Here is a novel concept from the world of Boolean based job research and surfing:  a careers site that provides content only derived from the career pages of hiring companies.  Ideally, if the premise rings true, then this should minimize, if not eliminate any re-posting of ads from other general search sites, such as bundlers, aggregators and the like.

The verdict:

On the surface I found this page to be very useful.  Here’s why:

1. This site’s search technology and interface seems to cut down repetition with multiple postings of the same job being eliminated in favor of the single post from the corporation posting its jobs.  This does save a bit of time trying to make sense of too many look-alike postings and narrow your focus to those critical roles that are relevant to your search.
2. The owners have adapted the site’s functionality to similar capabilities found on sites like Indeed and others, allowing for customized searches and the capability to modify on the fly.
3. This site also seems to cut down on the “clutter” found on sites like Dice, Monster and others, whose revenue is partially driven by ads posted through spots and banners intertwined throughout.

There are some risks and trade-offs:

Like all similar job search sites, this page is not comprehensive and all-encompassing.  What I mean is that visibility for employers’ jobs are usually influenced by how much each wants to invest. More money means stronger visibility, and (at least in theory) stronger results.

URL: http://www.linkup.com/

Jobs Direct From Companies

GRADES:

Creativity: B

Usability (ease of use): B-

Overall Grade: B-

One simple and immediate way to help that I thought of this morning is if you can postpone pre-planned trips back east, please do so.  Also, if you are on the East Coast and have plans to make your way towards the west, or elsewhere (especially for business or leisure), please consider postponing those plans to free up availability to allows travelers back east to go home.  I am not asking to incur major upheavals in your own life, but if a business meeting you have planned can be put off to help parents get home to their kids, or can help reunite a couple estranged by distance, please consider that.

If you are stuck on charities to contribute time and money too, how about these?:

American Red Cross

http://www.redcross.org/portal/site/en/menuitem.53fabf6cc033f17a2b1ecfbf43181aa0/?vgnextoid=19eddb420d602310VgnVCM10000089f0870aRCRD&vgnextchannel=e6c7aaf9bc911310VgnVCM10000089f0870aRCRD&vgnextfmt=default

Network for Good

http://www1.networkforgood.org/HurricaneIrene?source=AOL&cmpgn=NEWS

Operation USA

https://donate.opusa.org/?

DirectRelief International

http://www.directrelief.org/EmergencyResponse/2011/HurricaneIrene.aspx

Operation Blessing International

https://secure.ob.org/site/Donation2?df_id=5560&5560.donation=form1&JServSessionIdr004=cx25h5nj21.app246b

AmeriCares

https://secure.americares.org/site/Donation2?df_id=1505&1505.donation=form1&linkid=topnav

Feed The Children

https://secure2.convio.net/ftc/site/Donation2?df_id=2090&2090.donation=form1&s_src=org_disaster_relief

NOTE: By listing these charitable organizations, I am not providing any explicit or implicit endorsement of any of them.  For anyone that contributes funds, time or any other resources to these organizations, please ensure that you vet them thoroughly and make an informed decision as to whom among them is worthwhile to contribute to.  In other words, Caveat Emptor (translated from Latin for “let the buyer beware”).

My thanks to the Huffington Post for providing the links and descriptions for these charities.  To read their original blog post from 8/27/2011 regarding How You Can Help, please click below:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/27/hurricane-irene-how-you-c_n_938603.html

Thanks.

Quite a bit of time has passed since I last wrote anything on this blog, so I wanted to write up a brief post on current happenings.  As some of you have known, I have jumped ship again (moving from SVTC to another company – Solyndra).  Honestly, I have had my eye on Solyndra for a while and I am very excited to join there team as a recruiter.  I don’t want to bore most of you with too much detail, just suffice to say that the timing was right, and I was keenly interested in working for another solar comapny again.  I am still working through learning the ropes here, but I am extremely optimistic regaridng the outlook for working here.  My team is very passionate about what they do, about providing the very best customer service they can for their clients, and are very welcoming to me, which I appreciate.

Regarding my role and scope, I will be supporting the Operations Team here to hire for such positions as Process Technicians, Equipment Maintenance Technicians, and other related roles.  As I mentioned, I am still working through learning about my teams, but it has been a very exciting time, and I look forward to every day with enthusiasm and zeal.

I will try to keep you posted as the weeks and months progress.

Thanks, and take care.

- Steve

Usually, I don’t blog so specifically about any one company that I have been hired into, but I have to admit, this has been an exciting ride that gets more interesting and rewarding each day.

I had gone from doing pure sourcing at my last gig, where most of my activity was mundane and repetitious to a place where each day brings me different priorities with the oneness on me to drive and manage the staffing activity.

Case in point, at my previous gig, my contact with hiring managers was limited to occasional queries I  get through email.  These are usually based on some outstanding activity revolving around an interview I am working on scheduling, or sometimes some detail on a search I am conducting.  There had always seemed to be a buffer between me and the hiring manager (namely, that buffer being the HR business partner that I worked with) where all my instructions, guidance and feedback would be filtered.  At times, I felt like a robot or machine that you feed DOS commands to that pops out calls to candidates or on occasion, resumes.  At this gig, I was subject to everyone else’s instructions and expectations, with little say in how to manage my own actions and work flow.

