Executive Search and Social Media: The end or the beginning?

What people can do and what they should do are often two different things. You can defend yourself in a court of law, but it's probably better to have an experienced lawyer. You may be physically capable of flying an airplane, but that doesn't mean you should go out today and taxi down the runway. The fact is, technical innovations almost never cancel out the need for experience and expertise, however it might seem to the layman. 

There's no question that social media sites are revolutionizing the executive search industry. The most revolutionary of all is LinkedIn. So here we are! But who are we? And what are we doing here?

A couple of Forbes articles (see links below) provide a good overview of the changes that are taking place and the illusion (in my opinion) that this will turn executive recruiting into an out-of-date profession.

It's certainly true that both employers and candidates can now do much of the initial legwork on their own. I think that's great -- because the initial legwork is may not be the easy part, but it's not really where the skill set of a recruiter comes into play. Especially in upper-echelon jobs, there are many. many matters that need to be resolved after the contact has been identified. Further, there are sensitive ethical and legal issues about making a first contact that need to be handled correctly. 

I view social media as a great opportunity for my business . That's why I'm here. I want the initial contacts to be made as easily and as plentifully as possible. and I want to make lots of them myself too. But there's lot more to closing a deal, and that's where I can come in. As they say, God is in the details. Or is it the Devil that's in there?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/lisaquast/2012/05/21/recruiting-reinvented-how-companies-are-using-social-media-in-the-hiring-process/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/lisaquast/2012/04/23/your-social-media-profile-could-make-or-break-your-next-job-opportunity/

Business Buzzwords: What Is "Big Data?"

I love business buzzwords. While every enterprise  has its own unique jargon, some words and phrases ignore the boundaries. One of my favorites is "sandbagging," which seems to have several definitions. If anyone can clarify exactly what it means to "sandbag," I know many people will be grateful if you provide that information. Puh-leeeze!

Another good one is "wooly mammoth." That's a client so big that your whole company can live off it for an extended period of time. A wooly mammoth is even bigger than a "whale."

Business buzzwords come and go, but one you might be hearing a lot these days is "big data" -- which has also given rise to spin-offs, such as "predictive analytics." Do you know what these terms mean? Well, you'd better! Here's a good article to fill you in:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterpham/2015/08/28/the-impacts-of-big-data-that-you-may-not-have-heard-of/

Career Inertia: Are you asleep but don't know it?

Inertia is one of the most powerful forces in the universe. Simply put, inertia is “the tendency of an object at rest to remain at rest.”

But let’s expand that definition beyond the limits of a generic “object.” Inertia can be the tendency of an out-of-shape person to stay out of shape. Or the tendency of a person to remain in an unsatisfying relationship. 

Or the tendency of a person to see a job that’s gone stale as a total energy drain -- a trade of time for money, and that’s never a fair trade.

Most importantly for my work in executive recruitment, inertia can be the inclination of someone in an unsatisfying or unproductive career position to remain in that position -- even though it’s not in their own best interests. 

My work is based on seeing people who are like that, and helping them toward positive change.

Most people who are victimized by career inertia aren’t even aware that it’s happening. They don’t make the connection between what they’re feeling and where they’re working.

The following are three signs of career inertia that I see again and again. Do you recognize any of these?

You’ve lost that loving feeling
Remember how you felt on your first day at your present job? Was it like prom night? Was it like getting engaged? There was excitement, and maybe a bit of uncertainty about the future. But that was part of the fun. Because not knowing exactly what the future holds can be a lot better than knowing all too well.

That was then, this is now. Now you want your work to have some of the passion and risk of a love affair, instead of the inertia of a loveless marriage that continues “for of the kids.” Because there are no kids in your work. So why is it going on?

They won’t let you throw your fastball
Nothing is more frustrating and self-destructive than knowing what you can do, and not being allowed to do it. You want to start the car by putting the key in the ignition, but you’re ordered to let the air out of the tires instead.

There are lots of reasons people wind up in companies that don’t recognize their talents, or in jobs they’re not really suited for. Often it happens when an individual doesn’t realize that there are companies desperately in need of exactly what he or she has to offer.

If you feel that you’re not being used properly, don’t keep that feeling to yourself. I love it when clients share an unappreciated talent with me, and I love it even more when I can make a connection with a company that will appreciate that gift.

Stress has become your middle name
People live with all sorts of pain – not because it doesn’t hurt, but just because it’s what they’re used to.

They can even begin to take a certain amount of pride in the idea that they’re suffering for the greater good. They call that being a “team player.”

