU invest in being RAD?  How do YOU value meaningful relationships?   How many times will YOU pick up the phone to build those relationships?  This  list goes on for a while as you can well imagine.

Because it is about you, the individual, so many fail.  So many come here and leave; so many have recruiting on their resume with a date in the past.  They come, they fight and they fail.  They fail because there are no excuses to be made when it is you.  You can't pass the buck, there is no one left to blame, entitlement is out the window and old man accountability is in your face.  You don't eat, pay bills or live unless you perform. 

Do you love it or do you fear it? 

Maybe a little of both? 

It should be a little of both if you are honest with yourself. 

It is YOU!

Some others I like and you should read (taken right from The Carnival):

• For smaller (and less politically correct) bacon, Chris Ferdinandi of Renegade HR instructs you to, “Use your employees as guinea pigs“. Please note that no animals were actually harmed during the application of the Guinea Pig Method.
• Laurie Ruettimann of Punk Rock HR follows a shoulder-tapping bar encounter with, “Social Media, Recruiting & Millennials“. This reminds me of our young tightrope walkers who constantly updated their Facebook status (may they rest in peace).
• Michael Haberman of Omega HR Solutions asks, “Want to Learn How to Sell HR to Your CEO?” Boy do I! The last thing sold to my CEO came with it’s own Wolf Boy.

Go there and read up...there are a bunch of other really smart and interesting posts but these were the few I wanted to highlight. 

Make it a great day! 

Watching Band of Brothers, the HBO film that shared the story of Easy Company - 101st Airborne during WWII, was just such a jolt to my senses.  These men did things we can not even imagine and stared down death, evil and horror to win our freedom.  They fought and died for each other moment to moment but they fought  and died for freedom and liberty always.  

I learned today that Darrell "Shifty" Powers, the best shot in the company according to his brothers in arms, died on June 17, 2009 of natural causes.  He was a major focus of the film and he, along with the rest of Easy Company, fought in just about every major battle of WWII.  They were called upon when the task was most difficult and each time these men, part of the greatest generation, rose valiantly to the call to arms and did their duty. 

I was touched by Band of Brothers and I am grateful to Mr. Powers and the other members of Easy Company for what they did for me.  For all of us. 

Please take a moment out of your day to remember "Shifty" Powers.

"We few. We happy few.  We Band of Brothers. For those who shed their blood with us today shall always be our Brothers."