Monthly Archives: September 2024

What If Competitors Joined Forces?

Posted on by
Reply

This Re-Run Friday comes from 2017! Let me know what you think!

What if you and your competitors recruited talent together?

Think about most U.S. cities. What do they have in common? I travel all over the U.S. and to be honest, it’s all starting to look a lot alike!

Every city has a mall or three. At these malls, you’ll find the same restaurants. Chilis, Olive Garden, Applebee’s, Bravo, steak places, some random Japanese hibachi place, etc. Usually, down from the mall, you’ll find a Home Depot. Across the street from Home Depot, you’ll find a Lowes. Down from those are the car dealerships.

Sound like your city!?

Our cities are set up like this because it works. Putting all of these competitive places close together works for the consumer. They like all the choices close together.

Talent really isn’t much different.

If I’m a nurse, I want to be close hospitals. The more hospitals the better. That way if my job at one hospital isn’t working out, I don’t have to commute all the way across town to another hospital. If I’m in IT having a bunch of tech companies in the same area is desirable for the same reason.

What we don’t find, normally, are employers working together to solve their talent issues. A cook at one restaurant might be begging for more hours, but we never think about sharing that cook with the restaurant next door. We force the talent to go figure this out on their own.

Traditionally, I think career fairs thought they were doing this. Bring all the employers to one location and then all the talent can come and pick who they want to work with. It’s a start, but this isn’t really organizations working together to bring in more and better talent.

A modern-day equivalent to the traditional career fair might be cities working to ‘attract’ talent to their cities from places like Silicone Valley. In recent years, Minneapolis has been working to position themselves as a Midwest IT hub, so local and state government dollars have been working to get workers from other cities to come to Minneapolis.

What I’m talking about is what if two companies came together to share their talent databases for the benefit of both? Could it work? What would get in the way?

I think it could work. I think the organizations involved would be some forward-thinking leadership, some tight rules of engagement, and a very new way of thinking about collaboration.

So often we make a hire of someone we know if talented, but it doesn’t work out for a number of reasons, many times those reasons are self-inflicted by the organization. What if you could ‘move’ that talent to your ‘talent partner’ organization for a fresh start, and vice versa?

I love times when talent is tight because it forces us to start thinking about different solutions and ways of doing things. We all have talent in our databases that we aren’t using and might never use, but someone else might have exactly what we need in their database.

Instead, we sit on our unused, expensive inventory of candidates and do nothing. That doesn’t seem like a smart business practice…

Does “Overqualified” Really Mean “Too Old”?

Posted on by
3

I recently spoke with an incredibly talented woman. She’s 49, a college graduate, and has a solid work portfolio. She’s been applying for jobs, but keeps hearing the same thing in interviews: “You’re overqualified.”

Now, sure, she does have more experience than the role requires, but she knows what the job involves and wants to do it. She’s not expecting anything more, unless she proves herself and the company needs her to move up.

Let’s be honest: “Overqualified” is often just code for, “You’re too old for us.”

Prove me wrong!

Why is someone labeled overqualified when they clearly understand what the job is and want to do it?

Let’s say I’m a heart surgeon, but I want less stress, so I decide to switch to a cardiac rehab role. It still involves working with heart patients, but it’s less demanding and pays less. I don’t need as much education for the job either. So, am I overqualified for the rehab job just because I used to be a surgeon? Only if you say I am! I’ve got the skills and I want the role, so why wouldn’t I be a great fit?

Hiring managers often say someone is “overqualified” when they can’t come up with a real reason not to hire someone with lots of experience.

It’s an excuse. A bad one too.

Here’s an example: “Oh, Susan has too much experience. She wouldn’t be happy reporting to me long-term, especially since she has more experience than I do!” Did Susan say that? “Well, no…”

This happens a lot with older folks who don’t want to retire yet. They’ve got years of valuable experience, but 32-year-old Steve won’t hire them because he thinks they won’t take his direction. That’s Steve’s problem, not the candidate’s.

And it’s not just guys. Women do it too! Turns out we all love discriminating against older workers.

Tech companies are the worst for this, thinking only young people understand technology. Creative companies are just as bad, acting like the only people who matter are 26-year-olds on Instagram.

Then there’s the classic: “I don’t want to hire someone who’s going to retire in five years!”…

How long do people usually stay at your company? “About 4.2 years.” Yeah, having someone for five years would be awful, right?

I once had a hiring manager say they needed someone for the long term when talking about a 52-year-old candidate. 13-15 years isn’t long term?!

I’ve found that calling hiring managers out—saying, “You’re being ridiculous”—works wonders. It cuts right through the bias.

So tell me, what’s the real reason you won’t hire someone “overqualified”?

It’s Not You, It’s Them

Posted on by
Reply

This Re-Run Friday was originally posted in September 2019.

Why am I being ‘ghosted’ after I interview?

Dear Timmy,

I recently applied for a position that I’m perfect for! A recruiter from the company contacted me and scheduled me for an interview with the manager. I went, the interview was a little over an hour and it went great! I immediately followed up with an email to the recruiter and the manager thanking them, but since then I’ve heard nothing and it’s been weeks. I’ve sent follow-up emails to both the recruiter and the manager and I’ve got no reply.

What should I do? Why do companies do this to candidates? I would rather they just tell me they aren’t interested than have them say nothing at all!

The Ghost Candidate

******************************************************************************

Dear Ghost,

There are a number of reasons that recruiters and hiring managers ghost candidates and none of them are good! Here’s a short-list of some of these reasons:

– They hated you and hope you go away when they ghost you because conflict is uncomfortable.

