The Social Network For The Recruiting Industry
The Comment Club
- Rating: No Rating
Audio Version here
As you all know, unlike everybody else in the recruitosphere, I am not a thought leader. And I am not a visionary.
But nevertheless, late last week I created the very first portable group blog in world history. Here's what I mean.
A bunch of my friends and I agreed to work together as team of roving commenters.
When we see a blog posting that's just begging to be criticized we send a message (like ants) to the other members of the team.
And they all descend on it at the same time and start discussing it back and forth until all of the errors are exposed and corrected.
Now please tell me, what's wrong with that?
I think it's a marvellous idea because not many people leave comments on recruiting blogs so a blogger is free to say any kind of nonsense at all and never get called on it.
You get guys like the great Shally, who complain that there's too much noise in the recruitosphere but do they ever come up with a plan to do anything about it? No.
But did the Recruiting Animal come up with a solution to the problem? Yes he did. And it's a fun solution too. But do you think anyone is patting me on the back for it. No. No they're not.
Instead I'm starting to hear the same old story: Why do you have criticize everybody. I don't think that's nice.
Yeah. Well look at Lifehacker. That's a software blog. They recommend software. And when they do they get a bunch of comments from people telling you what the shortcomings of that software are
So tell me, would it be better if the people who know something and are trying to help you just shut their mouths because the guy who made the recommendation isn't humble enough to handle anybody else's opinion? I don't think so.
And the same rule applies to us. If you tell me is that your company's great and you don't offer any evidence, I'm going to say you better prove it, Bub.
And if you tell me that when a Gen Y person gets laid off she won't have any trouble writing a great resume, activating her network and getting a new job in just a few weeks. I'm going to say you better prove it.
Because that's the difference between blogging and propaganda. And that's the difference between being boring and being a part of a dialogue. And people who write political blogs, they get that -- but, recruiters they don't. They don't get it.
Now, remember when Obama said that today is the day the oceans stop rising? Well I'm telling you that today is the day that the noise starts dying down.
As you all know, unlike everybody else in the recruitosphere, I am not a thought leader. And I am not a visionary.
But nevertheless, late last week I created the very first portable group blog in world history. Here's what I mean.
A bunch of my friends and I agreed to work together as team of roving commenters.
When we see a blog posting that's just begging to be criticized we send a message (like ants) to the other members of the team.
And they all descend on it at the same time and start discussing it back and forth until all of the errors are exposed and corrected.
Now please tell me, what's wrong with that?
I think it's a marvellous idea because not many people leave comments on recruiting blogs so a blogger is free to say any kind of nonsense at all and never get called on it.
You get guys like the great Shally, who complain that there's too much noise in the recruitosphere but do they ever come up with a plan to do anything about it? No.
But did the Recruiting Animal come up with a solution to the problem? Yes he did. And it's a fun solution too. But do you think anyone is patting me on the back for it. No. No they're not.
Instead I'm starting to hear the same old story: Why do you have criticize everybody. I don't think that's nice.
Yeah. Well look at Lifehacker. That's a software blog. They recommend software. And when they do they get a bunch of comments from people telling you what the shortcomings of that software are
So tell me, would it be better if the people who know something and are trying to help you just shut their mouths because the guy who made the recommendation isn't humble enough to handle anybody else's opinion? I don't think so.
And the same rule applies to us. If you tell me is that your company's great and you don't offer any evidence, I'm going to say you better prove it, Bub.
And if you tell me that when a Gen Y person gets laid off she won't have any trouble writing a great resume, activating her network and getting a new job in just a few weeks. I'm going to say you better prove it.
Because that's the difference between blogging and propaganda. And that's the difference between being boring and being a part of a dialogue. And people who write political blogs, they get that -- but, recruiters they don't. They don't get it.
Now, remember when Obama said that today is the day the oceans stop rising? Well I'm telling you that today is the day that the noise starts dying down.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Amitai Givertz on -
Um, Jerry are you referring to the Animal [internal profile] or the man behind the mask [external profile]?
