illuminate the thoughts expressed around the comparison of Charlie Sheen to our recruiting world. Bravo and thank for plenty of giggles!
Regarding judgement, I do not believe that there is judgement of Charlie Sheen here as much as there is an acknowledgement that he is a troubled person, and should not be used as a model on which to build and/or improve our success in our business dealings. I, personally, hope that he survives his struggles and gets the wonderful life that we all deserve.
In addition, it is a far, far reach to quantify the comparison between Mr. Sheen and business success by using the likes of Gandhi, Thomas Jefferson, etc. The above comments by our colleagues are not cases of throwing stones in my opinon. I believe, rather, that they are expressions that there are those who cannot get behind the idea of the parallels drawn by the orginal blog. Sharing thoughts does not a "holier-than-thou" person make. …
ng a tat or piercing or manipulation somewhere in your body has nothing to do with how well you can do your job and has everything to do with self expression and individuality. The conformity police that thinks everyone should look/be the same (um...boomers) and then the socialist group wants mommy and daddy (ie Government) to come in and save the world and protect us from being who we want to be.
Moral of the story -
1. This guy just needs to set his profile on FB/Myspace to private like the rest of us do
2. The manager is a pompous jerk who deserves not to get a top employee anyway
3. People on here love to get the chance to talk politics (ie government regs) every chance they get - ITS ABOUT A TATTOO PEOPLE
4. Soon, Gen Y'ers will rule the world and then you will be looked at funny when you come in wearing a suit/tie to an interview (YEA!)…
Deadline: EOB Pacific time on Wed Nov 2nd, 2011.
Prize: attend the upcoming Google Webinar on Nov 3rd, get materials for another webinar, or a credit toward a future one.
Please post your suggestions as comments here; more than one comment by the same person are fine - we'll add everything up.
(nor would I want to), however I believe that you are responding to her comment in the post above, and not mine.
That said, I agreed with her because I read her statement as a call for behavior modification (i.e., how we speak to each other), and not censorship (what we have to say to each other).
Perhaps if our forums encourage a respectful exchange of ideas (like you and I are having now), every contributor can feel as confident as we do in saying what we think. And if we learn something from each another in the process, or come to appreciate a slightly different way of thinking about an issue -- all the better.
My grandmother (whom I loved dearly, rest her soul) used to tell me "you can attract more flies with honey than with vinegar." Now why I'd want to attract flies is still a mystery to me today, but even in the 3rd grade I understood that she wanted me to speak in a way that didn't turn others off to what I had to say.
Sometimes the lesson is as simple as that, don't you think?
ot based on friendship at all. It's interesting that we are being asked to give more thought to our "communication" when half the problem in understanding what the hell is going on stems from our hijacking language.
Of course, language is evolving and changing all of the time. And so it should. We have to adapt our language and come up with new words to describe new things, new relationships and new experiences. But when we take existing words to describe things they ain't, especially if those words are laden with emotion and connotation, we only have ourselves to blame when the babble leads to shallow communication and depreciating online relationships.
I remember, and it wasn't that long ago, when being "all-a-twitter about cleaning out the closet and having a gay day doing it" had nothing to do with online social activism, promiscuous linking or obsessive self-expression.
So, rather than "friends" being used to describe our proximity on social networks, which granted could morph into a healthy and productive friendship -- I suggest we come up with something else. How about "Node-buddy?"
Wanna be my Node-buddy, Rich?…
ssion, mannerisms, etc. I have been using both skype and recorded video interviews for a few years now and have found both useful. First in the process I use recorded video (where they upload video recorded answers to my interview questions) as a screening tool to see if they are viable, and I can also share the video with co-workers and clients. I then use skype if I think, based on the recorded video, the candidate has potential.
As for the relationship building to retain candidates and clients, I dont think physically being there is that important. You can "be there" with regular, consistient contact via phone calls, emails and skype if necessary. Building a relationship is about consistient, meaningful contact, not geography.
I think the more this kind of technology grows, the less brick-and-morter offices will be necessary....
I'd say save your money on opening another office, and invest instead in webcams - WAY less expensive.
Good Luck with your growth!! …
ndidate to apply for a position because (God forbid) they don't want to work too hard for it.
2. Take them out for ice cream because they have to be bribed to interview.
3. Throw a drunken toga party every month for all the "wanna bees" that you're never going to hire but don't want them to say anything bad about their "candidate experience" - - "Hey, they never hired me but WOW they sure throw a great party every month!"
Can we just get back to basic common courtesy and respect? Recruiters (yes all of you) treat the candidate like a person. Show some courtesy and respect when sourcing, interviewing, not hiring and hiring. Goes much farther than the candidate experience!
Just another thought – do the companies with all this “candidate experience” crap keep it up for “employee experience” after they hire? Or after you hire someone are they expected to actually work?