The Great Disconnect

About a year and a half ago, I wrote a post about competing in the coming war on talent. The post cited a Forbes.com article that noted the critical nature of talent retention and recruitment as the economy improves: “Companies will need to keep their best employees and recruit talented people in order to be competitive.” Unfortunately, it seems that in the past 18 months, companies still haven’t learned the lesson.

A recent USA Today article notes that “employee loyalty is at a three-year low, but many employers are precariously unaware of the morale meltdown.” While frustrated workers seek new opportunities (often secretly), employers naively think their employee loyalty is the same as it was three years ago.

Employers have taken their “eye off the ball” with regard to what drives employee satisfaction and loyalty. In cutting wages and demanding that their workers do more with less – to pick up the slack of their laid off colleagues – they have increased their employees’ stress levels. Forty percent of workers note that heavier workloads, unrealistic expectations and longer hours have created tremendous stress levels in their lives. A third are confident that they can find new jobs that match their experience and salary within the next 12 months.

The Forbes article 18 months ago, noted the disconnect between employers’ and employees’ perceptions with current job satisfaction. It cited surveys that indicated up to 65 percent of employees were looking for new jobs. Employers – once again ‘grossly out of touch’ – thought that only 37 percent of their workforce were seeking new work.

As the economy continues to improve, as employers look to enhance their competitive edge, one thing we keep hearing is that innovation will be key to sustained growth. Yet employers lament that they’ve had difficulty in attracting employees with critical skills. It’s ironic that these employers’ talent recruitment policies often screen out talented people. Company websites’ career sections that proclaim that unsolicited resumes will not be considered ignore possible candidates that can add tremendous value. HR screening policies that focus on specific keywords in resumes as evidence of qualifications, risk those candidates who don’t “game” the system. Recruiters and HR managers that don’t consider functional resumes, but only chronological resumes, do their clients and employers an incredible disservice in an effort to make their jobs easier.

I am amazed, these days, at the vitriol of the comments posted on recruiting and HR blogs by job seekers. They are fed up with the seemingly irrational process of recruitment and selection, which changes, not only from company to company, but also among different recruiters and HR managers.

As companies look to enhance their workforces; as they seek to improve competitiveness and reach new levels of innovation, they need to be clear with their recruitment staffs that they want the best employees they can obtain. They need to take a hard look at their current employees and ensure they retain the best of the lot. And recruiting and HR professionals need to advise their clients and employers on why it’s in their best interest to identify, recruit and retain high performers. As the subject matter experts in this field it’s their responsibility to ensure that their companies have the workforce to be competitive in today’s economy.

So, what are your thoughts?

Do you agree there’s a disconnect between employers perception of their workers’ loyalty and reality? Does your company get it?

Do you know of companies that do get it? Do their talent recruitment and retention policies reflect their understanding of what truly motivates their employees?

The Power of Story

I’m reading Jim Loehr’s book, The Power of Story: Change Your Story, Change Your Destiny in Business and in Life (Amazon link). Loehr is a psychologist who runs the Human Performance Institute in Orlando, FL, and works with world class athletes, business executives and other high achievers to hone their stories so that they perform at optimal levels. His premise is that we tell ourselves stories that help us navigate through life because they provide structure and direction. The stories we tell ourselves give our lives meaning.

Because the stories we create and tell about ourselves form the “only reality we will ever know in this life…and since it’s our destiny to follow our stories, it’s imperative that we do everything in our power to get our stories right” (Loehr’s emphasis). Most of us, he asserts, get our stories wrong; or more accurately, tell a story that’s really someone else’s – our parents, our bosses, our spiritual advisors and others who have influenced us throughout our lives.

Loehr argues that the most important story we tell is the one we tell ourselves: “if you aren’t the author of your own story, you’re the victim of it” and at the heart of our story is purpose, one of the fundamentals of good storytelling. Purpose gives our life story meaning, it is never small, but grand, heroic and epic; it’s our ultimate mission in life, the thing that continually renews our spirit. Our ultimate mission spells out our most overarching goals that we want to achieve and how we must do it – our values and beliefs. Thus, our ultimate mission/purpose must be clearly defined; and until we can define it, we can’t come up with our own story, and remain trapped by our old story.

Loehr offers step by step exercises to determine our old story; discovering where it is out of alignment with our values and beliefs and then developing a new story based on our ultimate mission.

So the story we tell about ourselves is what gives our life meaning – in our relationships, our spirituality and our work. If we’re not telling the right story we’re not living the right life, but someone else’s sense of our life.