Currently, my daily routine consists of candidate sourcing and pipeline building, interview scheduling, routing of resumes, helping to determine the hiring manager’s  needs, planning staffing strategy, and negotiating with third party vendors (agencies and online tools) regarding rates, terms and pricing.  Here, I function as a subject matter expert for staffing, where I am given that balance of accountability and trust that seemed to be lacking in my last assignment.  Here I feel like I truly own my work and can mange my own work flow as I see fit.

This is exhilarating!  It is a catharsis that I look forward to coming to work every day and feel that my efforts are being valued.

A little bit about the company I am working for:

SVTC Technologies is, for lack of a better term, what I call a “technical incubator.”  This company, based in San Jose, CA and Austin, TX provides resources to help clients to develop working their technical concepts and processes with the intent of furthering them towards maturity.  SVTC offers fab space, tool usage, 20+ years of engineering expertise, and even a library of tested “recipes” for proven concepts to help customers attain their development goals.

What is truly compelling about this business model is that this firm is adaptable to each customer’s needs and is not heavily reliant on any particular client or market niche.  As the business conditions change and technology adapts and changes, so does SVTC.

Oh, and by the way, we’re hiring!  If interested in learning about our open positions, please visit our careers page at:

http://www.svtc.com/careers

Or, please contact me at work at:

Steve Navarro

SVTC Technologies, LLC

HR Staffing Specialist

stephen.navarro@svtc.com

http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevenavarrosvtc/

Thanks for reading up on my posts here.  Things have been busy of late, what with a new job and much doings on the community involvement front.

I thought I would try getting back to putting up some advice I can pass on to candidates.  In this article, I want to focus on candidates knowing their “niche” and how to leverage that knowledge to augment their career search.

From my experience, the majority of us (living, breathing people) tend to organize and compartmentalize our experiences and stimuli into easily identifiable categories (hence the term ”niches”).  The intent is usually to organize and prioritize what we pay attention to.  In this sense, I believe that we do the same with the people we meet.  With as much chaos as we have in our lives, it helps most of us to be able to determine who friends, family, co-workers, acquaintances ,etc. are so that we can plan for how to interact with each, and how to manage our expectations of how we are treated.  This may not be universally applicable to all people of every walk of life, but my personal belief is that it applies to the vast majority of us.

Let’s start with definition of “niche” so that readers can understand where I’m coming from (excerpt from Dictionary.com).

niche (noun, adjective, verb, niched, nich·ing.)

–noun

1. an ornamental recess in a wall or the like, usually semicircular in plan and arched, as for a statue or other decorative object.

2. a place or position suitable or appropriate for a person or thing: to find one’s niche in the business world.

3. a distinct segment of a market.

4. Ecology . the position or function of an organism in a community of plants and animals.

–adjective

5. pertaining to or intended for a market niche; having specific appeal: niche advertising.

–verb (used with object)

6. to place (something) in a niche.

Origin:

1605–15; < F, MF, back formation from nicher to make a nest < VL *nīdiculāre, deriv. of L nīdus nest

—Related forms

un·niched, adjective

—Synonyms
2.  calling, vocation, slot, berth.

The definition that I find most striking of these refers to an ornamental recess or space where a decorative object like a statue can be placed.  In some ways this very closely correlates to the connotation of jobseekers finding their place or position within the grand scheme of the job seeking landscape.  In other words, how do I as a candidate position myself versus other candidates, versus the working environment, and even versus previous and future version of myself?

Going back to the recessed space for a statue, this strikes me mainly because in order for this space to exist, planning must be executed to determine how much space is allowed, is there enough support to bear the weight of the object placed there, is it level, is the object exposed to enough light, is it visible, will the object left there draw attention, etc.

Determining one’s niche may help a candidate to establish credibility in one’s field of expertise.  For example, when attending a social function (party, wedding mixer, etc.), people are often asked “what do you do?”.  When I ask this question of someone, I am looking to determine the following about others:

- Who they are in relation to others (sibling, parent, friend, etc.)

- What their occupation is or is desired to be (professional, jobseeker, hiring manager, etc.)

- (Sometimes) political affiliation (voter, non-voter, party affiliation, etc.)

- Personal likes or dislikes (sports fan, favorite movie, music, venue, pastime, etc.)

As a recruiter, responses to these queries helps me build rapport with others, which in turn, allows me to dissect details that may later prove useful.  Specifically, I want to know if this is a potential candidate whom I may want to recruit, is this a potential hiring manager that I could gather business from or refer a friend or colleague to.

On a separate note, while many of us accept the space we “fall into,” there are some that through careful planning, care and attention, can carve out a niche for themselves, even going so far as to adapt new niches for themselves to adapt to either current market conditions and demands, or their personal preferences.

My advice to jobseekers is to be aware of where your strengths, interests and career choices take you.  The same way a resume and career history should follow a logical progression that details how you have built your career, your niche helps to validate the decisions you have made, the career goals you have and the direction(s) you plan to go in.  It should not be seen as a means to confine yourself, as it should be a means to define how best to leverage past experience and all your hard work and effort to putting you where you need to be.

