Implementing Strategies

Wednesday, April 29, 2009

Over the last couple of days, Dave has been discussing the importance of developing a system that reflects the strategy of your company. The case in point for his discussion was recruiting, but the same principles apply to any strategy.

For example, our company is constantly working on improving our candidate sourcing strategies. If you’re not familiar with that term, it basically means the marketing work we do to get job candidates to notice ads, investigate opportunities, and initiate contact with given companies (our clients).

This is not something new. We’ve been working on this for several years, however, the methodologies that produce the best results are constantly changing. If we don’t continue to innovate and adjust the strategies that define our system as necessary, we’ll quickly find that the value we provide to our clients will start to diminish.

One of the parallels that we notice in our work is the strategies that online marketers (specifically, the companies who manage paid search campaigns) use to lure customers. Some of these companies are quite remarkable at implementing systems to accomplish their strategies. Here is an example from one of these companies, called Red Bricks Media. This contribution was made by Joe Van Remortel in a marketing report I recently came across:

“Managing paid search campaigns is more difficult than ever. Depending on the campaign, upwards of 20-25 distinct variables can influence performance and ROI. What worked last week might not work this week. Based on our research and observations, focusing on the four fundamental areas can give a real boost to paid search campaigns.

1. Understand the complexity and the relationships between variables and performance by implementing tests to isolate the variables with the greatest impact on performance. You must segregate winners from losers using a scientific method and statistical significance.
2. Make iterative improvements to campaigns with active management on daily and weekly basis. Over-reliance on technologies that act like an auto pilot is a sure way to overpay and under-deliver. Every week should show incremental improvements.
3. Messaging relevancy is the consistent and meaningful link between keywords, consumer motive/intent, queries, ad words, and landing pages. There is no better way to increase conversion rates and quality score. Messaging is how paid search connects with the customer.
4. Avoid the natural inclination to organize ad groups in campaigns by theme. Instead focus on organizing them into performance tiers. When properly structured this way, campaign managers have far more control over budget allocations to winners and losers.”

Does this make your head spin? If you’re not used to working in this arena, it may seem a little overwhelming. But, I selected this example for a couple of reasons:

First, the content is intended to be complex. This makes it easier to see past the details and concentrate on the underlying principles. This company has boiled down their purpose (paid search) into very well-defined strategies. I don’t know much more about this company than what is quoted above, but based on the detail provided, I would guess they have developed well-functioning systems to help implement these strategies.

Secondly, they seem to have captured the essence of “cause and effect” for their business. While they talk about the importance of recognizing symptoms, they rely on testing, measurement and analysis to make changes that affect results. Without systems to implement strategies, how do you “segregate winners from losers using a scientific method and statistical significance?”

Think of the strategies you’re attempting to implement in your business. Then ask yourself these two questions:

1. Are the strategies for my business (office, group, etc.) well-defined?
2. Do I have a system in place for implementing those strategies?

As Dave concluded in the previous discussions, it is foolish of us to expect those around us to buy into a system that is not well-defined. Additionally, it is unfair to then hold people accountable to strategies that are poorly implemented.

We Have Some Lazy Managers! Part 2 – A Focus on Strategy

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

When I speak to companies regarding recruiting practices, it is very easy to tell the difference between those who have a well-defined recruiting strategy and those who don’t. Frankly, I love when executives say, “Here’s our strategy, here’s how we’re implementing it, and here are our problems.” We can then have a fairly quick conversation regarding whether we can help.

More often than not, I hear a poorly defined strategy, no systematic steps to carrying out the fuzzy strategy, and thus no buy in from the given company.

In the words of one of my favorite recruiting gurus, Dr. John Sullivan (a fellow Psychologist termed the “Michael Jordan of Hiring” by Fast Company magazine), most companies:

“1. Can’t even define the term ‘strategy’
2. Don’t know the available strategies in recruiting
3. Don’t have a name for their own recruiting strategy
4. Don’t know the steps involved in preparing a recruiting strategy
5. Have never written down their strategy so that others can follow it
6. Have never compared their strategy in recruiting to their competitors’ recruiting strategies in order to ensure that theirs is superior
7. Have never integrated their strategy with their recruiter selection, budgeting, and time allocation processes
8. Make no attempt to measure the effectiveness of their recruiting strategy”

I’ll add one more that I see more often than not:

9. Have a great strategy (to recruit high-caliber new agents), but utilize gimmicky tactics that only attract desperate and naive people.

If your company’s strategy is to hire enough high-caliber people every year so you can politely dismiss 10% of your lowest performers (and still net a significant growth in agents), then you must have a system that can accomplish that! The system must be scalable and demand consistent steps for each manager for it to work. Once a strategy is established, you can better assess what interferes with the execution of the defined steps, and redirect managers to get back to agreed upon priorities.

