Last week I gave you the list of 22 Secrets HR Won’t Tell You About Getting A Job.
This week we’ll take a look closer at the first 8 secrets.
HR Secret Number 1:
“Once you’re unemployed more than six months, you’re considered pretty much unemployable. We assume that other people have already passed you over, so we don’t want anything to do with you.”
Unfortunately, this is often the way HR looks at unemployed candidates. It’s sad and has resulted in many candidates “fudging” on their resumes. Increasingly we see resumes reflecting dates that would make one think the candidate is still employed. Or people are just using the year employment ended rather than month and year. Anything to hide the fact that they have been out of work for several months. With managers and executives who may have received a severance package of some sort, they sometimes show employment through the severance period. Some of the “fudging” is recommended by outplacement firms or headhunters. I say don’t do it. Tell it like it is.
If you’ve been unemployed for more than six months, be prepared to tell your story IF you get an interview. There’s not much you can do if the company “policy” is not to consider unemployed or long-term unemployed candidates. But in many cases you will get a shot and you will be asked something like “why do you think it’s taken so long for you find a job”. How will you answer that one? I’m not going to cover the entire subject here, but there are certain responses you should avoid. For example, if you’ve been holding out for pay equal or above what you were making, don’t say that. Avoid saying anything that makes you appear inflexible, unreasonable or picky…even if you are. Another no-no, is saying that you’ve had dozens of interviews, but no offers. That just confirms the HR person’s opinion that you are probably unemployable. (If you’ve actually had dozens of interviews but no offers, you do need to figure out what’s going on.)
HR Secret Number 2:
“When it comes to getting a job, who you know really does matter. No matter how nice your résumé is or how great your experience may be, it’s all about connections.”
This is true. All things being equal the person with connections will get the job over the person without connections. The message here is network, network, network BEFORE you need a network. And, of course, network with a few select and highly competent headhunters…wink-wink, nudge-nudge.
Seriously, don’t underestimate the value of the headhunter’s network. If a headhunter knows that you are a high quality candidate who can bring value to one of his clients, he may be able to get you in the door, even if you’re unemployed or have had some recent job hops (through no fault of your own, of course).
HR Secret Number 3:
“If you’re trying to get a job at a specific company, often the best thing to do is to avoid HR entirely. Find someone at the company you know, or go straight to the hiring manager.”
I agree, but with the caveat that there is the potential that you could shoot yourself in the foot if HR is freaky about control. You’re generally ok if you know someone in the company. They can tell you whether you should go through HR and the best way to do it. But going straight to the hiring authority can be dicey. It’s actually less risky if you’re not responding to an specific job posting that has clear instructions about the application process. If you want to work for a certain company, contacting the hiring authority who is most likely to need someone like you is not a bad move.
HR Secret Number 4:
“People assume someone’s reading their cover letter. I haven’t read one in 11 years.”
I’ll challenge this one. Very few cover letters get read BEFORE the resume gets read. But if the resume gets my attention, then I will glance at the cover letter. If the cover is just form letter BS, then I ignore it. But if it actually adds something to the resume and has an “executive bio” quality to it, then it is a positive. So if you have something valuable to say in a cover letter, use it. If not, don’t.
HR Secret Number 5:
“We will judge you based on your e-mail address. Especially if it’s something inappropriate like kinkyboots101@hotmail.com or johnnylikestodrink@gmail.com.”
If this is a secret to you, then you may well be among the “unemployed for more than 6 months” crowd. C’mon man…common sense. Use a professional email address in your job search. And if you have a really bad one like “johnnylikestodrink”…get rid of it…that’s not even right for personal emails.
HR Secret Number 6:
“If you’re in your 50s or 60s, don’t put the year you graduated on your résumé.”
Good advice, but don’t go overboard trying to hide your age. I see resumes where someone only shows the last 10 or 15 years of experience. The positions one has held are usually an indicator of where one is in their career. So it’s fairly easy to figure out if a person is leaving off a big chunk of career history. If you are in your 50s or 60s, it’s ok to only list positions over the past 15 years or so, but I always recommend that the candidate include a comment to reflect something like “held prior (sales, management, operations, etc) positions in the such and such industry.”
The other option is to go way back but not all the way back. If you’ve got 35 years of industry experience, go back 25 years. Especially if the first 10 years of your work history isn’t really relevant to your current career path and the past 25 show steady progress. But the 35 year veteran who only shows the last 15 years and no indication of prior work experience just ends up looking foolish.
HR Secrets Number 7 & 8 are closely related:
“There’s a myth out there that a résumé has to be one page. So people send their résumé in a two-point font. Nobody is going to read that.”
“I always read résumés from the bottom up. And I have no problem with a two-page résumé, but three pages is pushing it.”
