Category Archives: Succession

The Law of Diminishing Title Return

Posted on by
1

“I don’t care what you call me – my title is meaningless!”

Have you heard this?  If you’re in HR long enough – you’ll hear this a number of times over your career.  You know who says this?  People making a lot of money, people who’ve been out of work and are just happy to have a job, or people who’ve been around so long they actually really don’t care anymore!

Titles are important to people – although that is not the politically correct thing to say – so hardly ever hear the truth when it comes to titles.  Don’t think titles are important in your organization – try changing some – try going, let’s say, backwards in title!  You’ll see how important it is.  The issue I see in many organizations is the concept of Title Creep.  When for whatever reason, usually the business not doing well so you don’t have money to give out, the organization starts giving out titles over raises (“Hey, Janie, doesn’t look like we have any budget money to give you your 3% raise this year, but gosh golly you sure our important to us, so we want to “promote” you to Manager!).  And you know what? That crap works for a little while! Because people love titles!

Just look at banks – they’re really funny about titles!  Everyone at a bank – and I mean everyone – is either a Vice President or a President!  Banks really have screwed up the title thing worse than any other industry.  You will see banks now that the person’s title will be Vice President – Manager of Recruiting, or Sr. Vice President – Director of Human Resources – and I wonder to myself – “So, what is it – VP or Director!? What are you?”  This is where titles go very wrong and stop having value to the individual.

The main problem with title creep is when it’s used and people feel because they have, or have had, a certain title that means they should get that title in another organization.  I interviewed a sharp person a while back who had graduated from college in HR and over the course of about 6 years went from HR Generalist, to HR Manager, to HR Director, to VP of HR in the same organization. Impressive, right?  But wait, there’s more to the story!  She lost her position do to an organizational change (that’s what we call getting fired today so the GenY’s and millennials still feel it’s not their fault) and was struggling finding another “executive” role in HR.  I asked her a couple of questions:

1. From your beginning as an HR Generalist to your final role as VP of HR, how many direct reports did you pick up?

              A: 1

2. From your HR Gen role to VP role – what responsibilities did you pick up?

             A: Well…I still do everything, but I also am now more strategic.

Oh, boy.  So, I got to share with her some advice. Stop looking for an “executive” role, find a solid HR Gen or HR Manager role – you my friend are no VP of HR!   Title Creep really hurt her.

In HR we have a major role in this concept of Diminishing Returns in regards to Titles, and that role should be to stop handing out titles like it’s candy from the bowl on the receptionist’s desk at the front door.  We should protect titles and not allow them to diluted, because most people do like them, and they can be a valuable tool in your compensation tool box, but only if you don’t use them very often.

BTW – best title ever is from K Swiss Kenny Powers commercials!

Talent is a Zero Sum Game

Posted on by
1

There is a mathematical concept called Zero-Sum, what is says is basically where one person, organization, etc. will gain, there is an equal loss by another person, organization, etc. of that exact same amount.   An example might be market share of a corporation – if GM has 17% market share of U.S. car buyers, and it gains 1%, to 18% total market share – the 1% came at the expense of their competition.  GM didn’t miraculously grow/build/birth 1% of new car buyers out of thin air. It’s a Zero-Sum game, their competition loses the exact same number of car buyers that GM gained – you rob Peter to pay Paul. 

Hiring Managers never get this!

Talent and HR Pros feel this all the time.  Hard to fill requisition, limited talent pool and the hiring managers makes you feel like you should be able to go down to the vending machine and just select C-3 and another Software Developer will fall down into your hands, ready to work! (by the way C-3 in my office is Peanut Butter M&M’s which seem to make everything better at almost any time of the day!) But it’s not that easy, right?!  Talent is a Zero-Sum game.  Now, I know my OD and Training friends will be all – “No it’s not! We can grow and build new Talent!”  Not really – not in the time I need it – which is NOW – or – YESTERDAY!  That’s my timing – it’s not 3 months or a year down the road.

That’s are main problem in Talent in 99.9% of organizations, are lack of organizational understanding of the simple concept of Zero-Sum.  If organizations really got this concept they would have robust, funded, succession planning programs that would be attempting to build future talent, to expand their internal talent pools,  but we don’t.  Less than 1% of organizations in the world really fund succession the way it needs to be funded if you want to be self sufficient in terms of talent.  Organizationally, you’re paying either way – you either pay the money up front in terms of talent attraction, or you can pay it on the backside with retention and training – so why does almost every company choose the front side of this equation?  I think most choose the talent attraction spend because we (HR/Talent/OD) have done a horrible job of working with our finance teams to come up with a plan that shows our organization there’s a better way to spend our money.  We haven’t given our leadership a better option – so we/they continue to choose to do more of the same.

