Yeah, so I travel a bit for work - and I always try and grab some photos. Ended up at a employer not to be named and took this one a few months back. To be fair, this wasn't in the entrance of the building but a next level hallway. Take a look and I've got a comment or two after the jump (email subscribers click through for image):
--Yes, that's a selfie being taken by a camera, not a smartphone.
--Yes, it's unclear if there's a viewfinder which would indicate it's digital over film. We're not sure.
--Employer business is focused on sales to youth. No, I'm not ####ing you.
Bonus points for getting the good looking people right. Note to marketing director - just take the original art/image and cut that #### down and make it this:
I'm here for you, companies of the Brontosaurus age. You're vintage, I'll give you that.
If you know anything about the Southeast US where I live, there's a couple of big realities from a lifestyle/work perspective:
--Atlanta is the capital
--The Southeast is booming in general
--There's no hotter market than Nashville, or as I like to call it, #Nashvegas
Since I travel a lot for work, I tend to measure how hot a market is for business, employment and cultural gravity by the general availability/price of hotels in the market. By that measure, Nashville is red hot. It's hard to find a business class hotel that won't make you cringe for less than the high $100s or right at/above $200.
That's a lot. Compare to the market to Atlanta, where great rooms can be found from $110 to $140, and it's clear that Nashville is booming. Because of the boom over the last decade, inventory on the hotel and housing front hasn't caught up to the demand yet.
Why is Nashville so hot? Many would tell you that the growth is a function of multiple factors - including a centralized metropolitan government that generally allows the metro to work together (see more about the government setup here), a unique cultural pull with origins in country music (expanding beyond that taste, but still the flagship) and an emerging hipster dufus vibe ITP (inside the perimeter).
"It is obvious that living in Music City is starting to add up, and now a study shows the city has seen the greatest year-over-year cost of living increase in the nation.
Released by financial planning website GoBankingRates, the study compared the change each of city's cost of living index from Numbeo to GoBankingRates's metrics for how much annual income it takes to "live comfortably" in a city. For instance, it takes a salary of $70,150 to live comfortably in Nashville today, according to the study.
Last year, a Nashville Business Journal analysis of wealth data from researcher Esri found the average net worth of Greater Nashville’s most affluent areas had increased by 48 percent, increasing the Greater Nashville's inequality ratio to 5.7. That means the wealthiest 20 percent of ZIP codes in the region have an average net worth that is 5.7 times larger than the average net worth of the bottom 20 percent. This gap has climbed from an inequality ratio of 4.47 in 2013."
If you click through and dig in, you'll find some gems related to how much income you need to live comfortably in Nashville compared to some other cities of note:
Los Angeles - $76,047
Seattle - $75,283
Nashville - $70,150
San Diego - $69,958
Atlanta - $62,184
Dallas - $57,984
Austin - $54,631
Louisville - $48,897
Want some analysis of those numbers? It's now cheaper to live comfortably in Atlanta than it is in Nashville. Also, if you ruled out the west coast as a professional living in Nashvegas, you might want to look again, because your standard of living is similar to those who live in San Diego, Seattle and yes, Los Angeles.
Of course, you won't see Dolly Parton pulling through a Jack's in Seattle like I did in Nashville in 2006.
Final note - Austin is widely thought to be an incredibly hot market with many similarities in cultural pull and hipster vibe to Nashville. If you were buying stock by the measure listed above, you would sell on Nashville and buy Austin.
The market never lies. Nashville's a great town, but these numbers show it may have heated to the point where it's going to level off from an employment perspective soon.
Coming off a two-day blitz to finish some interviewing training, and what interviewing training would be complete without a section on non-Title VII bias that impacts us all? Turns out, science shows we all like a certain type of person no matter their qualifications. Among the things we're suckers for:
--people who are alums from the school we went to...
--candidates who tell us we are both attractive and smooth as part of the interview...
Kidding about the last one. You know what's not listed above as something we are subconsciously attracted to? People who are older than us (related to attractiveness for sure). That's why this farce blog post from a fictional startup was so accurate - it basically just says it all. Check out these excerpts from the post at McSweeneys and then go read the whole thing:
"Hello, and welcome to our startup. We hope you’re enjoying your complimentary snifter of vaporized coconut water. Once you’re done, please place the glass into one of the blue receptacles around the office, which will send the glass to be washed and dried. Do not place it into one of the red receptacles. The red receptacles take whatever you put inside of them and launch it into space.
As you can probably tell by looking around, every employee at our startup is 23 years old. On the morning of your 24th birthday, the barcode on your employee ID stops working and you can no longer enter our building. We do this to ensure our company has a ceaseless, youthful energy. We believe old people are displeasing to look at and also, bad at ideas.