I agree with 7 and slightly disagree with 8. If you are well-established in your career, your resume will be at least two pages and running over to page three is acceptable. For me, a four page resume is pushing it. It also depends on the quality of information included on the resume. Long “career objective” statements or introductory lists of skills and accomplishments apart from specific positions are a waste of space in my opinion.
Next week, we’ll pick it up with HR Secret Number 9.
(As for the college football game of the year, I’m rooting for LSU because an LSU win over Alabama is potentially better for Arkansas….but if I were a betting man, it’s Alabama 27 – LSU 20.)
Saturday, November 5, 2011
Saturday, October 29, 2011
22 Secrets...
Earlier this year, Reader’s Digest published an interesting list titled “22 Secrets HR Won’t Tell You About Getting a Job”. That list is posted below. Starting next week, I’ll begin unpacking and commenting on the 22 Secrets. As a general statement, and this is unfortunate, I think the list is pretty much spot on. If that is the case and you’re looking for a job, then what do you do about it? That will be the focus of my blogs over the next few weeks.
22 SECRETS HR WON’T TELL YOU ABOUT GETTING A JOB
1. “Once you’re unemployed more than six months, you’re considered pretty much unemployable. We assume that other people have already passed you over, so we don’t want anything to do with you.” –Cynthia Shapiro, former human resources executive and author of Corporate Confidential: 50 Secrets Your Company Doesn’t Want You to Know
2. “When it comes to getting a job, who you know really does matter. No matter how nice your résumé is or how great your experience may be, it’s all about connections.” –HR director at a health-care facility
3. “If you’re trying to get a job at a specific company, often the best thing to do is to avoid HR entirely. Find someone at the company you know, or go straight to the hiring manager.” –Shauna Moerke, an HR administrator in Alabama who blogs at hrminion.com
4. “People assume someone’s reading their cover letter. I haven’t read one in 11 years.” –HR director at a financial services firm
5. “We will judge you based on your e-mail address. Especially if it’s something inappropriate like kinkyboots101@hotmail.com or johnnylikestodrink@gmail.com.” –Rich DeMatteo, a recruiting consultant in Philadelphia
6. “If you’re in your 50s or 60s, don’t put the year you graduated on your résumé.” –HR professional at a midsize firm in North Carolina
7. “There’s a myth out there that a résumé has to be one page. So people send their résumé in a two-point font. Nobody is going to read that.” –HR director at a financial services firm
8. “I always read résumés from the bottom up. And I have no problem with a two-page résumé, but three pages is pushing it.” –Sharlyn Lauby, HR consultant in Fort Lauderdale, Florida
9. “Most of us use applicant-tracking systems that scan résumés for key words. The secret to getting your résumé through the system is to pull key words directly from the job description and put them on. The more matches you have, the more likely your résumé will get picked and actually seen by a real person.” –Chris Ferdinandi, HR professional in the Boston area
10. “Résumés don’t need color to stand out. When I see a little color, I smirk. And when I see a ton of color, I cringe. And walking in and dropping off your resume is no longer seen as a good thing. It’s actually a little creepy.” –Rich DeMatteo
11. “It’s amazing when people come in for an interview and say, ‘Can you tell me about your business?’ Seriously, people. There’s an Internet. Look it up.” –HR professional in New York City
12. “A lot of managers don’t want to hire people with young kids, and they use all sorts of tricks to find that out, illegally. One woman kept a picture of two really cute children on her desk even though she didn’t have children [hoping job candidates would ask about them]. Another guy used to walk people out to their car to see whether they had car seats.” –Cynthia Shapiro, former human resources executive and author of Corporate Confidential.
