Taking the Human out of Human Resources

There's a lot of fear in the job market these days and most of it stems from a disturbing tendency of employers to treat candidates like some kind of trade-in at Honest Bob's car lot.  I'll give you some analogies (of course) to make my point a little more clear...

• I sell Trucks, they're trying to trade a motorcycle! - Does this person even fit the job?
• How many miles, Condition? - Are they too old or are they going to drive up my health insurance costs?
• What kind of options does it have? - Do they have all the skills and experience I need or do I have to train them?
• Show me the CarFax! - Anything in their past I can use to lowball the offer or exclude them entirely?
• Market value? - I want to get this guy/gal for as close to free as possible.

In the private sector it's no surprise.  In theory, removing intangibles and non-sequitur from the process should create a more level playing field.  It's also more efficient which plays well with the bean counters.

But it can go too far...

It's one thing to use objective criteria  to thin the herd but that's where its usefulness really ends.  We all understand that no employer wants to interview 100 burger flippers for a structural engineering job.  However, a potential candidate shouldn't be excluded by a process that's left to HR departments that have no idea of how to vet a potential hire.

We're coming back to the real point here. 

Today's work environment is frequently populated by underpaid and mostly disinterested workers.  There's no denying it in spite of the all the stock photos of happy faces populating the company HR page. 

We live in an age of stagnant wages, dwindling benefits and a slow erosion of worker rights.  Let's not forget the almost total lack of job security.  Even CEO's can't guarantee their tenure but then they've got a lot softer landing than the rest of us.

So don't expect a lot of that "personal touch."  You're just another resource to be evaluated, a commodity.

Which is a problem.

When you reduce talent to their lowest common denominator you end up missing a lot of important information to help you make a decision.

For example: A top notch engineer could be cut from consideration because of a bad credit record, a visible tattoo or if they happen to smoke.  HR pundits ( yes they exist) will offer up excuses like:

• A bad credit history reflects on a lack of responsibility. 
• Tattoo's cause issues with workplace culture
• Smokers drive up insurance costs and take too many breaks. 

None of them have anything to do with the quality of the candidate but more often than not they're used as screening factors.  The justifications are hollow but there's no point in challenging them.

It's the result of a process cut to the bone and borne out of a systematic devaluing of the Human in Human resources.  
The only advice given to the job seeker? 

Bend over...

Yeah, no big long flowery mental masturbation there.  That's the bottom line. 

Because you as the candidate have no value outside of the factors of a commodity you must focus on the irrelevant.

Look sharp, clean up your social profile, quit smoking, pay all your bills on time even if you're broke and without exception, never have been sick.

That's an awful lot of time spent on things that have nothing to do with your ability to actually DO the job.

Here's a posting for a VERY entry level job.  It's a good representation of what I've been talking about.

Flier Delivery (NOT door-to-door) Team Needed (East Valley, AZ)

FLIER DELIVERY TEAM NEEDED TO DELIVER TO EAST VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOLS

What: Team (of 2) needed to drive to elementary & middle schools to deliver fliers for after school programs. (One driver & one delivery person per team)

What we are looking for in a delivery person: *GREAT personality a MUST! *Be able to effectively communicate with school secretaries *Must be able to present a clean cut look with business casual attire.

*No visible tattoos or body piercings
*Non-Smoker *Clean Background Check

What we are looking for in a driver: *RELIABLE transportation (with room for boxes) a MUST! *Proof of Insurance *Know the East Valley well! (especially school districts) *Clean Background Check *Clean Driving Record.

*Able to lift about 60 lbs.

Deliveries start right away! Hours will be Monday-Friday, approx 8am-4pm (when schools are open) We give preference to drivers with GPS or navigation systems.

This is NOT a sales position, but sales experience & driver). Driver & Delivery Person need to have a positive personality &
"personality" a ++. We offer $11/hour (per person) + mileage (for the professional attitude. 

Our Teams represent ***************of America to the schools, clubs, churches & districts that support our programs.

Some familiarity with *************** is WELCOMED

Ok , this is about as low on the totem pole as you can get but the takeaway is this: The same selection criteria is becoming commonplace regardless of industry or position.

Entry level jobs usually suck, that's a given but at some point along your career path you would expect to be given more consideration than some kid handing out colorful pieces of paper.

Sadly, you'd be wrong.

The reality of today's interview process is cold and impersonal.  You'll frequently hear catch phrases like, "Culture fit" and "Self Motivated" which translates to "anything we can legally discriminate against" and "doesn't ask a lot of questions."

It's only going to get worse before it gets better.  For now set the bar low and you might just survive it.

Just be sure that you can accept how employers see your value.  These days the demands of work will monopolize more of your time than family or friends and the higher up the food chain you go the worse it gets.

