When the competition speaks badly of you

What do you do when someone from another company spreads malicious rumours or tells outright lies about you to your clients?

Unfortunately it is a position that most of us have been in. The first thing to look at is why this is happening. Usually it means that your competitor is threatened by you, and therefore seeks to devalue you in order to get an advantage with your clients.

Some companies and individuals do this routinely, and will seize any opportunity to drop a negative remark about a competitor. "Oh, you're using Company X? I didn't realise they were still going after their managers left..."

Sometimes an individual will have a particular grievance against you or your company. Perhaps you outperformed them, perhaps you fell out, perhaps you fired them. Whatever the reason, sometimes it is personal.

It's horrible to find yourself on the receiving end of such behaviour. It can be hurtful, embarrassing, and it can have a very real impact on your business.

So what do you do when you become aware that a competitor has been saying bad things about you?

Look to the positives

They view you as important, because they are talking about you. This often means that you are currently being successful in what you do, and that you are relevant to them. If clients already thought badly of you then there would be no need for your competitor to bring you down.

It is likely that you found out about this because at least one of your clients confided in you. That means they respect you and trust you enough to tell you what is being said.

Your clients are not stupid. Lies can be insidious and cleverly delivered, but it is usually patently apparent to all when someone is trying to run down the competition. Think about it. If you were buying a car, and the sales person dropped a few clangers about another showroom, would you not know exactly what they were trying to do?

Some lies can be proved to be false. Things such as "John says your company will never work at that margin" or "John says your company is closing" are both things that will make John look pretty silly when you demonstrate that's not the case. John has now done you the double favour of helping your relationship with that client deepen (as you both have a chuckle about the situation) and made the client not trust the next thing that he says.

Get the facts

What is your competitor saying? Is there any truth to it? There is a difference between an opinion and defamation. If the lie is such that it damages your reputation and your credibility then you may well have legal recourse.

Make sure you have all the facts at hand in case you decide to follow this path. Document all information, keep written evidence or phone records, and make dated notes of any correspondence about the issue. You may decide not to bother pursuing legal action now, but that may change later - so act as if you will and keep the evidence at hand for when you decide to take action.

Make sure that you know exactly what has been said. It may not be enough if you have "John said you were a bit shady", but your case would definitely improve if you have "John said that you stole XYZ from Company X".

Decide what to do

If you have only just been made aware of a problem then you may shrug it off. However, if clients are repeatedly telling you of what your competitor is saying, or if the problem is such that it is harmful from the outset, you may need to take legal recourse to stop it.

Consult with a lawyer for further advice about your case if you decide to proceed.

You may, however, decide that - while distasteful - your competitor's gibes are unlikely to harm you or your business and, instead, may be working to discredit them in the industry. That being the case, you may decide that legal action is unnecessary. It may still be worth discussing with a lawyer, to ensure there is nothing you have overlooked.

Dealing with the issue without a lawyer

So, someone tells you that a competitor has said something bad about you or your business. How do you react? If you have never encountered this situation then take a moment to think, as when it happens you are likely to feel shocked, upset, flustered, and defensive.

Take a deep breath. The best recourse you have is to address the issue head on, in a calm and professional manner. It's okay to let the client (or person in question) see that you are shocked and upset. This is a very normal response, and one which helps show your client that the allegations are false.

Ask for clarification. Ask exactly what was said, by whom, when, and in what context. Write it down. If you have a good relationship with the client, and you feel it appropriate, ask them to put that in an email or letter to you. You will keep all records of such things in case you need them in the future.

Address the point at hand. If the rumour is that the company is going under/ no longer operational then, assuming that is false, say that it is untrue. If you suspect why your competitor is saying such a thing (e.g., you made someone - possibly even them - redundant) then explain this to your client, but reiterate that it is not true.

If the claim is outlandish, and bears no relation to truth, then tell your client so. Explain that you have no idea why your competitor would have said that, but there is no foundation for it.

If the client wants to talk about it then be open and honest. To say 'no comment' can look suspicious. However, do not stoop to your competitor's level in engaging in a war of words. Never say anything negative about your competitors, nor infer anything negative. Things like "John only says I stole something because he's been thieving from the company for months" or "Well, I guess business can't be good for him, so he has to come out with this stuff" won't win you any favours.