13. “Is it harder to get the job if you’re fat? Absolutely. Hiring managers make quick judgments based on stereotypes. They’re just following George Clooney’s character in Up in the Air, who said ‘I stereotype. It’s faster.’”–Suzanne Lucas, a former HR executive and the Evil HR Lady on bnet.com
14. “I once had a hiring manager who refused to hire someone because the job required her to be on call one weekend a month and she had talked in the interview about how much she goes to church. Another candidate didn’t get hired because the manager was worried that the car he drove wasn’t nice enough.” –HR professional at a midsize firm in North Carolina
15. “Don’t just silence your phone for the interview. Turn it all the way off.” –Sharlyn Lauby, HR consultant in Fort Lauderdale, Florida
16. “If you’ve got a weak handshake, I make a note of it.” –HR manager at a medical-equipment sales firm
17. “If you’re a candidate and the hiring manager spends 45 minutes talking about himself, the company or his Harley, let him. He’s going to come out of the interview saying you’re a great candidate.” –Kris Dunn, chief human resources officer at Atlanta-based Kinetix, who blogs at hrcapitalist.com
18. “There’s one website that drives all HR people crazy: salary.com. It supposedly lists average salaries for different industries, but if you look up any job, the salary it gives you always seems to be $10,000 to $20,000 higher than it actually is. That just makes people mad.” –HR director at a public relations agency
19. “On salary, some companies try to lock you in early. At the first interview, they’ll tell me to say, ‘The budget for this position is 40K to 45K. Is that acceptable to you?’ If the candidate accepts, they’ll know they’ve got him or her stuck in that little area.” –Ben Eubanks, HR professional in Alabama
20. “You think you’re all wonderful and deserve a higher salary, but here in HR, we know the truth. And the truth is, a lot of you aren’t very good at your jobs, and you’re definitely not as good as you think you are.” –HR professional at a midsize firm in North Carolina
21. Be careful if a headhunter is negotiating for you. You may want extra time off and be willing to sacrifice salary, but he is negotiating hardest for what hits his commission.” –HR professional in New York City (Oh it’s on now…I look forward to commenting on this one)
22. “I once hired someone, and her mother didn’t think the salary we were offering was high enough, so she called me to negotiate. There are two problems with that: 1) I can’t negotiate with someone who’s not you. 2) It’s your mother. Seriously, I was like, ‘Did that woman’s mother just call me, or was that my imagination?’ I immediately withdrew the offer.” –HR professional in New York City
22 SECRETS HR WON’T TELL YOU ABOUT GETTING A JOB
1. “Once you’re unemployed more than six months, you’re considered pretty much unemployable. We assume that other people have already passed you over, so we don’t want anything to do with you.” –Cynthia Shapiro, former human resources executive and author of Corporate Confidential: 50 Secrets Your Company Doesn’t Want You to Know
2. “When it comes to getting a job, who you know really does matter. No matter how nice your résumé is or how great your experience may be, it’s all about connections.” –HR director at a health-care facility
3. “If you’re trying to get a job at a specific company, often the best thing to do is to avoid HR entirely. Find someone at the company you know, or go straight to the hiring manager.” –Shauna Moerke, an HR administrator in Alabama who blogs at hrminion.com
4. “People assume someone’s reading their cover letter. I haven’t read one in 11 years.” –HR director at a financial services firm
5. “We will judge you based on your e-mail address. Especially if it’s something inappropriate like kinkyboots101@hotmail.com or johnnylikestodrink@gmail.com.” –Rich DeMatteo, a recruiting consultant in Philadelphia
6. “If you’re in your 50s or 60s, don’t put the year you graduated on your résumé.” –HR professional at a midsize firm in North Carolina
7. “There’s a myth out there that a résumé has to be one page. So people send their résumé in a two-point font. Nobody is going to read that.” –HR director at a financial services firm
8. “I always read résumés from the bottom up. And I have no problem with a two-page résumé, but three pages is pushing it.” –Sharlyn Lauby, HR consultant in Fort Lauderdale, Florida
9. “Most of us use applicant-tracking systems that scan résumés for key words. The secret to getting your résumé through the system is to pull key words directly from the job description and put them on. The more matches you have, the more likely your résumé will get picked and actually seen by a real person.” –Chris Ferdinandi, HR professional in the Boston area
10. “Résumés don’t need color to stand out. When I see a little color, I smirk. And when I see a ton of color, I cringe. And walking in and dropping off your resume is no longer seen as a good thing. It’s actually a little creepy.” –Rich DeMatteo
11. “It’s amazing when people come in for an interview and say, ‘Can you tell me about your business?’ Seriously, people. There’s an Internet. Look it up.” –HR professional in New York City
12. “A lot of managers don’t want to hire people with young kids, and they use all sorts of tricks to find that out, illegally. One woman kept a picture of two really cute children on her desk even though she didn’t have children [hoping job candidates would ask about them]. Another guy used to walk people out to their car to see whether they had car seats.” –Cynthia Shapiro, former human resources executive and author of Corporate Confidential.
