Sestertii Knowledge Center

10 Resume/LinkedIn Buzzwords: FORGET IT!

2011-12-14T12:40:00.000-08:00

RESPONSE: Time's 10 Buzzwords to Take Off Your LinkedIn Profile Now

Checkout the great article by @Kathystienmetz via Time.com's newsfeed today (http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/12/13/ten-buzzwords-to-take-off-your-linkedin-profile-now/).

In lieu of this article SESTERTii's mgmt team thought it would be interesting to take a sample pool of our own resume databank. Keep in mind, the vast majority of our candidate base is highly technical (IT or Engineering in most cases).

Here were our results, from a randomly selected 100 resumes.

Extensive Experience shows up 39 / 100 times.
Innovative shows up 12 / 100 times.
Motivated makes an appearance in 61 / 100 resumes.
Results Oriented: 100 /100 (Everyone, it seems, is results oriented).
Dynamic: 55 / 100
Proven Track Record: 42 / 100
Team Player: 97 / 100 (It seems that it is required to be a team player, much like results oriented).
Fast-paced: 6 / 100 if you include "environment," or 11 / 100 for simply the describor.
Problem Solver: 16 / 100
Entrepreneurial: 3 / 100, or 19 / 100 for "Entrepreneur"

Why is this interesting? Although I am certain that sampling LinkedIn profiles would net higher percentages, you can see that buzzwords alone are not often enough to separate you from the pack in resume drafting.

The trend, as it exists today, is to creatively individualize yourself through your resume. In most cases, this leads to blending with the pack, as opposed to standing out. Words like "team player" and "results oriented" are common place enough, they are simply assumed terms in resume writing nowadays.

You want our recommendation? When approaching a company, specifically when working through a recruiting firm, make your resume simple. The language should be plain english, and your talents, skills and work history should be emphasized. Forget creativity. Forget Elle Wood's perfumed purple paper (see Legally Blonde) for more on my reference--it's simply a silly way to stand out. Drafting resumes with trending topics is overkill for HR's reviewing eyes. Think about watching the nightly news this year, how many times have you heard the terms occupy, winning, or (my favorite) leading from behind? It's trending and certain a media buzzword. But leave that to the jokers on TV. Stand apart with simplicity-- that will be the resume endorsement for years to come. The easier you make it to identify your experience and skills (ie the easier you can make life for HR) the more rapidly you can work yourself into the door of employment.

LinkedIn Tips for Veterans- via lindseypollak.com

2011-12-12T05:44:00.000-08:00

SESTERTii receives a lot of calls from our Vets. And we are glad that we do. Because of our niche focus, a handful of opportunities arise each year for which we are capable of representing qualified veteran candidates; however, for the larger percentage we are not able to do so. That said, we've run across this helpful Career Blog (generally very insightful!) and one post in particular, LINKEDIN TIPS FOR VETERANS. Lindsey Pollack, a bestselling author, and self-described "next generation career expert" offers her advice for Veteran use of the fantastic tool that is LinkedIn here:
LinkedIn Tips for Veterans

Making a Connection? Employer Automated Recruiting and Shifting Job Seeker Behavior

2011-12-04T19:30:00.000-08:00

It would be redundant to overdraw the connection between job seeker behaviorand the influx of information available via the www. Job seekers have, morethan ever before, an abundance of networking tools (see: LinkedIn, Facebook,etc.) and means to apply to positions that just a decade and a half ago, wereonly accessible via phone calls, faxes and print ads. I don't intend to belaborthis point. However, it should be understood that, in the "trying economictimes" that we face, and with the job market at 'its most competitive' ina lifetime, the point is all the more pivotal in understanding employers newtactics in targeting and procuring talent. Employers are understaffed and overworked, at least that is their new face, and this is particularly true in humanresources.

The average time to hire is up, job lines (non-literal) run all the way downthe street from HR's door and employers have a sense of entitlement given the"abundance" of job seekers on the market today. However entitled employersmay be, job seekers are equally jaded in this market. Their jadedness comesfrom the media stoning us with catchphrases: "trying times, ""economic downturn," etc. But the fact of the matter is that the goodjob seekers, the one's that employers want to hire, are not only jaded they areentitled as well. The 'good ones' for the most part are still employed. It is acommonly understood fact in HR that a happily employed job candidate oftenmakes the best job seeker. But these job seekers know their competition (theun- or under-employed) simply is not suited to compete--that's why the jobseeker still has a job, and the others are fighting to get in the door.