Some could argue that we are currently in a less than Zero-Sum game with our employee demographics.  We have more of our population reaching retirement age, than we have potential workforce reaching the age/education/experience to replace our leaving workforce.  But, even at zero – you still see the problem we are in, it’s never ending, it’s just how do you choose to play the game.  I like thinking about our HR/Talent problems in terms of mathematics, because it gives me the feeling there are actually solutions and it’s just a matter of building the solution/process.   I think most will argue that the solution is to do all of it in combination – some attraction, some succession, some training – which I agree with, but I think the percentages of your current combination need to change if you truly want to get off the treadmill.

 

LinkedIn’s Talent Brand Index Could be Trouble!

Posted on by
5

Ok, let’s be as transparent as possible:

1. I’m pissed at LinkedIn like a scorned girlfriend because they won’t let me buy their corporate version LinkedIn Recruiter (not that I need it – I know you can do x-ray searches or use a great product like Scavado for a fraction of the price and get the same info. – but it’s the racialist mentality of it all – “No, you can’t have it because your a bad staffing company and we only give it to good corporate recruiters) – see – scorned girlfriend.

2.  I use LinkedIn every day. Mostly to recruit employees from one company to another company, and someone pays me to do this.

3. I like using LinkedIn – solid U/I and a great recruiting tool, inexpensive.  (we call that a triple threat)

OK – On with the show!

Last week LinkedIn announced a new product at their annual Talent Connect conference, called Talent Brand Index or BrandConnect – or something like that – as you can see I wasn’t invited (which I’m actually not pissed about – I mean I’d like to go – but it’s not like the scorned girlfriend thing). Basically this is a tool/measure of how much your brand is engaged on the LinkedIn site – but it has a number of components baked into the algorithm that make this less than black and white.  I have 3 opinions of this announcement that range in 3 very different psychosis:

Pessimistic View (LinkedIn Haters)

Holy crap – this is just another way for LinkedIn to hold companies hostage over their brand!  Basically, the Talent Brand Index, if I want a higher score, forces me to encourage my employees to get on LinkedIn – the more employees I have on, the higher score I get.  Also, the more products I buy from LinkedIn, the higher my score.  I don’t want my employees to be on LinkedIn because my competition will be pimping them non-stop and I’m bound to lose some.  Plus, they keep using the words “Brand Engagement” that invariably will get confused by people as my “employee engagement” when it really has no correlation.

Optimistic View (LinkedIn Lovers)

This tool is great at showing me where I can increase my “engagement” of my brand within the product.  We trust our employees and want them to network professionally and share our brand with as many people as possible – it’s good for them, it’s good for us.  We believe we have a great place to work and increasing our brand engagement on LinkedIn will only help our recruiting efforts.  Plus, this new tool really, for the first time, gives us great insight to how people outside of our company feel and interact with our employment brand.  It’s great data!

Pragmatic View (The Middle)

If you have a “great” work environment and strong employment brand (let’s say 10% of companies) this is wonderful.  You have low turnover, high employee engagement – this will only help you recruit more folks – and more employees you have on won’t hurt you because they aren’t leaving you.  The other 90% of companies could see some impact from this – if they go out and encourage their employees to actively get on LinkedIn, in hopes of raising your Brand Index score. You have pockets that aren’t pretty and you’ll have folks that get picked off by your competition.  This will then cause you more work.  It’s not to say those people wouldn’t leave on their own – some will, regardless, but I don’t want to throw them a job fair in the lobby of our building. Reality check – most HR shops/companies don’t have the people, the money or the desire to really move the needle on increasing their “LinkedIn Brand Index” score – so this will be a non-issue for most.

Final thought –

I would like those companies who really think this is a great deal to do just 1 thing for me. Will you do that?  Today, go to your CIO and tell them you are going to have the entire Software Development team put their profiles up on LinkedIn – because you want to raise your Brand Index score.  Then let me know the results – if you still have a job, or are conscious.