13. “Is it harder to get the job if you’re fat? Absolutely. Hiring managers make quick judgments based on stereotypes. They’re just following George Clooney’s character in Up in the Air, who said ‘I stereotype. It’s faster.’”–Suzanne Lucas, a former HR executive and the Evil HR Lady on bnet.com
14. “I once had a hiring manager who refused to hire someone because the job required her to be on call one weekend a month and she had talked in the interview about how much she goes to church. Another candidate didn’t get hired because the manager was worried that the car he drove wasn’t nice enough.” –HR professional at a midsize firm in North Carolina
15. “Don’t just silence your phone for the interview. Turn it all the way off.” –Sharlyn Lauby, HR consultant in Fort Lauderdale, Florida
16. “If you’ve got a weak handshake, I make a note of it.” –HR manager at a medical-equipment sales firm
17. “If you’re a candidate and the hiring manager spends 45 minutes talking about himself, the company or his Harley, let him. He’s going to come out of the interview saying you’re a great candidate.” –Kris Dunn, chief human resources officer at Atlanta-based Kinetix, who blogs at hrcapitalist.com
18. “There’s one website that drives all HR people crazy: salary.com. It supposedly lists average salaries for different industries, but if you look up any job, the salary it gives you always seems to be $10,000 to $20,000 higher than it actually is. That just makes people mad.” –HR director at a public relations agency
19. “On salary, some companies try to lock you in early. At the first interview, they’ll tell me to say, ‘The budget for this position is 40K to 45K. Is that acceptable to you?’ If the candidate accepts, they’ll know they’ve got him or her stuck in that little area.” –Ben Eubanks, HR professional in Alabama
20. “You think you’re all wonderful and deserve a higher salary, but here in HR, we know the truth. And the truth is, a lot of you aren’t very good at your jobs, and you’re definitely not as good as you think you are.” –HR professional at a midsize firm in North Carolina
21. Be careful if a headhunter is negotiating for you. You may want extra time off and be willing to sacrifice salary, but he is negotiating hardest for what hits his commission.” –HR professional in New York City (Oh it’s on now…I look forward to commenting on this one)
22. “I once hired someone, and her mother didn’t think the salary we were offering was high enough, so she called me to negotiate. There are two problems with that: 1) I can’t negotiate with someone who’s not you. 2) It’s your mother. Seriously, I was like, ‘Did that woman’s mother just call me, or was that my imagination?’ I immediately withdrew the offer.” –HR professional in New York City
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Occupy This
“The ultimate decision about what is accepted as right and wrong will be made not by individual human wisdom but by the disappearance of the groups that have adhered to the "wrong" beliefs.”- F.A. Hayak
*************************************************************
“Power to The People” is alive and well, boldly manifesting itself in the “Occupy Wall Street Movement”. It hasn’t quite reached Grayson County Texas yet, but down the road in Dallas I hear there are protests. Nothing so far in my hometown of Fort Worth where the local authorities tend to be less tolerant of free speech without a permit or at least a property tax receipt.
From what I can gather from various articles and surveys, it seems that the OWS crowd is mostly pissed about the rich being too rich and having too much influence on our government. Beyond that they are all over the place with regard to proposed solutions. As I pick through all the stuff they are throwing up against the wall, I find myself in agreement with them on three major issues: (1) The most wealthy among us should pay more taxes, (2) There is too much money going toward influencing political decisions and (3) Our Free Trade policies are not free, nor are they fair, nor have they been without negative consequences for many working Americans. Frankly, these are not new issues. They have been the subject of much debate and discussion for generations. And, I think most Americans are in general agreement about the need to address these three issues.
What concerns me about the OWS crowd is that they are, for the most part, advocates of socialism over capitalism. Again, this is a debate that has been going on since the middle of the 19th century. While we have bastardized our capitalist system to the point where it has major problems, it still beats the hell out of any form of socialism. Many of our problems are the result of government getting involved in areas they should not be involved in or bad policy in those areas where they should be involved. Many tea-partiers and libertarians would disagree with me, but government DOES have a role to play ensuring that we have a properly functioning economy.
I recently re-read F.A. Hayak’s classic book, “The Road to Serfdom”. It was written back in the 1940’s and remains one of the best books ever written in support of individual freedom and capitalism. Hayak, like Adam Smith, does an excellent job of describing the role of government in supporting a capitalist system. Moreover, like Smith, he eloquently describes the economic reality and power of individualism (capitalism) vs. collectivism (socialism).
I’m not sure how we bring the left and the right together to solve our problems. I’ve stated before that congressional term limits would be a great first step. We don’t need lifetime, career politicians running this country. I also think that our media has a role to play. We simply don’t get unbiased information. Much of it is leans left and what doesn’t is so far to the right that it’s even worse. Most Americans simply don’t know the facts when it comes to our economy or our government. Points of view tend to develop out of need and circumstance and are validated by ones channel of choice. Once developed they are surveyed and political strategies formulated to capture the votes. Our government has become the largest non-profit business in the history of the world and it is totally failing to achieve the purposes for which it was created. And that, my fellow Americans, is on us.
*************************************************************
“Power to The People” is alive and well, boldly manifesting itself in the “Occupy Wall Street Movement”. It hasn’t quite reached Grayson County Texas yet, but down the road in Dallas I hear there are protests. Nothing so far in my hometown of Fort Worth where the local authorities tend to be less tolerant of free speech without a permit or at least a property tax receipt.