Enter automation: efficiency is the movement of the last decade. Certainlyemployee efficiency and job process automation has become all the more of arelevant investment of time and resources for organizations in lieu of theeconomic downturn. HR and their employers have taken automation (read:impersonality) to a whole new level. Automated job postings from the corporatewebsite linking to dozens of others, automated replies to applications,automated screening systems, automated first round interviews(application-based screening questions seeking keywords), etc. It is trulyamazing what automated technology can do.

Certainly these automations have some merit. I'm, admittedly, choosing toignore the merits here and focus on the negative. Let's walk through acandidates application to a Midwestern engineering firm step by step. Ourcandidate, in this case is a good one--not overqualified, not under-, salary inline with our employers ranges, currently employed, but looking for a lateralmove and change of scenery, all of the right attributes.

Step 1: Employer, via HR, post the job online. Job isdistributed to dozens of online databases.

Step 2: Applicant identifies the job posting, submits hisresume and applies, completing the screening questions to perfection.

Quickly, let's take a look inside the HR department of our employer atthis point. Hundreds of resumes have poured in from multiple onlinesources, applicants are clicking submit every 10 minutes, and the line forms atthe door. Immediately HR is inundated in this search. However, the particularrecruiter charged with this job, has a dozen others to work on as well, allwith the same result. Meaning, 1 dozen times hundreds (100) resumes equals 1200resumes to peruse. But automation has saved the day. Immediately, 50-70% of theapplicants are screened out based on answers on the application or to thescreening questions. Maybe the candidates were qualified, maybe not. Maybethose who made the cut are qualified, maybe not. It depends on the automatedsettings of the system, the filters (salary, location, required relocation,sponsorship, proper usage of keywords)... it's a craps game to some degree.

Step 3: Our job seeker utilizing the same database that ledhim to this job identifies 20 others exactly alike, and without too many jobsearch metrics, applies across the board. Meaning, he has the possibility ofsetting up 20 interviews! Good for him.

Step 4: Two weeks have passed, but our HR recruiteridentified our job seeker as possible, and adds him to the list of candidatesto arrange an initial phone screen with--in this phone screen the HR recruiterwill confirm all of the information on the application, speak lightly about oneof his/her 12 jobs that she is working on (read: offering limited detail) andask the candidate to not only explain why he is a good fit, but why he isinterested at all. He may be eliminated arbitrarily at this point. Ourcandidate, however, passes the test.

Step 5: Scheduling the interview(s). In this step, becauseso many members of the hiring team are involved, the scheduling of theinterview has become cumbersome. Our job seeker could not "do" theinitial three times suggested, so back to the drawing board. It takes 3 days toschedule, and the hiring managers have a limited number of time blocks set asideon their busy calendars for HR to choose from. Finally the interview is set,two automatically generated emails from HR to the candidate, and the 30 minutephone screen is slated to take place in two weeks. This process is alreadyone month in, and the candidate has yet to speak with the hiring manager...

The steps beyond this are irrelevant to my point. The fact of the matter isthat all of the technology utilized in screening, identifying and scheduling(outlook and applicant tracking system etc.) do not replace one simply callfrom HR to the candidate, and scheduling the candidate live while on the phone.It takes 15 minutes. It's easy. We highly recommend it.

Beyond that, what we are seeing is the de-personalization of the recruitingprocess--an affair that should ultimately be based on courting and intimatedetail to match the appropriate candidates to the appropriate opportunity. Wesee candidates eliminated digitally who meet expectations, i.e. the job seekercould do the job. We see lines so long HR cannot get out from under them andout of their own way to court the truly qualified. I realize that this is arapid snapshot of the hiring game today, but the point begs to be thoughtthrough. The use of cumbersome technology is turning off qualifiedcandidates--and making the HR recruiters job all the more difficult.

