Why Less Confidence Could Make You More Successful

Confidence is supposed to be key to just about anything. Over confidence is not good, but less confidence is good in many ways. Why?
Professor of Business Psychology at University College London, his research findings argue that a less confident person will be more successful than someone who is overconfident. His reasons are below.
1. Self Criticism
People with Low confidence are more likely to take constructive to heart and being very aware of their flaws, fix them.
2. Motivation
Low self-confidence will make you work that much harder, because you think you have a long way to go before you get there.
3. Modesty
Less-confident people are more likely to admit their mistakes and less likely to take credit for others' accomplishments.
In general take Constructive criticism seriously and recognize the Contributions of Others.

Constructive criticism seriously: Criticism: “You’re driving me crazy.” Constructive criticism: “You’re driving me crazy because you refuse to label the files you keep dropping on my desk.” Know the difference so you don’t take unconstructive criticism too much to heart, and then take what feedback you can from the constructive kind. Your co-workers will appreciate that you’re not only listening, but doing your best to improve.
If you want it–whether “it” is a promotion, new project or desk near the window–accept from the outset that you’ll have to work hard.
 
What You Can Do: Break your goal into smaller steps. For instance, manageable steps in “get a promotion” could be something like:
1. Write down all the contributions I’ve made to my employer
2. Research positions and salaries in similar organizations
3. Draw up a list of points to make with my request
4. Schedule a meeting
5. Get a great night’s sleep the evening before!

Recognize the Contributions of Others: Even if you’re not actively taking credit for someone else’s work, everyone always appreciates being recognized for his or her achievements. If anything, giving credit where it’s due will make you look good … as a team player.
 
What You Can Do: When you recognize the great job someone has done, compliment her. When someone else deserves the credit on a project, give it to them. Being gracious takes effort, but the more you do it, the easier it gets.
 
Original article at learnvest.com

Recruiter - Develop a friendship with a hiring manager


As a Recruitment professional we should develop a friendship with a hiring manager. Let me show you how easy it could be:
Every year since 1990 Frank has received a card and a calendar from the Realtor who sold him our home. EVERY year I hear from Frank, “This is the reason I remember Jo-Ann (Jo-Ann Dube from J And J Homes). IF we sell, we’ll call her. Other Realtors come and go but not Jo-Ann. She is still in the game and she remembers me every year.”

As a born and raised hard charging sales person myself, I am surprised Jo-Ann can develop such loyalty from Frank with such a small sentiment. On the other hand, in my role as a Recruiting Professional I am relieved that with such a small sentiment, I too can develop such a strong relationship.
Recruiting Professionals that hate to sell, you and Frank (who is like many hiring managers) will get along just fine without the “smarmy” sales person. If you follow Frank’s “hates to be sold to” guiding principles, you should find it even easier to pick up that phone.
Frank’s “hate to be sold to” Guiding Principles:
1.        Be genuine and sincere.
2.        Supply solutions to his specific needs.
3.        Help him to buy. Don’t try to “win” at the game of selling.
4.        Know your products and/or services well enough to answer questions accurately.
5.        Give him time to make up his mind.

Just like every hiring manager out there, Frank has no special training when it comes to buying staffing / recruiting services. When faced with a “trained” Account Executive trying to push a service, it doesn’t go well with him. As with him, hiring managers may try to avoid the “classic” sales person, but will often work well with a person who has the actual hands on experience.
In the Recruiting Industry that person would be YOU, the Recruiter!
If you ever had a thought about picking up the phone to develop a new client, you really should do it. I can ensure that if you follow “Frank’s Guiding Principles” you will quickly find hiring managers that would hire from you for the rest of their careers.

IT jobs: Stay technical or management?