I say he's a S over I which, as you know, is somewhere between "rare" and "odd" on the wacky scale.
Oh, if you're interested I'm an off the chart D. The test always comes back flagged for a retake suggesting the "subject may be overly stressed or unusually agitated."
Are you familiar with Margaret Graziano's work with KeenHire? It's groundbreaking. Check it out.
Jerry Albright said:Animal - are you familiar with the DISC Personality Test? I'm what they call a "high 'I'" so that means it's quite important for me that others like me......it's my personable nature that I value and build upon in social settings....
I suspect you're a D with a pinch of S/C but it's been a while since I spent much time with that particular test. I might be wrong. (Not that there's anything wrong with that)
Recruiting Animal said:Jerry said: I'd like to jump in here with a comment. Can I do that like in the old days - like last week - where I'm simply commenting for discussion's sake?
Jerry, you don't get it. Nothing has changed.
-
Permalink Reply by Recruiting Animal on -
Quote 1:
"This is good news for recruiters, who are already starting to see how much a needed part of society they have become.
But with this new lauded status, with all this conversation about how the black sheep cousin of HR can actually be of use, comes a more sinister slippery slope."
Quote 2:
"As recruiters we are in the middle of the storm and have wind blowing at us from our clients (who are overworked) and our candidates (who are freaking out).
I had a candidate who felt he was qualified for a position that I had already filled and couldn't understand why I didn't get him in at the 11th hour. He was very upset."
-
Permalink Reply by lisa rokusek on
-
Animal, Maren, Jerry, Jessica, Dan,
I love this whole thing because I have looked at RBC more times in the last week than I have in a year. In 2007 I left a company I'd been with for over a decade and went out on my own. So I have been busting my buttons running my desk (and being a curmudgeon on twitter) more than I have been talking to recruiters about recruiting.
But recruiting is one of my favorite things, and I do like to talk about it. I like having my feet held to the fire by solid critique, and I like doing the same to others, but only in a way that lifts us (collectively) up. It is possible to seek accountability and critical thinking without resorting to mob tactics. It takes practice and determination and a willingness to put for the effort.
I think it is good for us (again, collectively) as an industry to require that accountability of each other and ourselves.
-
Permalink Reply by Recruiting Animal on
-
According to Socrates, the role of a gadfly is to to "sting people and whip them into a fury in the service of truth".
Socrates, of course, was sentenced to death.
-
Permalink Reply by Maren Hogan on -
Sandra, you make a well-reasoned and excellent point. And I appreciate the way you do not misquote me or put words into my mouth, but rather explain the way those words occur to you, from your particular vantage point.
I am wary of continuing this discussion because it has gotten very far afield from my original intent and post. I only wish to say that in place of "a whole new" it may have been wiser to put "another". I do know this and agree with it, having come from a family of recruiters and at least watching the after effects of such an economy if not participating in the day to day grind. I meant new in the sense that the demographic is shifting, not that all the people in the unnamed group are necessarily young. I took issue with the fact that I was being misquoted and "glittering generalities" were being spewed all over the place in regards to the post I wrote. Several people disagreed with the post and managed to do so without putting words in my mouth or calling names. I think that sparks correction and change.
The original post was written to state that while outplacement and recruiting might be great bedfellows in some situations, I could some that I thought were less than ideal. In addition, while experience is to be lauded and respected, I believe there is something to be said for seeing things in a new light. In fact, it was written as a counterpoint to Jennifer McClure's piece in favor of a strong partnership between recruiters and outplacement firms.
I try very hard when I write not to say NEVER and ALWAYS. I believe I have known enough people in many different positions to understand that what is my/your/his/her experience may not translate. So to have people insinuate that I said one thing when I tried very hard to be inclusive is upsetting. I stated that I do not think it is a good idea to partner with outplacement firms (for various reasons). I also stated that the process might work for a larger firm and has worked in specific cases. I am glad to hear it. I appreciated your quick overview in the third and fourth paragraphs. It is not at all far from what I stated in the post. Appropriate for some, not all.