You might get a gold watch for being a team player at your retirement party, which would be ironic, because at that point their might not be a lot of time left.

Your work doesn’t necessarily have to be a day at the beach, but it shouldn’t be a day of root canal either. If that’s what it feels like, don’t try to turn your stress into a virtue.

Because there is another way. You may have heard how frogs don’t jump out of hot water if the temperature is raised to a boil slowly enough. As a matter of fact, frogs do jump out of the water. But mere inertia can keep human beings from making much needed leaps.

Let’s talk about it: tom@sternexec.com

"Don't have a cow!" -- Crisis leadership in three steps

Good executive management means dealing with all kinds people in all kinds of circumstances. Sometimes it's easy and sometimes it's hard.

It's easy when people do things right: "Thanks, Jim! You closed that billion dollar deal and now we're all going to be as rich as Bill Gates! Or Scrooge McDuck!"

Leadership is more difficult when people do things wrong: "Mortimer, how could you possibly forget that you locked that client in the bathroom? Now we've lost out on a billion dollar deal!"

When someone on you team makes a mistake -- especially a really stupid mistake -- out natural tendency is to be reactive. It's hard to resist that tendency. But being a leader means  doing what's hard. "LCS" is a simple algorithm that can help.

1. LIKE -- If a team member has done something that's truly malicious, that person has got to be an ex-team member very quickly. But cases like that are rare. Most often mistakes are made because of well-intentioned but misdirected action.  Start by acknowledging that fact when you engage with the perpetrator. It isn't always easy to do this but, again, leadership isn't supposed to be easy: "Mortimer, I do LIKE the initiative you displayed by locking the client in the bathroom, because it could have been embarrassing if someone had opened the door..."

 2. CONCERN -- Once you've pacified the situation by showing your team member that you're not going to bite his/her head off, you can segue closer to your indignation about what happened, but in a restrained manner with a practical orientation: "Mortimer, my CONCERN is that your focus on hypothetical problems can overshadow the imperatives of actual reality. Yes, it would have been embarrassing if someone has opened the door to the bathroom, but the reality is that you forgot the client was in there...."

3. SUGGEST -- Close with a proactive suggestion aimed to prevent similar mistakes in the future: Mortimer, when you're so enthusiastic about doing a good job, your excitement may cause you to make bad judgments to forget key details. So I SUGGEST you tell someone else about the situation who's less emotionally involved. For instance, tell Jim that the client is locked in the bathroom, and ask him to not let you forget that important fact."

LCS is a non-confrontational method for handling difficult circumstances and the people who bring them about. It can help defuse the present situation and it can prevent similar situations in the future.

Try it and see what happens. And above all, "Don't have a cow!"

"Twelve O'Clock High" -- World War Two or Amazon.com?

Money is not blood. But aside from that significant difference , how is business different from war? Or is it different -- and should it be different?

Twelve O'Clock High was a war movie that came out in 1949. It was a hit both critically and commercially. It has some intricate plotting and characterization, but the film is  based on a very simple question. 

It's the same question I wrote about regarding last week's  controversial New York Times article on Amazon.com. The question is: How far can you push people before they'll quit?

And the answer is: Plenty damn far.

Twelve O'Clock High is based on real events in the Second World War. American bombing raids over Europe were encountering extreme casualty rates. On some missions, as many as two thirds of the planes  were damaged or shot down. What's more, depending on the target, the bomber crews were aware this was going to happen. So if they knew the odds were strongly against their safe return, would they ever refuse to fly?  

The answer was no. Although individual flyers might drop out because of metal or emotional breakdown, no general refusal occurred among the bomber crews.  

Again, there's a big difference between blood and money. But if we look at the business model that is standard operating procedure in many corporations, it's clear that the difference between war and business is only a matter of degree. In both venues, people will just keep going toward the pot of gold....or toward the cliff. 

But is that what we want -- and does it have to be that way? In another great film -- The Godfather, Part Two -- the brutal gangster Hyman Roth famously says, "This is the business we have chosen."

But do you think there's another choice? Maybe that's what Dirty Harry is really asking when he says, "Do you feel lucky, punk?

Here's a follow-up articles from the New York Times that traces the history of the "war of attrition" business model:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/18/business/work-policies-may-be-kinder-but-brutal-competition-isnt.html

And for those who are interested, here's a very comprehensive website on the statistics of WW2 bomber missions:

 http://www.taphilo.com/history/8thaf/8aflosses.shtml

One of the most important business articles ever!

Recently Amazon displaced Walmart as the world's largest retailer. On that occasion, the New York Times has published a long and very disturbing piece on Amazon.