From what I can gather from various articles and surveys, it seems that the OWS crowd is mostly pissed about the rich being too rich and having too much influence on our government. Beyond that they are all over the place with regard to proposed solutions. As I pick through all the stuff they are throwing up against the wall, I find myself in agreement with them on three major issues: (1) The most wealthy among us should pay more taxes, (2) There is too much money going toward influencing political decisions and (3) Our Free Trade policies are not free, nor are they fair, nor have they been without negative consequences for many working Americans. Frankly, these are not new issues. They have been the subject of much debate and discussion for generations. And, I think most Americans are in general agreement about the need to address these three issues.
What concerns me about the OWS crowd is that they are, for the most part, advocates of socialism over capitalism. Again, this is a debate that has been going on since the middle of the 19th century. While we have bastardized our capitalist system to the point where it has major problems, it still beats the hell out of any form of socialism. Many of our problems are the result of government getting involved in areas they should not be involved in or bad policy in those areas where they should be involved. Many tea-partiers and libertarians would disagree with me, but government DOES have a role to play ensuring that we have a properly functioning economy.
I recently re-read F.A. Hayak’s classic book, “The Road to Serfdom”. It was written back in the 1940’s and remains one of the best books ever written in support of individual freedom and capitalism. Hayak, like Adam Smith, does an excellent job of describing the role of government in supporting a capitalist system. Moreover, like Smith, he eloquently describes the economic reality and power of individualism (capitalism) vs. collectivism (socialism).
I’m not sure how we bring the left and the right together to solve our problems. I’ve stated before that congressional term limits would be a great first step. We don’t need lifetime, career politicians running this country. I also think that our media has a role to play. We simply don’t get unbiased information. Much of it is leans left and what doesn’t is so far to the right that it’s even worse. Most Americans simply don’t know the facts when it comes to our economy or our government. Points of view tend to develop out of need and circumstance and are validated by ones channel of choice. Once developed they are surveyed and political strategies formulated to capture the votes. Our government has become the largest non-profit business in the history of the world and it is totally failing to achieve the purposes for which it was created. And that, my fellow Americans, is on us.
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Hey Buddy, Can You Spare a Dime?
I hear that now over 46 million of our fellow citizens are living in “poverty”. I hear that our system is unfair. That poverty and unemployment are the result of the rich getting richer. In fact, the rich are just too rich. And to make matters worse, at a time when we should be spending to help the poor, conservatives want to cut spending. What are they thinking?
Probably the same thing I’ve been thinking for a long time. That over the past 50 years, welfare programs have helped create a “poverty” class of citizens having neither the hope nor the incentive to strive for something better. To get a perspective on this I suggest you read Robert Rector’s congressional testimony, April 2011, titled: “Uncovering the Hidden Welfare State: 69 Means-tested Programs and $940 Billion in Annual Spending”
(http://waysandmeans.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Robert_Rector_Testimony.pdf).
Now admittedly, Mr. Rector works for The Heritage Foundation, an ultra-conservative think tank. And while his report certainly represents one point of view, I am inclined to believe that the information he uses is essentially correct, give or take a $100 billion. The reality is that a lot of those 46 million folks living in poverty are effectively living on the equivalent of $50,000 or more annual income for a family of four (assuming they have earned income near the $22,350 poverty line.) Do I want to trade places with them? No. Do I think they are living the “good life”? No. But do I think that the majority of these 46 million poor are suffering severe hardship and deprivation? No.
When you peel back the welfare onion and add in all of the other charitable programs (food banks, churches, charities, etc); what was once a “safety net” has become the subsidy for a marginal standard of living that is now a way of life for 1 in 7 Americans. It may or may not be poverty. But it’s not good and it’s not sustainable. Since LBJ started his War on Poverty back in the 60’s, we’ve spent over $15 Trillion dollars on welfare. No doubt some of that money has been well-spent. There are thousands of success stories out there. Children who grew up in poverty, survived with government assistance, succeeded and are now productive, tax-paying citizens. But I think it’s fair to say that we are still way “in the hole” with regard to a payback on that $15 Trillion investment.
Probably the same thing I’ve been thinking for a long time. That over the past 50 years, welfare programs have helped create a “poverty” class of citizens having neither the hope nor the incentive to strive for something better. To get a perspective on this I suggest you read Robert Rector’s congressional testimony, April 2011, titled: “Uncovering the Hidden Welfare State: 69 Means-tested Programs and $940 Billion in Annual Spending”
(http://waysandmeans.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Robert_Rector_Testimony.pdf).
