NZ Recruiter

Will You Be Changing Jobs in 2010?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Are you a software developer in Auckland who wants to be happier at work? Click here!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It seems 2010 is going to be a massive year of career shift for many people. Surveys in most developed markets point to massive numbers of skilled candidates intending to change jobs this year. Some of the results include:

• 60% of US Workers intend to leave their jobs in 2010 (link).
• 25% of employees believe organization morale is low (link).
• 20% of workers plan to switch careers and/or industries within two years (link).
• Only 45% of US employers are satisfied with their jobs in 2009 down from 61% in 1987 (link).
• Only 53% of Singapore financial workers are satisfied with their jobs (link).

It makes you wonder what really happened with all these people, what is it that causes them to have so much suffering at work? I talk with a lot of people in regards to their situation at work, most will admit to wanting more of something. Sometimes when we flesh it out their needs are quite realistic. Other times they are looking for an easier path to a better reward, which unfortunately, rarely exists. Meshing reality with what the person wants is often the biggest part of understanding whether someone really needs to make a job change in order to improve their satisfaction.

This can be really difficult to do alone, even for the most experienced candidates. After all, if you're good at your job you are busy doing that, not analyzing the marketplace and/or your skills and abilities to see whether you are ready for a big move. In order to make the decision on whether the time is right I recommend answering a few of the following questions. Be honest with yourself, anything else is pointless.

• What are my biggest achievements in my current position?
• How have I grown in the last 2 years?
• Am I giving 100% of my effort to the work I'm doing?
• If not, why am I holding back?
• If yes, then is the work satisfying me?
• If it's not satisfying me despite my effort, what are the areas that are holding me back?
• Can I improve on those areas in my current position?
• If I made a job change what are all the areas I need fulfilled to make me happy in a new position. 
• Being that nowhere is perfect. What would I be willing to give up/take on to make that move anyway?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Are you a software developer in Auckland, want to be happier at work? Click here!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Why You Should Give Referrals

I had an interesting question the other day from a candidate: "Why would anyone give you a referral when you get paid a huge fee and they get nothing?" I thought this was a great question. I actually addressed this in the Annual IT Architectural Summit I spoke at last week, so I thought I'd share my answer here.

Many would be surprised to hear that a lot of people give out referrals. And by far, most referrals I get are from senior candidates. That's right - senior candidates are easily the most open about not only giving referrals of people they know, but also giving what I call "blind referrals". This is when they hand out names of people who they think are reasonably good or worth talking to but aren't necessarily their personal contacts.

For senior candidates I think they see their ability to give referrals as almost an example of their strength and knowledge in their industry. It also shows that in their experience, they realize the importance and value of giving referrals as well as the long-term gains.

But to get down to the reasons why executives should give referrals: It's all about goodwill, reciprocity, and networking.

Goodwill. There's nothing really to explain here. When you help someone, it's a good thing. Becoming a referee for that person, referring that person to a recruiter for an opportunity - in the end, it's all for the benefit of that person - whether or not a new job actually materializes. The person you helped is better off by having had at least a chance to consider an opportunity. Opportunity is always a good thing.

Reciprocity. The Law of Reciprocation is powerful. I got this from Dr. Robert Cialdini, a widely recognized expert in negotiation studies, who said the power of reciprocation is extremely strong and should be used when presented with a moment of power; that is, when you have just done or given something beneficial to someone. When they thank you, it's up to you to seize that moment of power and respond:

"I'm sure you would do the same for me if I needed it."

That's the law of reciprocation. As it turns out from Dr. Cialdini's research, people will reciprocate when receiving a gift, advice, or help from someone, no matter how much time has passed from the initial giving. In what ways? Well, if you helped a colleague or former manager by referring them to a recruiter, or offering to be a referee for a potential employer, they may return the favour by looking out for your best interests as well.

Networking. This widens and the ties strengthen from you giving referrals.

The key is to give to them first. And the easiest way is refer them to a key person, or give them a referral if they need one for a new opportunity.

Hopefully, this answers the question. While it's hard to think past the short-term outcomes, like a referral fee, look to the long-term gains of having a quality relationship with someone in your network who can reciprocate goodwill to you when the time comes. It's an investment.

Giving referrals doesn't happen as much here in New Zealand as it does in larger markets, like the US or Japan. But it's something that I think should happen more often.

