Job Seekers Avoid These Posts!

Last week a gentleman took advantage of my complimentary 15-minute career counseling session. I guess he liked what I had to say because he felt the need to share with me the following post he saw online last night:

We finalized a resume package for a client on Christmas Eve.

He was anxious to apply for a job he saw here on LinkedIn.

The position was a Vice President of Customer Engagement for a global hospitality company.

He uploaded his resume, wrote a little note about his interest in the role, and signed off to enjoy his holiday.

Less than 24 hours, he got a response.

On Christmas morning.

They wanted to set up an interview for Monday the 27th.

9 AM.

1 zoom call.

The interview lasted 2 hours.

By the end of the day, they arranged to fly him and 2 other candidates to interview in person.

He arrived on Wednesday, interviewed on Thursday and accepted an offer on Friday, New Years Eve.

The offer of $220k (which was denoted in the job posting) was right on the money.

No negotiation.

No bait and switch.

At this point, his head is spinning.

He emails me to tell me it’s the fastest interview to offer he’s ever been involved in.

He asks the HR Director why this is happening so fast…..he’s not complaining, he’s just curious.

She tells him that their company lost many, many, many great candidates in 2021 because their processes were taking too long. On average, 6 weeks.

They were challenged by their boss to make hires within 7 days. 1 week.

She said her team was exhausted, liberated, exhilarated, challenged and inspired by the work they were doing.

But are hoping to expand their time to hire to 2 weeks 😀😀.

This is leadership in action. Setting the bar, meeting the goal and eliminating the noise that paralyzes hiring.

Could you hire within a week?

There are many problems with this type of post. The first is that job seekers read it and ask, “Why him and not me?” Well, assuming for a moment that the story is true, understand that people usually don’t write about their failures. One client got a job offer. How many did not? Don’t let these things depress you. Read them carefully. The flaws are easy to spot. And even if everything is legit, your time will come!

First, this is supposedly a story about a great resume that got someone a job offer. FALSE. The purpose of the resume is to get the candidate the interview, not the offer. So even if it is true that the resume this woman wrote was magnificent, it did not get the candidate the job offer. The candidate got the candidate the job offer because of his negotiating skills. No where does this “resume writer” indicate that she counseled the client on interviewing so she can claim no credit for the offer.

Second, if she did something great to what, I presume, was a mediocre resume, why did she not share that information? Posts on LinkedIn by professionals should be educational. She should have explained what the problems were with the original resume and how she corrected them. She did no such thing. Reading her post one learns nothing about how to improve a resume. This further leads me to believe that this is a work of fiction. If she had something to teach her readers, she would have.

Third, no one is going to be offered a $220,000 job without the employer running a background check and checking references. It usually takes two weeks for a full background check. And given that we are talking New Year’s Eve week, I doubt any background checking company would have been available for a 24- or 48-hour rush job. And what are the odds that three (?) references would have been available to speak to HR about the candidate during that week? The woman does not say that they made a conditional offer of employment, but rather made an offer which was accepted. This also does not ring true to me.

Finally, who calls anyone on Christmas morning to set up a job interview? That’s the very definition of being rude.

To answer the woman’s question, Anyone can hire within a week. But if it is for as six-figure salary, and around Christmas and New Year’s no less, only if they are very sloppy and careless. But then none of that matters since the two things missing, in my opinion, from this woman’s post are, “Once upon a time,” and “They all lived happily ever after.”

Job seekers, when you see something that is too good to be true, it probably is. There are now con artists charging job seekers for materials they claim they, the applicants, need to complete for their applications to be considered, as well as asking them to do projects (write at 30-, 60-, 90-day plan…) without paying them. Never pay an employer anything for considering your application and never do actual work for them without be compensated. There other scams as well, like the guy who contacted me and told me he could get my articles on LinkedIn to go viral. None of his have…

Be careful and don’t take these people seriously. A little research, and a little common sense, will go a long way. They are feeding off of your emotions. They want you to think that if you pay they God knows how much, you too will get a six-figure job. You will be rich! Well, there will be someone getting rich, but it won’t be you.

PLEASE NOTE: I posted the name of the person who posted the post (too many “posts!”) because it was a public post. If it had been private, I would not have done so. I hope she realizes her mistake and removes or edits it. She can invite her client to set the record straight by commenting on her post (which I will not see) or on this article. Nothing would make me happier than to be proven wrong. As some of my readers know, it is now my policy not to respond to comments, but I would like to see a confirmation from her client and, for that matter, the HR department that handled his hiring.

6 Unique Questions to Ask Candidates

A month ago, I wrote an article on diversity. I stand by everything I wrote, but it got me thinking about a different type of diversity rather than just having staff that look, pray, speak, etc., like your clientele and/or community. There should be another type of diversity: thinking. A good team has people who think differently and these questions will help employers identify them:

1) What are you currently reading and why?

You need employees who are multi-dimensional. For example, you ask this question to a candidate for a sales position and they give you the name of the latest sales book. Next they answer the important part of the question, Why? They say that they are reading it to keep current in their field. Great! But then you ask them what was the last book they read not related to sales and they don’t have an example to share with you. Not so great.

When I was a fundraiser, I never read a single book on fundraising. I read books on sales, marketing, promotions, etc., because I wanted a different perspective on fundraising. I wanted to be able to approach my prospects differently from my competition. But I also read books on other topics which leads me to my next question:

2) What are you curious about?

Your staff are going to be interacting with people from different backgrounds. It is important that they be able to relate and interact with them intelligently. I, for example, am no scientist. I don’t pretend to be. But I read a lot about science because it interests me, even if I don’t understand it. A while back I met a woman who was borderline rude when I told her what I did for a living. She had no interest at all. As is required at networking events, I asked her what she did. Turned out she was a scientist. So I said, “Let me ask you a question. There’s something I have read but have never been able to understand. Why is it that in the quantum world a single molecule can be in two places at the same time?” Her entire attitude changed. Now we had a friendly discussion.