Your “niche” should be a way of checking in on your status and helping you to keep your career on track.  If it turns out you are not exactly where you want or need to be in your career, then it may be time to get to work at making some changes in your career planning (new skills training, job changes, etc.).  There is always a possibility to change course, but this needs to be down thoughtfully and with some care.  Too many shifts, too much change may seem to indicate instability, which may not lead a hiring manager to want to risk bringing you on if they are unsure that you will stick around.

I am very interested in hearing from others on how their experiences with finding their niche has helped (or hindered) them.  Please consider responding and I will do my best to ensure that it is uploaded in a timely fashion.

We all have different personality types.  Some of us are very direct and straightforward.  Others find ways to subtly get their message across.  We each perceive time a little differently.  For some, it is critical that all work be done in a specific timeframe and usually as quick as possible.  Others seem to lag and put off what is critical and stretch the outcome of working projects and priorities until the very last moment. 

With this in mind, I ask:  How do you manage?

What I mean by this is how do you manage people, process, workflow, priorities, results, and outcomes?

Answers to these questions and others tend to flesh out your working and managerial style. 

Is it your way or the highway?

Does your method for how you manage foster or encourage success among those you manage?

Is the success you foster easily replicated or repeatable?

Are you clear in what outcomes or results you ask for, when it is needed, and the method by how those outcomes and results are obtained?  Do you provide a roadmap for how to be successful, including tips, tools, and guidance, or do you just let your reports fall on their faces (“sink-or-swim”)?

When situations go south (missed deadlines, deliverables, mistakes, etc.), who takes the brunt of the blame?  Are you looking to punish or encourage and teach?

Do you assume that everyone else should be on the exact same page as yourself? 

Do you share information with your direct reports and even ask for their input to make them feel included in the process?

Do you look for ways to build or encourage success in those that you work with or manage? 

Do they feel that they are successful in what they do? 

If not, (aside from money) what is motivating them to stay and work for you? 

What is motivating them from putting in the bare minimum effort to allow them not to be brow-beaten by someone such as yourself? 

What motivates your actions and the actions of you reports: inspiration to succeed or fear of failure?

The real question is: what will preclude or prevent your reports from trying to better their situation by either getting fired, moving on to another job, or somehow doing so poorly that it reflects poorly on you?

Not much.  While fear is a decent motivator, especially in a down economy where jobs are scarce and the prospects to leave are few and far between, it cannot replace true inspiration, drive, and ambition.  Don’t think for a moment that any employee worth his or her salt will sacrifice their entire well-being, dignity and self-respect to hold onto a job they hate.  And even if they do stay, why would keeping someone around that hates you, your management style, and anything else about the job be a good thing anyway?  Clearly this person is not motivated to put their best effort forward.  Clearly, they are not invested in your success, or that of the firm, or possibly even their own, if they are willing to put up with your callousness and (for lack of a better word) abuse.

I am not trying to offer any one perfect way to manage.  I am not saying STOP BAD MANAGERIAL BEHAVIOR ALTOGETHER AND TREAT EMPLOYEES RIGHT!  All managers are entitled to the right to manage their staff poorly and see them flee for greener pastures.  All I’m saying is, be aware of what you believe may be good managerial decisions and how they are perceived by those doing the frontline, “feet in the mud,” ”in the trenches” work.

While very exciting, it has had it’s share of challenges: learning a new company, it’s products, it’s norms, it’s people.  Still, I’m having as much fun as I can while I learn this business.

Now, on to the subject at hand: Sourcing

Specifically, candidate names sourcing is what I am blogging about today.  The question is what is it?  Why is it important and how would or could it impact me as a job seeker?

Let’s start with the basic definition of sourcing.  According to Dictionary.com, the root for sourcing, source, is defined as:

3.  a book, statement, person, etc., supplying information.

4.  the person or business making interest or dividend payments.

5.  a manufacturer or supplier.

6.  Archaic . a natural spring or fountain.

8. to find or acquire a source, esp. a supplier, for: Some of the components are now sourced in Hong Kong.

10. to seek information about or consider possible options, available personnel, or the like: a job recruiter who was merely sourcing.

The definition that I believe is most striking is # 10, which references being able to seek information or consider possible options.  Much of the activity I have seen or experienced when sourcing leads back to the goal of obtaining critical details for making intelligent and well-informed decisions.  Usually, this starts with gathering candidate contact information, or their detailed profiles or resumes.  A resume or profile is then only useful once it has been analyzed and digested to determine if the candidate provides the right “fit.”  Work samples and other representations of capability and skill may do the same, but usually it all leads back to what information a resume or profile provides of the candidate.

To gather and manage this information, the ”Sourcer” “wears different hats” depending on the specific task at hand.  In some instances, he or she becomes a detective who must distill usable and relevant information from all of the useless “noise.”  In other instances, the sourcer must become a clearing house for data, using his or her judgment and experience to prioritize details as appropriate.  The sourcer must also act as an ambassador for the company or firm that he / she represents.  In this role, the sourcer must be able to represent the company well enough to keep the candidate engaged, and hopefully sell that person on the merits of working here (versus at other companies), and on some level, convince or influence the candidate’s continued interest in pursuing employment with such firm.

