In the end, I think the Corporate model is doomed. We rabble-rousers will end up in the same orbits to get things done. In a certain way, if you squint a little, that’s what social media is becoming. We chase our passions, guided by our strengths, while enlisting kindred spirits to help along the way.

Ben

I think this line contains the answer:

“They really aren’t interested in people who might be the perfect fit for an opening that will happen 6 months from now.”

Companies need to simply hire with a focus on the longer term. I remember reading “Good To Great” where the author talked about “First Who then What” where his research showed that of the successful companies in his studies. they would hire people, then have those people build a plan. The companies who established a plan than brought on people who were loyal, were never as successful.

The other large problem is that progress is scary. the majority of the workforce of an organization does not have a personal stake in the company, holding their job takes a higher priority. So brilliance is not seen as an asset but as a threat.

Getting to the bottom of problems is encouraged only if the problems are never connected to any personnel. which is rarely possible. Brilliance is seen as trouble making, which further repels the employees most likely to transform an organization.

I would know I’m one of those trouble-makers.

– fire
fire@firecrow.com

Great statement! I would like to add my two cents.

I agree corporate recruiting is missing the mark. I attribute this to a few factors that coincide with you. I think it first starts with the understanding of what a company is really looking for. Is it just what they had or are they really looking to find a talented person that will move the position forward? Are they more concerned with a timeframe of filling the position or are they really concerned about finding what they seek? Then that raises the question do they know what they are seeking? Who takes the time to decide this?

I think the first mistake made in recruiting in many cases today is that people put too much emphasis on a resume! Now many may be shocked at this but the reality is that most people I come in contact with are not good at writing a resume.

So you say get help, that is the second problem many helping those as so called experts do not really understand it either. A resume in my opinion is to describe to you what I bring to the new position not where I have been and just what I have done. Many have been in positions that do not invoke their true passions or natural gifts. Therefore we as recruiters have to become more aware of reading between the lines. Not a mind reader but a true talent finder!

I suggest we begin a paradigm shift and start looking at the person behind the paper resume. Install systems in the recruiting process and procedures to find the person not the resume! This cannot happen just behind a desk or computer! It is going to take a new approach and a restructuring of the OLD way of thinking!

I am going to go out on a limb here and make a big statement to those who might think it is an employer market; “Throw away your old ways of recruiting and find talent that may not yet be looking for you!”

Remember people have their own unique genius and true recruiting is being able to see that genius even if they do not tell you about it or use the right words to score on your behavioral based questionnaire!

Tim Bianchi

Trilogy Solutions

I would agree that anyone with a phone can call a reporter – I think the biggest difference between those scenarios and social media is that people don’t call reporters for fun and entertainment (at least not very many!). The vast majority of folks using social media are people first looking to connect to other people. It just so happens that they are using the same channels that organizations are starting to use to drive the business engines. I just don’t want the business interests to kill the DIY ethos that makes this new place so much fun. By arguing about social media expertise, the common person is exposed to an “inside baseball” argument that may dissuade them from engaging. That would be sad. That discussion about social media expertise may need to happen, I’m just not sure how and where it should happen.

Side note – I checked out your post on Google Sidewiki (http://hightalk.net/2009/09/30/8-reasons-google-sidewiki-will-keep-marketers-up-at-night/) and I am also a little surprised at the lack of non-blogosphere press. I do think that some of the concerns about negative sidewiki comments will be a mitigated to some degree because all of a person’s sidewiki comments will be aggregated on their Google profile for all to see. Some judicious sidewiki replies with links back to said profile will expose obvious trolls. That’s my game plan anyway.

Thanks again – Ben

Can’t the same be said for PR experts? Anyone with a phone can call and pitch a reporter a story. Can’t the same be said for advertising experts? Anyone with a pen and a pencil can create an ad. How about being an author? Anyone with a typewriter can write a book.

The list can go on and on. The question is: can you do it well? Have you done it before and does your work get results?

I will almost always recommend someone get started and engaged in the conversation before seeking a “coach” — they may be a natch at recongizing how similar the online and offline spaces are, and they may (and if done right, will) find plenty of “mentors” in the conversation space that already exists.

One angle I didn’t cover in my post was the difference between individuals and organizations who might be listening to the Meta Social Media conversation. I think the caution against Social Media Charlatans makes more sense to an organization but that conversation is happening in the social media world. This world is hodge podge of companies, individuals, Cliques, Cabals, and Insurgencies. When the non-expert experts warn against falling for snake oil, the folks trying to come to the table with a beginners mind get the message that this stuff is so hard I might not even want to try.

In the end I really want to save and foster the DIY ethos that is at the base of this community.

I do believe there are some who think they are experts in every sense (which is different than having “some expertise”).

I would suspect that even Tiger Woods doesn’t consider himself an “expert” on golf. Good extension of the conversation – it’s by such that we learn from each other.

I really am enjoying this meme and your post is a great contribution. I haven’t been able to go there yet – write about it. It’s so personal…and that’s says a lot, b/c I have actually have a very personal blog. Great job, Ben.