I have always believed that asking good questions is more important than having correct answers. Asking questions is a sign of personal courage to admit ignorance and the strength to want to learn. Which leads me to my next question:

3) Do you have a side hustle?

In this case, make certain that the candidate knows that it is not a problem. It won’t be held against them. But you may find what they are doing on the side can help with salary negotiations. If they say they are doing whatever it is that they are doing simply to make ends meet, then you know that if you offer them a good compensation package, they may be happy to give it up. You could ask, What would you need to give up the side hustle? The answer may not be dollars but health insurance, child care, adult care, or some other benefit.

Of course, you could also find out that they have a hidden talent not apparent from their resume. Then you could talk to them about making their side hustle a new revenue stream for your company over which they would be in charge. That would change the entire dynamics of the interview and get them really excited about working for you.

4) What does your current/past company really do?

This question gets to the issue of how the candidate thinks. For example, if I am not mistaken, Michael Dell, of Dell Computers, said he was in the customer service business. Amazon, even before AWS, was described as a tech company. Let me give you some fictional examples:

The Acme door company is in the business of making homeowners feel safe. The Acme window company is in the business of cutting heating and air conditioning bills. “We sell doors” or “We sell windows” is simplistic thinking which you do not want in your company.

5) How do you reach decisions?

Some people need data. Some people rely on experience. Some people talk to others who have been in similar situations. Whatever works! But you have to find out if it really does work for them. So follow up and ask for an example of a success and a failure and what they learned from both. A team with people who reach decisions differently, and who are entrusted with coming up with the decision, usually picks the right one! Having a team of people who reach decisions the same way is almost as bad as having a team of yes-men.

6) How do you learn?

This may be the most important question. Some people learn by reading. Some people learn by watching. Some people learn by listening. Some people learn by doing. This is a great way to find out how much supervision a person needs (confirming it by reference checking!) and whether they will be a good match with your, or their supervisor’s, management style.

The bottom line is, having people who think differently is just as important as any other form of diversity. You ignore this at your own risk.

Beating Sexism, Destroying Diversity

A few months ago, one of my LinkedIn connections invited me to be on his podcast to discuss diversity, specifically in IT. As I am a firm believer in the importance of having a diversified workforce, I was happy to accept. Little did I know that the man had an agenda.

What he wanted was for me to confirm that IT companies discriminate in their hiring practices. I would not do it. I told him that my IT clients were fully diversified. He countered that the Big 4 IT companies, according to a study, were far from diversified. I explained that those companies began operations when diversification was not even a thing and that they had a lot of catching up to do. On the other hand, my clients had always practiced diversification. I also pointed out that the Big 4, being just that, big, slanted the statistics. Most IT firms are small businesses not colossal behemoths. Remove the Big 4 from the analysis and the numbers will improve dramatically. They won’t be perfect, but they will be more indicative of an industry that is doing what they should be doing, hiring women and minorities.

Around this time, (I don’t remember exactly as we continued to speak once the interview ended), the host stopped the recording. He said that he was going to do me a favor and not continue with, or post, the interview. He said that I would be getting into trouble if it were to air. I told him that it was his call, wished him well, and ended the Zoom call. Then I had a good laugh.

Today, I am not laughing.

As my readers know, I read Inc. and Fast Company magazines religiously. They usually provide a wealth of usable information (although, note to editors, especially at FC, they are getting a bit too political). I was therefore unpleasantly surprised when the October 2021 issue of Inc. arrived and the very first article after the letter from the editor was about a company whose founder decided that she was facing sexism and had, as far as I am concerned, chosen to react with what I consider to be a fraudulent strategy. Put simply, she lied and Inc. apparently is endorsing the strategy.

What happened was that after she had met with potential clients, she followed up with emails to which her prospects did not respond. As, at the time, the company had only two employees, both women, she decided to create a fake employee, “Paul,” and give him an MBA. So, while the emails from the women were ignored, the emails sent by “Paul, MBA” did receive responses. Today, the company has $5.5 million in annual revenue. So I guess the lesson is, lying works, ethics be damned! (If my emails are ignored, I pick up the phone! But what do I know? I’m not making millions.)

I fully understand that new business owners will do practically anything to get their first clients. The problem is that the editors at Inc. titled the article, “One Way To Beat Sexism.” The founder did not “beat” sexism, she circumvented it, assuming that sexism was, in fact, the problem.

This got me thinking. If by creating a fake male employee the founder was able to beat sexism, which is bad, then why not use the same practice to beat diversity, which is good. This is really “two wrongs make a right.” You are the victim of sexism. A wrong. You create a fake male employee, a second wrong. You then get clients which is good. And you make millions of dollars, which is even better.

The problem is, if this strategy can “beat” sexism, it could also be used to “beat” diversity. Why have a diverse workforce when you can just create a bunch of fake email signatories?

I am pleased to announce that I have now hired staff. In addition to myself (Jewish and male, two boxes checked), I am being joined by Mary, MBA, (Christian and female, two more boxes checked), Fatima, CPA, (Muslim and Arab, two more boxes checked, in addition to being a woman), and Jose, Eng. (Hispanic, one more box checked in addition to him being Christian, probably Catholic, and a male). So, let’s see, in addition to myself, I now have two women working for me, one man, and together we represent at least three religions, and four races. Not bad. I think I will add Xi and, can someone tell me what an African-American first name is that everyone will recognize the person as being Black? And that should do it. My company is now diversified, or at least everyone will think it is. Impression is reality!

Sexism is bad. If you think a prospect is sexist, here’s a crazy idea, don’t work with them. Why would you want to help them build their business?