So what does all that mean for me as a job-seeker?

If as a job-seeker, I am trying to get noticed by a company, and specifically by the recruiter and (hopefully) by the sourcer that supports them, I would want to figure out what will get their attention.  The simplest things such as having a properly formatted resume, that is detailed where it needs to be, yet concise enough to not confuse the reader is critical.

• Is the resume organized?
• Does it outline needed and relevant information?
• Is the language in such a state that a layman can understand the content, but not so simple that it prevents an experienced person from your discipline from being engaged and interested?
• Does it demonstrate where you add value?
• Does it accurately describe scope and display your specific actions and the resulting outcomes?
• Have you run spell- and grammar- check?
• Have you visually reviewed the resume line-by-line?  By the way, typing in the word form for from may not show up on a spell or grammar check.

If you have not touched on all of these points, you may want to get to work.

It’s written and looks great!  Now what?

So now your resume is top-notch and ready to go.  what do you do with it?  Tape it to the back door of the bathroom so that hiring managers see it on the way out?  Do you hand it out to everyone you know?  Do you take out a full-page ad in  the newspaper and plaster it there?  Perhaps not.

Some actions that may help:

1) Get your resume into the hands of those with DIRECT INFLUENCE on hiring decisions. Ideally, this would be the hiring manager, but if not this person, how about those that this person trusts? (members of their team, clients, their mentors, friends, family, colleagues, etc.).  If not, at least the recruiter and/or sourcer hiring for this role.

2) Sometimes the resume may not do it for you. In other words, no “superstar” needs a resume (would you ask Bill Gates or Michael Jordan for theirs?).  It might be more valuable to get to know the “right” people in whatever firm you are looking to work for, talk yourself up, or better yet, convince them with work samples that you are exactly what they need for the role they are filling (even better if the role does not exist, and you can convince them to manufacture a job for you), and allow them the opportunity to chase you.

3) Conduct informational interviews to gain access and networking contacts. Once a rapport is established, get your resume reviewed with the intent of obtaining feedback on it’s content and suitability for getting noticed, and eventually hired.  Even if the folks you come across may not help you get hired in this firm , parlay this into an opportunity to gain access to their networking contacts to deepen your visibility and exposure.

4) Don’t be afraid to tailor, tinker, adapt and improve. The resume should be a fluid thing that will adapt per the conditions of what you are submitting against.  I like to use the example of the contractor bidding on a services contract or construction project.  For each submittal, the contractor compiles the most favorable information that is relevant to the project or contract at hand.  The intent being to respond directly to the needs outlined by the purchasing company, providing a concise and convincing presentation that will hopefully influence the buyer to want to pay for the contractor’s services.  The submittal of a resume should be no different.  You control the information and will solely benefit from being selected, so you should also have the capability to determine what information is relevant and worthwhile to present to your prospective employer.  The caveat here, though, is to remember that you must still provide a factual and honest account of your work experience and how you can provide value to a prospective employer.  Still, it is at your discretion to determine how to prioritize this information, and what specific details to highlight or emphasize.

What is Credibility, anyway?

Let’s start with an overview.  According to Dictionary.com, Credibility is defined as:

cred·i·bil·i·ty  (krěd’ə-bĭl’ĭ-tē)
n.
1) The quality, capability, or power to elicit belief: “America’s credibility must not be squandered, especially by its leaders” (Henry A. Kissinger).

2) A capacity for belief: a story that strained our credibility.

American Psychological Association (APA):

So what does this mean?  Belief and the accompanying word, faith, are very powerful terms.  Based on the beliefs of some, political and religious movements have been born, wars have started, and through belief, some have found the strength to overcome adversity and physical and mental challenges to achieve great things.

Still, how does this relate to a job search?  For that, we look at risk and risk-aversion.  Risk is inherent in almost every aspect of our lives.  As fragile human beings, there is always the possibility that we could be injured or harmed by others (stray bullet from a drive-by shooting, random car accident, or faulty wiring in an elevator could spell doom for any one of us).  Yet, we continue on doing what we do.  We all have a greater purpose that drives us to face the possible risk for the greater reward.  However, if there are ways to avert risk, or minimize its effects, as conscious, rationale, thinking beings, we do what we can to minimize or lessen the impact of that risk and give ourselves the best outcome possible.  For those seeking a job or hiring a candidate, we work hard to avoid risk. Establishing credibility is one way to avert it.

Why is Credibility Important?

Again, establishing credibility is a means of “hedging our bets against” (or protecting ourselves from) risk.

For example, when considering where to go for dinner or what movie to watch, we typically make informed decisions about where we eat or what we see.  For some, we rely on critic’s reviews of either, or we’ll review write-ups or summaries, or in many cases, we will defer to the opinions of close friends or family.  Depending on how accurate the reviews, perceptions or opinions of colleagues, critics, or friends are, speaks to their credibility.  In other words, we look at this information as a means of assessing validity of the information provided, and by default, of those providing that information.  If those providing the information closely resemble our own assessments, then this would suggest that their credibility is sound and valid.  If not, then the reverse occurs.