People working in IT jobs graduate from technical school to become software developer, web developer, help desk engineer or even IT media guru. Some people will stay as technical and some move on into management to earn more money. You need to take extra course to move into management like PMP, MBA etc. and more important they should be good talker. They are cons and pro when u moves into management from technical.
Cons :
  • Need to learn something new and go back to school. They should spend time and money to learn management.
  • Technical skill will slowly decline.
  • Not everyone be successful when they move from technical to management. As I mentioned before, if you are good talker then there are chances you will be successful to manage people.
Pros : Suitable for the people who will be,
  • Mature, responsible, and eager to lead others.
  • Excited to talk to client and get new projects and manage the project.
  • Extremely confident to get successes.
  • Willing to travel a lot.
  • Willing to do whatever it takes to make more money.
 Think wisely, consider your family and take decisions.

Website to convert salary hr/annual

3 Questions that reveal everything about a candidate - Best interview trick


Interviewing job candidates is tough, especially because some candidates are a lot better at interviewing than they are at working.

To get the core info you need about the candidates you interview, here's a simple but incredibly effective interview technique. Here's how it works. Just start from the beginning of the candidate's work history and work your way through each subsequent job. Move quickly, and don't ask for detail. And don't ask follow-up questions, at least not yet.

Go through each job and ask the same three questions:

1. How did you find out about the job?

2. What did you like about the job before you started?

3. Why did you leave?

"What's amazing," Younger says, "is that after a few minutes, you will always have learned something about the candidate--whether positive or negative--that you would never have learned otherwise."

Here's why:

How did you find out about the job?

Job boards, general postings, online listings, job fairs--most people find their first few jobs that way, so that's certainly not a red flag.

But a candidate who continues to find each successive job from general postings probably hasn't figured out what he or she wants to do--and where he or she would like to do it.

He or she is just looking for a job; often, any job.

And that probably means he or she isn't particularly eager to work for you. He or she just wants a job. Yours will do--until something else comes along.

"Plus, by the time you get to Job Three, Four, or Five in your career, and you haven't been pulled into a job by someone you previously worked for, that's a red flag," Younger says. "That shows you didn't build relationships, develop trust, and show a level of competence that made someone go out of their way to bring you into their organization."

On the flip side, being pulled in is like a great reference--without the letter.

What did you like about the job before you started?

In time, interviewees should describe the reason they took a particular job for more specific reasons than "great opportunity," "chance to learn about the industry," or "next step in my career."

Great employees don't work hard because of lofty titles or huge salaries. They work hard because they appreciate their work environment and enjoy what they do. (Titles and salary are just icing on the fulfillment cake.)

That means they know the kind of environment they will thrive in, and they know the type of work that motivates and challenges them--and not only can they describe it, they actively seek it.

Why did you leave?

Sometimes people leave for a better opportunity. Sometimes they leave for more money.

Often, though, they leave because an employer is too demanding. Or the employee doesn't get along with his or her boss. Or the employee doesn't get along with co-workers.

When that is the case, don't be judgmental. Resist the temptation to ask for detail. Hang on to follow-ups. Stick to the rhythm of the three questions. That makes it natural for candidates to be more open and candid.

In the process, many candidates will describe issues with management or disagreements with other employees or with taking responsibility--issues they otherwise would not have shared.

Then follow up on patterns that concern you.

"It's a quick way to get to get to the heart of a candidate's sense of teamwork and responsibility," Younger says. "Some people never take ownership and always see problems as someone else's problem. And some candidates have consistently had problems with their bosses--which means they'll also have issues with you."

And a bonus question:

How many people have you hired, and where did you find them?

Say you're interviewing candidates for a leadership position. Want to know how their direct reports feel about them?

Don't look only for candidates who were brought into an organization by someone else; look for candidates who brought employees into their organization.

"Great employees go out of their way to work with great leaders," Younger says. "If you're tough but fair, and you treat people well, they will go out of their way to work with you. The fact that employees changed jobs just so they could work for you speaks volumes to your leadership and people skills."