Diversification is important. It’s good business to have a workforce that reflects the demographics of your community or your clientele. It just makes good sense and is great for the bottom line. But it has to be real. Just because one person got away with creating a fake employee, doesn’t mean everyone should. It’s too important to add trickery to the mix.

When Hiring, Job Searching and Communicating You Need a Soft Landing

The following is based on a presentation I made to the PRO-G Networking Group in Parsippany, New Jersey.

PILOTS ARE NOT THE ONLY ONES WHO NEED A SOFT LANDING!

Hiring, job search, and communications all share one thing in common: If you mess up it could cost you dearly. A bad hire can be destructive to a company. A bad interview can be devastating to a job candidate. And amateurish communications, whether verbal or in writing, can be damaging to the communicator. So how can you increase the odds of success – a soft landing – and decrease the odds of embarrassment – an ugly crash? Let’s consider each separately.

Hiring

If you are using a recruiter, in-house or external, and they tell you they have never made a mistake, they are either new to the business or lying through their teeth. We all make mistakes. It’s called being human. The key is to know how to minimize those errors and increase the odds that the candidate, if hired, will remain on the job for a long time.

The first thing is to conduct a reference check. You want to speak to the reference. They may say the right thing but their tone of voice may send a contradictory message, and that’s the message that’s important! Letters of reference are worthless. They could be forged. Or, they could have been handed to the person simply to get them to vacate the premises. And, for the record, LinkedIn references are meaningless. The candidate has complete control over their profile and can reject any reference they do not like. Moreover, and this has happened to me, many people offer to write positive references in exchange for receiving one. And if that does not convince you, one person told me that he had the most references of anyone on LinkedIn. So I printed out the first page of references, told him to send me the phone numbers of the first ten, that I would choose three, notify him in advance before I called them and…I never heard from him again!

You want to conduct a reference check because the most important thing for a successful hire is to make certain the person will be a good fit with your corporate culture. You can only find that out by talking with people who have worked with them in the past. More on culture in a moment.

The opposite side of the reference check coin is the background check. Some people believe that a background check should be conducted on all hires. I don’t argue the point. Just make sure (and I believe the law requires it) that you inform them of the results so they can dispute anything negative. (I had one candidate whose background check came back stating that there was an outstanding bench warrant against him for a crime he had committed when he was four-years-old! The court officer had made a mistake when recording the Social Security number…!) In any event, a background check should be conducted for any hire who will come into contact with money, financial data, or any confidential information.

The way that I provide my clients with a soft landing, the only way I know, is to offer a six-month guarantee that if for any reason a placement does not work out, I will find a replacement at no charge. If the recruiter does not offer a guarantee, or a short one, weeks not months, that tells you everything you need to know about them.

The reason my guarantee is so long is because I believe in my process. Which brings me back to culture. Culture is not free lunches, being able to take a vacation whenever you want, or showing up for work at your pleasure. Those are all fads. True, they speak to a certain mentality, but not culture. For me, and I am stealing from Tolstoy, culture is how you think. If you will, it is your decision making processes. And the most important part of that process is providing a safe environment where employees can disagree with their supervisors and the boss without fear of retaliation. If a person wants to hire someone who will agree with them all the time, I advise saving money and simply buying a mirror.

The way the employer reaches decisions informs their culture. The same is true for candidates which brings me to my next topic: Career Counseling or, for present purposes, the Hiring Process. (Job seekers should note that the following is from the employer’s perspective which is important as it never hurts to think like an employer when you are looking for employment!)

The Hiring Process

Ask for a cover letter. If all you receive is a form letter, move on to the next candidate. If they could not be bothered writing a unique letter for you, don’t waste your time with them. If they forget to send a cover letter, you know they can’t follow simple instructions. If they can’t follow simple instructions, they won’t be able to follow the complicated instructions involved in the job for which they applied, so, again, move on to the next candidate. And if they do send a cover letter, and they can’t write a proper business letter, you don’t want them.

Obviously, ask for a resume. But before you read the resume, look at it. It will tell you everything you need to know about how the applicant organizes their thoughts and how they prioritize. How they market themselves will be the best indication of how they will market you. Everyone is involved with marketing and selling. If they cannot market and sell themselves to your satisfaction, move on.

Also, check to see if they understand the latest technology, Applicant Tracking Systems. Many companies simply scan resumes into their data base without a human seeing them. The bad systems, and you always have to assume the worse, have difficulty “reading” anything in headers or footers, printing on a colored background (black background/white font), and get confused by hyperlinks (for example, for email addresses and LinkedIn profiles). It should not disqualify a candidate, just raise something to be pursued in the actual interview.

In the interview, although this should have been done by the recruiter, confirm that they are qualified for the job. Then ask what I call personality questions.

The first “question” is not a question but an opportunity: Tell us about yourself. If all they do is summarize their resume, then they do not recognize and do not know how to take advantage of a golden opportunity. So why would you want them?

Next, ask them what is the accomplishment of which they are most proud. Then, ask them why they did what they did. How did they reach the decision to do things one way and not another? What you are really doing is checking to see if they can handle criticism, are open to other options, are willing to learn, and if they can think on their feet. Now you will know if they are a cultural fit. Their decision making process must complement yours. Period.

Since you are hiring a complete person, and not just a salesperson, marketer, controller, CIO, or whatever, ask them about what they are curious. You may learn a lot from their answer. Also, ask them for examples of how they have dealt with adversity. The advantage will be to the older, more experienced, candidates, but it’s an important thing to know even for someone with limited experience.

During the interview, pay attention to their body language. Can they read the room? Do they know when they are doing well? Are they animated? Do they appear to be truly interested in the position? Sadly, because of all the Zoom conversations we have all been having, this is a lost art. But non-verbal communication is still important.

My two favorite questions are: How did you prepare for this interview? and What do you know about us (the interviewers) and the company? The answers will tell you everything you need to know about what they do to prepare for a meeting and how accurate are those preparations. If they can’t do it for a job interview, they can’t do it for a meeting with a client or a prospective client.