Remember, the price of potatoes is based on their current market value which can fluctuate with demand.

So, are you worth more than a potato?  You might be surprised.

TWIT: The last straw

I Hate TWIT...

Over the past 3 years I've had my criticisms of Leo Laporte and his TWIT podcasting network but in every case I hoped to offer constructive criticism without passing final judgment. 

I've said more than once, "I don't hate TWIT" because I really didn't want to take sides even if my observations appeared otherwise.

Sadly, that ended today.  My catalyst for judgement came after watching the latest Triangulation episode with Leo Laporte and his guest, Personal Capital ( and Paypal) founder Bill Harris.

Bill Harris is in a word (or more accurately a phrase) the typical Silicon Valley "Suit."  Which is just like your normal everyday "suit" but with the added facet of living in the delusional reality that is any business based in the Silicon Valley.

His resume includes not only his current gig, Personal Capital, but also Intuit, Paypal and even a stint with Earthlink among others.

Personal Capital is an online wealth management service that advertises on TWIT.  As such there's been plenty of ad copy over the last year praising its merits to varying degrees.  Of course it's not of much use to anyone who has a net worth less than 7 figures but who cares, right? 

But really, I could care less about Bill Harris, it's TWIT that's the problem.

The Cliff Notes version is this. 

This week's episode of Triangulation would make for a great "Meet the CEO" employee indoctrination video for Harris' Personal Capital.  In it Laporte fawned, gushed and feigned interest in a man who had as much in common with TWIT viewers as Justin Bieber's hair stylist.

It was for lack of a better word, disgusting. 

The whole interview revolved around tales of Harris and his millionaire buddies like Elon Musk flying around the country "effecting change" from their Lear Jets with regular calls to "Madison Avenue" to create the buzz on their latest antics.

So who is Bill Harris to the average guy watching TWIT?  Absolutely nobody.  Like I said, he's just another suit who happened to use his Harvard education at the right place at the right time.  Just another perpetrator of the Silicon Valley serial startup.  

In short he's not like you and you'll never have anything in common with him.  It's doubtful he ever had to live on ramen noodles or worry about paying off his student loans.   

However, If you're still interested, here's a link to his bio on Bloomberg for those of you with posters of Warren Buffett above your bed.

The dime-store summary of Bill Harris' career includes such winners as: Earthlink an early national  ISP,  Paypal, the de facto Internet payment service and TurboTax, the most recognizable name in tax preparation software.  

What do all these companies have in common? great marketing for so-so products...

Earthlink was among the earliest national dial-up ISP's and was also one of the first communication services to lock customers into multi-year commitments without any guarantee of service. If you think data caps are bad try being forced to pay for a service you can't even use...  

Then there's Paypal which was a good idea at the beginning but has earned the nickname "PayPay."  A label earned by the service (and its parent company Ebay) for high percentage fees and a tendency to tie up bank accounts on a whim.  

Then there's Intuit's TurboTax, which regularly makes headlines for screwing users out of tax refunds due to flaky formula calculations.  Lest we forget security holes that have left many a taxpayer on the hook with the IRS through no fault of their own.

That's the thing.  These companies were all good ideas at the start but have had troubled histories since.  However, I'm not suggesting that Bill Harris was directly involved with anything scandalous concerning them.  To the contrary, he's a "big picture guy" who gets out just before the lawsuits start coming in.  

Which means he's about creating wealth not social change.  If he happens to do the world a good turn in the process it's likely by accident.  He is a businessman, marketer and salesman.  Nothing more.

In the classic TWIT context his experience has no more in common with viewers than the average Wall Street CEO.  Meaning it's irrelevant information to the TWIT viewership

Ok, so my hatred for Bill Harris' resume aside, the point is this...

It's one thing to pander to advertisers, it's another to be their lap dog.  We've seen this behavior before but for me the final straw came before the start of the episode.

In the pre-show, Harris happened to notice that someone in the chatroom said something about "vomiting" which brought swift response from Laporte directing his studio flunkies to shut down the "chat" on set.  

That was followed up with threats of banning chat users and a statement from Laporte to Harris that effectively disparaged the value of the chatroom on TWIT. 

So in effect, Triangulation became Bi-angulation.

On more than one occasion Laporte has called the chatroom the third side of the "triangle" since the departure of co-host Tom Merritt.  

That makes its removal a violation of a sacred TWIT tenet and creates a void  that even Laporte's sizable ego can't fill.

Look, I get it, you don't want to piss off an advertiser especially if they may be a potential buyer for your failing enterprise.

However, passing off a corporate propaganda video as content is inexcusable.  Regardless of how interesting the life of Bill Harris may have been, the information is of little value when the interviewer has a vested interest. 