 

The 3 Places You’re Going in your Career

Posted on by
Reply

You know that Career Path you’re currently on – I want to tell you to not get so concerned and uptight about where it’s going because the reality is – it will only go in 3 directions.  I was talking with a young HR pro last week and this person was super concerned about his career path – you know the concern – “I need to be an executive by 35 or my life is a failure” – and he was looking to me for advice.  So, I gave him my career path advice – get fired a couple of times and have your Mom promote you to President! Seems easy enough, I don’t know what all the concern is about.

The reality is – you have only 3 places you will go in your career path:

1. You’ll stay in position (No Move)

2. You’ll get promoted (Move Up)

3. You’ll get fired (Move you don’t want)

Someone might be thinking –  wait – you can have lateral movement or be demoted.  Demotion is being fired, you just couldn’t take the hint and leave.  Lateral move I consider staying in position or no move – all you did was change the color of your office, it’s the same thing.

I’ve gotten to the point in my career where I talk to younger people – just starting out in their career and I say stupid stuff like- “Ugh, these GenY and Millenials don’t get it – you have to put in your time and prove yourself – they’ve done nothing, but think they deserve to move up”.  Right? You say this stuff to don’t you!  Then I remember – I had the same freaking stupid goals – I wanted to be a VP by 35 or somehow I’d consider my life to be a failure (It didn’t happen until I was 38 – and by the time I got it – it no longer seemed important!).  Generations haven’t changed – young people have always want to move up faster than they should and believe they can handle it.

I envy people who have stayed in the same position for 20-30-40 years – COMPLETELY – envy.  To be satisfied with where you are at – not feel that need to push up or out – to chase something that in the end is meaningless – that is a feeling I don’t know – but would like to.   You know – HR Pros/Leaders contribute to this issue – we tell people they are on a career path, we feel the need to show them a career path – we make people feel like if they aren’t “chasing” their career path or climbing the ladder they are somehow less than others.  They aren’t.

 

Strategic Napping

Posted on by
5

You guys know I’m always on the outlook for things that will make my recruiters more productive – the constant beatings have proven only to be successful in the short-term!  So, when I read the NY Times article Rethinking Sleeping I was a bit, but hopeful, that maybe science has come up with something that won’t cost me more money.  I’ve always been envious of folks that only need 4-6 hours of sleep per night and seem fresh as a daisy – I’m also skeptical since I think most people lie about how much sleep they get and not on the high side.  Most people I run into wear their lack of sleep like a badge of honor – “I only sleep 4 hours per night!” – so you go to bed when? Midnight? And get up at 4am?  Really?!? Reeaallly!!!??? Come on – I’m calling bullshit.  It’s just like the people who tell you they work 80 hours per week – No you don’t – you can’t count your 1 hour each way commute time and checking email on your iPhone as you sit on the toilet before you go to bed – that doesn’t count!

I’m a 7 hour per night kind of sleeper – I go to bed at 11:30 pm – alarm goes off at 6:30am – I’m a no snooze alarm person, wants it goes off, I’m up.  Now on the weekends that changes up a bit – its usually anywhere from midnight to 2am watching movie in bed time until however long I can force myself to stay in bed in the morning which is usually 9am at the latest – again it’s probably a rough 7-9, maybe 9 hours on Saturday and Sunday.  Now, I could say I only sleep 4 hours – because let’s face it – I’m 40ish – around 2-4am I’m up, peeing – thank you old age.  My grandmother is a true 4 hour a sleep person – she is 83 and I think it pisses her off that she actually has to go to bed – I think she would prefer to just keep drinking coffee and smoking cigarettes at the kitchen table all night – but alas, she forces herself to go to bed.  I’m completely envious of her telling me stories of how she is up at 4am, and has to force herself to stay in bed that long!  I keep waiting for those genetics to kick in – can you imagine how much you could get done by only sleeping 4 hours!

‘They’ tell us we should get 8 hours of sleep a night.  We assume that means 8 hours in a row- but new research is showing us that maybe 8 hours in a row isn’t what is really needed to be most productive.  From the NY Times article:

This, despite the fact that a number of recent studies suggest that any deep sleep — whether in an eight-hour block or a 30-minute nap — primes our brains to function at a higher level, letting us come up with better ideas, find solutions to puzzles more quickly, identify patterns faster and recall information more accurately. In a NASA-financed study, for example, a team of researchers led by David F. Dinges, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, found that letting subjects nap for as little as 24 minutes improved their cognitive performance…

Gradual acceptance of the notion that sequential sleep hours are not essential for high-level job performance has led to increased workplace tolerance for napping and other alternate daily schedules.  Employees at Google, for instance, are offered the chance to nap at work because the company believes it may increase productivity.