It’s all about presentation, which brings me to my third focus: professional communications.

Professional Writing Services

The first thing about communicating, whether in writing or verbally, is to know your audience. Your presentation must be relevant. With a written document, it is best to get right to the point. The fact is, people don’t like to read. And if the document is too long, that may indicate that the author can’t prioritize.

On the other hand, if you are making a speech, it is best to start with a story. Just make certain that at the end you connect your conclusions with the story. In any event, tell the audience what you are going to do and then do it. Don’t turn a speech into a commercial.

I can remember (being conned into) attending a presentation where the presenter said he was going to tell us how to double our sales within 30 days. He spoke in generalities and then, at the end, he told us that if we signed up for his services on the spot, he would only charge us $999.99 and he would provide us with the specifics to reach the goal! To the best of my recollection, everyone walked out disgruntled, to say the least.

That said, you do want to end your speech with a call to action. Tell the audience what they should do to justify the time they spent listening to you. Which reminds me, always keep in mind if you are writing to be read or writing to be heard. There is a huge difference.

If you follow this advice, I am confident that you will have a soft landing with your hiring, job search and communications processes.

The 3 Skills That Will Keep You Employed

In his book, Present Future: Business, Science, and the Deep Tech Revolution, Guy Perelmuter writes (p.55), “The use of subjective judgment, emotional intelligence, and adaptability to unexpected situations are emerging as important characteristics for the employees of the future since these are features that are quite uniquely human and will very likely not be replaced by a machine in the foreseeable future.”

This quote is important for two reasons: First, Mr. Perelmuter is correct. Second, this is a great example of why job seekers can better spend their time reading books by legitimate authorities on the future, especially scientists and engineers, than reading “how to” books about getting a job, with the obvious exception of mine!

I have two rules about competitors. First, I never acknowledge anyone as my competitor. The minute I would do so, I would be telling potential clients that they, the competitors, are as good or better than I am. Why would I do that? Why would anyone do that? Second, I never try to build myself up by knocking someone else down. When I am asked about a competitor I always reply, “I don’t know enough about them to comment. All I can do is tell you about myself.”

No one can possibly be offended by that response. And it will work nicely in a job interview. This is especially so given that employers are not going to tell candidates against whom you are competing. That being the case, candidates have to assume that their competitors may have more direct experience than they do or may be younger. The first is faced by some veterans (although many have far more relevant experience than civilians); the second by older workers.

In either case, you never want to say, “I have experiences that no one outside of the military could bring to the table.” Or, just as bad, “I have more experiences than some twenty-something.” After all, you may be insulting the person who is interviewing you.

So ignore the competition. Don’t forget them; just ignore them. The inference will be that you have what the others don’t.

Which brings us back to Mr. Perelmuter. What are “subjective judgement,” “emotional intelligence,” and “adaptability to unexpected situations?”

First, they are all connected, in one way or another, to something I wrote about some time ago namely, on what older workers/candidates should focus in a job interview. My answer was then, and is now, dealing with adversity. In my career I have had to deal with death, criminality, and technological breakdowns, to name but a few. I guarantee I can “beat” you on your example of your worse day on the job. Someone with, let’s say, five years’ experience just can’t do that. They may have one example, but not enough to show that they can handle Perelmuter’s third point, which I will deal with first.

A good interviewee (candidate) politely takes control of the interview. They refocus the conversation to their benefit. Think about what talented politicians do in an interview. They answer questions by refocusing. (I think it was Churchill who said something on the line of, If I don’t like your question, I’ll respond to it; if I like your question, I’ll answer it!) You, the candidate, should do the same. Answer the question you are asked but immediately add a caveat. Say something like, “But what is also important is to prepare for the unknown. We do that all the time. That’s why we have insurance. That’s why we have virus protection on our computers. But, of course, we can always be surprised. No plan is perfect and no protection is fool-proof. Let me give you an example.”

I promise you, a veteran and an older worker will have a much better example than someone who has never served in the military or who has an employment record that can fit nicely on half a sheet of 8.5 x 11 paper.

Which brings me to “emotional intelligence.” I have read a great deal on the subject and, with all due respect to the experts, I still like my one-word definition the best: maturity. People with emotional intelligence do not panic. If you will, they do not get emotional. So, when giving your above example add, “As always, when the unexpected happens, I take a deep breath, and then begin to calmly respond. If I panic, everyone else will panic, and a bad situation will only get worse.”

And that brings us to “subjective judgement.” It’s “subjective” because it is yours. You are judging the situation. If everything works out, you are a hero, if not… Of course, in the example you will give, you will be right. So the emphasis is on “judgement.”

Now that you have explained that you do not panic, that you are mature, you have to tell the interviewer how you reached that decision which proved to be correct. In this case it is important to emphasize two things: First, experience. Briefly recall similar situations you had and what you learned from them. You can even include a failure. Recognizing your failures is a sign of strength, not weakness and, as everyone should know, you can often learn more from failures than from successes. Second, and just as important, make sure to say that you consulted with your team prior to making the decision. Team members want to have their leader agree with them but, more importantly, they want to be heard. Explain to the interviewer that you always explain to your team members why you agree or disagree with their recommendations. By doing so, you gain their support and everyone should implement your decision without bitterness.

Such a strategy in an interview should impress the interviewers and help you to secure the job offer.

Equality Does Not Exist and That is How You Build a Great Team

When people talk about the need for equality, I laugh. (I was going to write that the only place people are equal is in the grave but even that is not true!) Equality does not exist. The only place where there should be equality is in the courts. Of course, that is a fiction. The person who can afford the most intelligent/talented (not necessarily the same thing) attorney usually wins. I assume that means that the only real equality is that everyone’s dollar bill is worth the same as everyone else’s. But then, the number of dollar bills in anyone’s pocket ends the discussion about financial equality.

