How Long has this Been Going On?

Longer than most of us have been alive, that’s how long! It dates back to Nixon’s presidency and Watergate, to when Trudeau (Pierre Elliott) was piloting Canada. It picked up speed about the time SNL and Star Wars were in first release.

What’s been at issue all these decades? Diversity as regards women. Women with proportional representation in the corporate world.

Women showed up in both World Wars (like Rosy Riveter here doing a ‘man’s job’ in the 40’s). By the 60’s women woke up, in the 70’s they were active and determined, and actually managed a few wins by the 80’s. But the stats on women at the helm are still embarrassingly skimpy in 2017. Women run only 4.5% of companies worldwide.

Of course the disparity clash predates the 1960s. In modern times it harkens all the way back to the early 1900’s when suffragettes were fighting for the vote. But now women are cops, truck drivers, pilots, lawyers, plumbers, firefighters and actuaries. So why the stink over diversity? We’re everywhere aren’t we?

Not exactly. When C suite guys (and they are guys) talk diversity, they look at their organizations and see lots of it as regards women – there are plenty of them. But the key is perspective. Women may be all around them but the female population reduces exponentially the higher up the organization you go.

Let’s go back to proportional representation, which is: the diversity percentage found in junior positions mirrored in top-tier roles. Ontario Securities Commission’s Comply and Explain is “requiring TSX-listed companies report publicly on the representation of women on their boards and in executive positions…”. When the legislators and Bay Street are in, we’re rolling.

Diversity’s finally being demanded, not because organizations are opting for the high moral ground, or because it’s an idea that’s time has finally come. Corporations are taking up the banner because “Companies with more diverse workforces perform better financially” or so says McKinsey.

Fearless Girl – Wall Street

And diversity’s trending. Consider State Street’s ‘Fearless Girl’ and SHE – their “exchange-traded fund that invests only in companies committed to gender diversity“. Both pack a bit of irony, given that State Street employs only 22-34% women in Vice Presidential to C Suite roles. Remarkably they’ve beaten banking, insurance and other financial services companies that lag behind at 14-23%. The sunny side? State Street sharing with the public forces a clear view, mirror-to-face. Tasking their best with leveling the field is enlightened leadership, profitable vision.

Are Boards and Executives committed to focusing on gender diversity up their ranks as well as down? Some are so far behind the curve they may not even be looking. How many women are in high-ranking positions in your company? Bet the ratio isn’t much different from when VCRs and pocket calculators were introduced.

Perhaps you, the most senior leaders, will accept this lucrative challenge. Are you up for increasing your profits through…

1. Demanding a clear picture of how many women are senior executives versus those working at lower-levels.
2. Acting on the disparity. Inviting a diverse group to change it, mandating a shift.

When you do, we’ll all win.

Weapons of Mass Distraction

Exploding Planet

Whether you’re a conspiracy theorist or not  (think Boston) consider the spectacle that is the reporting of these violent events.

An ever-increasing media addicted society means there’s nothing easier (or perhaps more sinister) than becoming one with the slick dramas we’re brainwashed by daily.

And episodic drama it is! Journalists as actors. Politicians and government officials coached to academy award winning performances. All broadcast through technology so advanced it’d inspire jealousy in an alchemist! These are the ingredients of a potent propaganda soup.

Now I’m not qualified to say whether what is being dished out is true or false, good or bad. But there’s no doubt the versions of events plated up for us to swallow are so biased that fact finding is as fraught with illusion as Dorothy’s skip down the yellow brick road or Alice’s launch down the bunny hole.

What fascinates me is how our response to viewing these events affects careers and job searches, our work.

Our brain waves change to alpha level when watching videos online or TV. That’s an almost semi-hypnotic state, where we’re sponges for whatever is proffered up and absorb information more potently.

If you’re unemployed your psyche may already be disenfranchised. The unknown is what you wake up to daily, a vacuum of uncertainty that is easily filled – positively or negatively.

Who’s most successful on job hunts? Those who are confident, positive, clear and focused. In short, the antithesis of the state you may unknowingly slip into when watching storm troopers evict people from their homes.

When our brains buy into fear and confusion (which they inevitably will when we’re glued to a screen) we’re rendered less powerful. It can paralyze at worst and be a negative state changer at best.

The remedy? Turn it off. Redirect your thoughts. Ask yourself what constructive difference it’ll make if you watch the same violent video loop a million times.

Then ask what difference it’d make if you sat silently imagining your career – as you’d like it to be. Or what would result if you focused on order and possibility? What would happen if you ruminated on (and believed in) solutions rather than the uncontrollable?

I’m not proposing we become ostriches, heads in a dune, unaware of world events. I am suggesting that overexposure is not only counterproductive it’s unhealthy.

Blue by You

Blue from badgering

You’ve made multiple applications to the same company? Why’d you do that?

End up feeling like Blue looks?

You’re not alone. Pete’d been whacked a.k.a. downsized. He knocked himself out with job-hunting verve and blanketed the market. His aggressive doggedness was a transferable skill he’d have been better off losing, not using.

He was convinced direct competitors would scoop him. His strategy to stay in his industry meant getting maximum advantage from his experience. The downside? A mighty teeny-tiny job market; a dozen principal and about 50 indirect players comprised his skimpy target market.

Every day Pete cruised the careers sites of the majors. He’d find 5 to 15 roles posted with the same company. Convinced he qualified for many, he applied to at least a third of them. Some were more junior than his previous positions, others more senior. Pete didn’t care. He’d shoot the same resume at 5 or 6 different openings at the same organization.