Here is what I know – taking a nap at work in America, in 99% of our organizations, is going to be looked at as a sign something is wrong with you – unfortunately. We haven’t opened enough minds yet to make this acceptable behavior.  Do I think taking a strategic nap during the day has merit – I do – but would your employees be willing to take an extra hour nap and then work until 6pm?  Doubtful, right?  There in lies that balance issue – if you sleep during work hours, work hours get expanded – and you have to be willing to push your concept of family balance out to the extra time you’ll have not sleeping later at night or early in the morning – that is a big jump in perception for our society right now.

Off-shoring Your Recruiting

Posted on by
2

If you haven’t been contacted by a recruiting off-shoring company yet, put yourself into a rare segment of Talent/HR Pros.  Almost daily I receive an email or phone call – from a U.S. phone number – telling me how I can save thousands of dollars by using their services to help us recruit for our open positions.  I always find this funny since my company is a third-party recruiting company.  So, basically, they are telling me that they can save me thousands of dollars from the thousands of dollars I tell my clients we are going to save them – sounds to good to be true!

But I’m also a sucker!  Yep, I took the bait!

Here’s the deal:

  • For about $1200/month you’ll get a “Full-time Recruiter” (the price might change a little based on how many you need, volume, etc. but that’s the ballpark)
  • This “Recruiter” works Monday through Friday from 8am to 5pm EST.
  • This “Recruiter” will have a U.S. based phone number.
  • You can have contact with this recruiter via phone or email – in fact it’s encouraged.
  • This “Recruiter” is actually based in India, in a call center environment.
  • This “Recruiter” has access to the major job boards and the internet and is trained at making a basic recruiting call.
  • You can get some guarantees on how many “candidates” presented, screened, etc.
  • The “Recruiter” has an email address from your company and presents themselves as working for your company.

Here’s my reality:

  • At $1200/month I had to try it – it seemed like a small investment for some education into this off-shoring recruiting world I keep hearing about.
  • The recruiter was pleasant, a bit hard to understand, and I felt wanted to do a good job.  It also sounds like they are sitting on the busiest street corner in Mumbai! (imagine giant call center with 500 folks all on the phone at the same time – with the windows open – sitting on Time Square – that’s the sound!)
  • They basically just call off of folks they find on job boards and/or an internal database of contacts which consist of H1B candidates that need sponsorship (we had them working on some IT openings to see what they came up with)
  • In 30 days of working a JAVA Developer opening, working for a U.S. client in the Denver Metro area with a competitive wage – this off-shoring recruiting company presented zero candidates that didn’t need sponsorship and only 1 candidate overall.
  • It wasn’t an easy opening – but that’s why I gave it to them to see how this person would do.
  • After the first 3 days I got a message and a call almost daily from the Recruiter and this person’s manager asking for more orders, even though they had yet to present one candidate.  This didn’t stop. We tried at the end to give a couple more IT openings we had, that I had my internal recruiters working on to see if they would come up with different candidates – and again we got a bunch of H1B candidates.

I don’t consider this to be a total failure – the experience let me know exactly what kind of orders that an off-shoring company could handle and do well with.  Those orders would most likely be ones where you have a healthy candidate base and just don’t have the internal capacity to go through the process of screening, or you have a staff that just has a hard time picking up the phone and calling potential candidates (stop laughing – that’s most corporate HR folks – or there wouldn’t be a multi-billion dollar recruiting industry).

Would I do it again?  Probably not, although the lure of a $1200/month recruiter is very enticing – especially one that isn’t afraid of the phones, but the reality of what I got doesn’t match up with what I paid.  Now – if I had to hire for a U.S. Call center and needed someone to plow through Monster and find 50 candidates a week for us to interview – maybe that might be the key to making this thing work.

$1200 education for myself.  You don’t have to get this same education – if you are seriously considering this – call me and I’ll tell you some better options for your $1200!

 

 

Dream Gigantic

Posted on by
Reply

I love this.

I don’t do this enough – I don’t count myself as a dreamer – but I encourage my children to do this.  I want them to be the MLB Shortstop, the famous Fashion Designer and world renowned Environmentalist.  They have Gigantic dreams – I will do everything I can in my power to help them reach those dreams.  I won’t be the parent who tells them they are unrealistic.  I won’t be the parent to tell them they are farfetched.  I will not be the parent to tell them that their dream is out of reach.