You are right when you say: Glittering generalities are nice but without postulated execution that are just that. However, in a blog writing environment, it's usually necessary to carve a large subject like this up into smaller pieces. I think an article on the possibility of tiered outplacement that paced with the career knowledge within the company would be a good idea. But to write something like that, you have to have this (well, not exactly this) conversation to base it off of. That or a group of folks with enough years of experience to draw from their own stories and stats comprehensively. Do that and your ruin some of the diversity that makes a collaborative blog so interesting to read.
I appreciate your desire to help my candidates. In an awesome turn of events, many of them are finding jobs. And now, when the next downturn comes, they'll be a little more armed and dangerous. You are very right about the hot dog comment, which is why if I can't help someone, I send them to someone who can. If they don't ask for my "how to get a job" spiel, I don't force it on them. To continue the run of an overused qualifier in this discussion:
In my experience, they are asking.
Sandra McCartt said:Maren,
I think the point animal is trying to make is that your statment of ("a whole new generation of job seekers is reaching out to recruiters.") is only valid in your world because you are new to recruiting in a down economy. It may seem like a new generation to you because you haven't been through a crash so you can't be faulted for thinking this is a new phenomenon. Opined in a manner that says, "within my time in this industry" you qualify your opinion to your own experience which sparks input rather than correction or challenge. The person who has always lived in a dark room, escapes and sees the sun for the first time can not be faulted for believing that the sun is something new. But he displays the arrogance of ignorance if he becomes angry and defensive with those who tell him the sun has always been there, it's only new to him.
The difference between an informed opinion and an opinion is asking the questions. Has this ever happened before? If it has then it's not a new generation it's a replay of what happens when people are desperate for jobs. You'll have to trust us on that one, some of us have lived through four or five of these times when our offices could best be referred to as "Critter Camps".
If you had said, "Another generation of job seekers is reaching out to recruiters but this time we have more to offer them to help themselves". Bravo, pretty girl child that's an informed and observant opinion. Whether social networks are the replacement for the "show up in person with a resume" approach remains to be seen.
It certainly might be nice if companies passed out money individually for outplacement services but i wonder how that might be administered. Would A players be given more than the guys and gals in the plant because they made more money or needed more expensive interview suits? Would the unskilled worker be given more because they might have a more difficult time finding a new job as it could be assumed that they don't have good resumes or college degrees or might not be up to speed on all the social networks or think that Twitter is something that little girls do in church when they talk about little boys. Glittering generalities are nice but without postulated execution that are just that.
Outplacement service is something that a company can provide that can be of value to all levels of employees it doesn't take the place of recruiters. A lot of the stuff that outplacement types tell people makes recruiters crazy. Some of it makes our job harder as we undo the crap that gets fed to laid off people ,like being told that they need to ask for more money than they were making before they got laid off. Never to tell anyone what they were making or leaving 20 years of career experience off their resume.
If you have candidates who would rather learn how find a job than just have you give them one please send them to me. All of mine would grab a job rather than a great "how to find one" session. In my experience most hungry people would rather have a hot dog than the knowledge of what is in one of the damn things.
But, i bet you never forget the difference between carrion and vultures. :)
-
-
Yes, yes he was. But he still teaches us, which is pretty darn cool.
-
Permalink Reply by Recruiting Animal on
-
Let me see if I understand the great Craig Silverman.
(Did I ever give him a name? Yeah, but not a good one).
1. People don't like looking for jobs. So there's no new generation of gung-ho job hunters who are eager to do so. But there are people who will look for jobs when there's no one else to do it for them.
2. You can't criticize job hunters of the past for not using tools that weren't available then.
3. Some bloggers stink and some aren't your cup of tea - but suppression of expression is not the American way.
-
Permalink Reply by JobsforKarma on -
With unemployment at 8.1% a recruiter may find a very qualified potential employee even before posting the job on the careers section of their webpage. Remember how hard it was to hire a top notch recruiter a year ago.