I fully realize that equality, and the striving for that unachievable goal, is a popular talking point among many people. So there will always be people, in love with the sound of their own voices, screaming for equality. (For the record, I just want everyone to have a fair chance to achieve their goals.)

My response is, if everyone were equal then “equality” would be “average” and what type of goal is “average?” I have worked with many “average” people. For them, mediocrity was an achievement. It would be nice if we were all equal as far a opportunity was concerned, with everyone having the same chance as everyone else. It doesn’t exist. (Well, maybe in North Korea, but who wants to live there?)

I was thinking about this after I heard a commercial for Southern New Hampshire University. I like the one where the president says, “You were smart before the tassel turned.” (I actually used that line, giving him credit, in a speech I wrote.) I could not believe it when I heard him say, on a different commercial, “The world equally distributes talent but not opportunity.” (I waited until I heard it twice to make sure I had heard it correctly. Sadly, I had.)

Everyone, even intelligent people, are entitled to say something stupid. But this is a great example of the need for having a few layers of people who check, double-check, and triple-check something that is going to be published. I am certain that SNHU’s president is an intelligent man. I have no idea what he was trying to say, but talent is most definitely not distributed equally.

Some people say I am a talented writer. Some people say I am a talented recruiter. Some people say I am a talented career counselor. Some people say I am a talented speaker. Some people say I am an idiot. Some people say I am a babbling fool. I’ll tell you one thing for certain: I can’t do math. I can’t explain quantum mechanics. I can’t sing. I can’t draw. I can’t play a musical instrument. My IT talents are very limited. And if you want to lose all your savings, come to me for advice on financial planning. We are all talented in some spheres and wonting in others.

Equality is a fiction. And the sooner you acknowledge and accept that the better off you will be. You are not equally as talented as everyone else. You have to determine where you strengths, your talents, lie and build on them. That is how you will become a successful professional.

For the record, finding people who are talented in different realms is how you build a successful team. Yes, they should be equally talented at what they do. Employers should always strive to hire the best. So if that is what the president of SNHU wanted to say, he spoke poorly not foolishly.

The only way you can have equality is if you embrace the lowest common denominator. That means you will achieve nothing but failure. Equality of opportunity is a goal. Again, everyone should have a fair chance. But, in the real world, that is a dream that will never totally be realized because we are not all equally talented. It would be nice if we were but we are not.

We Are All Replaceable…But…

Mothers lie to their daughters!

Now they may also lie (Alright, it may not be a “lie-lie” but just a foolish statement said with the best of intentions) to their sons, I have just not heard or experienced it. And fathers may do it as well. For me it has always been daughters, young and old, and mothers, never fathers. They actually believed it when their mothers told them, “You are special. You are unique. You are irreplaceable.” And they are truly shocked when they discover that they are neither special, nor unique and are most definitely replaceable. We are all replaceable. But…

The most difficult searches I have ever had have all been for what I call “second spouses.” Typically I am contacted by someone who says they need an “executive assistant.” They provide an accurate job description, which clearly lists the qualifications. I find candidates who meet all the mandatory qualifications and most, if not all, of the preferred. I interview and submit them. Then the phone rings:

Bruce, good job! But there’s something missing. They’re not the right fit.

The client is not being difficult. They simply cannot articulate that intangible quality they need. They are hiring a confidant. They are hiring someone they will be with eight hours a day, if not more, and maybe even on weekends. Thus my classification that they are looking for a “second spouse.” They are hard to find.

But this article is not about my most difficult search, it’s about the second most difficult. Those are the ones where the employee being replaced, usually through no fault of their own, has been with the company “forever.”

Allow me to digress, which I usually do…

I just finished reading Malcolm Gladwell’s book, The Bomber Mafia. (Short read. Excellent read!) On page 47 he writes,

“The psychologist David Wegner has this beautiful concept called transactive memory, which is the observation the we don’t just store information in our minds or specific places. We also store memories and understanding in the minds of people we love. You don’t need to remember your child’s emotional relationship to her teacher because you know your wife will; you don’t have to remember how to work the remote because you know your daughter will. That’s transactive memory.”

(If you are thinking of Googling “transactive memory” add “psychology” or you will drown in a sea of [at least for me] incomprehensible IT babble. My advice, in either case, it to accept Gladwell’s definition/description and get on with your life!)

Transactive memory is why trying to replace a veteran employee is so difficult. There’s no problem finding someone with the skill set. There’s no problem finding someone with all the qualifications, maybe even the preferred ones. But that employee, in one very important sense, is truly irreplaceable. Stored in their brain is history. Stored in their brain are all the things the boss did not want to store in his – the transactive memories. They know why you should never suggest doing A, and must always do B. They know why you never ask C about D and why you should always mention E to F, but never when G is around. They know why you must never use H as a vendor, and why I always has to be used.

I could continue until I exhaust both the English and Greek alphabets, but you get the idea.

The issue here, actually, is not the employee or the candidate, it’s the employer. They have to realize, and accept, especially if the employee who is being replaced is not available to answer their replacement’s questions, that the replacement will not, cannot, and cannot be expected to have their predecessor’s transactive memories. That person holds between their ears a vast depository of knowledge. What’s more, they probably don’t even realize that they know what they know.

I once was hired to be the assistant to the director of a small children’s mental health center. We shared an office. One day, a donation arrived. I filled out the bank form and prepared the receipt for the boss’s signature. She watched me. When I handed her the receipt, she asked me, “What about the book? You didn’t record the donation?”

I looked at her, puzzled, and asked, “What book?”

She was shocked. My replacement had never told me about the book, the book in which all donations were to be recorded. So I called her. She apologized, told me where it was, and I updated it. She did not intentionally not tell me. (I know; a double negative!) For her, it was so obvious, that she simply and honestly did not think of it.