Don't give your detractors the time of day. Don't talk about them, and don't be seen to be giving them any value at all. They are, quite simply, not worth your time or energy.

The most important thing now is to build on the relationship you have with your client (and others). If one has heard something then others probably have too. Make sure you are talking to them often and that your relationships are good. People are much less likely to believe false accusations about people they know than those they don't.

And keep doing the good job that you must already be doing for everyone to be talking about you!

It's not that hard

I'm not sure when recruiters began to feel as if we had to be perfect. It's a problem endemic to most sales roles, and can leave us feeling as if we have to always say the right thing, and always promise the earth to our clients and our candidates.

That's great when we deliver on those promises, but most of the time we simply can't or don't, and that leaves everyone feeling a bit sour about the whole experience.

There are lots of things that we can do to make others like us and want to do business with us. However, a lot of it boils down to just one thing.

Do what you say you will.

That's it. That's all most people want. Most people want to feel that they can rely on you to deliver what you say you will, and to be honest and transparent in your communication. That may sound like 2 separate points, but it's all wrapped up in the same thing.

If you have promised your client that you will deliver something and then - for whatever reason - you can't, you need to make sure you are continuing to tell them what you will (or now won't) be doing.

Sure, they may not be happy with you, but they will be a lot less happier with you if you fail to deliver and then sidle out of the back door without so much as an explanation.

Unfortunately, this scenario is one we see time and time again in recruitment. Our candidates tell us that their biggest bugbear with recruiters is that we get their hopes up and then we just disappear. We don't return their calls, we don't tell them what happened, and we effectively just sidle out of the door. (And please note here that by 'we' I mean a generic 'we' - the recruitment industry at large - rather than this being my confessional of poor practice.)

We don't do what we have said. If you say you will ring someone at 5pm, then ring them at 5pm. It doesn't matter if you thought you would have news for them and don't, or if someone more interesting and more placeable comes up. If you said you would do it then do it.

If you tell your client that you will find them someone and then discover that you can't, tell them so. Call them up, or meet up in person, and say that you have undertaken the work but not been successful. Don't leave them wondering what happened to you, or why they spent so long giving you all that information for you to just disappear.

Yes, it's a horrible conversation to have, but it's vital. Your client will hold you in higher regard for fronting up and confessing that you can't help them, than they will if you go AWOL and then contact them a month or so later, hoping they've forgotten (they haven't).

It's a simple principle, and it's one most of us apply without needing to think about in our personal lives. Most of us don't arrange to meet a friend and then not turn up, or tell a partner we will pick up the milk and then hide from them for a few days rather than tell them we forgot. Sometimes we cannot do what we said we would do, and if that happens then we need to communicate that to those who are waiting to hear what we've done.

The best option is to avoid raising people's expectations too high in the first place. Don't tell your client that you will have a candidate for them by the end of the hour/ day/ week. Tell them that you will endeavour to have someone for them, that you will be working on their role, that you will prioritise their work - and that you will talk to them again later today/ tomorrow/ by Friday to review where you are up to.

Don't tell your candidate that you will have something for them. Tell them that you will come back to them at a certain point to talk about where you are up to.

And then diarise those calls and make them.

Doing what you say you will do doesn't mean achieving everything that is expected of you. It means managing those expectations to make them something that you are more likely to be able to deliver.

It's not about being perfect. It's about being realistic, open, and honest. People have respect for those things, and can tolerate mistakes or failures to deliver (which, let's face it, are things we all experience sometimes) if they know that  you are doing the things you said you would.

Well, you know what I mean

At this time of year we get to hear a lot of messages, such as the Christmas message, the Chairman’s message, seemingly endless messages from politicians, and so on, and that led us to wonder about messages and what they actually mean.  And whether what they mean, when they start their life with the speaker, actually is the same as when they have penetrated the ears of the listener.  So often that does not seem to be the case and, if we are right, that means an awful lot of miscommunication is going on with, in many cases, some quite important information.