-
Permalink Reply by Dan Nuroo on -
Does that mean there is 91.9% Employment?
JobsforKarma said:With unemployment at 8.1% a recruiter may find a very qualified potential employee even before posting the job on the careers section of their webpage. Remember how hard it was to hire a top notch recruiter a year ago.
-
Permalink Reply by Joshua Letourneau on -
Animal, what you're describing already exists and has for years now:
"When we see a blog posting that's just begging to be criticized we send a message (like ants) to the other members of the team.
And they all descend on it at the same time and start discussing it back and forth until all of the errors are exposed and corrected."
Personally, this is gang speak. When you have a close grip group of individuals who bond together to 'descend' on others, you're describing a gang. Off the web, it's easy to identify gangs - most where some form of attire to distinguish themselves as part of a given sect, such as a red bandana, an L.A. Kings jersey, or in some cases, tattoos or burns. There is also a strict hierarchy - a Boss, Lieutenants ("Field Generals"), tons and tons of foot soldiers (this supply is endless as more and more individuals fight to get in the good graces of the gang), etc.
What I will say is that your notion of blog "errors" are actually in the eye of the beholder, or in this case, a given gang. My observation is that what you describe as "errors" are nothing more than differences in opinion . . . and/or perceptions that the gang's money stream is being threatened. Threaten a gang's commerce and you won't be around much longer to speak about it. Real talk. The truth about gangs is that most individuals who hide behind them are too weak individually to take you on one-on-one. I can't tell you the amount of times I've seen people who couldn't blog-debate themselves out of a paper bag, but because of all the noise and supporting commentary of their gang (or "ants"), the original blogger of a new idea or contrarian concept is left asking where to begin in terms of answering the comment laundry list.
Ultimately, I believe your home-grown "solution" threatens the generation of new blogs and, undoubtedly, individuals who would like to bring new ideas or different paradigms to the table. Typically, they can't get off the ground when a gang descends upon them for saying something different than the status quo. What's comical here is that the name of this site is 'RecruitingBlogs', yet we're speaking about constructing a gang designed to 'expose' or 'correct' blog statements considered to be 'errors'. Think about it.
I say stand on your own two feet. Yes, gangs are powerful and extremely intimidating . . . but over the long haul, they kill each other off or start 'ratting' on one another to move each individual's agenda forward. Sooner or later, a group of Scorpions slowly and methodically begin to kill each other off . . . and those left standing are the people that hold their ground and stand for what's right.
P.S. If you disagree with a particular blogger or thinker, I would prefer (as a reader) to see you and the original blogger debate it out . . . as opposed to a list of ant-comments geared to intimidate the original blogger from responding.
-
Permalink Reply by Amitai Givertz on
-
I cannot speak for the Animal. I suspect he would say you are right.
Sometimes good ideas translate into bad practice. I think that's what happened here.
Joshua Letourneau said:Animal, what you're describing already exists and has for years now:
"When we see a blog posting that's just begging to be criticized we send a message (like ants) to the other members of the team. And they all descend on it at the same time and start discussing it back and forth until all of the errors are exposed and corrected."
Personally, this is gang speak.
-
Permalink Reply by Joshua Letourneau on
-
P.S. A friend of mine sent me a George Carlin video this morning after reading this thread - his stance is to not post this himself because he doesn't need the drama or the potential disparaging of his personal brand . . . so I'll toss this out there for him. That's the real threat here - the mud you might be dragged through by the ants, which is then public for the world to see. It's this threat of cyber-brand-terrorism that is the real issue with what you're describing.
In my friend's words, "George C is describing how we're supposed to think in our space - like sheep. And if you say anything different, the "big club" (or 'ants') will "descend" upon you. Nothing has changed and I've learned over my 15 years in this space that nothing will."
P.S.S. Don't watch the video editing - just listen to what George is saying (the pure audio).
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
© 2010 Created by Slouch