– They like you, but not as much as another candidate they’re trying to talk into the job, but want to leave you on the back burner, but they’re idiots and don’t know how to do this properly.

– They decided to promote someone internally and they don’t care about candidate experience enough to tell you they went another direction.

– They have a completely broken recruitment process and might still be going through it believing you’re just as happy as a pig in shi…

– They think they communicated to you electronically to bug off through their ATS, but they haven’t audited the process to know this isn’t working.

– The recruiter got fired and no one picked up the process.

I would love to tell you that ghosting candidates are a rare thing, but it’s not! It happens all the time! There is never a reason to ghost a candidate, ever! Sometimes I believe candidates get ghosted by recruiters because hiring managers don’t give feedback, but that still isn’t an excuse I would accept, at least tell the candidate that!

Look, I’ve ghosted people. At conference cocktail parties, I’ve been known to ghost my way right back up to my room and go to sleep! When it comes to candidates, I don’t ghost! I would rather tell them the truth so they don’t keep coming back around unless I want them to come back around.

I think most recruiters ghost candidates because they’re over their head in the amount of work they have, and they mean to get back to people, but just don’t have the time. When you’re in the firefighting mode you tend to only communicate with the candidates you want, not the ones you don’t. Is this good practice? Heck, no! But when you’re fighting fires, you do what you have to do to stay alive.

What would I do, if I was you? 

Here are a few ideas to try if you really want to know the truth:

1. Send a handwritten letter to the CEO of the company briefly explaining your experience and what outcome you would like.

2. Go on Twitter and in 280 characters send a shot across the bow! “XYZ Co. I interviewed 2 weeks ago and still haven’t heard anything! Can you help me!?” (Will work on Facebook & IG as well!)

3. Write a post about your experience on LinkedIn and tag the recruiter and the recruiter’s boss.

4. Take the hint and go find a company who truly values you and your talent! If the organization and this manager will treat candidates like this, imagine how you’ll be treated as an employee?

Are Robots Really the Threat?

Posted on by
1

The idea that employees are losing sleep over being replaced by robots has become a hot topic. Everywhere you look, people are saying AI is going to take over most jobs soon. Headlines scream, “Automation will wipe out 97% of jobs by next week!”

But the reality is: employees aren’t actually terrified about robots snatching their roles. That doesn’t mean they’re not afraid, though.

What’s freaking them out? Turns out, employees are more scared of being replaced by another person than a robot. When it comes down to it, we’d rather a machine take our job than have Mark the intern take our spot.

The research shows that people generally feel more comfortable with the idea of others being replaced by technology than by another worker. But when it comes to their own jobs, the tables turn. Most workers find it less distressing to be replaced by AI or automation than by a human colleague.

This boils down to one thing: people don’t compare themselves to machines in the same way they do to other people.

Being replaced by another person can feel like a direct blow to self-worth, while being replaced by technology doesn’t trigger that same emotional reaction.

It makes sense. Getting replaced by another human stings because we naturally compare ourselves to them. The thought process might go, “Sure, a robot can handle this part of the job better than I can, but no way can Mark do it better!” Our egos can rationalize being outdone by technology, but not by someone we see as our equal.

Let’s be real: getting replaced by a robot makes sense since AI can do some things better than humans. But being replaced by another person? That’s a harder pill to swallow because it feels like a reflection of your value. And honestly, it’s way harder to explain to your family that your job was handed to someone else instead of a machine.

How To Push Top Talent Away

Posted on by
1

When you’re trying to bring great candidates on board, communication is key. But sometimes, the wrong word can send them running for the hills.

There are certain words and phrases that can make a candidate lose interest in working for your company. I often tell students that what they say in an interview can make or break their chances of getting hired.

Picture this: You’re interviewing a candidate, and they start explaining why they left their last job, saying, “Oh, it was just a ‘misunderstanding.’ I can explain…”

“Misunderstanding” is a huge red flag! It wasn’t just a mix-up—it likely got them fired. The real misunderstanding is not realizing what they did was wrong.

So, what are the 7 Words that will push candidates away? Don’t use these:

  • “Layoff” – No matter how you spin it, this word is bad news. Even saying, “We’ve never had a layoff!” can make candidates nervous. People want job security, and “layoff” screams instability.
  • “Might” – Top talent wants clear answers, not wishy-washy ones. Saying “might” makes things sound uncertain. Instead, say, “I’m not sure, but I’ll find out for you.”
  • “Maybe” – This is another word that makes you sound unsure. Candidates like to know what they’re getting into, not guesswork.
  • “Unstable” – When you call something “unstable,” it doesn’t sound good. If things are shaky, be upfront about it, but don’t make it sound worse than it is.
  • “Legally” – Nothing good ever follows this word. For example, “Legally, we’d love to give you a $25K sign-on bonus, but…” It usually means bad news is coming.
  • “Temporarily” – This word makes candidates uneasy. For instance, saying, “Temporarily, you’ll work out of the Nashville office, but soon you’ll be in Austin,” just adds uncertainty.
  • “Fluid” – Saying a situation is “fluid” is another way of saying you don’t have a solid plan. Candidates prefer stability, not a situation that’s “up in the air.”

That right there is how to push top talent away!

We often use these words because we’re afraid to be completely honest. But the truth is, most candidates appreciate transparency and believe they can make a difference. By being straightforward, you’ll attract candidates who are ready for the challenge and more likely to stick around.