Have you examined your story? Does it align with your purpose, your ultimate mission? If not, can you determine the voice in your story (your parents, your boss, etc.)? Can you find and retain your voice?

Is the story you’re telling yourself precluding you from really doing what you want to do? Can you articulate what you really want to do?

Can you write a new story?

What Do You Do?

What do you do?

How do you answer this question? Do you give your job title: Car salesman, plumber, housewife, career coach? Or do you respond with WHAT YOU DO? Do you give what you do meaning?

I can’t recall where I read this, but it had an impact on me. In essence, the idea was to give meaning to our work rather than respond with a job title.

Instead of responding with a title: Car salesman, plumber, housewife or career coach; respond with meaning.

“I facilitate the process, from selection to acquisition, of customers choosing which automobile they wish to buy. I help them in this process, making sure they get exactly what want they want, within their price range” … or …

“I keep people above water” … or …

“I make sure that the most important people in my life get out the door every morning with what they need to be successful in that day” … or …

“I help clients figure out what they want to do next in their life and how they can achieve their goals.”

Can you give what you do meaning? Can you see by making what you do meaningful that you provide value?

What do YOU do?

Asset or Commodity?

Most all of us start out our careers as commodities for our employers. Regardless of our profession, we’re pretty raw talent needing refinement. Early on we are given discrete assignments, with specific deadlines, defined by someone else. We’re rarely provided with a sense of how our tasks fit into the bigger picture of the overall project.

We’re assigned to write code for a particular piece of software without any sense of the final product; or research a particular issue and draft a memo, which will be part of a larger report to a client; or design a particular part that will fit into the larger product or system; or frame a house that has been designed by someone else.

In each of these tasks, we are given parameters that are decided by someone else: the boss –team lead, foreman, architect, division director, partner – to whom we’re assigned. They decide who does what, how much time should be allotted to the task, and they determine the quality of the finished product. However, the boss may also be a commodity.

In his book, A Whole New Mind (Amazon.com link), Daniel Pink notes the “three As” of Abundance, Automation and Asia that are influencing the shift from the information age to the conceptual age. In the information age, work was organized around knowledge workers – accountants, attorneys, doctors, engineers and executives – who acquire, organize and interpret data; and provide functional, logical and rational products and services. These workers, as educated and highly trained as they are, are commodities. Their skills are in abundance; their work can be easily automated and outsourced for cheaper, faster products. (A recent New York Times article reported on how new “e-discovery” software can analyze legal documents in a fraction of the time and costs that an army of lawyers used to.)

Commodities are easily replaced. Younger, cheaper, more nimble employees are always coming up through the ranks and ready to take their turn. If you have spent your career assembling a body of knowledge, an expertise, that is in overabundance or just no longer in demand, that computers can do faster and overseas labor can do cheaper, then you’re a commodity and in danger of being replaced.

Assets on the other hand, continually add value to an organization. Assets are creative, designing new products and services that improve the bottom line. Assets interact and empathize with clients to help define their needs and design solutions that fit.

So, what do you think? Can you distinguish yourself as either an asset or a commodity in your career? Are you comfortable with this distinction?

If you’re a commodity, are you comfortable with project-based tasks defined and assigned by others? Can you shift to more of an asset-based career path?

If you’re an asset, do you design products and service that continue to have meaning to customers and for clients?

The future ain’t what it used to be

It seems that the future has been cropping up a lot of late and Yogi Berra’s quote sure hits home.

Chris Brogan, who blogs and consults on social media and business communications has been posting lately on the future of such subjects as marketplaces, work and media. You can check out his thoughts on these subjects here, here, and here respectively.

In addition, Mary Meeker, an internet and technology analyst recently published a report on The Future of Tech. Among the conclusions: technology will be SoLoMo. That’s not a new trendy neighborhood in New York City. It’s an acronym that stands for Social, Local and Mobile. She notes that shipments of Smartphones and Tablets will now outpace those of PCs and laptops. This phenomenon will emphasize connectivity, location and mobility.

There’s a lot of synchronicity among these reports on the future. All three of Brogan’s posts note that the future will be mobile and global and that while size of an organization will matter, the little guys will be able to compete with the big guys (and there probably won’t be any mid-size guys). He also posits that the future will be interactive, integrated and subscription based. We’ll be able to interact with each other and we will purchase bundles of products that will have ongoing updates to which we’ll have access via our subscriptions.