The article depicts a company that operates on a "warfare" business model. That doesn't just mean that Amazon is out to defeat any competitors. It also means that Amazon is quite prepared to accept a large number of "casualties" among its employees. Rather than creating an environment in which workers will be retained -- and will want to stay -- Amazon instead pushes them to their limits and beyond, until a large number of them leave.

And so what? Let 'em go! There are always plenty more where those came from.

From my point of view as an executive recruiter, this freaks me out. The article shows a huge and hugely successful corporation that, despite its size, is rooted in the "gig economy" that has previously been identified only with entrepreneurs and work-for-hire free lancers. Employee retention is the exception rather than the rule. And this said to be true at all levels of Amazon's operation,  from warehouse workers to high level white collar. 

Maybe this is just how things are going to be from now on. People will go to work for a company in the same way they start driving for Uber. Both the workers and the corporation will know it's a hook up which will very rarely lead to a marriage. 

The New York Times article is the clearest depiction of this I've seen yet. It's generated a lot of response, including response from Jeff Bezos, Amazon's CEO. I urge you to click on the links below, and please share your thoughts!

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/technology/inside-amazon-wrestling-big-ideas-in-a-bruising-workplace.html?_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/18/technology/amazon-bezos-workplace-management-practices.html

Forget an MBA! Here's all you need -->>

Yes, that headline looks like a come-on for a late night infomercial. But this compilation of Netflix business videos put together by Entrepreneur magazine is really informative -- and it's not entirely what you'd expect. There's Steve Jobs, but there's also Joan Rivers. 

You do need a Netflix account, but that's cheaper than Harvard. And you're sure to be accepted. Go for it!

http://www.entrepreneur.com/slideshow/246749

Fit To Be (neck)Tied...Or Knot

You've been following the negotiations between Iran and the US on Iran's nuclear program, right? Well, amid all the complexities, have you noticed one very obvious fact? In all photos of the US negotiators  - or, for that matter, the participants from the other so-called P5+1 nations -- the men are always wearing ties. But the Iranians never wear them.

Not once has the Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif been seen with a tie. Does he even own a tie? Could he tie a tie if he had to? Does he know the difference between a four-in-hand and a Windsor knot? Probably knot, or not. But why not?

Here's why. Since the Islamist revolution that ousted the Shah of Iran in 1979, wearing neckties has been strictly prohibited in Iran. Ties have been made a convenient symbol for Western intrusion in the Middle East. So no ties allowed. Flowing mullah robes, yes. Turbans, yes. Turtlenecks, shirts buttoned all the way up, yes, yes. But ties, no.

In the United States also -- but for different reasons -- this is not exactly the golden age of ties. Along with the general Californication of American society, ties have come to seem old fashioned and constraining. Even in the most expensive restaurants and hotels, ties are no longer a requirement for an acceptably attired gentleman. Nor are they mandated for business meetings or presentations, especially in that fertile field of fashion known as Silicon Valley. As a matter of fact, nothing is really required anymore in terms of male attire, and I believe it was the exclusion of ties that started us down that slippery slope. 

And yet.... And yet...

There is still one venue where ties get the attention they deserve, and that's in our quadrennial ritual of debates among the presidential candidates. Believe me, the men in these events choose their ties carefully, and rightly so -- because the ties have a powerful effect on viewers' perceptions of those men.

But what about female candidates for president? Will they ever add ties to their arsenal of carefully constructed subliminal  effects? Or will women always be limited to a string of pearls? What would you think if Hillary Clinton entered a debate wearing a necktie? Don't say it can't happen. Trump happened, after all.

Here's an analysis of the recent Republican debates that gives proper attention to the tie factor: 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/08/makeover-montage-republican-candidates.html

Clay vs Liston, sort of....

I'm sorry! I know you're already sick of commentary on last night's Republican candidates debate -- but I can't help it. I've just got to share a few random thoughts about this. Again, I beg your forgiveness but....onward. 

First, I love Megyn Kelly. Not romantically, of course, but as a talent, as a "package." She was plucked out of obscurity by the Fox genius Roger Ailes, who recognized her potent combination of blondness, law degree, mom of three, sorority girl, maybe kind of bitchy sometimes (but makes you love it) and also mostly a good sport. Her trademark is her indignation, She becomes more beautiful as she gets more angry, like a chameleon changing colors.

I have very mixed feelings about Donald Trump. As a deep narcissist, his basic goal is to be the center of attention, the person that everyone talks about whether they want to or not, the 800 pound gorilla, the elephant in the room, and (most importantly) the all-time greatest gold mine for media content providers (I'm one of them) who otherwise have to write about Rand Paul, Jeb Bush, or God knows who. Yes, Trump fills a need -- not only a need deep in his own bloated consciousness, but also a basic need of the pop culture machine. 