Part of this subject has already been covered in our blog ‘Communication – or is it?’.  In that article we looked at some of the physical steps you can take to facilitate communication, and here we will try to look at some of the psychological aspects arising, and see if there are techniques to help eliminate any distortions or misconceptions arising.

Consider, for example, the Chairman’s message.  Generally delivered annually, this is a personal statement from the very top of the Company stating the vision for the Company and its future over, say, the next 12 months.  It will be grand (sometimes grandiose) in its sweep, it can be defensive (“we want to maximise our share price to fight off a take-over bid”), or positive (“we want to secure 50% of the world’s share of X by this time next year”) but it will (or should be) aspirational and designed to motivate the troops into battle.

Unfortunately, it is so often the case that the message is given by someone who, financially and by experience, has nothing whatsoever in common with the more junior employees of the company, and so there is no way in which they can share in the dream of the Chairman.  These are examples of two different worlds that will never collide.

Nonetheless, the Chairman’s message is vital – the Company must have a purpose to aim at – and so a mechanism has to be found to translate the Chairman’s dream into one which all workers can share.

When creating this mechanism, which will be slightly different for every person because the mechanism needs to adjust for the quirks of every person involved in it, a useful starting point is to assume that people, generally, will find a way to distort the message you are trying to convey.  Not on purpose, necessarily, but because the brain likes to take shortcuts to help it to manipulate and sort data.  Those shortcuts may well not be the same ones that your brain took when you formulated the message, and so the result of the data sorting that takes place might lead to different information retrieval in the brain of the recipient. 

In addition, you cannot assume that your words of wisdom are so riveting as to prevent a listener’s attention from wandering, or being distracted by personal issues, or their immediate environment, or a flippant comment from the person next to them, or a thousand other matters that could take their attention away from you.

Anyway, even supposing that your employee does listen with 100% attention to the message.  What is he or she, personally, going to do to hold up the company’s share price, or attain a 50% stake in X for the company?  The Chairman’s goal simply has no personal relevance to that employee, nor is it within their ability to achieve.

So the way to deal with this is to disseminate the Chairman’s message through descending tiers of the organisation, with each tier hearing the message but also receiving a further ‘message’, aimed just at them, with their group’s goal for the 12-month (or whatever) period – something that is achievable, that can be seen to contribute toward the company goal, and that they can rally behind.

Now, the ‘macro’ problem of the message has become a ‘micro’ problem, in the sense that you are dealing with a much smaller number of people and the members of the group are much more closely aligned with each other – they are likely to work in the same area as each other, have similar or complementary skill sets, etc.  The leader of the group may well be the senior member of the team and if so he or she has to carry a personnel function as well as their day-to-day function.  This will require specific training if the job is to be done properly.  Such a person will need to be able to identify the various personality types present within the group (e.g., a Myers-Briggs Type assessment) and use the resulting data to create productive teams whilst minimising destructive or destabilising influences.  They will also be able to ‘sense the wind’ and identify, and deal with, nascent problems before they develop.

But by careful talking to people on a one-to one basis you can sometimes become aware of cases where a person is preoccupied with internal issues to the extent that they cannot hear an outside voice clearly, or they seem to be reacting inappropriately to a message, which may indicate that they have some emotional problem that is nothing to do with work but which is having a big effect on them.  And then there is the person with their own personal agenda, who can’t or won’t hear anything that doesn’t give them some personal advantage.  Or, even worse, it appears to give some advantage to someone else.  Such a person will not only not hear the message, but may try to sabotage it – they need to be handled carefully, and very firmly.

Some practical steps that can be taken are as follows:

• Whilst giving the message, try to do this in short bursts if possible.  Human attention span tends to be quite short, often only 5 or 10 minutes during speeches, and if you can inject a question or two every so often, or even a joke, this switches brains back on again (well, for a bit, anyway).

• Keep your sentences short.  Longer ones are subject to misinterpretation, especially the longer they are (mis)remembered.  Try asking a group of people to say the sentence “I’m not saying he didn’t hit my cat” a number of times, but stressing a different word in the sentence each time. See what we mean?!

• Always use the language that is appropriate to the group.  Use jargon to the extent that it relates to the job, and try to speak on the same level as your audience.  Simpler is always better, and don’t forget those for whom English is not their main language.