The 31 flavors of recruiting - you're one of these


I am posting this to help non recruiters appreciate and understand the different forms of recruiting and their individual strengths and weaknesses. Also, for recruiters who have had a singular track, perhaps they could consider switching it up if they feel their strengths are better utilized in a different version of what they are already doing. I've been all of these and still learning. :)

The Junior Agency Recruiter

The Senior Agency Recruiter

*The "real" Headhunter

The Corporate Recruiter

The Executive Search Headhunter

Specialized Recruiter (IT, Finance, Accounting, etc.)

Contract Recruiters -Recruiter, Headhunter or Staffing Specialist. A recruiter’s primary objective is to meet the needs of his customer and introduce qualified candidates to close open positions. His/her customer can be a Manager, Director, Executive, Owner or other decision maker of a company with a job opening. The bottom line is to find the perfect candidate who has the appropriate skills, years of experience, education, and personality traits that are needed to get the job done and fit into the corporate culture.

There is a world of difference between your average recruiter and headhunter, the agency side of the business and the corporate side. Let’s be honest we all have our strengths and weaknesses no matter what we do. Let's clarify any misconceptions about what "recruiters" actually are and what we do.

Agency Recruiters - can also be called "Headhunters" if they actually go out and proactively hunt for talent rather then passively screen job applicants from postings. If what you do is troll job boards and/or wait for responses to postings, then you're at the start of a career that should evolve eventually out of that very rudimentary version of recruiting.

Now a days the two terms (recruiter and headhunter) are interchangeable but it's really not in my book (we'll get to that later). The strengths of a good agency or staffing firm recruiter is that they are quick/responsive, have access to specialized technology (ATS), resources, networks of contacts, and are prompt with follow up. The reason the client comes to us is that we specialize in identifying, qualifying, screening, and submitting highly qualified candidates for their needs in a relatively short period of time. We add value when we save time and energy for the client while submitting someone they didn't know existed that excites them. A good agency recruiter is highly service oriented and make the client feel as if he is the center of the recruiter’s universe. Eventually, a really great recruiter should build up a knowledge base and resources in a niche to not need the job boards. If you're not niche than you're always starting from zero.

Junior Agency Recruiters -Most agencies (especially the big ones), like to hire people with like 1-2 years of sales experience or straight out of college. They do this because what you learn in a sales environment is similar to how you need to perform in recruiting. Also, if you have too much experience, it becomes challenging to unteach you bad habits and retrain you into the way that they want you to perform (the recruiting agency). A college degree and 2 years of experience is ideal. Also, they don't have to pay you very much. The down side: Exactly what you get, a junior 2 year out of college grad who really doesn't know anything about the business world yet or the positions he's recruiting for. No wonder so many candidates get turned off by recruiters. Imagine the disparity in the quality of the conversation if on one end of the conversation is someone just fresh out of college and on the other end is an Oracle 10g RAC DBA or a Director of Finance and Accounting.

***My opinion --- THIS is where a lot of bad recruiters are today. The real problem is in training. It's not the college grad's fault that he/she just got out of school. As a matter of fact they are eager to learn and jump in the work force head on. A lot of companies do a very poor job in training their people which is a huge disservice to their clients, to the candidates, and ultimately to these poor recruiters who pick up really bad habits they have a hard time shaking later in their careers. The most important thing I find other then discipline and persistence is that recruiters need to truly appreciate and understand their role as a 'service provider'. Being "service oriented" has become a lost calling.

Headhunter - The term "Headhunter" is used to describe the most aggressive, specialized form of recruiter. This, to me, is playing at the highest levels of our field. It breaks all the rules yet preserves the essence by truly distilling all the knowledge of a good process and relationship building into something new and intangible. This is a high level of performance that requires resourcefulness and tact as well as pursuasiveness and an understanding of the niche industry one is recruiting in. To me, being called a "headhunter" is a privilege you have to earn.

