Digging Into RecruitingBlogs.com v2.09

(March 06, 2009) Did you notice the attention my last column generated? Digging Into RecruitngBlogs.com v 2.08 was the most trafficked single posting (although another got more actual comments) in the history of RBC. The discussion occupied the bandwidth and brainwaves of some very interesting people for an entire weekend.

Why all the fuss?

Jason Davis blasted an email to the entire RBC list; there were 50ish tweets and retweets on the subject; lots of facebook and friendfeed links; a good subject and great, well mannered input all contributed to a wildly successful conversation. Most of the comments were extremely thoughtful. For much of the conversation, the participants each took the responsibility for moving the ball a little bit forward.

As if to prove Fast Company wrong, the conversation launched at the very same time that someone called the HR Bartender was lamenting the dearth of 'convo' in the recruiting space. It's really hard to make sweeping generalizations about any part of our industry, including the assertion that sourcing is dead. But, not making generalizations makes for really boring, wishy washy 'convo'.

Certainly not everyone likes the tussle of a debate. In fact, you can reasonably guess that more timid people kept their jobs in the downturn. Debaters, who like to illuminate by exaggeration, are noisy and unruly. Pursuing the truth through caricature-ization is not always a career friendly tactic. But, it makes for great 'convo' and good reading. Part of the fun of online community is the excitement of a long conversation.

That's the strange balance you have to strike when getting a message out through new media. If your pitch is not entertaining, no one will hear it. If you don't work to keep the conversation going, the message dies on the vine. There's even room for people who always have to have the last word in this new media ecology. But, you've got to keep it lively.

In the thousands of words we all exchanged, we clarified the difference between a variety of sourcing types. We educated each other on the inherent value of our work. In some cases, we shilled for completely unrelated activities. All in all, it was a good example of community in action.

Check out JohnSumser.com. I'm on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and Friendfeed. Catch up with me.

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by John Sumser on March 6, 2009 at 5:07pm

Steve, I actually giggled out loud. Great story.

Have you noticed that it's really unlikely that people actually laugh out loud when they say LOL?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Sumser on March 7, 2009 at 10:44am

You'll enjoy this piece called Mapping Mutual Incomprehension

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Levy on March 7, 2009 at 10:47am

Sounds like HR to me...

John Sumser said:

You'll enjoy this piece called Mapping Mutual Incomprehension

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Amitai Givertz on March 7, 2009 at 11:01am

Like so many of Blighty's treasures, social media is layering a fresh veneer of confusion to the meaning of words like "conversation."

It is amazing to me the rate at which we choose to heap bricks on the crumbling towers of online babble to create echo chambers where the reverberating walls accelerate our confused ruination. Is that something as catastrophic as the facade of "community" I hear crashing to the ground or is it nothing more than the rumbling that accompanies the impolite farts of closet linguaphiles?

Ah, John Sumser...I should have guessed I would find you here with your buckets of mortar to keep the workers busy and torpedo-sized barritos to keep them fed.

A debate is a debate and a conversation is a conversation. Maren is a conversationalist and Steve is a debater.

It seems to me that we often debate on RBC and rarely converse. I don't think it matters one way or the other. After all if sourcing is dead, surely "conversation" and "community" must follow. But what is interesting to me is that some of RBC's writers are naturally a catalyst for conversation and others a catalyst for debate.

Please don't reply to this comment. It's an nothing more than an internal dialogue which imagines John Sumser as Galileo giving equal weight to last week's post and this week's message. I accept what pleases me might displease you but I don't have the energy to debate it.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Sumser on March 7, 2009 at 11:02am

Steve: HR, the first part of Hrrrmph? Just exactly how do you pronounce HR? When I try, it sounds like I am clearing my throat.

Ami: Still others are a continual source of amazement and wonder, sheer poetry coupled with.... I don't think anyone really believes that you are still in the closet, you linguaphile, you.

If sourcing is dead then community and conversation must follow? Really?