Now admittedly, Mr. Rector works for The Heritage Foundation, an ultra-conservative think tank. And while his report certainly represents one point of view, I am inclined to believe that the information he uses is essentially correct, give or take a $100 billion. The reality is that a lot of those 46 million folks living in poverty are effectively living on the equivalent of $50,000 or more annual income for a family of four (assuming they have earned income near the $22,350 poverty line.) Do I want to trade places with them? No. Do I think they are living the “good life”? No. But do I think that the majority of these 46 million poor are suffering severe hardship and deprivation? No.
When you peel back the welfare onion and add in all of the other charitable programs (food banks, churches, charities, etc); what was once a “safety net” has become the subsidy for a marginal standard of living that is now a way of life for 1 in 7 Americans. It may or may not be poverty. But it’s not good and it’s not sustainable. Since LBJ started his War on Poverty back in the 60’s, we’ve spent over $15 Trillion dollars on welfare. No doubt some of that money has been well-spent. There are thousands of success stories out there. Children who grew up in poverty, survived with government assistance, succeeded and are now productive, tax-paying citizens. But I think it’s fair to say that we are still way “in the hole” with regard to a payback on that $15 Trillion investment.
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Uncertainty
I once spent a year in Philadelphia, I think it was on a Sunday.
W. C. Fields
This past week I was in Philadelphia for the Council of Supply Chain Management Professional’s (CSCMP) Annual Global Conference. With all due respect to W.C. Fields, I enjoyed Philadelphia. I’d been there several times, but never really had the opportunity to see the city. It’s a great place. While it’s not New York City or Chicago, or even Boston for that matter, I’d still rate it as one of America’s best big cities to visit.
The CSCMP conference was worthwhile as well. Well attended, good networking opportunities and useful information. Mostly, the information just confirmed what we already knew. The economy is slowing down, but not as bad as the headlines would have us believe. In fact, there was general agreement that companies are struggling to find enough qualified people (not just truck drivers and warehouse workers, but managers and executives with supply chain management/logistics experience.)
However, the underlying and consistent theme of the conference was how to manage in the midst of so much uncertainty. Most firms have the tools and expertise to effectively manage their supply chains IF enough key variables have reasonable levels of predictability. Today we just don’t know enough to effectively plan for anything other than uncertainty. And that’s really tough.
As Donald Rumsfeld once said: “There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.”
John Stewart and other pundits had a lot of fun with Rumsfeld’s “unknown unknowns”….but the truth is that Rumseld was right. (I just wish he’d paid more attention to his own words of wisdom…but that’s another subject.)
We find ourselves in a world of uncertainty including “known unknowns” and “unknown unknowns”. And to make matters worse, in some instances we are living with “unknowables” whether we know it or not. And some of what we know isn’t good enough for planning purposes. For example, it’s likely that over the next five years oil prices will be between $75 and $150 per barrel. For supply chain planning purposes, that range is too broad. I can also predict that governments, industries and individuals will take steps to reduce debt, but no one can accurately quantify what impact that will have on the global economy. And there are some really big “unknowables” out there. What if an earthquake and tsunami were to hit the western coastline of North America? What if the Mexican drug cartels gain control of their government (if they haven’t already)? What if the U.S. Congress becomes even more dysfunctional?
The supply chain models we’ve developed over the past 25 years have played a major role in creating a global economy. The world would be much poorer and much worse off without these efficient, global supply chain capabilities. Yet it would seem that the more we know about moving stuff around our planet, the more we have to be worried about. As a result, it is quite likely that our planning models will become even more complex. (Some scary smart people are using Game Theory based models these days in ways that will make your head hurt.)
But when it’s all said and done, humans will have to assess the risks and make choices. My greatest concern about the future is analysis-paralysis and fear of failure. There are always risks. Look at history. Many of the world’s greatest accomplishments were faced with overwhelming odds and incredible risks. In business, one cannot afford to ignore risks, but totally avoiding risks is even more expensive. I think that would qualify as “a known”.
W. C. Fields
This past week I was in Philadelphia for the Council of Supply Chain Management Professional’s (CSCMP) Annual Global Conference. With all due respect to W.C. Fields, I enjoyed Philadelphia. I’d been there several times, but never really had the opportunity to see the city. It’s a great place. While it’s not New York City or Chicago, or even Boston for that matter, I’d still rate it as one of America’s best big cities to visit.
The CSCMP conference was worthwhile as well. Well attended, good networking opportunities and useful information. Mostly, the information just confirmed what we already knew. The economy is slowing down, but not as bad as the headlines would have us believe. In fact, there was general agreement that companies are struggling to find enough qualified people (not just truck drivers and warehouse workers, but managers and executives with supply chain management/logistics experience.)