 

Why Recruiters Are "Seedy"

A while ago I got asked the following question: "Why is it a good number of your peers are seedy? I'd place most recruitment agent's morals pretty close to used car salesmen." I haven't worked out if the question was really a  hint. But I thought I would give my answer here so anyone else could let me know their thoughts too.

1. There are a lot of recruiters out there - some of them are trouble. There are always some bad apples in any bunch.
   
2. There are also a lot of recruiters who are not particularly experienced and often upset candidates and clients without even knowing it. I have done that, but in my own and their defence, you don't get experience without having experiences.
   
3. There are even more candidates out there who get turned down for positions than there are recruiters. And there is no doubt that rejection is hard to take. No matter how experienced and how thick skinned we may be. Those candidates spread bad stories around about recruiters in online forums and to their friends.
   
4. There are a lot of candidates who can't understand what recruiters do and get upset when they don' t seem to act in the way they think they should. For example, they won't tell them who their clients are before they know them, or they can't seem to get feedback on issues that are important to them. I could write a whole other post on this.

So, there are four reasons. But really, I have one more which I truly believe. Most of my peers aren't seedy. In fact, I have met some of the most intelligent and caring people since I joined the recruitment industry. People who make a difference and who make an effort to go out of their way to help others. So that is my real answer. I feel sorry for my friend who has had a bad experience with whoever he met, but he was wrong to think that the entire industry is full of the same kind of people.

NZ Government Spends $1.15 million on Job Board For 2 Jobs

Link: New Zealand Herald.

Yet another fantastic effort from the govt. in wasting money on a project that really shouldn't be spent on. Have a look and see for yourself at NetworkZonline.govt.nz. Hmm. $1.15 million. Notice the very first line where they misspell their own name "NeworkZ Online". This is followed by two type-o's in the second line (there are only 2 lines of text.) Aside from the fact that there are only 5 current job vacancies listed (3 up since the Herald article!), it really isn't very attractive to jobseekers who are browsing. No job descriptions or any details provided, unless you register. Nor would it be attractive to employers to post their openings - if no one else is on there - there most likely aren't any jobseekers utilising it. And come to think of it, why aren't all government jobs listed in the job board?

Now I'm not putting in a plug for Seek or Trademe or Search4jobs, but hey - these are real online job boards that work. Why "compete" against them - NZ enterprises that employee hundreds or thousands of Kiwis? If the ultimate goal is to attract and recruit skilled migrants - I'm sure the fastest way to put them off NZ is with an interactive jobsite that has 3 jobs and doesn't work. Makes NZ look even smaller!

Recruiting and marketing is all business - and should be run like a business - not like a government expenditure. Business problems should be addressed with business solutions - not just technology solutions, like an online jobsite. Positive and effective policy and procedure changes in Immigration for working visas and family visas as well as changes in taxation or any kind of perks would probably do a lot more to attract skilled migrants than a rate-payer funded job board.

Testing for the Right Candidate

Link: CIO - Testing times.

Interesting article about alternative ways to finding the right talent - esp. for senior roles through psychometric testing (behavioural/personality). While the standard hiring process is through job ads then interviews, companies nowadays need to realize their largest investment is really its people, and so accordingly need to invest more effort in recruiting the right people - those who not just have the "right" technical skills, but also all the soft people skills, flexibility and agility.

They give the example of Fujitsu Services - where they looked internally to fill their senior account management role rather than externally. Their process included various testing for different abilities and behaviours. While their process proved successful for them, I wonder how effective it would be for a much smaller company, or how comparable it is to executive search.

I think psychometric testing is a good and useful tool. However, I find that the big problem with "standard" recruiting is the nature of how we find people. Many recruiters recruit "passively", that is, they put their job ad up and wait for candidates to apply. The most effective way to start a search for a candidate (esp. for senior roles), is first of all to truly understand the needs, skills, desirables, and culture of the company, and then to actively look for people following those parameters. That's through networking, researching, and talking to a lot of people. Not waiting for people to see an ad and apply. What's more, you're already talking with the right kinds of people, who have the kind of technical skills, people skills, and agility/flexibility because of where they are in their career, what they're currently doing, and their performance record.

And another thing to think about - while testing may find out a person's potential or behavioural disposition to certain situations, it doesn't guarantee that that person will be successful at the job and stay with the company over other recruiting methods. Why? Because the success and productivity of that person results from a relationship - between the employee and employer. Between colleagues and team members. Investing in good people and retaining good people needs constant work on the employers part - not just at the beginning.