So in last night's debate, at the very start, we had a confrontation between Megyn and Donald that seemed to me -- or maybe it was just wishful thinking -- to be a reprise of Cassius Clay, later Muhammad Ali, who liked to say "I'm beautiful," against the lumbering power-puncher Sonny Liston. They fought twice, in 1964 and 1965. Clay won both bouts, but the second -- which was highly anticipated -- was controversial and frustrating. Liston was "knocked out" in the first round. Or at least he lay down on his back, since he did not apear to have been hit. 

I felt that same kind of frustration watching the debate last night. Megyn versus Trump looked like a great match-up -- and it got off to a fast start: 

KELLY: You’ve called women you don’t like fat, pigs, dogs, slobs and disgusting animals... Your Twitter account has several disparaging comments about women’s looks. You once told a contestant on Celebrity Apprentice it would be a pretty picture to see her on her knees. Does that sound to you like the temperament of a man we should elect as president, and how will you answer the charge from Hillary Clinton, who was likely to be the Democratic nominee, that you are part of the war on women?

TRUMP: I think the big problem this country has is being politically correct. I’ve been challenged by so many people, and I don’t frankly have time for total political correctness. And to be honest with you, this country doesn’t have time either. This country is in big trouble. We don’t win anymore. We lose to China. We lose to Mexico both in trade and at the border. We lose to everybody. And frankly, what I say, and oftentimes it’s fun, it’s kidding. We have a good time. What I say is what I say. And honestly Megyn, if you don’t like it, I’m sorry. I’ve been very nice to you, although I could probably maybe not be, based on the way you have treated me. But I wouldn’t do that.

But then all those "other people" -- Chris Christie, Ben Carson, etc -- had to be brought it, and we never really got to see Kelly vs Trump in all it's glory. Does anyone know if the subsequent debates will include the same moderators? I certainly hope so, and I hope the next one -- even if the running time is two hours -- goes longer than "one round." 

Here's a blandly sane-and-sensible, down-the-middle, over-the-center-of-the plate account of Megyn vs Donald from the New York Times: 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/08/us/politics/fox-news-moderators-bring-a-sharpened-edge-to-gop-debate-stage.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=b-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

What does it mean to be "rich"?

Andrew Carnegie (1835-1919), who founded the United States Steel Corporation, was the wealthiest American of his time and one of the richest men in the world. In today's dollars, Carnegie's net worth was about $400 billion. 

John Pierpont Morgan, a contemporary of Carnegie's was also hugely wealthy. But when Morgan died, and the extent of his holdings became public, Andrew Carnegie was shocked. He said, "I never realized Morgan wasn't even rich!"

Carnegie was an interesting character. He was wealthy, and also a philosopher of wealth. He said, "Whoever dies rich, dies in disgrace." So he funded the building of 2509 libraries around the world. Alas, he probably still died "in disgrace."

What about you? Are you rich? Truman Capote said that a rich person was someone who had instant access to ten million dollars in cash. But he said that in the 1970s, a long time ago. Today it would have to be a hundred million, or even a billion.

Do you meet that criterion? If not, can you still be rich?

Everyone should evolve a personal definition of wealth that fits their individual aspirations and circumstances. Or, at least, everyone should try to evolve that definition for myself. Maybe I've been too busy trying to make money. 

Here's a really good article on these matters. It won't make you rich but it might make you think:

http://business.time.com/2013/07/24/what-it-means-to-be-wealthy-in-america-today/

"Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion" -- Why you MUST read this classic!

“Influence” has become an important word in all areas of business. No one likes to talk about “sales” anymore, and the term “salesman” is more worn out than Wily Loman. Today it’s all about influence, and being an “influencer” is cool.

The man who has most influenced the rise of influence is Robert Cialdini, an emeritus of psychology and marketing at Arizona State University. His 1984 book entitled Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion presents six principles whereby one person can influence (or even persuade!) another.

Right now, if you’re not already familiar with Cialdini ‘s work, allow me to strongly influence you in that direction.  Based on rigorous scientific research, the six principles will be of great benefit no matter what your career happens to be. You may also find yourself thinking about how these principles have applications in other areas of life. This is great stuff!

Here are some links to explore:

http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/six-principles-influence.htm

http://www.amazon.com/Influence-Psychology-Persuasion-Revised-Edition/dp/006124189X

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Cialdini