manage certain aspects of their professional position. Lets consider some of the more sensitive positions - such as corporate security, government positions requiring clearance, etc. Would you like someone in those roles who has credit issues due to a gambling habit that could compromise their integrity if put in a certain position.
Do not misread, in a good deal of cases I believe their is little to no correlation at all. However when and how the screening tool is used is critical and one that I think needs to be measured in a more distinct manner. Certain positions where it directly correlates to the handling of finances, the access to confidential information, or something of the like makes sense. But for the average position, I believe it is not needed.
More importantly, the reason for the credit score must be weighed. One must be able to use cognitive ability to read through the score and see the reason behind it. If someone gets very ill, bad accident, etc. and has extreme medical bills - does that say anything about him/her? Absolutely not. More closely, it says nothing about their credit at all. I believe medical claims should be excluded from credit reports in their entirety since they have no bearing what so ever on the person involved.…
today actually (non-recruiting related, this one is for a national writers group), and a key reason I'm attending this year is because it's in New York City, which is just a few hours away from Boston and there's loads to do there. I skipped last year, but went the year before that because it was in San Francisco and I'd always wanted to visit that part of the country (and take a detour through Sonoma and Napa of course).
I really wanted to go to Fordyce this year, and a big part of that was because it was in Vegas. I love Vegas, it has the feel of an Adult's Disney World. Even if you don't gamble (and I admit, I love playing a little black jack), there's still plenty of sightseeing and it's fun to play tourist there. It's also an inexpensive trip as rooms are very reasonable (because they want you spending money in the casinos) and there's loads of great food options. Last time I went there, I actually tagged along with a friend who was going to a business conference and we had a ball, and saw the amazing Siegfriend and Roy white tiger show (about a month or so before one of the tigers attacked and the show shut down).There's something for everyone in Vegas, which is why I think it's so appealing for conferences.…
a poor leader can turn a group of A's into C's in no time flat. Thirdly, so much depends on external, and sometimes random, elements such as the markets, the individuals on a team, and the lifecycle of the organization in question, that it's not possible to win every time.
Finally, some roles (esp. creative and leadership roles) are characterized by "punctuated equilibrium" whereby performances can be all over the map. One only has to look at the worlds of sports and entertainment to notice that many so called "A" players often fail and so called "C" players often rise, confounding everyone's expectations and costing (or making) a ton of money.
I suggest these pro-forma (fantasy football) calculations of the cost of A, B, and C players are not likely to play out in reality and a better way to approach it would be using more of a winning vegas gambler's (or Wall Street) approach: understand that there will be winning, losing, and push bets, so that by making careful bets each time, not swinging for the fences but not dribbling around either, and not getting overly focused on the outcome of any individual bet, over time, you will outperform the house (or the S&P), or the competition.
Shooting for the moon every time is a sure way to crap out, if you ask me. Sounds great in theory, but it puts you on on the curb in real life. So maybe the thing is to do your best, don't take too many flyers, and don't sweat the A's B's and C's because they are mostly out of anyone's control.…
There is, however, nothing uncertain about her impact.
A mathematical theoretician, she has made contributions in areas like robotics and biology. Her biggest accomplishment — and at age 39, she is expected to make more — is creating a set of computational tools for artificial intelligence that can be used by scientists and engineers to do things like predict traffic jams, improve machine vision and understand the way cancer spreads.
Ms. Koller’s work, building on an 18th-century theorem about probability, has already had an important commercial impact, and her colleagues say that will grow in the coming decade. Her techniques have been used to improve computer vision systems and in understanding natural language, and in the future they are expected to lead to an improved generation of Web search.
Fascinating article here.
Attend the MagicMethod FREE one hour LIVE phone sourcing chat today and on Thursday, May 8 at noon (est) here!…
rocesses. At Bullhorn live, my talk was how to add a dedicated research resource (a human). I did a deep dive into how a recruiter can analyze their day to determine which things can be removed/offloaded, so they can spend their time on revenue generating activity. This is a *simple* process, but maybe a single percentage point has performed this activity. In the words of Rumi:
"Anyone can bring gifts. Give me someone who takes away"
Technology, done right, should simplify things. My goal has never been 100% automation; that is a fools task. My goal is to develop technology which is the right mix between automation and human interaction. The realization of which yields the most efficiency and well as job satisfaction.
Martin H.Snyder said:DD with the self-interest ! Good for you ;-) Heck even if the technology were way better than it is today, there would always be information asymetry because this is a human business. We lie. We misunderstand. We over-react. We under-react. We act with too much self-interest. We act with too little self-interest. We gamble. We stand pat. We spin. We live in a world of in group amnity and out group emnity, and our groups shift by the hour. We over-value perfection. We under-value the good but not the great. We over respond to our senses. We mistake correlation for causation.
Find me some software to handle all that !
th other retained firms and was always frustrated with the lack of communication, poor service and respect for the effort I was putting out to be a candidate. I knew what I DID NOT like about those types of search firms.
On the contingency side, I quit talking to those types of recruiters because most did not know enough about the opportunity for me to justify the effort. They were in a big rush to get my resume and seemed frustrated when I started asking basic questions that most could not answer, which is why I have stayed away from the contingency side as a recruiter. There are some excellent contingent recruiters, I know. However, my personal experiences as a client and as a candidate, along with the host of war stories that I heard from others led me to conclude that I just did not want to be in a segment of the search industry that, overall, had such here today, gone tomorrow/anything for a fee mentality. In doing so I was gambling that, longer term, the financial rewards would justify the loss of income during the first two or three years, as I worked to build relationships.
Clients like our in-depth candidate screening, our video summaries of the last interview before we present the recommended candidates and the really appreciate our thorough background vetting process which includes a review of all criminal, civil and driving records in all jurisdictions where they have worked or lived for the past 10 years.
I like the retained search approach. However, now that we are flirting with economic disaster, it remains to be seen whether our high touch/high service approach will be a keeper.…
rporate during our candidate interview preparations, I actually do prep candidates NOT to name drop at all due to possible 'negative associations' (which you touch on above). However, I do agree with Tom's reply on name discovery, where I advise candidates to gain public or published intel on an organization and its people, which is a required part of their due diligence (if they're anything but serious about securing the position).
Additionally, I let our candidates know that it is by far more satisfying, and wiser, to advance in the interviewing process (or better yet, to get hired), on their own merit and accord, rather than to rely on the unknown variables (positive or negative) associated with someone else's name. It is, in fact, a rather huge gamble in name dropping, because who one interviewer may like, another interviewer may not. My advice to all of our candidates is to position themselves in a professional and ethical manner, and to earn their way similarly to how students earn grades in school (which is, for those who do not cheat, and for the most part done on an individual basis, with criterion used for evaluation on work submitted or earned).
As a final note, I would also share that we stress how it is quite often more important what a candidate does NOT say (i.e., the non-verbal body language, eye contact, handshake, genuine responses, etc. ~shown by statistics found in many places) rather than what the candidate DOES say; As such, any name-dropping really does become a second rate method to use right from the start.
Hope this helps....All the best to you, Sandra :D…