I have a career that has taught me to be pragmatic.  I’ve seen the best and worst of people – sometimes all in the same day. When people ask me for career advice I give them the safe answer, because I know the reality of life – their dreams are longshots – most people are not willing to come close to the effort they need to exert to reach their dreams – so I give them options I think they are willing to work for – which are less than Gigantic.

Every day I have to consciously turn this off as I drive home.  You see the reason we have dreams is because we have a belief that there is something more, something better.  Dreams can be Gigantic – and you reach them through Gigantic effort.

3 Reasons Talent Communities are NOT the Future of Employment

Posted on by
6

I know a lot of really smart, brilliant people who espouse that Talent Communities are the second coming of Christ, in regards to employment and recruiting.  Business Week even had a recent article where they called “Talent Hives” (I guess their version of “Talent Communities” – the future of employment – which means this concept is now hitting main stream and soon you’ll see June the HR Manager down at the local Tool & Die Shop trying to set up her talent community.  Here’s more from Business Week:

“These are communities of people interested in an employer (whether because they’re job hunting themselves, or just curious, or because they’re fans of the product or service the organization produces) and willing to be in two-way touch with that employer over time. (For the simplest example of a Talent Hive, think of a Facebook (FB) company page or a LinkedIn (LNKD) group). Talent Hives are popular because they’re easy to set up, and because the two-way and group communication makes it easy for companies to learn more about potential job applicants (including people who are currently working for their competitors) even when they don’t have open positions.”

Great theoretical concept.  But I think theory and practice don’t always align because the real world steps in an kicks it in and kicks them both to the curb.  Here’s 3 reasons I don’t see Talent Communities as the Future of Employment:

1. Reality – Talent Communities are established by you and ran by you (the HR/Recruitment Dept.) – that’s means you need to deliver content, sometimes unique, definitely engaging. Very few people, in HR worlds, have the skill/ability to do this.  You can shop this out, at a cost – a cost of not only money but also authenticity – there goes that community feel.  And, by the way, you’re doing this for a benefit you may, or may not, get in the future when you have an opening you believe you might have.  How many organizations are really going to do this long term? It’s a small percentage, congregated into smaller specialty industries – with really big budgets – to make it sustainable.

2. Logistics – Talent Communities assume “Talent” – that talented people you would want to hire will voluntarily want to join your content driven community and interact.  That’s a huge assumption! Gigantic!  First, you (yes, you – who else will do it) needs to go out and find the great talent that you someday want to work at your company and engage them to be apart of your community.  I don’t know about you – but 99.9% of the HR/Talent Pros I know don’t have the capacity to make this happen – either through time or skill.

3. WIFM (What’s In It For Me) – Talent Communities don’t deliver enough WIFM.  Talented people get this – they are fooled by your “Community” which isn’t really a community but a holding pen for potential future candidates and you have to know they know this. This means someone who ops into your community gets the deal – I want to work at your place – so I’m going to engage with you – and you will engage with me – and one day you’ll hire me – and you’ll use that number to justify how great Talent Communities are so I can keep this job as Talent Community Manager and justify my $50K+ salary.  How’s that work for you?

Let’s face it – I don’t know much – but I think I know a little about recruitment – and to me Talent Communities seem to be a lot of smoke and mirrors and well it’s easier/safer than just picking up the phone and finding/calling the talent you want (which is dirty and evil for some reason).  I know some folks have some great examples of Talent Communities working – good for them – I hope they keep working for them.  I guess this message goes out to the HR majority – it isn’t as easy as it might sound.  Before jumping in with both feet – make sure it’s right for you.

The Value of a Really Crappy Job

Posted on by
3

As some of you may have realized from recent posts (Wanted: People Who Aren’t Stupid), I’ve been interviewing candidates recently for the position of Technical Recruiter working for my company HRU. I love interviewing because each time I interview I think I’ve discovered a better way to do it, or something new I should be looking for, and this most recent round of interviews is no different.  Like most HR/Talent Pros I’m always interested in quality work/co-op/internship experience – let’s face it, it’s been drilled into us – past performance/actions will predict future performance/actions.  So, we tend to get excited over seeing a candidate that has experience from a great company or competitor – we’re intrigued to know how the other side lives and our inquisitive nature begs us to dig in.