Care for a nap? Well, you are more than welcome to take a quick, refreshing nap in one of our many nap pods. You will be lulled to sleep by the soothing sound of our 23-year-old founder softly whispering startupy things such as, “Disruption,” and “Like Uber, but for horses.”
Go read it all. It's all truer than we'd like to admit at all companies who chase culture as part of a strategic plan.
Only the true players will spend 5 minutes or more with this post and it's referred content...It's deep, but pure gold...
Kleiner Perkins general partner Mary Meeker launched the 22nd edition of the Internet Trends Report at the Code Conference in Rancho Palos Verdes, California, on May 31, 2017. Dating back to 1995, when Mary was still an equity analyst at Morgan Stanley, the annual report compiles and analyzes data from a wide range of sources, providing insights on the state of the Internet Economy. The deck covers a broad array of topics, including global internet user trends, advertising and e-commerce, gaming, online media, digital health, and much, much more. This guide is intended to highlight some of the key topics of discussion in this year’s edition – and to help media navigate the report.
It's deep. I can guarantee if you spend 10 minutes with it, you'll find 4-5 things to share with you team and you'll look smart as hell. A trend-spotter, if you will...
Highlights of the 300 slide deck from ReCode (full deck below from Slideshare, click through if you don't see the slides):
Global smartphone growth is slowing: Smartphone shipments grew 3 percent year over year last year, versus 10 percent the year before. This is in addition to continued slowing internet growth, which Meeker discussed last year. (editors note - what's next? Apple needs a new product)
Voice is beginning to replace typing in online queries. Twenty percent of mobile queries were made via voice in 2016, while accuracy is now about 95 percent. (editor's note - holy ****)
In 10 years, Netflix went from 0 to more than 30 percent of home entertainment revenue in the U.S. This is happening while TV viewership continues to decline. (editor's note - holy ****, even with all those shared passwords?)
Entrepreneurs are often fans of gaming, Meeker said, quoting Elon Musk, Reid Hoffman and Mark Zuckerberg. Global interactive gaming is becoming mainstream, with 2.6 billion gamers in 2017 versus 100 million in 1995. Global gaming revenue is estimated to be around $100 billion in 2016, and China is now the top market for interactive gaming.
While internet growth is slowing globally, that’s not the case in India, the fastest growing large economy. The number of internet users in India grew more than 28 percent in 2016. That’s only 27 percent online penetration, which means there’s lots of room for internet user-ship to grow. Mobile internet usage is growing as the cost of bandwidth declines. (More here: The highlights of Meeker's India slides.)
Healthcare: Wearables are gaining adoption with about 25 percent of Americans owning one, up 12 percent from 2016. Leading tech brands are well-positioned in the digital health market, with 60 percent of consumers willing to share their health data with the likes of Google in 2016.
Daaaaamn. There's a lot here. This one's for the true players. Enjoy...
I'm spent a lot of time over the last week thinking about the challenges of the budgeted merit increases - you know the drill - 4% across the board, and you need to get "pay for performance" out of that. Which got me thinking about this ...
If I Were Starting A Union, Here's What I'd Do...I'd rip a page from the player's unions in the major sports leagues and focus my bargaining on the establishment of a salary cap.
Once the cap was established as a percentage of company revenue, the deal would be pretty simple from an economic perspective - members of the union would get more cash as revenue grew, and they'd be at risk if revenue didn't grow or decreased (I'd have to figure out how new headcount impacts that - there would have to be some way to protect a certain % of growth for the incumbents).
Of course, membership drives for my union would be challenged - mainly because the majority of workers in America have no interest in that kind of risk, or at least see little value in the upside. They'd rather take their 3% annually.
Which means I'd have to attempt to unionize high performers and Linchpins only. Of course, that's problematic since this group really doesn't need representation and can increase their compensation on their own, both within the same company and via the free market.
It's a profession with limited barriers to entry and literally a million agency/corporate positions available.
It's a profession where the hardest workers and the most entrepreneurial usually get the best results.
It's a profession looked at with disdain by many candidates who are sick of hearing from members of said profession.
SO - Anyone can be a recruiter, right?
I bring this up for the following reasons. I'm just coming off a couple of days at Recruiter Nation Live 2017, a conference put on by the good folks at Jobvite. Great show and good people, glad I went.
Speaking of good people - I heard no less than three times - in different ways - people talking about the fact they had told friends, family members and complete strangers that they should get into the recruiting game. The common factor in all of this advice was that anyone could be a recruiter.
Career a little slow? Not finding the right path for you? Just got out of prison?