That’s a simple and innocent example of what happens when memories are not shared. This was not a transactive memory. It was something she knew very well and had just forgotten to tell me. So just imagine how much information is stored in the brain of that veteran employee who, despite their best efforts, cannot possibly share it all.

Why is this so difficult? Because the employer has to accept the fact that no candidate will have the knowledge base to replace the veteran employee. Skills, yes; knowledge, no. It is simply impossible. And, sometimes, the new hire does not last long because the employer is frustrated that the new hire does not know what they, the employer, wants or needs them to know. So, in some ways, some people are irreplaceable (at least for the short term).

The AI Threat to Job Search and Hiring

While reading Katharine Schwab’s article, “AI Has a Big Tech Problem,” in the current issue of Fast Company, I began to think about how so many HR departments have become dependent upon technologies, especially Applicant Tracking Systems, and that HR, like AI, may have a big tech problem itself.

If, as reported, there are racial, gender and other biases in English language Google search results, the same would have to be true for HR systems based on Artificial Intelligence (AI). (For those of you who read her article, also mentioned is the “outsize carbon emissions required to compute” the search results. Such a comment should not detract from the seriousness of the subject matter.)

This is important to job seekers since, as Ms. Schwab clearly states, “At stake is the equitable development of a technology that already underpins many of our most important automated systems. From credit scoring and criminal sentencing to healthcare and whether you get a job interview or not [emphasis added], AI algorithms are making life-altering decisions for people, with no oversight or transparency.” The harms the systems can cause include “discriminatory hiring systems,” among others.

This is a problem of technology meeting ethics. The people who can be most negatively impacted, marginalized communities, need a seat at the table. Now Lord knows that I like a good laugh, but naming the organizations trying to tackle this problem, and I am quoting from the article not making this up, “Algorithmic Justice League (AJL), Data for Black Lives, Stop LAPD Spying Coalition, and the Our Data Bodies Project,” diminishes from the seriousness of the issue. It also shows that while Big Tech has too much presence in the room, there are not enough adults in the room!

Case in point: These groups, or at least some of them, got Amazon to stop selling its facial recognition software because it does not work well with Blacks. I don’t doubt it. But stopping the use of the software is stupid. If it works for Whites, then use it to catch White criminals. Blacks are always complaining that they are being racially profiled and they are disproportionately arrested and convicted for crimes. Well, if the software can help to locate White criminals, the percentage of Black criminals will drop. In the meantime, the developers can continue to work on the technical problems and, once solved, criminals, Black, White, Brown, Yellow, Red, Green, and Purple, will be caught, tried, convicted and our streets will be safer. Isn’t that what we wall want? Thus the need for some adults being in the room.

Luckily, there is one. Steven Shwartz, the author of Evil Robots, Killer Computers, and Other Myths: The Truth About AI and the Future of Humanity, the e-book edition of which I shall now “steal” from shamelessly.

The AI we all know and love, albeit to varying degrees, is the AI that powers the robots that stack shelves and do mundane, repetitive and dangerous work allowing humans to fully recognize their potential, contribute to their employer’s profits and, more importantly, to be safe. The AI systems that we fear, the killer robots which will enslave us, are based on Artificial General Intelligence or AGI. Like humans, these systems have the “ability to reason; to process visual, auditory and other inputs; and to use it to adapt to their environments in a wide variety of settings. These systems are as knowledgeable and communicative as humans about a wide range of human events and topics. They’re also complete fiction [emphasis added].” (p.18)

In other words, AI science fiction is just that, fiction. The problem is, most people don’t appreciate the fact that IBM’s Watson winning at Jeopardy!, and a program beating a master at chess or Go, may be impressive, but it’s basically a very complicated trick. They function on AI and “have little or no commonsense knowledge of the world and they cannot reason based on knowledge.” (p.18) They are what Ray Kurzweil called “narrow AI systems,” which are defined as “machines that can perform only one specific task.” They are not intelligent. (p. 18)

It is narrow AI that may have an impact on employment. And there are a few things of which you need to be aware.

First, perfection. “A missing hyphen in the software ruined the 1962 Mariner space launch. Faulty software was also the cause of the 1979 Three Mile Island nuclear disaster, the 2003 New York City blackout, 2010’s high-speed trading outage on Wall Street…and the Boeing 737 Max crashes.” (p. 27) If there is a mistake in software, people can die. No one will die if there is a mistake in HR software, but they might be unemployed which, in some sense, could be worse.

Second, liability. The manufacturers of the software, and the users, must be held liable for anything that goes wrong. Just as you can’t blame an autonomous vehicle for a poor decision because they lack “commonsense reasoning capabilities” (p. 34), you can’t blame the software if it rejects minorities as a matter of practice. It’s not the software’s fault it’s the fault of the programmers (the manufacturer) and the user (the company whose HR department convinced them to make the purchase).

Third, hysteria. In 2018, “Newsweek reported ‘Robots Can Now Read Better Than Humans, Putting Millions of Jobs at Risk’.” If you believe that, please contact me. I have a bridge in Brooklyn I’m trying to sell! The truth is, AI systems may be able to read, but they cannot read and understand and “researchers do not know how to make them do so.” (p.47)

Our jobs are safe. Every time automation is introduced, some people lose their jobs. Some of those people retire. Some of them are retrained. Some move on to other things. But always, always, more jobs are created than are lost. This is nothing new. It’s been going on for centuries.