It's easier for me to think about the distinction between debate and conversation as spectral. At one end, people who communicate by noticing the edges of things, at the other end, those who notice the heart. It's not really a surprise that men occupy your debater class and women, conversation. The new media gobbles and reproduces stereotypes for breakfast.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Levy on March 7, 2009 at 11:35am

Ami, you mean we've never had a conversation? [sniff, sniff] I'm hurt.

I prefer the term, provocateur, one who can provoke both conversation and debate. But you better do your homework ahead of time...

Here's where semantics come in to dull the brain - and the audience. A conversation can turn into a debate and a debate into a conversation. And sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Yet both are always teetering on the edge of banality and bombast, threatening to lose eyeballs at any time. Whereas some would prefer that every question have a nice and neat answer and every thread closes like a help desk ticket, this would make for a very low energy place (given that the chat box was still working prooerly).

RBC needs both and we need them bad; every member who engages needs to be prepared for both. Although at one edge lies banality and bombast, the other edge offers a pathway to one or more paradigm shifts in our profession. This is why RBC is so exciting.

I say, Give me eyeballs or give me death.

Amitai Givertz said:

Like so many of Blighty's treasures, social media is layering a fresh veneer of confusion to the meaning of words like "conversation."

It is amazing to me the rate at which we choose to heap bricks on the crumbling towers of online babble to create echo chambers where the reverberating walls accelerate our confused ruination. Is that something as catastrophic as the facade of "community" I hear crashing to the ground or is it nothing more than the rumbling that accompanies the impolite farts of closet linguaphiles?

Ah, John Sumser...I should have guessed I would find you here with your buckets of mortar to keep the workers busy and torpedo-sized barritos to keep them fed.

A debate is a debate and a conversation is a conversation. Maren is a conversationalist and Steve is a debater.

It seems to me that we often debate on RBC and rarely converse. I don't think it matters one way or the other. After all if sourcing is dead, surely "conversation" and "community" must follow. But what is interesting to me is that some of RBC's writers are naturally a catalyst for conversation and others a catalyst for debate.

Please don't reply to this comment. It's an nothing more than an internal dialogue which imagines John Sumser as Galileo giving equal weight to last week's post and this week's message. I accept what pleases me might displease you but I don't have the energy to debate it.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Amitai Givertz on March 7, 2009 at 12:19pm

Steve: What we do on the phone is a conversation. What you and I do online is [an] exchange. I couldn't be without either.

John: Remember TA? I think "ego state" has more to do with our tendency to debate or converse than our sex does. After all, if conversation is "nurturing" and debate is "critical" surely those Parent roles are gender-neutral, no?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Levy on March 7, 2009 at 12:36pm

Ami demonstrates how to use a Thesaurus

Amitai Givertz said:

Steve: What we do on the phone is a conversation. What you and I do online is [an] exchange. I couldn't be without either.

John: Remember TA? I think "ego state" has more to do with our tendency to debate or converse than our sex does. After all, if conversation is "nurturing" and debate is "critical" surely those Parent roles are gender-neutral, no?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Amitai Givertz on March 7, 2009 at 12:43pm

Steve demonstrates how to spell Thesaurus but adds nothing to the conversation. Oh, it must be an exchange, that's it.

Steve Levy said:

Ami demonstrates how to use a Thesaurus
Amitai Givertz said:
Steve: What we do on the phone is a conversation. What you and I do online is [an] exchange. I couldn't be without either.

John: Remember TA? I think "ego state" has more to do with our tendency to debate or converse than our sex does. After all, if conversation is "nurturing" and debate is "critical" surely those Parent roles are gender-neutral, no?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Sumser on March 7, 2009 at 1:36pm

Don't nibble around Ami's barrito, he's a Master debater. He'll lose his firm conviction.

Now for the real debate. Which is better? a large thesaurus full of words and quick to use or a slower but smaller version? Myself, I believe that it ain't the meaning, it's the motion.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Sumser on March 7, 2009 at 2:22pm

You should be put in a penal institution for a crack like that. Everybody knows that it isn't the size of your dictionary that matters. It's all about using a few, small words well.