What I’ve found over the past 20 years of interviewing is that while I love talking to people that worked at really great companies – I hire more people that have worked at really bad companies.  You see, while you learn some really good stuff working for great companies – I think people actually learn more working for really crappy companies!  Working at a really great companies gives you an opportunity to work in “Utopia” – you get to see how things are suppose to work, how people are suppose to work together, how it a perfect world it all fits together.  The reality is – we don’t work Utopia (at least the majority of us) we work in organizations that are less than perfect, and some of us actually work in down right horrible companies. Those who work in horrible companies and survive – tend to better hires – they have battle scars and street smarts.

So, why everyone wants to get out of really bad companies (and I don’t blame them) there is actually a few things you learn from those experiences:

1. Leadership isn’t a necessity to run a profitable company. I’ve seen some very profitable companies that had really bad leadership – people always think they’ll leave those companies and they’ll fail – they don’t.  Conversely, I’ve worked for some companies that had great people leaders and failed.

2. Great people sometimes work a really crappy companies.  Don’t equate crappy company with crappy talent.  Sometimes you can find some real gems in the dump.

3. Hard work is relative.  I find people who work at really bad companies, tend to appreciate hard work better than those who work a really great companies with great balance.  If all you’ve every known is long hours and management that doesn’t care you have a family – seeing the other side gives you an appreciation that is immeasurable.

4. Not having the resources to do the job, doesn’t mean you can’t do the job. Working for a crappy company in a crappy job tends to make you more creative – because you probably won’t have what you need to do the job properly, so you find ways.

5. Long lasting peer relationships come through adversity.  You can make life-long work friends at a crappy job – who you’ll keep in contact and be able to leverage as you move on in your careers.  And here’s what each of you will think about the other: “That person can work in the shit!”  “That person is tough and get’s things done” “That person is someone I want on my team, when I get to build a team”

We all know the bad companies in our industries and markets.  Don’t discount candidates who have spent time with those companies – we were all at some point needing a job – a first experience, a shot at a promotion or more money, etc. and took a shot at a company we thought we could change or make a difference.  I love people who worked for bad companies, in bad jobs with bad management – because they wear it like a badge of honor!

2 Reasons Women Don’t Get Hired or Promoted

Posted on by
4

The New York Times had an article recently regarding hiring practices and succession practices at Google – and G*d knows if Google is doing it – it must be important, and we must try and do the same thing. What I liked about this article was it didn’t necessarily look at practices and processes – it looked at data – and the data found that Google – like almost every other large company – does a crappy job hiring and promoting women. Shocking, I know, if you’re a man – we had no idea this was going on! In America of all places… Beyond the obvious though, Google was able to dig into the data and find out the whys and make some practical changes that I think most companies can implement – and that I totally agree with.  From the article:

“Google’s spreadsheets, for example, showed that some women who applied for jobs did not make it past the phone interview. The reason was that the women did not flaunt their achievements, so interviewers judged them unaccomplished.

Google now asks interviewers to report candidates’ answers in more detail. Google also found that women who turned down job offers had interviewed only with men. Now, a woman interviewing at Google will meet other women during the hiring process.

A result: More women are being hired.”

Here are two selection facts that impact both men and women:

1.  We like to surround ourselves with people who we like – which usually means in most cases people who are similar to ourselves

2. We tend not to want to brag about our accomplishments, but our society has made it more acceptable for men to brag.

This has a major impact to your selection – and most of you are doing nothing about it.  It’s very common that if you run simple demographics for your company – ANY COMPANY – you’ll see that the percentage of your female employees does not come close to the percentage of your female leadership.  Why is that?

Here are two things you can do to help make the playing field more level in your organization:

1. Have women interview women.  Sounds a bit sexist in a way – but if you want women to get hired into leadership positions you can’t have them going up against males being interviewed by males because the males will almost always feel more comfortable with another male candidate. Reality sucks, buy a helmet.

2. Ask specific questions regarding accomplishments and take detailed notes. Studies have found woman don’t get hired or promoted because they don’t “sell” or brag enough about their accomplishments giving their male counterparts a leg up – because the males making the hiring decisions now have “ammunition” to justify their decision to hire the male.

Let’s face it – Google is doing it – so now we all have to do it.  What would we do without best practices…(maybe innovate and create new better practices – but I digress…).