Meaning there's a bias in place that invalidates objectivity.  In the case of this episode of Triangulation, Laporte turned TWIT into a Bill Harris infomercial.  Perhaps Leo's really that enamored with the guy but it's far more likely he's protecting advertising revenue. 

Coincidentally, pulling the ads from TWIT was a joke Harris made repeatedly before, during and after the so-called "interview."

That's not friendly, that's Freudian suggestion my friends.

Because of this final and blatant violation of principle there can be no redemption for TWIT.  A line has been crossed and I'm off the fence now.

As the Shark Tank's Mr. Wonderful (Kevin O'Leary) often says,

"You're dead to me...  "

The episode has been provided below, judge for yourself.  Maybe you'll be inspired to go out and buy a new suit.

The scarlet letter of entrepreneurship

See if this scenario fits.

You spend years working in the corporate world, learn a few things and one day you decide you've had  enough and strike out on your own.  Perhaps you're tired of being passed over for promotion or you just know you're capable of more than the middling opportunities that come your way.

Maybe you're motivated by one too many late night infomercials but whatever the reason you finally make the commitment and say goodbye forever to your cubicle.

Or so you thought...

Striking out on your own rarely affords instant gratification and tests your resolve on a daily basis.  You have your freedom but the list of things you don't have sometimes make you wish you would have stayed in your nice warm cubicle. 

As time goes on there's one of two things that will happen.  You'll be a success and never look back or you won't and you'll be looking to get back to that cubicle.  Thing is the latter may not be an option for you.

In today's job market with employers demanding more from their employees than ever before a candidate with an entrepreneurial background has an uphill battle.   Why?  Well, in case it hasn't jumped out at you yet, an ex-employee turned lone wolf offers a management challenge few supervisors want to tackle.

A free thinking self-motivated rebel may be the ideal employee for Google or Facebook (or at least it used to be) but ABC corp. doesn't want the hassle.  They just want their employees to follow the rules, not take too long on their breaks and get those TPS reports in on time.

Sadly, more often than not Interviews can be more of a test of wills than a friendly conversation.  A lifelong corporate type will be naturally suspicious of a candidate who once threw off the reigns.  After all if it wasn't good enough for you before why would it be now?

That will be the only question on their mind by the way.  Some may even vocalize it.

Conversely, an interviewer that secretly harbors a wish to flee his own corporate prison may see the candidate's abandonment of their own cherished dream as a personal failure.  From there it goes downhill since no matter what skills are professed, the failure to capitalize on them invalidates all your grandiose assertions to the contrary.   

If the interview is with a potential employer in the same line of business as the candidates former solo effort, chances are the interview is less about the job and more about getting the goods on the "competition." 

Interviewing someone viewed as a competitor (and that's how they see you) brings all the baggage of the standard interview plus the perceived risk that you'll somehow steal all their customers and strike out on your own if they hired you. 

From a business standpoint it's a safety play.  After all, how likely is it that Steve Jobs would have hired Bill Gates? 

You're not being interviewed, you're being pumped for information.  Once they get it they're done with you.  I've often felt like I should send an invoice at the end of one of those.

In these days of drug testing, background screening and credit checks just to get to the interview table how can anyone possibly overcome the stigma of a being a risky candidate?

I wish it were simple but the only way to overcome the objection is to minimize the experience.  It's a rage-filled, sucker punch to the gut but it's often the only way. 

It's maddening to have to undervalue your accomplishments but I'd put better odds on a winning lottery ticket than getting in front of a potential employer that sees your solo efforts in the same light you do.

You have two choices at this point. Suck it up as they say, swallow your pride and pad your resume with "regular" jobs that show you're a good member of the corporate denizen.  A regular job can be contract work, temporary jobs or anything BUT working for yourself.

Your other choice?  Sell the extra car, take out a few loans and keep trying to make it on your own. 

You'll either finally figure out how to be successful or go broke and be out of work so long that you won't have a work history anyone will care hearing about anymore.  Perfect for when you go for that sweet gig at the convenience store or fast food joint.

I'm not trying to be flippant, this is reality 101 in the job market now.  Threats to the status quo can come from as little as showing up to the interview with too loud a tie to the "wrong" work history. 

Fair is a relative term when you're looking for work.  Employers are demanding guarantees from candidates that they would never subject themselves to.   Your solo accomplishments exist in a context far less certain than your cubicle dwelling competition.  A fact most hiring managers are unable or unwilling to accept. 

Forewarned is forearmed.  You'll waste a lot less time and aggravation if you know the score going in. 

The disability of a narrow mind

Anyone who knows me well has heard me utter the phrase, "mediocrity is the standard" more than once and usually with disgust. 