This recruiting scenario is just one example that identifies strategic weakness. If you have managers reporting to you, and you don’t insist on figuring out if everyone is in agreement regarding recruiting strategy (and then hold them accountable to their agreement), then who really is the lazy one?

We Have Some Lazy Managers!

Monday, April 27, 2009

I can’t tell you how many times I have heard this statement over the years! I just Googled “Lazy Managers” and came up with four full pages of content. What do we make of this trend?

If it is indeed a trend, then there is something seriously wrong with how the jobs of managers are managed. It is highly unlikely that all of these people get away with being lazy up until the day they are promoted into management.

I presume that most people who claim “Some of my managers are lazy” probably really mean that, “They are not motivated to do what I have asked them to do.” If we were to go one step further, it means, “We don’t share the same priorities.” Another step… “We don’t agree on strategy.”

If you agree with the latter explanation for those we perceive to be “lazy managers,” you can help your organization begin working toward a solution. Specifically, this entails working collectively to establish priorities and develop a strategy that is aligned with your company’s goals.

Below is one example of a difference in priority with regard to recruiting. You will see how differing beliefs can quickly spiral into poor business decisions from both ends – managers and those to whom they report.

As most of you know, we at Tidemark have worked very hard at solving some of the problems that plague most recruiting strategies. We strive to provide a consistent, scalable system to attract, follow-up, and recruit high caliber new agents. We’ve built a non-gimmicky system that simply works. This is an outsourced system – We source the candidates and deliver high numbers consistently.

One of the obstacles we face is the belief among Owners or GM’s that having sourcing, appointment setting, and follow-up provided for managers, will make them “lazy.” To me, this is like saying that letting your college student use the internet for research, will make them lazy.

You can quickly see that the real problem is not laziness, but a difference in agreed upon priority, and perhaps fuzzy strategy. If managers don’t really buy into their priority of recruiting new agents, they won’t do it- no matter what.

Those who do view recruiting as a priority and central to their strategy, will use Tidemark’s HiringCenter to augment what they’re already doing (not replace), thus gaining a competitive advantage. We clearly see differences in recruiting priority in the numbers that are generated by our clients, including differences between offices.

So, it really comes down to agreeing upon priorities, which begins with agreeing on strategy. Tomorrow, I will discuss the advantages of having a clear recruiting strategy…

Are You Networking or “Not-Working?” – Part 2

Friday, April 24, 2009

Yesterday, our discussion focused on how social networking tools, such as LinkedIn, can hinder the development of a true network. While these tools are not inherently counterproductive, they often provide limited assistance in equipping a person to do the “real work” necessary to build relationships.

In Peter Weddle’s discussion of the topic (see yesterday’s discussion for more background), he states:

“Now, if you’ve ever been in a relationship, you know two things about them. First, you quickly learn that they are hard work. That’s why the word is spelled the way it is: it’s netWORK, not net-get-around-to-it-whenever-you-feel-like-it. And second, you come to appreciate that relationships take time to develop. They don’t happen with the click of a mouse, whether you’re on LinkedIn or Facebook or any other social or professional “networking” site.

You see, the Golden Rule of Networking is that you have to give as good as you get. It’s fundamentally an exchange of information, ideas, and/or assistance from which both parties derive value. That mutual allocation of benefit establishes familiarity and trust, and those two factors are the twin pillars of a relationship. When networking is working, that’s what creates a relationship.”

Peter does a great job of boiling down this issue to the most important point: People who are truly in your network are those in which you have developed familiarity and trust. Of course, those same people have also developed a common level of familiarity and trust with you.

In reality, most people have very small personal and professional networks. They don’t dedicate the time and maintain the focus necessary to put together something more significant. For most people, that’s OK. They don’t have the bandwidth or the strengths to do more. Most of us would agree that it’s better to have a close group of real friends than 1,000 contacts on LinkedIn.

However, if your job as a Hiring Manager or Recruiter depends upon networking for success, then you do yourself a disservice by focusing on shortcuts that amount to “not-working.” Here are some ideas that may help you be more effective at networking:

1. Dedicate a certain amount of time every day to real networking activities. Unless an activity is scheduled, it seems to get pushed back by urgent matters. Schedule a time each day to work on building and maintaining your network and stick to it.

2. Focus on providing something of value to the people around you. Reread what Peter said above: “[Networking is] fundamentally an exchange of information, ideas, and/or assistance from which both parties derive value.” He’s right.