However, the underlying and consistent theme of the conference was how to manage in the midst of so much uncertainty. Most firms have the tools and expertise to effectively manage their supply chains IF enough key variables have reasonable levels of predictability. Today we just don’t know enough to effectively plan for anything other than uncertainty. And that’s really tough.
As Donald Rumsfeld once said: “There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.”
John Stewart and other pundits had a lot of fun with Rumsfeld’s “unknown unknowns”….but the truth is that Rumseld was right. (I just wish he’d paid more attention to his own words of wisdom…but that’s another subject.)
We find ourselves in a world of uncertainty including “known unknowns” and “unknown unknowns”. And to make matters worse, in some instances we are living with “unknowables” whether we know it or not. And some of what we know isn’t good enough for planning purposes. For example, it’s likely that over the next five years oil prices will be between $75 and $150 per barrel. For supply chain planning purposes, that range is too broad. I can also predict that governments, industries and individuals will take steps to reduce debt, but no one can accurately quantify what impact that will have on the global economy. And there are some really big “unknowables” out there. What if an earthquake and tsunami were to hit the western coastline of North America? What if the Mexican drug cartels gain control of their government (if they haven’t already)? What if the U.S. Congress becomes even more dysfunctional?
The supply chain models we’ve developed over the past 25 years have played a major role in creating a global economy. The world would be much poorer and much worse off without these efficient, global supply chain capabilities. Yet it would seem that the more we know about moving stuff around our planet, the more we have to be worried about. As a result, it is quite likely that our planning models will become even more complex. (Some scary smart people are using Game Theory based models these days in ways that will make your head hurt.)
But when it’s all said and done, humans will have to assess the risks and make choices. My greatest concern about the future is analysis-paralysis and fear of failure. There are always risks. Look at history. Many of the world’s greatest accomplishments were faced with overwhelming odds and incredible risks. In business, one cannot afford to ignore risks, but totally avoiding risks is even more expensive. I think that would qualify as “a known”.
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Long Division, Wrong Division and Hilton Honors
I usually write this blog only once a week, sometime even less often. But, yesterday’s subject, “Snorks and $16 Muffins”, deserves a timely update. While the facts remain in dispute, it is becoming increasingly evident that the group auditing the muffin/cookie/coffee expenses got it wrong. The Inspector General’s (IG) office of the Department of Justice (DOJ) “stands by” their initial report of $16 muffins, $10 cookies and $8 coffee. The Hilton says no way. They note that this was a 5 day event with 534 people in attendance and the total bill for all refreshments including the muffins and cookies was $40,000. Still not cheap, but fairly typical of the expenses one would expect to incur for this type of event at a convention hotel.
(Now we really should have a discussion as to the purpose of the event and the number of attendees. Depending on how many traveled and how many actually stayed at the hotel, this hoot-n-nanny probably cost the taxpayers $750,000 or more. That’s not counting lost productivity. Oh wait, these are government employees. We may actually have derived a net benefit by having them doing something other than their jobs. The event was the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) Legal Conference. Decide for yourself what the attendees would have otherwise accomplished if not at this conference.)
So let’s recap. A federal agency decides to have a conference and invite over 500 people which literally cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. This conference was in August 2009. At some point the IG audits the expenses and two years later we get the $16 Muffin headline. I don’t know how many people are employed in the IG’s office or how many got involved in this audit or how many are now involved in the re-audit. But folks, this isn’t rocket science. We have the cost information. We have the attendee information. If there were any questions, I’m sure that the Hilton could have provided more details. The whole story stands as a classic example of our government flailing around and spending money and remaining clueless as to how much was spent, by whom and for what.
As a Hilton Honors member, I owe Hilton an apology for accusing them of charging $16 for a muffin, $10 for a cookie and $8 for coffee. Those are Starbucks prices, what was a I thinking?
(Now we really should have a discussion as to the purpose of the event and the number of attendees. Depending on how many traveled and how many actually stayed at the hotel, this hoot-n-nanny probably cost the taxpayers $750,000 or more. That’s not counting lost productivity. Oh wait, these are government employees. We may actually have derived a net benefit by having them doing something other than their jobs. The event was the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) Legal Conference. Decide for yourself what the attendees would have otherwise accomplished if not at this conference.)
So let’s recap. A federal agency decides to have a conference and invite over 500 people which literally cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. This conference was in August 2009. At some point the IG audits the expenses and two years later we get the $16 Muffin headline. I don’t know how many people are employed in the IG’s office or how many got involved in this audit or how many are now involved in the re-audit. But folks, this isn’t rocket science. We have the cost information. We have the attendee information. If there were any questions, I’m sure that the Hilton could have provided more details. The whole story stands as a classic example of our government flailing around and spending money and remaining clueless as to how much was spent, by whom and for what.