• Once you have given the message to the group, go round the individual members of the group, check that they have understood what you have said, what is expected of them as an individual, and ask if they have any questions or comments arising.  If so, you must deal with these as soon as possible.

• You have to keep reinforcing/checking the message with the group members.  Why?  Because the human brain is always trying to complete its current store of information on the basis of the data it has to date, i,e,  incomplete data.  So there is an innate tendency to half-listen to what is said, and then act as if we had all the information.  We do this, of necessity, when driving, and sometimes we have to in the workplace – which is why you need to ensure that all members are regularly brought back on track.

• Be careful to appear neutral or pleasant when you go to see the group members.  If you don’t, one or more of them will assume that you’re in a bad mood, probably with them, and their ’threat mode’ will be invoked.  You then have a high psychological hill to climb before you can communicate effectively with them.

Finally, it might be a good idea to check that you fully understand what you’re trying to convey.  This will make it much easier for you to get the message across!

Skye Recruitment at APPEA

Skye Recruitment has had its inaugural exhibited at the APPEA conference.  APPEA showcases the best of the Oil & Gas industry and Skye is proud to have contributed to this great event.

Of particular success were our glowing YoYos which saw a large number of people reliving their youth with demonstrations of "Walking the Dog", "Round the World" and "Cradle the Baby".  A particular acknowledgement needs to go to QGC and Origin who fielded the best YoYo Champions of the event.

Recruiters: Why your database matters

Simply put, your database and how you use it will have a direct impact on how much you bill.

A good database will allow you to do your job fast, seamlessly, and with maximum efficiency - eliminating all possible administrative work.

Conversely, an average (or bad) database will hold you back, and will cause your day to be filled up with chunks of admin that stop you from doing your real job - consulting.

A good database that is used badly (by you or your colleagues) will have a similar end effect to that of an average one.

An average database used well is, sadly, still going to hold you back.

Before you dismiss me as a dotcom child of technology, a recruiting newbie, who cannot grasp how 'real' recruiters did their job before fancy computers came about, let me tell you that I started recruiting in the days of Dos systems, and the first company I worked for used filing cards and drawers of paper CVs. "You're interested in my candidate? Great! I'll fax their CV right over!" Or "I posted you a CV the other day - have you received it?" Now I feel old.

Were things better in those days? No! We used to attach sheets of 'skill words' to each CV (and when I say 'attach', I am talking about by means of a stapler), and then highlight (with a pen) which words were relevant to each candidate.

Finding a qualified candidate was a slow process. Of course we made placements, and we were profitable, but how many more placements could we have made if we spent less time stapling and colouring in words, and more time talking to our clients and candidates?

Not all databases are equal

Most commercial recruitment software is pretty awful. A lot of it seems to be based around sales or client relationship management systems, and not around recruitment at all. Great if you just want to keep track of everyone's name and address. Not so great if you want to be able to perform sophisticated searches, and link your different processes together.

Unless you are the boss, then chances are you have no say in what database your company uses. I have worked with great databases (all bespoke), and diabolical ones - some of which have made me contemplate leaving an otherwise promising company.

If you are not the decision maker, at least know what you should be getting. A good piece of recruitment software should be fast, straightforward to use, and should allow you to do your job with ease. As a minimum I would want it to be able to do the following:

1. Perform searches. If I want a Mining Engineer, or a Designer who has used AutoCAD, then I should be able to use the database to bring up a list of these people. I want to be able to search on words used within the text of their CVs, and ALSO on words that I have marked as part of their skillset. If I want to be able to find someone with AutoCAD experience and a degree, who lives within 40km of Brisbane, then I should be able to do so. Then I want to be able to search on which companies use AutoCAD (for example) and are within a 40kmn radius of Brisbane. Now I want to know who the last 50 candidates were that I spoke to who work as Civil Engineers in Brisbane. And so forth.

2. Tag people. I want to tag a number of client contacts, and send them all an email in one go (which will automatically be personalised to them). Same for candidates. Then it needs to automatically record a note of that email on each person. If I have to copy and paste then I'm wasting time.