3. Say “thank you.” If you’re struggling to find ways to provide something of value to those around you, try simply expressing gratitude. A personal hand-written note or personal email is a great way to do this. In the note, let people know you appreciate them, or you’re thankful for something they said, or you’ve heard something positive about them and you’re thankful to have friends with good character like them, etc…

4. Ask for something. Remember, true network relationships are two-way streets. If you’re always providing the information, ideas, and assistance, and there is never any feedback from the other person, that’s a red flag. Occasionally, ask for something and see what happens. It could be something small, like a recommendation for a restaurant or advice on a problem. If a person is not even willing to help you with something small, you may need to find some new network contacts.

There are many more ideas out there. You’re welcome to leave a comment if you have a good idea that you think I’ve missed. Just don’t suggest that I spend more time building my contacts on LinkedIn!

Are You Networking or “Not-Working?”

Thursday, April 23, 2009

I wanted to follow-up on Dave’s article yesterday concerning the proper place for social networking tools in a job search. He approached the topic from a candidate’s perspective. Today, let’s look at it from a hiring manager / recruiter’s perspective.

A couple of months ago, I introduced you to Peter Weddle, a recruiting expert that I admire. If you recall, Peter had some good insight concerning social networking tools in his bi-weekly newsletter that I thought was worth sharing. For our current discussion, we’ll use LinkedIn as the example because it is the most common business social network.

As the name implies, social networking tools are supposed to assist recruiters and hiring managers to better network. But, the reality is quite different:

“LinkedIn advertises itself as a networking tool for professionals. That’s fine. But building up a huge (or even a small) address book of contacts is not networking. In fact, given that networking is actually a form of dialogue that is most appropriately practiced as an integral part of one’s business day, what’s going on at LinkedIn today is best described as ‘notworking.’ “

Actual networking has some very significant advantages, but it is a lot of work. The struggle is that we want the benefits of true networking, without doing the work. Peter puts it this way:

“Now, if you’ve ever been in a relationship, you know two things about them. First, you quickly learn that they are hard work. That’s why the word is spelled the way it is: it’s netWORK, not net-get-around-to-it-whenever-you-feel-like-it. And second, you come to appreciate that relationships take time to develop. They don’t happen with the click of a mouse, whether you’re on LinkedIn or Facebook or any other social or professional ‘networking’ site.”

Tomorrow, we’ll talk more about how relationships are built and identify a “value equation” that makes them work over time.

My New 3 Wood and Twittcrastination

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

If you’re out of a job or reevaluating what you want to do next, using social medias can be a useful tool in extending your exposure to a broader network. However, it is not wise to rely on them exclusively for landing that new, interesting, challenging job.

Why? Because if you don’t understand the fundamentals of good job searching, these tools will only provide the illusion that your doing something productive, rather than help you land that “better fit” job.

Remember… These are tools! That’s all they are – Just like my new 3 wood that was sold to me with the promise that 200+ yard fairway lies will now go straight and long – It didn’t quite live up to the hype. So, too, will your job search stagnate if you rely on all the internet’s latest social networking tools to land you that exciting new job.

Most new internet tools continue to repeat the same problems with regard to hiring and networking that have always existed: They give you the illusion that you’re doing something productive, when you’re simply Twittcrastinating. Even though we have thousands of job postings at our finger tips, and can search the ones that closely resemble what our expertise might be, most ads are so horribly written, focusing on sterile information about the job description, that only the most desperate job seeker would answer them.

As a side note – Are Employee Referral Programs a reliable hiring tool if the recruiter ends up hiring the most popular person rather than the skilled, yet reserved person, who might be best for the job?

The majority on both sides of the equation (companies and job seekers) continue to miss the mark. There are a few who “get it”. What do they get? They get that people want more than a job – They want to be challenged with the responsibility of contributing to achieving something great.

When companies don’t “get” this, they hire the “best interviewee”. This is typically the most socially connected, or worse….the most desperate, because that is who they are pitching to!

When job searchers don’t “get it”, they come across as individuals who are needy and desperate, and will do anything to look good. Looking good doesn’t last too long once the first 90 days have passed. Not to mention the fact that the best companies won’t hire you when you come across as simply desperate to get a job.

Great companies and very talented people want to know how each will compliment the achievement of something really interesting. Both parties search and interview with this in mind.

So, for job seekers, the old fashioned way remains the best way. TAKE CHARGE! Know that the easiest way a recruiter can hire is to have someone call them and ask what the given company is trying to accomplish, and how this position is expected to contribute to this mission. Only after you understand all of this, tell them why your skills and experience are a good fit for making THAT contribution.

While you’re doing that, I’ll be returning to the driving range, working on improving my game, while my gimmick 3 wood sits safely in my bag…