The same process applies to buying a vehicle.  Most of us will conduct research, read critic’s reviews, talk to friends, family and colleagues before buying a car, truck, motorcycle, etc. (new or used).  If the vehicle, once purchased, gives us problems, or does not perform the way we expect, that will most likely influence how credible or believable the sources of information are (or were).  Again, if we determine that the vehicle performs exactly as expected, then that validates the input obtained (research and the opinions of those spoken to).

In some ways, any information that speaks or describes something about you (your resume, a reference, LinkedIn profile, portfolio, review, responses to interview questions, test results, etc.) is a means of conveying your credibility as a candidate.

Why do I Need It?

What does credibility do for me anyway?  When considering candidates for hire, hiring managers and hiring companies need to bridge the gap between what is known and unknown about each prospective new hire.  In some cases, hiring managers and/or recruiters will only focus on those that this process becomes quite simple for.  In other words, if it takes a great deal of resources (money) and time (labor hours) to establish someone’s suitability as a candidate, the hiring manager may want to narrow their focus on candidates within the process where this step for vetting costs them the least.  Therefore, many hiring companies shortlist candidates already vetted and examined (by recruiters/headhunters/other managers or colleagues) prior to the formal selection process.  Even then, there is most likely additional scrutiny to determine which amongst this shortened list of candidates is as close a match as possible.

To me, assessing a candidate’s credibility is similar to speculating stock prices.  For stocks, their relative value is wholly based on perception of their projected value.  If everyone that buys and sells stock believes that Intel’s or Google’s stock price is valuable and its value is likely to go up in the future, then it is considered more valuable and it’s value will go up.  The same can be said in reverse.  If the market perception is that a stock is weak and will fail, it will fail.  Stock speculation activity is based on the review of forward-looking information from analysts who look at past performance as a gauge of future success.

For merger & acquisition activity, the process is similar.  When assessing a prospective merger or new investment into a different business segment, analysts look at what the company’s track record is with similar activity, they consider who is leading the effort, and what that individual’s (or managing team’s) track record is, including what decisions have been made and the results.

Hiring managers typically assess the credibility of a new hire by reviewing his/her employment history (their working “track record”), the decisions they have made/actions taken and resulting outcomes produced in situations similar to projected working conditions for the prospective role.  If a clear history with actions and outcomes is not apparent, or if there is a lack of formal experience that relates to the position, the next criteria may be assessments of former roles where results/decisions indicating target behavior(s) become the means of measurement.  Next would be education or training, which, while not an exact substitute for experience, does speak to the exposure and knowledge level of prospective candidates.    Other factors that impact a new hire’s credibility include how they conduct themselves during interviews (over the phone and in person), what relevant details may be provided by a reference/referral (usually professional and either verbal or written), and/or even the results of work-related tests and/or simulations.  This need to establish credibility for candidates will differ in the level and scope of the role needed to be filled.  A candidate being considered for an experienced role may have different credibility requirements than someone being considered for a college internship.  For example, a prospective CFO or Controller for a company may need to establish his/her track record of success at former employers, including providing a detailed history of goals, objectives, and measurable results (budget targets and results, action plans, tactics and strategy, etc.).  In addition, this level of hire would need to provide strong work and character references validating these experiences.

Contrast this to the prospective college intern, whose work history may be very limited.  While work experience may not be the defining factor for this candidate’s credibility, some factors may include: validation of a recently completed (or coursework towards a pending) degree, some established work history, experience on specific projects and/or coursework (with references provided by faculty and/or fellow students, etc.), and possibly even personal references that speak to the candidate’s work ethic, interests, and temperament.

Although I have outlined a linear process above, it is at the discretion of the hiring manager to determine what mix of any of these factors may determine suitability for a prospective candidate.  However, whatever the criteria, it is vital to maintain consistent standards for assessing all candidates considered for the role(s).

How do I Show My Credibility?

I mentioned a few examples above of how candidates can demonstrate their credibility.  Here are more detailed descriptions of each:

Resumes

The resume or Curriculum Vitae or CV is used by many candidates to establish clear and concise work histories that detail experience, skills, and results. Resumes come in different types and styles from the chronological to functional to hybrid to biographical to some other formats.  To be honest, while I don’t believe that any one format is better than the other, I do recognize the strengths and weaknesses in each.

Chronological Resume

The reverse chronological resume, from my experience, is among the most popular preferred by many hiring managers and recruiters.   I believe that the appeal lies in its capability for allowing screeners to view a candidate’s experience, skills and contributions of previous roles in descending (and mostly linear) order.  This format implies that the more recent the experience, skills and knowledge are, the more relevant those attributes are to the job, the greater the impact on how believable a candidate is and therefore how credible they are.  If this premise proves true, then as we look back over a candidate’s work history, the most relevant (and therefore most valuable) experience and knowledge would seem to come from the most recent work completed. While this may not always be the case for every candidate, for most of us, this rings true.