The takeaway: Job seekers, cut HR a little slack. HR, recognize that withrapid access to company information and job information the good candidates donot see the need to settle for your opportunity. The employer might offer apoorly outlined job description on numerous job boards and automate therecruiting process from that point forward, and that process will draw acandidate line from your door to and through the street. But taking the supplyand demand curve of talent and jobs in 2011 (and into 2012), sprinkle in yourautomated processes and what do you have: ineffective recruiting, albeitefficient.

Job lines for some employers are impossibly long to navigate, andstressfully short for others (when taking into account the qualifications ofsome of the applicants). Overall, employers are not happier with results, andfrankly speaking candidates are not either. These so called recruiting orstaffing efficiency initiatives might had made processes easier to navigate,but they did not make life easier or recruiting more efficient. Auto-replyemails, systems that identify qualified candidates and automatic matchmakingonline are efficient ways to operate and generate quantitifiable results; butaccording to the employment satisfaction numbers, and our conversations withcandidates taking part in these processes, the qualitative results may vary.

External Recruiters -- What's the Deal?

2011-06-08T13:59:00.000-07:00

As an external recruiter I am constantly evaluating my value. This is a two-sided thought process because we as recruiters bat from both sides of the plate. We have client’s (who are companies that utilize our services) and they need candidates (who are looking for new opportunities). This presents a very tricky balancing act for us recruiters because we have a lot of interests that we need to make sure we are considering. The underlying problem, however, is that both the potential clients and the potential candidates more often than not do not want to speak with us. Oh the life of a recruiter. I probably hear the word "no" more times than a freshman in high school figuring out this thing we call dating. Or better yet, "I am not interested" the minute I tell one of them what I do. So the question is: what’s the deal?

First, let’s examine this from a company’s stand point. Look let me first state that I understand completely the line of thought that why would I pay for a service when I pay someone internal (internal “recruiter”) to complete that function. How about this “unemployment is at an all-time high we have people lining up at the door looking for work”. Or, the best is always as I mentioned above “I am not interested”. The last of the examples I used always makes laugh because it usually is before I have even offered anything. Please someone explain to me how a person is not interested in something when nothing has been offered. Look I realize all of the three examples are objections to what I am trying to sell but if you examine them closely none of them are germane. If the first objection is true, how is it possible that all of my client’s also have internal recruiters and they still need my services? The second one, as they would say on Monday Night Football, “Come on man!” just doesn’t make sense. How can a company really believe that they will find strong talent for a specific position in the unemployment line? The third, well, I addressed the ludicrously of that already.

The fact of the matter is that all companies need and use external recruiters. How else would they be able to attract the top talent to their company. Through Monster, CareerBuilder, and Yahoo Hot Jobs? Sure because the “superstars” are trolling those websites looking for work. If a company want’s to be competitive in the game of getting top talent then should stop and think about utilizing external recruiters. This is evident because most, if not all, Fortune 500 companies use recruiters. To sum it up all companies should explore the opportunity of working with recruiters so that they too can gain the completive advantage of the talent game. To put it more frank: let us recruiters steal your competition’s strong talent, that’s what you all in want in the end and that’s what makes a company great. You are only as good as the people you employ.

Switching gears let’s explore the candidate side of the external recruiting business; this is a little more straight forward. One can expect to hear from an external recruiter at the very least a couple of times a year. My advice when asked by people in my personal life on what they should do when a recruiter calls is LISTEN to them. No matter what your current situation is and even if you have no intention of leaving your current job: LISTEN.

Why is it that on both sides of the fence I constantly hear, “not interested” before I have even offered anything? I blame this solely on the telemarketing and email spam industries. It is human nature to shut down a sales pitch before it starts and that certainly makes sense because more often than not we are not interested. Yes I am guilty of doing this as well. The real question is when it comes to your career and how you provide for yourself and whomever else why one would do this? What if the recruiter calling was about to offer you your dream job? What if the recruiter calling was about to offer you a significant increase in your total compensation? What if the recruiter was calling to offer you simply a chance to further your career? All very simple questions and inquiries which I would want to know the answers to before I say not interested. I can guarantee you the recruiter is not calling you to offer the latest workout gadget where all you have to do is sit there and then you have abs of steel. By the way, do those gadgets really work?