Result? Pete’s ambitious attack on the job market recoiled hard enough to knock out a tooth.

Here’s the process his online application went through:

1. It was plucked by search engines because his keywords matched. BUT,
2. A humanoid reviewed his resume (not an android or bot)
3. When inputted into the database there was a record of how often he’d applied – and when.

What message did Pete send? That he was potentially:

1. Desperate.
2. A liar – did he really qualify for 6 divergent jobs?
3. Overqualified. If he could do all those jobs, was he beyond all of them?
4. Unfocused. He didn’t care which job he got (or maybe how he did it). Any job would do.
5. Blind. Wouldn’t he consider the optics through a recruiter’s eyes?

The tip? Be selective. Apply for only one position with the same company. In unique circumstances two. Look, your resume is typically coded so you’ll pop up for any position you qualify for. Recruiters have to be imaginative. If you’re qualified for a different role, they’ll see the match. That’s their job. Not yours.

Blue subscribes to winning by badgering. Leg-attaching & cloying are favored techniques. His rationale? The more in your face he is, the likelier you’ll fold and he’ll get walkies or a snuggle. Apparently not.

So submit just one astonishing application.

Are there exceptions? Of course. When the population of the company is 50,000 and they have multiple hiring centres. Or when you’re applying to the same company in different cities. Or when you’ve been advised by an insider who’s savvy to their process. But most of the time, less is more.

Have you been trying too hard? What were your results?

Jody Phillips

Giving it Away

Tamara Succumbs to Peer Pressure

Alright so you’ve been hunting for work. And hunting. You’ve discovered that getting a job is as competitive as landing a berth on an Olympic team?

The degree of specificity in today’s market is staggering. Maybe you can put a check-mark beside each and every qualification. Good. Next? You’ve discovered there are a hundred (or a thousand) other folks who can do the same thing. How do you market yourself with competition as stiff as a nun’s wimple?

Here’s what Tamara did. She’s a 23-year-old brainy, beautiful college student. She went to a kegger and then drove her car into a tree. One of many consequences (which, by the way included trading the remains of her car in for a bike) required her to do 250 hours of community service.

Tamara made her contribution back to society in the summer. Before starting grad school she worked with disadvantaged kids, helped refurbish a library and fed the homeless. Guess what Tamara got? Three job offers! I’m not kidding! This is a true story!

Consequences of Peer Pressure

Look, Tamara’s gone back to vet school so she couldn’t accept any of them. What irony! The young everywhere are digging for work. Globally 17-25% of those under 25 are unemployed. That means it’s wickedly difficult for students to get jobs. And Tamara got three job offers – that’s worth repeating – THREE opportunities at paid employment!

Who knows? Maybe it’s what comes around goes around. Perhaps when you help others, it flies right back at you.

Or maybe it’s that Tamara throws her heart, kick-ass skills and her big brain at anything she does. Or perhaps it’s her light, positive attitude.

Tamara always gives her best. That’s one big piece in her being offered jobs. I mean, without proving you’re a standout, what employer wants to keep you?

But if Tamara hadn’t been ‘volun-told’ to volunteer, nobody would know what she had to offer.

Doesn’t matter how much or little your experience you can create an opportunity to showcase your gifts.

What’s the down side? You come away with a full heart. Maybe even a sense of appreciation and gratitude. That’s it, that’s all. What’s the upside? You get all of that and a job.

Tamara Feeding the Homeless

Ever considered giving it away?

Jody Phillips

Processed Meat

Know the term HR process? It’s a euphemism for the wacky dance created just for job seekers.Throw your resume at an online posting, get phone screened, interview with a few dozen people – and then – God willing – you’re hired!

My idea? Change the term HR Process for purposes of accuracy to HR Paralysis. It’s a more apt description of churning through the corporate casting mill. Seems to me HR’s completely forgotten it’s purpose. People. In jobs. Moving the business forward.

HR Paralysis goes like this.

Step 1. Submit resume online.

Step 2. Wait  2-3 months

Step 3. Get a phone screen (oh you lucky thing – made the first cut!).

Step 4. Wait 2-3 months.

Step 5. Get an in-person interview with your ‘direct-report-to -be’. Woohoo!

Step 6. Wait 2-3 months.

Step 7. Meet with the VP Grand Poopah, in charge of everything.

Step 8. Wait 2-3 months.

Step 9. They don’t want you for the job you applied for, now they want you for another job that’s being created by a reorganization.

Step 10. Wait 2-3 months.

Step 11. Meet with new direct-report-to-be.

Step 12. Wait 2-3 months.

Step lucky 13! You got the job! (None of your competitors were still around. One even graduated from the planet).

Zut Alors! What to do?

Let’s put an action-packed process back into hiring. A recent study revealed that internal trust in HR had dropped from 70% to 46% in 3 MONTHS! Apparently the guys on the inside waiting for a new addition to Planet IT aren’t impressed. Nor are the marketing dudes who desperately need a researcher. Everyone’s measured on delivery.

Where are the progressive HR people who’ve noticed they’re running around a pony track – busy, busy, busy – hiring fewer people, over a longer period of time, reflecting less productivity?

C’mon stand up and be counted! I want to hear from you, the HR futurists. You folks who’ve noticed that service stinks as regards hiring – not because there aren’t jobs, no, no, no – but because of that insidious phenomenon, HR Paralysis. I’ll bet you know what remedies there are and can get things moving.

Jody Phillips