At this level, the recruiter becomes a "headhunter" by going beyond merely the processes and transcending training. A true headhunter is imaginative and resourceful in locating top talent and introducing them to a fitting job opening. They thoughtfully engage in meaningful business conversations and about realities in life that play significantly into decisions about job opportunities. Sometimes headhunters get a bad rap because they are seen as evil deceitful sleezy types who bypass the receptionist at all costs even resorting to lies and suave to get to a candidate or hiring manager at a highly guarded company. The headhunter might pull away top talent which makes this company resent them for doing so. What people fail to realize is that there is another side to this coin. If that employee was treated fairly in the first place and paid what he deserved, he wouldn't have had a reason to leave. Obviously, the recruiter was working for a company that could offer something that the former employee wanted and felt he deserved but was not given. It's a win for the recruiter's client and hopefully a lesson for the company that lost that prized employee and obviously a win for the employee who found something better. This recruiter has had great training, practices best in class procedures and knows them but is beyond them.

As mentioned before, companies can either loathe or highly value "Headhunters" because what they do is a tremendously valuable service and extremely hard diligent work. They have to ferret out top talent, identify them, engage them in conversation and introduce a top performer from one organization and put him into another one which values and needs his skills. Does that sound easy to you? Maybe you should try it and find out for yourself. :P

A headhunter is a master of networking and cold calling with exceptional interpersonal skills and expert interpreter of body language, and other nuances of communication. He is a serious negotiator and truly a solutions provider. Asside from that he is methodical, organized, MUST manage his time well, and be very tenacious and have thick skin.

Corporate Recruiter - The strengths are in HR process, documentation and balancing a broad range of needs. The corporate recruiter has a specialized group/corporate culture that he supports. Over time he gets to really understand the nooks and crannies of his company culture. He also has to balance reporting, process enforcement, and mostly administrative tasks which slow recruitment but uphold a more controlled environment and process. The corporate recruiter sometimes uses agencies / staffing firms (mentioned above) to supplement his own efforts when the need arises. This is a different kind of role although the end goal is the same. Corporate recruiters of course need to ultimately make hires and close open positions.

Contract Recruiter - The contract recruiter is a temporary solution to execute often a sudden high level of demand. It's a great solution for companies often times because they want someone in-house to not only make hires but manage the process (much the same as the corporate recruiter), except that they usually only need his/her services for a limited duration. Also, a contract recruiter should be able to execute at a much higher level since his/her bread and butter is made in short spurts. I often like contract recruiters to sprinters where as corporate recruiters are marathon runners.

Technical or Specialized Recruiters - The niche recruiter is focused on a specific area of a profession. He might be an IT recruiter or perhaps a specialist within IT for dot.net developers or java developers or maybe BI technology. He might be a specialist within an industry vertical such as the internet or game space. Why someone decides to specialize is similar to any other field. Take Doctors, Lawyers, novelists, etc. Why does Stephen King write horror / thriller type books? Because he wants to. Why do some Doctors only want to do ankle and knee surgeries? The benefit of specializing is branding yourself as an expert in that field. Over time you will become exceedingly expert in that specific field. Think about it. If you had a heart attack would you want someone who has only done heart surgeries for the past 15 years or a generalist who has done 2 heart surgeries, 10 arm surgeries, 7 leg surgeries, and other stuff for the past 15 years? Enough said.

Executive Search Recruiters - These recruiters specialize in finding leadership members such as VP or C level executives such as CEO of corporations. Often they are retained (which means they get paid a fee up front for a dedicated effort and often at the back end as well when an actual hire is finally made). Since the time and energy put into searching individuals at this level is very specialized and demanding the fees make sense. These recruiters specialize in high level searches and often are former executives themselves with established networks.

Look, recruiters are just people who serve needs. It's a service. It's a job. It's very intensive, time consuming, and laborous (often working around the clock late into the midnight hours and early mornings to catch people on the East Coast). It's a thankless job at times since really everyone just wants results but hey....someone has to do it.