So what do I mean by that?

To be blunt, the standard of mediocrity means blundering through life never attempting to do more than the bare minimum.  It's a fallback position that many in the working world spend their entire careers operating from. 

It usually happens when someone takes a position they may be qualified for but have no real interest in.  How such a person can rise to power when a more engaged candidate doesn't is usually indicative of a systematic problem within the organization.  In short, everyone up the management chain is similarly disinterested and will protect themselves from discovery.   

If one operates under the standard of mediocrity for a long enough period of time they eventually assume that it's the status quo.  This is the disability of the narrow mind within the context of employment.  Note that racism, elitism and other societal 'isms are similar in that all effectively cripple higher reasoning.

Thus we see the initial stages of the "dominos of disaster" when practitioners of the mediocrity standard run headlong into more engaged individuals.   

When confronted with a potential threat to the status quo of mediocrity, the disability becomes readily apparent.  It surfaces in confrontational behaviors and rejection of information not contained within their narrow focus even when compatible with stated organizational goals. 

In effect, the inability to think "outside the box" regardless of how beneficial the outcome will prevent the afflicted individual from acting reasonably.

If it sounds like a medical or psychological condition it is.  In fact it's pathological in an organizational sense.

This is the dilemma that the long term and formerly self employed face when interviewing with afflicted organizations.  Candidates with such a backgrounds are considered inferior and suspect regardless of experience, accomplishments or evidence to the contrary.

Take the example of the former self-employed consultant now interviewing for a regular full time position.  In this case the candidate may get through HR and lower level managers but find opposition from senior management.  Even before the first handshake is extended the candidate is already in a diminished position.

Overcoming the condition is virtually impossible as any concession the candidate asserts is assumed to be suspect if not disingenuous.   The only recourse for the candidate is to try to frame their qualifications within the narrow context of the organizational pathology.

At this point it's usually a pointless exercise to proceed any further since the organizational dysfunction curtails higher reasoning and shortens attention spans.  This is most blatantly evidenced by repeated questioning about the same topic, yawning and in some cases snoring.

Unfortunately, most organizations suffer the affliction and have even elevated it to a de facto mission statement.  It's a common pathogen meaning you're going to encounter a lot of it in the corporate world regardless of your job function. 

If you do encounter such an organization (and you will) and still  wish to persist in your efforts to join it you can employ the following tactics.  Note that they will likely be unsuccessful but more productive than attempting to alert the afflicted to their condition.

• ·         Lie -  You can hope they won't check your background and enter the organization with stealth if not outright deception.  With the easy access to information and most organizations requiring a formal background check it's likely you won't succeed past the first interview.  If the organization is dysfunctional enough, however, they may respond well to a cleverly crafted deception. 
• ·         Debate- This tactic will likely have even less of a chance of success than deception but at least you'll be comforted in the knowledge that you were completely truthful.  The tactic involves countering objections to your qualifications by crafting your responses to fit the narrow focus of the afflicted organization.  For example, when confronted with a concern about work ethic especially if your career consists primarily of self employment try this.  Assert the merits of personal responsibility and client satisfaction necessary to run a successful small business.  It also wouldn't hurt to mention that you're a firm believer in trickle-down economics and would jump at the chance to be standing on the bottom rung with awaiting arms outstretched.  Keep in mind, however, that afflicted organizations and their management have limited capability to engage in higher reasoning so keep your responses short and at roughly the 6th grade level.
• ·         Violence - Only useful if the prospects of arrest and incarceration hold no fear for you. 
• ·         Submission - In short, be an apologist for your entire career and essentially "throw yourself on the mercy of the court."  In a severely afflicted organization with candidates less qualified than yourself this may be the most effective tactic.  Be aware, however, that should you secure the position you will likely find it unfulfilling.  Still, the knowledge that mediocre performance is the status quo may eventually make your stay more tolerable.  Beware the danger of becoming infected with the Disability of the Narrow mind, however, as it will alter you on a cellular level.  Then again, once infected you will likely become anesthetized to its ill effects and become blissfully unaware of it.  This is especially true if  the position offers a good prescription drug program.
• ·         Defiance - This is similar to the Violence option above except the authorities aren't involved.  It's not so much a display of emotional outbursts as an attempt to make the hiring manager feel stupid.  The desired outcome of this tactic is to temporarily shock management out of their disability by forcing undeniable logic on them.  Your ultimate goal is to convince the hiring manager that you are the change needed to further organizational goals.  Unfortunately, this tactic has only been shown to work in the movie Office Space.

In short, afflicted organizations should be avoided if at all possible.  Otherwise damage to your career and possibly your psyche could result.