You should be a recruiter. Seems like anyone can do it.
My favorite story was one where a guy was in an Uber and struck up a conversation with the driver, and ended up giving him the advice to become a recruiter. The guy messaged him two weeks later and told my friend that he landed his first recruiting job - at a place I'll call TereoTech - which means he'll either be unemployed in a month or become one of the greatest recruiters of all time - because that's what TereoTech does.
Which is the point of this post. Yeah friends, anyone can probably be a recruiter. Present yourself in the right way and appear scrappy as a youngster, and you can probably find a job. If you're older, you can parlay your subject matter/functional area expertise into a gig recruiting people who do what you've done in the past. We call that a specialty recruiter in the biz, and your experience in any specialty probably can give you a shot as a recruiter.
A lot of people can get a job as a recruiter.
But just because you can get the job doesn't mean you'll be successful, or even like it. What dictates whether someone can actually do the job of a recruiter?
Recruiting in it's purest form is sales. Behavioral traits that equate into success for recruiters are as follows:
High Assertiveness - you're going to have to ask for things without shame.
Low or mid-range Sensitivity - rejection is a part of the gig. If you're a diva every time you get rejected, it's probably not going to work.
Low Team - doesn't mean you're a bad teammate. The low Team designation simply means you're driven for high performance via individual scoreboards - you like to win. YOU, not us. Us is nice. But unless you're motivated by seeing your name at the top of a list, you probably won't be satisfied.
There's more, but I'll stop there. The same things that make a great salesperson also make for a great recruiter.
Lots of people can get a recruiting job. Few can be good to great at it.
Shout out to the Uber driver now at TereoTech - you'll know whether it's for you if you can tolerate the good folks at TT requiring you to make 120 calls a day and the rejection that comes with that.
Get a year in at TereoTech and then give me a call - we've got a great team you'll love at Kinetix one you figure out it's for you.
And they ask you about the game you claim you got Drop science now, why not? You start to sweat and fret, it gets hot How'd you get into this spot?
You played yourself... Yo, yo, you played yourself...
You know where I'm going with this if you clicked through, right?
Difficult hiring managers. Not to be confused with those who suck. Or maybe that's the same thing - I'll let you decide that...
There's an art to dealing with difficult hiring managers that pride themselves on only agreeing to interview candidates who are a direct match to the 15 things they gave you in the intake meeting. You know how this goes, you work hard, have a decent slate of 3-5 candidates that represents what the market is in the first 7 days - then the difficult hiring manager won't talk to any of them.
That's why you might need to change your strategy with any hiring manager who fits this profile.
Instead of giving them the full slate, hold your best candidate back from your first set of submissions.
The hiring manager who rejects everything but the perfect candidate early usually becomes more flexible later. Once the opening moves in the 30-60 day age range, pressure to get the position filled mounts. The same candidates that were rejected at face value early suddenly become what I'll call "possibly viable" late (also know as grudgingly viable).
If you know specific hiring managers are going to hate everyone early, don't give them everyone. Hold your best back.
Let them cycle through the superiority complex, including the following gems:
--"This is a great job - I need a great candidate"
--"This is a unique opportunity"
--"I think we can find someone who has X, Y, K and Z. But I really need U, N, Q and E also. Let's keep looking"
--"I need someone in the 60K range who has all those things. These people want 75k? Let's keep looking"
If this feels nasty, I get that. But you''re working hard as the HR pro/recruiter on the case. Your work is good. Don't allow it to be thrown in the trashcan if you know someone is going to do that 9 of 10 times with your first round of submissions.
Let the clock tick. Let the pressure mount. Manage the expectations of the candidate you're holding like the card that gives you the full house.
Then at the right moment, put the candidate/card down.
Who's to know if your soul will fade at all The one you sold to fool the world You lost your self-esteem along the way Yeah
--"Fake it" by Seether
One of the biggest things that separates contenders from pretenders in Corporate America - across all functional areas - is the ability to fake interest and attention.
You're in a 7-hour training class. Next week you're in a 3 hour ops review. Boredom happens.
If Darwin were a noted OD thought leader in business, he would write that an adaptation that allows some to survive and thrive is the ability to fake interest and attention with body language, eye contact and just enough participation to make it seem like they're engaged.
Does it matter? Competition is fierce. Only if you want to get further than you are now. The real players in corporate America look engaged - at all times - even when they aren't.
Look around at your next meeting. You'll know what I'm talking about. Some people have this type of opposable thumb, some don't.
Of course, faking it leads to learning because you're dialed in juuuuuust enough not to miss important shit.