Recruiters offer candidates a great luxury. We offer you the chance to keep abreast of what other opportunities might be out there without having to invest time in exploring them. Not to mention, we offer a chance to progress your career and strive for you goals in your professional life. It is a full time job when looking for a new position all I am saying is let us do it for you. And by the way if you listen and are not interested for whatever reason, that is ok to. All we ask is that you hear us out.

To sum it up external recruiters are professionals that perform a very necessary service for both companies and candidates. If you treat them as such I can guarantee you it will pay dividends down the road. In a nutshell our value is twofold. One: we help companies become more viable and more completive by recruiting them the best of the best. Two: we help people progress professionally by efficiently exploring opportunities with them.

- Richard Witka

Lateral Career Moves - Unique Value in an Upswing Economy

2011-05-26T08:04:00.001-07:00

This morning I wrapped up an interesting read from the Harvard Business Press, 2009, titled "Managing Your Career in a Downturn," a part of their 'Skills You Need Today' collection. I picked it up with the notion of career shaping in mind-- developing skills and a fresh path toward new opportunities, both internal and external to your employer. Sadly, the book failed to meet my expectations, focusing too much on stress management and finding your business-self. However, it did present one interesting (albeit non-revolutionary) take-away: "Thinking career lattice, not ladder."

With the economic upswing looming, companies are still thinking laterally. It is the quintessential best bang for your buck mentality. How much experience can we recruit for the lowest price? (That's not a unique notion by any means). What is unique about it, however, is visible more and more in the job positngs you'll find scattered online. The focus in recruiting is shifting from tenure to exposure- particularly in the more technical trades.

IT jobs are the prime example. Read the job description for most any business analyst role, or developer role. Though it might indicate a broad range of acceptable 'years of experience' (ex: 2-7), it will clearly define a checklist of qualifications centered around "program experience." The depth of knowledge (read: tenure) is no longer the focus; the focus is in fact what have you used, to what programs have you been exposed. This is not unique to IT alone. From marketing, to sales, to engineering and even administrative roles- the recruiting focus is exposure.

The internal mentality of these recruiting groups has employee development in mind. If the recruit has a base level of exposure, we can teach the rest. In fact, this creates a hyper-competitive, but fantastic market to explore new opportunities (internally or externally) for talented candidates.

Jumping back to the central theme, "Thinking career lattice, not ladder," the entire idea seems counterintuitive to the patient "company man's" existence. Forgetting the vertical rungs and stepping laterally certainly doesn't stroke the ego. But, the new compass in business is telling us that "up" isn't the only path to the top.

Benefits for considering a lateral or diagonal step:
a. Marketability. For the career driven, for the Brand You professional, skill development, knowledge and exposure is central to personal marketing. Recruiters in the marketplace today have been trained to identify the negative "jack of all trades" type (and push them aside), but are actively seeking the proverbial rennisance professional. This is particularly true when seeking a lateral or vertical change external to your current company. The flip side, an internal job transfer, would be the visibility of your new founded responsibilities by the management team. Not only did Jerry make an direct impact on the project in his last role, but since his transfer, he's taken the analyst team to a new level. The greater your internal exposure, the better your odds of management noting your broad knowledge (read: ability to perform at a senior level).
b. Stagnation. Tenure has a negative connotation-internally and externally. Sure, good 'ole boys networks value patience and persistence. But, by and large the trend is for recruiting teams and hiring managers to perceive a 5 year stint in a singular role being causated by poor performance, lagging development or otherwise less ambitious motives.
c. New management. Accept a new opportunity- receive a new team and new management. New team + new management = new opportunities for advancement.