3. Switch between screens. I'm looking at my list of candidates and a client calls. I need to switch without losing my candidate info. Now I'm looking at my list of candidates that all have AutoCAD experience, and a different candidate calls. I need to access their record without losing my list of AutoCAD people.

4. Attach stuff. I need to attach offer letters to my clients, qualifications to my candidates, signed offers to my candidate record, etc. And the database needs to tell me how to find it quickly too.

5. Link or merge records. My client is also looking for work? My candidate has been attached 33 times by my idiotic colleagues? No problem. I will merge or link their records, and not lose anything.

I would add a lot more to what I want from a database, but for the sake of brevity I'll keep it to a top 5. If your database can't do these things then keep talking to your managers about how much productivity could be enhanced by using a system that can.

Rubbish in = rubbish out

So, you've got a great system, but you're not making the most of it. Why? You're too busy and important. So, instead of using this fantastic resource to build (for yourself) an invaluable tool that your competitors may not have, you are only focusing on the next 5 minutes, during which you don't have time to use it properly. What are you doing wrong? Here are some of the main offences:

1. Your notes suck. You spend a lot of time (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt) interviewing a great candidate. So why do your notes look as if you only spoke to them for 2 seconds? You tell your clients everything about this person, but all the information is in your head, or scrawled on a notepad somewhere.

Why is this bad? You're busy - you don't have time to write War and Peace every time you talk to someone! It's bad because it makes you look unprofessional. When you go to lunch, and your client phones and asks a colleague a 'quick question' about your candidate, you look stupid when the conversation goes something like this: "Ah, I should be able to find that for you. Let me just bring up the notes. Ah." (long pause) "Yes. I can't see that. I'll have to get Tim to call you back. Sorry about that." 

It's also bad when you go on holiday, and your colleagues have to re-interview your candidate, as they don't know what you did or didn't ask. The same applies to your clients. If you don't put full notes on them then your colleagues won't know what was discussed, you won't remember a few years down the line, and you will have no recourse if there is a discrepancy between what you thought was said and what they think was said.

2. You don't attach stuff. I'm not talking about CVs or qualifications, as I hope your company has a system in place for that. I'm talking about the extra stuff that gets sent to you when dealing with a candidate. The offer letter, the passport photo, the signed acceptance, the contract, etc. If you don't attach it then no one can find it. Attach it now and it's there for the future. And, since most of this goes with an offer, you don't want to lose this stuff.

3. You don't follow your company's protocols. Most of them are there to make life easier (although I know it doesn't always seem that way). Whether it's ticking a box to say that a candidate was placed by your company, or noting whether they will relocate, whatever the process is - learn it and do it. Do it every time and it will become fast and automatic. It will save you from annoying colleagues and managers, and will usually save you from an embarrassing phone call where, for instance, a co-worker tries to tap up a candidate that you have just placed.

4. You don't put skill words on a candidate or company. Most databases have a system where you can do this, so that you know a particular person has a skill, or likes candidates with that skill. The more info you put on each contact, the better your database is for searching. What's the point in a database boasting hundreds of thousands of candidates, if they're all blank and can't be found in a search? Sure, you might be able to search on their CVs, but that's not as accurate as when you've put info on them for yourself. They might have listed a reference who is, for example, a Project Manager - which would make your searching irritating and ineffective, if you were to continually bring up people who weren't Project Managers just because they had that phrase on their CV. (And, let me guess, you would then blame the database for having a useless search facility?)

5. You don't update contact details. So you had someone great, but you can never contact them again, as you failed to put in all their contact details or update them when they changed? Great move.

To sum up...

Push for the best database you can get. And, when you get it, do yourself (and everyone else) a favour and put as much info on it as you can. It may take a couple of minutes more at the time, but it will mean extra placements for you in the long run. 

Quick to Succeed Syndrome, and why it can be a problem

Quick to Succeed Syndrome (let's call it QSS) doesn't sound like such a bad thing. In fact, it's what most recruitment leaders (myself included) regularly say that they want. "If I could just get in some grads, train them up, and have them hit the ground running straight away..." And, of course, many do.

So why would it be a problem if your new hires are really good at their jobs straight away? Surely that's better than them being slow to learn, and terrible at their jobs?