Brogan’s take on the future of work includes that work will be modular, or project-based; that it will be cause-balanced, we will seek out companies for their “social giving profiles” as much as for their products and services. Brogan argues that work will be smaller and bigger – that is, it will be dominated by really small companies and really big companies; mid-size companies will lose their luster. Finally, he notes that work will be goal aligned – that we will work toward personal goals rather than an end state retirement.

These are certainly different takes on the future we thought we knew. We thought that things like work, technology, markets and media were fairly easy to predict. They tended to be linear and static; the future described by Brogan and Meeker is dynamic, exponential and chaotic – “it ain’t what it used to be.”

Can you see yourself succeeding in a future that is mobile, global, integrated and serial? Can you define a role for yourself in such a future? Will it be the same role over time?

I’m reminded of another favorite philosopher’s take on the future – Yoda – who noted that “the future in flux always is.” May the force be with you.

The Office: Where Work Doesn’t Get Done or How Managers & Meetings Conspire to Prevent Productivity

Jason Fried, of 37 Signals, speaks about why the office is not the place to get work done in a TEDtalks video; you can view the video here.

Fried notes that when he asks people “where do you go when you want to get things done?” the one answer that doesn’t come up is “The office.”

He notes that at the office one doesn’t experience a “work day,” but “work moments.” People need long stretches of uninterrupted time to get something done – that doesn’t happen at the office. Managers and Meetings (M&Ms) conspire to prevent work from occurring. M&Ms don’t exist outside the office.

To overcome the inefficiencies of M&Ms at the office, Fried presents three intriguing proposals guaranteed to turn the culture of the office on its head.

How about you? Where are you most productive? Where do you go to get work done? Are Fried’s proposals realistic? Can they overcome the M&Ms that conspire to prevent productivity at the office?

The Paradox of the Comfort of Crowds

An interesting dynamic occurs with new clients. They sign on, initially, because their current job search isn’t working. They have a traditional resume, one that lists, in chronological order, the responsibilities of the jobs they’ve held over the years. They’ve posted this resume on a number of job boards and used it in applying for the positions listed on the boards and on company websites. They’ve waited for someone to contact them. And they’ve waited some more. Rinse. Repeat.

They get discouraged, naturally. Then they come to us. They want help; they can’t do this on their own. We show them something different: A framework where they differentiate themselves from everyone else. We write them a new resume, one that emphasizes their accomplishments over responsibilities. We coach them on how to speak to the value they can bring to a prospective employer. We help them build their brand. We coach them on how to network and create relationships with decision makers.

They get very excited. This is different. It will work. After all, the process they’ve been following hasn’t produced any results; it’s been a black hole.

So, they begin anew with great energy. They have a brand and a resume that shows how their brand works; and a LinkedIn profile that reflects their brand. This is really different. They’re really gonna stand out.

They reach out to people on LinkedIn; they join Groups; they follow companies. They post their new resume on the job boards, replacing their old one. They send it in when they apply for positions posted on the job boards and on company websites. They wait for someone to contact them. They consider selling life insurance or becoming a financial planner.

They may get contacted by a recruiter who tells them that he needs a resume that shows their responsibilities from every company they’ve worked for, in chronological order. They come back and ask for a new resume that looks much like their old one. They’re concerned that they don’t look like everybody else.

I had a recent conversation with a recruiter. I asked her how she saw 2011 shaping up for jobs. Her response was that it will be a great year for people who can articulate and demonstrate their value to prospective employers; those who rely solely on skill sets, not so much. The interesting thing is, with published positions – those posted online on job boards or company websites – skills are how HR folks determine candidates’ qualifications. Decision makers, on the other hand, are more focused on value.

If you’re in a job search and you’re relying solely on your skills you blend in with the crowd. Like the gunslingers of the Old West, if you’re relying solely on your skills, there will always be someone younger and faster and cheaper. It may feel safe in the crowd, but you don’t get noticed.

Value isn’t necessarily related to time or cost. Values relates to accomplishments rather than responsibilities. It appeals to the people who care; the people who make the decision whether to hire or not. Skills may get you in the door for an interview, but it’s your value that will get you hired.

Value stands out; it’s what makes you unique; it becomes your brand. Skills are necessary, but not sufficient, they don’t trump value.

So do you feel safe if you run with the crowd, by blending in with everyone else? Are you indistinguishable from others?

Or do you take the risk and stand out? Can you articulate and demonstrate your value? Can you stand out from the crowd?

What do you think? Is there safety in numbers? Is it worth the risk to stand out and stand on your value?