By nature, I believe that humans tend to be logical and mostly linear in our thought processes.  While there may be some of us that fall out of this norm, the vast majority scrutinize history in an orderly fashion.  If a resume is in a jumbled order of positions that do not fall in this reverse order, then a recruiter (and for that matter, a hiring manager) will need to sift through various positions and glean from each those, the relevant details that comprise a candidate’s suitability.  They then have to weigh the value of each bit of information in order to assess its relative value and priority.

Functional Resume

The functional resume distinctly contrasts the chronological in terms of format and detail.  The focus here is to draw attention to core competencies and downplay details of the specific tenure of the candidate.  This sometimes has the negative effect of seemingly obscuring or hiding a clear employment history.  From my experience, recruiters and hiring managers tend to shy away from these types of resume.  Whether it is justified or not, the astigmatism associated with functional resumes tends to add to the risk of early rejection.

Biographical Resume

This is a unique format that emphasizes establishing experience, skills, and knowledge through the use of a narrative or prose format.  The layout of these types of resume provide detailed paragraphs that outline the breadth and detail of each position that the candidate has undertaken.  While this format does provide substantial detail that cannot be found in other formats (chronological or functional), it does run the risk of being very wordy, and difficult to navigate through.  I refer to the format as the “wiki” resume, since it is somewhat like reading a rather long Wikipedia page about the candidate.  I am not a fan of this format, just because its length may lead to disinterest on the part of the screener.

Hybrid Resume

Some contemporary resumes have gone so far as to utilize elements of different formats.  One structure that follows this format is the hybrid of functional and reverse chronological.  While the hypothetical candidate compiling this style of resume, may include shortened versions of his/her chronological work history, the candidate will also include detailed inventories (lists) of particular skills, accomplishments, competencies or milestones that may not be attributed to any particular job.  I am still reserving judgement on the value of this resume format, as my exposure with this style has been limited.

Portfolio / Work Samples

Portfolios or collections of work samples are mostly associated with artists, photographers, designers, or any other specialists in visual or physical arts.   In a sense, a portfolio is similar to the simulation, in that a set portfolio provides concrete and measurable examples of a candidate’s work output.  One of the risks of the set portfolio is that it is static.  With the portfolio, candidates are judged based on what is presented, with little opportunity to adapt for preference. Static displays could adversely affect how someone perceives your work, with little or no opportunity to customize.  An alternative is to produce custom-made work based on some specific criteria or objective.  Sales professionals who are being considered for internal roles are constantly assigned these type of tasks, which provides a team of evaluators a sense of that candidate’s delivery/speaking style, knowledge, and competency.  Coupled with the interview, this can be a powerful testament to how credible or believable a candidate is.

Interview Results

In my view, interviews are not the ideal assessment of the competency of a working professional.  After all, how many times in your working life do you have to validate what you have done, day-in and day-out for the last 10 years of your career?  Why then, do they carry so much weight during the selection process?  Many opinions exist on why the interview has prevailed, but I believe that it is simply because we haven’t found a really great, cost-effective alternative that provides a comparative level of detail.

There are a variety of interview styles and formats, from one-on-one, to the tag-team (2 evaluators) or panel (multiple interviewers).  They can be short (some last as little as 15 minutes, to others lasting hours).  Usually interviews are comprised of a question and answer format relating to a candidate’s work history (profile, resume, portfolio, etc.) versus the job description, and how each pertains to the other.  They can be conducted in-person, or virtually by phone or videoconference.

One popular style of interviewing is the behavioral interview, whose intent is to determine for a candidate, specific actions done, behaviors exhibited, and decisions made or what the candidate will potentially do in hypothetical situations, provided specific criteria.   What’s key here is not just the candidate’s actions, exhibited behavior, and decisions made, but also what process is followed to get to his outcome.

Interviews do offer some advantages:

• They are immediate.  Either you make the cut or you don’t.
• If properly conducted, they are useful for gathering details on various levels.  Competent evaluators are trained to gather information on a variety of levels (not just assessments based on answers to specific questions, but also assessments of non-verbal cues, and other signals that the candidate may provide to reveal information about themselves).
• They also allow the hiring manager/recruiter to gather details in a controlled situation (hiring managers determine the schedule, timing and duration, what questions are asked, who is asking the questions, and what functional or subject matter area each evaluator will cover).

From my experience, many candidates perceive interviews as if they are victims of the process, wherein they must be on the defensive and fight to “prove” they are worthy of being hired.  This may be true, considering how weak the US-based economy is, there are higher numbers of job-seekers in the market than in recent years.  However, I see this defensiveness as somewhat misguided.  Candidates need to focus not just on whether they can fit into whatever position the company is trying to fill, but whether the company is a fit for them.  They need to scrutinize the potential hiring company and manager to determine if being hired here will provide them with success as well.

To do that, candidates need to arm themselves with as much knowledge about the potential hiring company, the manager and that person’s team, department, business unit, function, and industry (including competitors, environment, regulation, etc.) as possible.  The candidate also needs to be armed with a strong assessment of their own experience, capabilities, skills, knowledge, and the results of previous work and efforts.  They also need to take this further by determining for themselves how  they see themselves fitting in, and providing reasons for a manager to say “yes.”  Candidates need to prepare appropriate questions that are relevant to the role, function, company, and industry.  They need to demonstrate interest and engagement, and must ensure that they follow-up to determine next steps, if any.