In the 1800s, “Luddites destroyed automation equipment to protest [textile] job-destroying machines.” Warren Buffet researched the topic for Time magazine. He discovered that in 1776 80% of workers were employed on farms. Today, the number is two percent. Why? Tractors, planters, cotton gins, combines, fertilizer, irrigation or, in a word, technology. (p.50)

Ray Kurzweil, who I mentioned earlier, discovered that “half of all the jobs available in 1900 no longer exist today.” Those “new jobs are paying eleven times higher wages than the jobs in 1900, even after adjusting for inflation.” (p.50)

Think about what (almost) everyone reading this article can remember: “Word processors have replaced many secretaries [Remember typewriters?], tax preparation software has reduced the need for accountants, automated toll booths have replaced human toll collectors, internet travel sites have displaced many travel agents, e-commerce (especially Amazon) is taking a toll on brick-and-mortar retail, and self-checkout technology is threatening the 3.6 million US cashier jobs.” (p.50.)

But, and I am sorry to get political, unlike blindly shutting down fossil fuel production and claiming the workers can make solar panels for a very small national industry (see below), cashiers won’t be fired. They will become salespeople (if they want) and probably earn more money as they will be able to get commissions. These people will walk the floors, sales tablets in hand, talk to customers admiring products, and close the sale right there on the spot, not giving the customer time to change their minds as they walk to the now non-existent cashier lines. That’s the way it is supposed to work.

Think about ATMs. They marked the doom of bank tellers. Or, at least, that’s what was predicted. What really happened? “While ATMs reduced the numbers of tellers per branch, more branches opened because ATMs reduced the operating costs in each branch.” (p. 51) And don’t forget the jobs that were created manufacturing, installing and repairing ATMs, not to mention those related to the construction of those new bank branches.

One more thing to note: While AI can handle repetitive functions, “only 10 percent of occupations are composed of more than 90 percent automatable tasks. Although parts of a certain job might be replaced by AI, the other 90 percent of the job will still need to be done by a human being; that means that, although your job duties might change, your job is likely safe (at least from AI).” (p.53)

Up until now I have not been writing about hiring because I felt it important to make certain that the relationship between AI and job destruction/creation was properly understood. Always think ATMs, never think solar panels. (For the record, according to their industry, in 2019 there were only a quarter of a million solar panel jobs in the US. https://www.thesolarfoundation.org/national/. On the other hand, according to their industry, there were 6.7 million fossil fuel related jobs in the US in 2018. https://www.usenergyjobs.org/2019-report. You do the math.)

Shwartz also makes it clear (p.54), “The biggest technology driver of job loss today is not AI. Conventional software that uses explicit coding of instructions and rules, such as e-commerce, rideshare software, and robotics, destroys far more jobs than AI systems.” As has been said many times, it is a tragedy for the person who loses their job to technology, but let’s put the blame where it belongs. Focusing on AI allows conventional software to slip through under the radar.

Which (finally?) brings me to hiring. There exists a new acronym, ADS, which stands for “automated decision system.” These are the ones job seekers, employers (because they purchase them – the ADSes, not the job seekers! – and the manufacturers, have to worry about. They make “decisions and recommendations that previously were made by people,” including employment decisions. (p. 186)

Problem is, like the people who program them, even with the best of intentions, ADSes can be discriminatory. I can’t summarize this better than Shwartz wrote it (pp. 187-188):

In 2003, economists Marianne Bertrand and Sendhil Mullainathan responded to help-wanted ads in Boston and Chicago with fake resumes. The researchers gave the resumes random names that sounded African American (e.g., Lakisha and Jamal) or Caucasian (e.g., Emily and Greg). The Caucasian resumes received 50 percent more callbacks. Social media such as LinkedIn facilitates intentional discrimination by providing a place where biased hiring managers can view an applicant’s picture.

Let me chime in: Years ago there was a lot of debate over using LinkedIn to vet candidates. By going to LinkedIn, you can see the applicant’s photo. You therefore have a good idea, in fact near certainty, as to their gender, race and, possibly, religion. Lawyers, therefore, recommended that only after receiving a resume, speaking with the applicant, and inviting them in for an interview, should recruiters/employers look at their LinkedIn profile. Then it was not for discriminatory purposes but to spot differences between their resume and profile so as to be able to ask probing questions. That debate, probably because it is nearly impossible to know when a recruiter/employer looks at the LinkedIn profile (before or after inviting the applicant to be interviewed), has vanished. Now to return to Mr. Shwartz:

Job screening ADSes use data that incorporates the hiring preferences and experience of previous hiring managers. Amazon built an ADS to predict which job applicants would be the best employees. However, because most software engineers were historically male, the ADS inadvertently learned a bias against female applicants. Amazon discontinued the system when they discovered this issue.

So now that we know the problem, what’s the solution?

Shwartz identified nine steps employers should take (pp.191-2):

1. Hire a diverse workforce to reduce intentional discrimination.
2. Use only ADS systems that use interpretable algorithms.
3. When building ADS systems, preprocess the data to remove bias.
4. Run tests on ADS systems to determine whether they are biased.
5. Use only ADS systems that are certified as bias-free by independent third parties.
6. Check to see whether they publish statistics showing a diverse hiring pattern.
7. Determine whether they only use ADS systems that are explainable.
8. Find out whether they test their ADS systems to ensure they are nondiscriminatory.
9. Discover whether they have third-party nondiscrimination certifications for their ADS systems.

Granted, I am prejudiced, but I have a tenth, far simpler solution: Don’t use them! They are not worth the cost of the inevitable law suits. Hire recruiters to choose candidates to be interviewed and give them strict instructions on the laws concerning discrimination.

Ironically, again quoting Shwartz (p.187): “Factors such as race, religion, color, gender, disability, and family status can be explicitly removed from training tables to prevent ADSes from making decisions based on these factors.” If they can be removed from the ADSes, they can be removed from the people, and cost a lot less in time, money and aggravation. So my tenth solution is really not all that self-serving.

