If you know me, you know how hard it is for me to keep my damn mouth shut. It’s against my very nature to stay silent, particularly when I’m provoked. And yet, for much of the past year, that’s exactly what I’ve had to do when shit when south for some reason I’m still not entirely sure of, and I basically found myself in the first act of an episode of Snapped.
I will not comment any further on that issue, other than to say I think my restraint has somewhat redeemed an unredeemable situation in which that silence was too often construed as guilt, but even acknowledging the situation would have somehow given it credibility.
The thing about talent trends posts is that if it were possible to predict the future of recruiting and HR, we’d probably have figured out some way to make it suck a little less.
Of course, the glacial pace of change in these parts means that for the indeterminate present, 2017 Is shaping up to be same shit, different year.
I’m aware that trends posts are, well, trendy – and acknowledge that there’s no real need for me (or anyone else) to contribute more content to this canon of crap.
There are few companies able to generate more mainstream media coverage than Glassdoor1, who has a long track record of using the massive amounts of proprietary data across their site to generate some analytics and insights into what’s really going on in the world of work.
While employers may bitch about the negative reviews (and their lack of ability to respond without paying a premium for the privilege), Glassdoor’s anecdotal evidence is far less interesting – or actionable – than the data the site collects in aggregate.
A Google product manager filed a lawsuit in California Superior Court yesterday, alleging the company’s strict internal confidentiality policies represent a breach of California labor laws.
The lawsuit alleges that Google has implemented an enterprise wide “spying program” for current employees to voluntarily report coworkers and colleagues suspected of leaking confidential information or trade secrets.
For an industry whose professional certification involves “competency based assessments,” there’s a surprising amount of incompetence when it comes to sorting out the product marketing buzz and BS coming from companies offering the coolest stuff you never really needed to fix a problem you didn’t know you had.
Of course, where “best practices” are basically the same stuff everyone’s been doing since before we even started making up generational theory and talking about “Millennials.”
Millennial themed content is kind of like the minstrel show of the new Millennium.
It’s blatantly offensive to a protected class through sweeping stereotypes for the purposes of entertaining the masses who largely distrust this largely marginalized group, who find great pleasure in the overt, exaggerated and hyperbolized presentation of perceived Gen Y foibles.
In fact, this cottage industry of discriminatory ageism disguised as some sort of “best practice” or workforce strategy, which is akin to cryptozoology or phrenology in terms of the validity of a field that is at best, the collision of pseudoscience and pop culture.
At its worst, it’s unadulterated ageism, and often pundits and practitioners don’t even bother hiding their bias or completely irrational (and illegal) beliefs on gender theory.
I have been writing HR Technology Conference related preview posts for 8 years now. This realization depresses me. The best years of my life have been spent on, well, this.
The nice thing, though, is that nothing has really changed since the first one of these I went to all the way back in 2009 except there were around 2000 attendees back then.
This number has skyrocketed, obviously, as we’ve moved from a lazy business backwater into the hipster neighborhood for venture capitalists and entrepreneurs.
For all the talk of “reinvention” in recruiting, for all the products promising to “disrupt” hiring, and for all the banal banter about fixing what’s “broken” in talent acquisition today, the one part of the process that has more or less escaped any modicum of automation, transformation or innovation is perhaps the most important: the job interview.
There’s a reason, unlike the resume or on-premise software or the manifold other job search standbys, the interview has remained more or less above the fray, universally accepted and unilaterally adopted as an inextricable part of the employee screening and selection process.