Leading back to the theme of credibility, how do interview results impact that?  The interview is a living, breathing test for the candidate.  Evaluators may be testing the candidate’s competency, knowledge, composure, interest, engagement, their chemistry with the team, goals and how all of this aligns with the role.  Doing well at a the interview, by hitting all necessary points will go further to solidifying a candidate’s credibility, thereby motivating the team to want to further assess that person’s fit, or perhaps even extend an offer of employment.

References / Referrals

references and referrals are unique when it comes to assessing credibility, since they are both based on a third-party person providing details for the candidate.

About References

For the hiring manager, there are inherent risks involved when obtaining information from a reference.  Among these risks are:

• Is the reference providing a truthful, accurate, and fair portrayal of the candidate?
• Is the reference honest and sincere about who they are in relation to the candidate?  Do they have their own agenda when it comes to providing information about this candidate?
• Depending on the role, scope, and timing of the relationship between the reference and the candidate, how good is the reference’s recollection of the candidate’s worth?
• How strongly should a hiring manager weight this towards the candidate’s credibility?  Does the so-so reference from a former supervisor out-weigh three stellar references from former co-workers, clients, and direct reports?
• What is the cost of either ignoring a reference, or not paying attention to it?  Is the reference provided by a current client? A high-ranking officer of the company?, Another external executive with influence over someone vital here?

For the candidate, references produce their own risks:

• What if my reference does not portray me in a good light?
• What if my reference forgets/misinterprets critical details or emphasizes the wrong information, details or skills?
• What if my reference is un-reachable due to travel or work meetings, etc.?
• What if my reference is ready, willing, and able, but their contact information is incorrect, or out-dated?

To counteract both sets of risks, it takes some advanced preparation.  For the hiring manager, having a clear, concise set of targeted questions that gathers critical details without burying the reference is key.  Some companies will focus on a more standardized set of questions, while others tailor the questionnaire to the role and candidate.  I recommend that hiring managers ensure that all candidates’ references are asked the same set of questions to minimize any inconsistency, and provide them with like data to compare.

For the candidate, it behooves them to properly vet their own references, ensuring that their contact information is current, that they are reminded of the candidate’s role, including its scope & responsibilities, actions and resulting outcomes.  It is vital to verify the reference’s availability to speak with potential employers (including best times to call,  and if they are traveling or in meetings, when they will again be reachable.

The oweness is on the hiring manager to determine what information from a reference is relevant (this affects what questions are asked, who is asked, and the depth/content).  It is up to the candidate to provide a list of references, so for them, it is critical to be selective and determine who amongst your references can portray you in the best light.  There is always the option of providing contact information for additional references if needed.

About Referrals

Referrals differ slightly from references in that they are usually provided internally by individuals within the company, or by those trusted outsiders who have some impact to how the company operates.  Referrals differ from references in that they are independently and externally generated as opposed to solicited by the hiring manager and/or recruiting team.  They carry many of the same risks and advantages as a reference, however, may not carry the same formalized structure.

When assessing credibility, references and referrals carry the added risk of guilt by association (in other words,  the credibility of a candidate is tied to that of the person providing the reference).  If you believe what the reference tells you, and the reference tells you the candidate’s details are believable, then it follows that the candidate must also be credible.  The reverse, then, may also be true: through diligent research, if it is found that the candidate has lied about something in their profile, and their credibility is called into question, this may adversely affect the perceived credibility of the person who submitted the referral.

Testing / Simulations / Writing Samples

Testing is a another means of assessing skill-level of a candidate, thereby validating their credibility.  With testing, work samples, or simulations, hiring managers can assess what the candidate is capable of.  Are they able to handle the required workload?  Do they have the required skill-level to be successful at the role?  How do they handle pressure?  Can they follow instructions?  Do they produce quality work?

Again, these tools carry benefits and disadvantages and/or risks.  The benefits include having the hiring manager be able to assess the candidates skills in a controlled environment, determining quickly whether the candidate is competent, capable, and qualified to do the needed work, and allowing the hiring manager to assess other traits of the candidate, including capability to handle stress, working style, capability to follow directions, etc.

The risks include the possibility that the candidate may cheat on the test (or in the case of the work sample, the candidate not submitting their own work), possible biases built into the exam (based on cultural differences, or the personal biases of those designing the questions).  Other challenges that hiring managers face include the fact that not all skills may be easily tested for, or the exam may not cover all behaviors needed to determine a candidate’s success.

This blog post and all content on this site is the sole property of Steve Navarro (TM) 2010.  No reproductions, excerpts, or re-distribution is allowed without explicit, written consent of the author.

Here is an excerpt from the original post:

Given the recent tragedy in Haiti, I wanted to relay my memories of NPI ‘s response to another previous tragedy.

I remember how in December of 2004, an underwater earthquake had triggered a massive tsunami in the Indian Ocean that hit the coast of Thailand particularly hard. It did incalculable damage that affected many lives and whole communities. Many people, both locals and visitors, were hurt or killed. Recovery efforts took time and resources were not readily available or accessible.