In any event, discriminatory criteria must be eliminated from the process. Even zip codes need to be removed from the calculous of hiring. This cannot be taken lightly especially if you work in the EU. “The European Union General Data Protection Regulation now requires an individual to consent to the use of an ADS for a decision that has a consequential impact on that individual.” (p.194) And if it’s in the EU, it will eventually arrive in the US, probably through California. But, to be fair, there has already been one lawsuit filed, in Texas (p.195):

“A Texas teacher’s union won a 2017 court case in which teachers objected to the use of an automated scoring system as the primary method of identifying 221 teachers for termination. The issue was that the school system had no way to know if the scoring used biased data. … Although the parties settled the case out of court, the school system agreed to stop using the automated scoring system.”

It’s not just self-interest that makes me advise against ADSes, it’s real concern for both employers and job seekers. Tread carefully, you could fall into a huge money pit!

How to Tell a Job Interviewer What They Should Do

(The quote, “Never tell your mother how to have children!” is an oldie but a goodie. But the source, apparently, is the oldest of them all, “Anonymous.”)

It is common in job interviews for candidates to talk too much. As I have written before, in many cases candidates have talked themselves out of job offers. But it works both ways, interviewers can also talk too much.

This usually occurs when, logically, they want to explain to the candidate the problem they are facing and thus the need for bringing them on board. Again, it’s perfectly logical. And it’s also necessary. But it can also be a trap.

After explaining the situation for a few minutes the interviewer turns to the candidate and asks, “How would you handle this?” or “What would you recommend that we do?”

There are disreputable companies that engage in fake hiring to get free advice from professionals they probably could not afford to actually hire, even as consultants. So they ask the latter question and hope for some good advice they can use. The ironic thing is, more likely than not, they don’t have the intellect, intelligence or resources to implement the suggestions. So let’s focus on the former question, after all, they are both related.

You, the candidate, have been in the company less than half an hour. You did all the research your could on them. You memorized their website. You found articles written about them and their key staff. And now you are being asked, after a few minutes of conversation, for the most part a monologue, how you would solve their biggest problem.

Your response should come in two parts. First, show off your researching skills. Ask pertinent questions based on your research. Make them delve deeper and reveal some of the things they kept hidden. If they were being sincere, this is a great way to show them that you understand what the real issues may be. (As I have said often, knowing the right questions to ask can be far more important than knowing the right answers to give.) If they are insincere, just looking for free help, and refuse to answer, game over! You know they are not looking to hire and, if you have the right morals, values and ethics, you won’t want to work for them. All you have to say is, “This is a complicated subject and without knowing the answers to my questions, I would not hazard to guess.”

Which brings us to the second part of your response. Assuming they are forthcoming, you can now give them the perfect-non-answer-answer. It shows you are intelligent. It shows that you are a person of good character. It shows, most importantly, that you know your stuff.

“While I have read a great deal about your company, and appreciate your candor, I would not presume, after meeting with you for only a few minutes, to offer advice. There are too many unknowns. In fact, since I don’t know what I don’t know I don’t know what to ask.”

You have now set the table for a response that shows you can do the job:

“If I understand correctly, and please correct me if I misunderstood, you…” After you have reworded what they told you, you continue, “Again I would not presume to tell you what to do. But what I can tell you is that I faced a similar situation. At one of my former employers,” you always want to show that you respect confidentiality by not naming names, “our problem was A, B and C. I proposed… The proposal was accepted. I was put in charge of building a team. We implemented a plan that included X, Y and Z. Not only did we solve the problem, we achieved buy-in from everyone and completed the plan on-time and under budget.”

And that is how you answer the question. If the employer is looking for free advice, the information you provided is worthless. They don’t know enough the situation you described and certainly don’t have the team to implement your solution, even if it is relevant for what they are experiencing. If the employer is sincerely looking to hire someone, you just proved that you can do the job for them because you did it for someone else, probably one of their competitors.

Team Building Can Be Deadly

For a couple of years, I taught at a school in Manhattan for tradesmen. My students were electricians, plumbers, carpenters, a bricklayer (I didn’t even know the profession still existed!), and project managers. They had all graduated high school. Only a few had attended college and fewer had a degree. I was, to put it mildly, intimidated. I was used to teaching university students. This was something totally new for me. I was out of my element, had been thrown into the deep end.

And I enjoyed every minute of it. I had to learn a completely new way to get my message across. I had to learn a new way to gain/earn respect. And I had to be willing to be their student as much as their teacher. We had fun. We laughed. We all learned. There was no superiority and no inferiority. After a few weeks, we got to know each other. We learned how to work together. In many ways, we were a team.

I was reminded of this recently when I was interviewing an electrician for a position I was looking to fill. (Don’t bother asking for details; the position has been filled.) He made a joke about a cracked water pipe leaking into a light fixture. I jokingly said, “Even I know that is not a good thing!” He laughed and said, “Electricity and water work together but don’t get along.”

I don’t know if he realized how insightful a statement that was, but it got me thinking.

When I am considering candidates for positions with my executive recruiting clients, culture is the most important factor. I give a six-month guarantee, so I don’t want someone leaving after a few months. I have to be certain they are a match. A new hire has to be able to work with existing staff, but, unlike electricity and water, they must also get along. And there’s the rub. Existing staff must make the new hire feel welcome, but the new hire has to be willing to recognize that they are joining a preexisting team; the team is not joining them. The difference is significant. The new hire, over time, may be able to change things, but in the beginning, they have to conform (with the obvious exception of a senior/executive hire).

In most cases, hiring employees means expanding or maintaining an existing team, not changing its fundamentals. Knowing that means security and comfort for current employees and an appreciation of the need for acceptance of that fact by the new hire(s).

Electricity and water can get along as long as they are adjacent to each other, separated by some sort of protective covering. But put them together and sparks will literally fly. Make sure the same does not happen when you put a new hire together with your existing team! They must be able to work together and get along. Otherwise, it will be like electricity and water meeting at a light fixture.