As a possible job-seeker, you'll surely argue against these benefits with three valid and fair vantage points.
1. Perception from the inside or outside. "If I move laterally, I'll be viewed as not having the skills to get the promotion." Maybe, maybe not. Does it matter? Good management, if given your motive for skill growth, will not interpret your move this way and label you un-promotable. It is, however, incumbent on the job-changer to manage his perception by speaking openly and honestly about the reasons for changing. (Leaving out the details about the grumpy ass boss dictating your every move).
2. Moving laterally won't put more bread in my pocket. While that may be true, if the long term goal is more money, exposure to a broader set of skills surely will. This is where patience is a virtue. Waiting for a promotion does not offer more money either. All things the same, financially, wouldn't broadening skills and knowledge be the only rational decision?
3. If your goal is straight above you, taking a step sideways moves you further away. Possibly. But the opportunity for new goals (they are plastic you know) and the possibility of being better equipped when you arrive, should be motivating enough to explore a lateral change.

Bottom line for candidates: Career shaping no longer has a singular path upwards. The younger percentage of the workforce has certainly embraced this. It's interesting, I think, that pop culture has engrained the sign of success as climbing the ladder. That is simply not the case today-particular with opportunities abound, and companies seeking skills on the cheap. If you are contemplating a move, take off the blinders and at least give reverence to lateral moves. Do your research, go for the offer (so you have a base point for comparison) and make an educated decision.

Bottom line for corporate recruiters: Career shaping is central to the new workforce. Recognize candidate for what they are and are not. Many old school recruiters equate lateral movers to job-hoppers. Too often in present, "job-hoppers" are simply paving a unique path to the top.

-Antony Rhine

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Location:Allison Pointe Blvd,Indianapolis,United States

Advice from the WSJ

2009-11-23T15:48:00.000-08:00

Great Interview Tips from the WSJ Staff.

http://blogs.wsj.com/laidoff/2009/11/18/advice-mistakes-that-can-cost-you-an-interview/

Ask the Right Questions

2009-11-23T15:30:00.000-08:00

Interviewing is like dating. It's that simple. You have to meet some minimum qualifications, but you can get your foot further in the door by asking the right questions. "Tired? Cause you've been running through my mind all day..." No pick-up lines necessary in an interview, no sir.

Interview questions are formal, well thought out. Sure, take your pad of paper to the interview and jot down a few things. "What are your quarterly earnings? Projections?", "What hours do I need to work?" (Actually don't ask that one, you won't get the job).

Smart interview questions start simply, think them out the night before. But be certain to bring them full circle to your own experience; there is not a better opportunity in an interview to sell yourself, than by asking the right questions. And think also about what the interviewer is going to ask. No matter how great your resume (it isn't that great to them), you have left out some of the critical information. Firstly, how good you are at interaction. That is what an interview is all about anyways. You cannot spell out interaction on your resume, that is a tough one: "Good communicator." Sure put that, fill the space on the paper. But show them, but engaging in conversation during the interview. Don't hold cards close to your chest, if you have a legitimate question, ask it.

Wilbur Ross, CEO of Ross & Co. said in an interview recently that the biggest risk is the question you forgot to ask...because the danger is always something you don't know. What is interesting about the quote is that in an interview it is a two way street.

You need information about the position, as much as you need the opportunity to sell yourself. Ask questions to find out what you need to know, but also ask questions that give the company information they need to know. Ask questions to engage the hiring manager regarding the shortcomings of your skill-set. EX: "Mr Hiring Manager, you said that you are really looking for someone with 10 years sales experience, I only have 7, is that a stopping point?" But follow that up with something more engaging, "I can certainly understand why a wealth of experience is necessary in the sales role, but what a great opportunity for me to take my already great experience and round it off, learning under your superb sales team." It seems hokey but it works. And, if the hiring manager indicates that, yes, your lack of experience is a stopping point, at least you know then, and do not wait 3 months to find out.

Just like dating, "so you are into athletic men? You're aware that I would fall on my a** if I tried to kick a soccer ball right?"... "But I enjoy running, and would love to try to play sports with you." It is a type of spin control, but, more notably, it is both acceptance of shortcomings and a willingness to try. Very few organizations find, let alone, hire the perfect person from paper. Let me know if you submit a resume, and a company calls to offer a job~a legitimate on anyways. That simply won't happen. Until then, think through your questions, and the questions that your interviewer should be asking you. Ask them to yourself in the interview, and make certain it is all out on the table. The last thing that you want is a hiring manager left wondering. Help him or her make the decision.