In response, world-wide charitable organizations, corporations and individuals took up the cause to raise funds and awareness, send supplies and help with relief efforts. I am proud to say that NPI was counted among those contributing to this noble cause. Considering the state of our economy and the lack of disposable income, we had a creative way to generate funds while not having to gouge our employees:

We organized a bake and rummage sale.

The vast majority of NPI’ers participated either by contributing donated second hand goods to sell, or baking such items as cakes, cookies, pastries, and treats. While none of us forgot what it was we were raising funds for, we did do what we could to help others, yet provide a way for us to share with each other and spread some camaraderie and a few calories. We augmented this by innovating with an internal auction for higher-priced goods.

Despite the tragic circumstances surrounding the cause for the event, we succeeded in our goals. We raised thousands of dollars directed through three global charities to those affected by the Tsunami’s wake.

This sticks out in my mind because I saw the vast majority of employees step forward and willingly give of themselves in a concentrated effort for a just cause. I hope that as we move forward with our lives and careers, that those that had participated with this event can in turn, pay it forward by participating wherever else we may be needed.

I see what is happening in Haiti as very similar to what happened in Thailand, and yet augmented by the dilapidated infrastructure and economic conditions of the island. As we progress to help the Haitian people begin to recover and rebuild, my fervent hope is that we get beyond finger pointing and focus on what’s most critical: caring for the injured, homeless and infirmed. We must remember the dead, and work to restore the well-being, dignity, and quality of life for those that have survived and remain.

By the way, there are many charities and causes working to help. if interested, here are a few:

http://www.americanredcross.org/

http://www.stillerstrong.org/

https://www.hopeforhaitinow.org/Default.asp

Now I did not intend this post to be trite.  I empathize with the people of Haiti and realize that something as simple as a bake or rummage sale may not do much to alleviate their suffering.  However, I do believe that every little bit helps, and something is better than nothing.  In the end, I feel it is just as critical for all of us to do what we can, when we can to help others.  Sometimes it does compel us to sacrifice, to stretch, to extend ourselves for the sake of others, but let’s be honest.  If we were in trouble, wouldn’t we want others to do the same for us?  I would hope so.

I just read about this and had to blog about it.  As suspected, it seems like job search sites are again becoming an endangered species, as bigger firms gobble up the smaller guys looking to lower costs, cut overhead, and simplify efforts. 

What does this mean for us consumers (hiring managers/recruiters)? 

On the plus side, I won’t have to worry about a separate log-in for HotJobs and Monster.  Pain in the @$$ really.  Who needs different log-ons for all these sites, anyway?  When will the one-secure, universal key happen?  When can I stop remembering every little password and log-in.

The down side is: clients are looking at paying higher rates with less competition, less exposure and a glut of even more resumes on the same site.  Not to mention that at some point as this deal becomes more mature, one of these sites will just likely fade away (my money is on HotJobs , and Monster becoming a “tenant” linked to Yahoo’s portal). 

What does this mean to me as a candidate?

I can only project here, but I remember the demise of a few beloved job search sites, swallowed up by others: namely OCC.com (a victim of a merger with Monster), FlipDog.com, AJB.gov (America’s Job Bank), Careerpath.com, and Careermosaic.com to name a few.  When larger companies bought out these sites (or in one case, the Federal government retired it), significant holes cropped up in the job search landscape. 

Alternate sites offered little to match the level of service and functionality of these existing stalwarts, not to mention conversion of personal data that went to these new vendors (“purchasers” of the existing data). 

So, what am I griping about?

1) I liked FlipDog’s original interface (based on both competency and location).  It included the closest thing to map-based job search that existed at the time.  Not to mention, a function to scale a search by specific criteria, whether it was skill, years of experience, proximity to a specific location(s), etc.  On top of that, the site was fun and playful.  Once Monster took over, all that fun usability was gone.  Now it’s replaced with the same static interface you’ll find on other job search sites (sic Monster.com).

2) For OCC.com, I understand it had to merge with the Monster Board to survive, but what I miss was it’s ease of use.  A simple page with simple results that were not cluttered with excessive ads or content.  Something to be said of the ease of simplicity, when you just want to see the job leads.

3) For America’s Job Bank, I appreciated that this was a government-run jobs site, where most fo the contributors were local, state and federal agencies, organizations and entities, being held to stringent standards of content.  Granted that America’s Job Exchange has taken it’s place, but I find this site excessively commercial in their delivery.  Time will tell if they streamline their layout.

4) For the others, I have similar observations.  Mainly that those charming traits that made these search sites so attractive are lost to what’s cost-effective and commonplace.  I’m really interested in seeing breakthrough tools emerge going forward, that allow candidates to build their own job search experience and manage our search as effectively as we build our social networks.

By the way, for reference, here is an article on the Monster’s purchase of HotJobs:

http://www.ere.net/2010/02/03/monster-buys-hotjobs/

Let me know what you think.  Do you agree?  Am I totally off?  Did I miss the point?  Is this the best thing since sliced bread?  I’m not convinced.