Seether video below, people. Worth your time but a little NSFW. Happy Friday... (email subscribers click through for video)
Capitalist Note - If you're not on a couch watching the tourney this afternoon, you're doing it wrong. Here's a rerun from last year to get you in the mood to hate Duke in the right way...
Let's face it. If you follow college basketball at all, there's a high likelihood you hate Duke. Why?
Duke as a university smacks of privilege, and the basketball program polarizes people like the Cowboys or the Yankees, without attracting as much of a loyal following - the concentration and comparison is mainly on the hate side.
And then there's the little issue of race. Combine the status of the university with the success of the program, then add in chippy white guys doing things that are just a little bit dirty, and you've got the basis for widespread hate inside the basketball culture.
Case Studies - watch the ESPN 30 for 30 episode entitled I Hate Christian Laettner. It pretty much breaks down why Duke is the team to hate in college basketball, focused on the iconic player from the program - a 6'11" white guy (Laettner) who wore the black hat his whole career. Click here for the full episode.
But Laettner was just one of many white guys that fans learned to hate. To be fair, there was hate flowing to black players in the Duke program (Grant Hill, Jay Williams), but the true scorn? Saved for the white guys.
A lot of that has to to with the fact that white guys at Duke always play on the edge. Take the most recent object of Duke haters - a guard named Grayson Allen who's actually been caught tripping opponents twice this year. Here's a quick rundown for the uninitiated from the New York Post:
"Mike Krzyzewski stood up for his star player by hiding behind his school, saying that serial tripper Grayson Allen is only getting severe blowback around the college basketball landscape because of the jersey he wears.
After Allen appeared to stick out his leg for the second time in a month to topple an opponent — the latest being Florida State’s Xavier Rathan-Mayes in Duke’s win Thursday — Coach K insisted the ACC’s decision not to suspend his point guard was the correct one, and any contrary thought only exists because of the university’s reputation.
The Duke loathing stretches back to early-’90s Christian Laettner, and Allen already has taken his place on the growing list of villains that the Blue Devils produce. Critics see these stars as entitled and cocky, seemingly above the law. And they play at a university that prides itself on academics, a school they believe turns up its nose at the rest of the scandal-plagued NCAA landscape.
And, more than anything else, Duke wins. It’s a breeding ground for hate. Where others see the Blue Devils getting breaks from officials, Krzyzewski sees his players getting undue criticism from the public."
First things first. If you haven't seen the trips, check out the video below (email subscribers click through for video) and let the Duke hate fester:
But wait. There's a Talent/Recruiting nugget here. Allen's a highly recruited and highly successful player. He lives off of driving to the basket and with that in mind, ends up in a lot of physical confrontations.
Should Allen have been suspended for the second trip? Absolutely.
Do you need more employees like Allen? Yes you do. Absolutely.
Allen is an alpha employee who competes. He's wired to be on edge all the time, to force the action. He's your classic high assertiveness hire who's always going to be pushing for results.
We kid ourselves by thinking the world doesn't revolve around these type of people in our organizations. There's a role for all behavioral types in our companies, but it's the high assertives who bring it every day who get most of the results. Take a look at your sales team. If they're performing, you've got a bunch of Grayson Allens. Your leaders and hipos? Mostly high assertives.
Again, we have roles for low assertives and leaders can have that profile as well - you just need balanced teams.
But you need the Grayson Allens of the world to shake things up daily. When your equivalent does the version of the Grayson Allen trip inside your company, you've got to be swift and decisive to show them where the line is and ensure they don't cross it again - or as often.
You hate Duke. I get it. You think Grayson Allen is a punk - I get that too.
But you'd hire Grayson Allen in a heartbeat for a results-driven position. You'd just do better than Coach K about defining what's acceptable and what's not acceptable.
It all started because my friend Tim Sackett was upset because he couldn't get on a list of the top HR Bloggers. He was always 26th in top 25 lists. He'd move up to #18 and they'd only do a Top 10. We gave him his own day, here's the first post.
At the time, it was complete tongue-in-cheek, but it's actually become serious. It's now no longer about mocking vanity, it's about celebrating HR/Talent pros you don't know enough about.
Today we are honoring Lisa Rosendahl. I first became aware of Lisa back in 2008 or 2009, when she was early to the scene as one of the first HR bloggers. Here's where you can find her:
Go check her out and follow her. She's a good one.
Lisa is a former U.S. Army Officer, current acting Associate Director for the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs responsible for HR. Lisa is also a writer at heart, and you can read her stuff on her blog at LisaRosendahl.com, where she writes about HR and Leadership.
Lisa is an active advocate for HR in Minnesota and beyond. One of the original Women of HR writers, wife, mother and more. Go check her out and follow her!