As a Hilton Honors member, I owe Hilton an apology for accusing them of charging $16 for a muffin, $10 for a cookie and $8 for coffee. Those are Starbucks prices, what was a I thinking?
Friday, September 23, 2011
Snorks and $16 Muffins
“To fill the earth with the light and warmth of hospitality”
- Hilton Hotels Vision Statement
I just want to know the name of the person who sold $16 muffins, $10 cookies and $8 coffee to the Department of Justice. (By now you must have heard the story. If you haven’t, go back to sleep or playing Angry Birds or whatever it is you do.) I also want to know who bought this stuff. I mean who buys $16 muffins? Probably the same people who buy $5 corn chips and $8 beers from a hotel room mini-bar. (I have never, even in my weakest, hungry, stumbling drunk moments; purchased anything from a hotel mini-bar.) But someone sold and someone bought the $16 muffin/$10 cookie/$8 coffee deal. I read somewhere that it’s called the morning “Eye-Opener”. They should call it the morning “Bend-Over”.
The truth of the matter is that the Capital Hilton Hotel in Washington looks just as bad in this as the Department of Justice. We’ve all read stories about government waste and crazy expenditures. But whenever the government is “buying badly” there is also a vendor who is “selling badly”. One may say that the Capital Hilton was just acting in the best interest of the Capital Hilton in selling over-priced muffins, cookies and coffee. But there is a point where maximizing profit in the short-run is not in ones best interest. This greedy, get-all-can-you-now way of doing business is a big part of our current economic crisis. In business and in politics, we want to win and win big. Don’t leave anything on the table. But it’s the wrong way to operate. Even if you are indifferent to the moral and ethical reasons for “doing the right thing”, you should consider that, strategically, “doing the right thing” is good business (and good politics) over the long run.
I guess it’s too late to do much about the $16 muffin fiasco. The DOJ will spend thousands of taxpayer dollars developing and communicating new expense policies. Perhaps the Hilton will give some money back to the DOJ and revisit their special event pricing strategies. Conservative politicians will rail about the $16 muffin and liberals will argue that it’s just another example of a greedy corporation’s price gouging. Until we acknowledge that there are two problems here, not just one, we will continue to go in circles. Sort of like a snork. You know, a snork…that seldom scene, nearly extinct bird that flies around and around in a circle, going faster and faster as the circle becomes smaller and smaller until finally, at the moment when the snork and the circle become one, the snork’s head goes up its own ass and the snork disappears.
- Hilton Hotels Vision Statement
I just want to know the name of the person who sold $16 muffins, $10 cookies and $8 coffee to the Department of Justice. (By now you must have heard the story. If you haven’t, go back to sleep or playing Angry Birds or whatever it is you do.) I also want to know who bought this stuff. I mean who buys $16 muffins? Probably the same people who buy $5 corn chips and $8 beers from a hotel room mini-bar. (I have never, even in my weakest, hungry, stumbling drunk moments; purchased anything from a hotel mini-bar.) But someone sold and someone bought the $16 muffin/$10 cookie/$8 coffee deal. I read somewhere that it’s called the morning “Eye-Opener”. They should call it the morning “Bend-Over”.
The truth of the matter is that the Capital Hilton Hotel in Washington looks just as bad in this as the Department of Justice. We’ve all read stories about government waste and crazy expenditures. But whenever the government is “buying badly” there is also a vendor who is “selling badly”. One may say that the Capital Hilton was just acting in the best interest of the Capital Hilton in selling over-priced muffins, cookies and coffee. But there is a point where maximizing profit in the short-run is not in ones best interest. This greedy, get-all-can-you-now way of doing business is a big part of our current economic crisis. In business and in politics, we want to win and win big. Don’t leave anything on the table. But it’s the wrong way to operate. Even if you are indifferent to the moral and ethical reasons for “doing the right thing”, you should consider that, strategically, “doing the right thing” is good business (and good politics) over the long run.
I guess it’s too late to do much about the $16 muffin fiasco. The DOJ will spend thousands of taxpayer dollars developing and communicating new expense policies. Perhaps the Hilton will give some money back to the DOJ and revisit their special event pricing strategies. Conservative politicians will rail about the $16 muffin and liberals will argue that it’s just another example of a greedy corporation’s price gouging. Until we acknowledge that there are two problems here, not just one, we will continue to go in circles. Sort of like a snork. You know, a snork…that seldom scene, nearly extinct bird that flies around and around in a circle, going faster and faster as the circle becomes smaller and smaller until finally, at the moment when the snork and the circle become one, the snork’s head goes up its own ass and the snork disappears.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)