Well, yes. But being quick to succeed can also present its own set of challenges, which managers need to be aware of in order to offset the effects.

Smashing targets straight away can give a new recruiter a false sense of confidence. They should be rightly rewarded for doing well but, as a manager, make sure you are not letting things slip through the cracks in your excitement at how well the new person has 'got it'.

I've made this mistake before and, unfortunately, it's a mistake I've made more than once. A poor performer gets lots of attention and coaching, and you focus on all the little things they are doing (or not doing). A great performer gets left alone, as they 'know what they're doing'. But often they don't. And often it comes back to bite you (and them) when their winning streak takes a nosedive, and you're both baffled as to how that happened. A closer examination often reveals that they were making rookie mistakes that weren't picked up because no one was watching closely enough. When they actually ARE a rookie, rookie mistakes should be expected, and newbies should never be abandoned because they appear to have worked everything out themselves.

It would be nice if people put their hands up for help if they felt they were getting out of their depth, but this doesn't always happen. In particular, a new employee who is getting lots of praise and attention for doing well may feel under pressure to maintain that status, and therefore won't want to draw attention to the fact that they don't know it all by asking for help.

Other than staying quiet and not asking for help when they need it, someone with QSS may actively reject input from managers. Successful recruiters can earn a lot of money very quickly - more than is possible in most graduate careers - and they will probably also be on the receiving end of a lot of attention. A top performer very quickly becomes a star in their company. It can sometimes then be the case that the new star feels that they know it all, and that their managers or colleagues are out of touch, or less talented than themselves.

A manager who handles this poorly may feel reluctant to interfere too much with the 'winning formula' that this star has developed, and will leave them to it. Colleagues may feel reluctant to offer advice if they feel that the new person IS actually better than they are. This helps develop the myth of the 'untouchable', who may be let off doing certain things, or allowed to work in a different way from others within the company, simply because they are being successful and no one wants to tamper with that.

But then what happens when the newly formed bigshot fails to deliver? Do you THEN implement training and adherence to company practice? And is it too late? If the bigshot has got away with it for a while, then they probably won't want to start following procedure properly when they never had to before. And what of the effect on company culture? Other staff will inevitably resent the fact that the newbie doesn't have to do things that they have to do. You may find that you end up losing some of your more longstanding staff in the process.

So far the biggest effects discussed have been on the company, but what of the effect on the individual suffering from QSS?

They've gone from being a superstar who knows it all, to underperforming and lacking the knowledge or support to work out how to turn it around. Their colleagues may already be irritated with them, and their manager has been a bit AWOL. They've also gone from earning a crazy salary to earning not very much at all. It's a big ego blow, and they may feel that recruitment is not the career for them or, at least, that your company is not one that will support them.

And the frustrating part is that they can probably do the job really well! People aren't usually quick to succeed out of a random turn of luck. They usually have some great skills and natural aptitude that will make them fantastic recruiters - given the right support system, leadership, and environment.

I would also note that being quick to succeed is no bad thing. Here, I have termed the quick to succeed syndrome as the situation where management and the new consultant don't work well together to nurture a continuation of that success. A newbie who is quick to succeed and wants to learn, and a management team which supports that newbie and keeps them learning are a great combination!

So, in short, what can you do to make sure your new star doesn't develop QSS? Stay close to them, find out what they're doing, and help them develop their skills further. Make sure they adhere to the same practices that other members of staff have to, but also listen to them and take on board any ideas or advice they may have. (Maybe your old procedures are holding other staff back too, and maybe everyone should drop them?) Don't idolise them. Reward them, and praise them, but remember that they are still new. Don't forget your longer standing staff, or make them feel that you no longer care about them.

In the right environment, your new star could become an integral part of your company. Make sure you nurture talent, rather than spending all your time on more difficult employees.

Social Networking: But I thought it was my private life!!!

Social Networking has become ubiquitous. From Twitter and Facebook to Pinterest, LinkedIn, Google+ and Youtube, there is a social network to suit just about any demand or interest. Every minute of every day people are out there connecting and sharing, creating a rich world of content.

Businesses are also looking for ways to interact with social media. They are hiring social media specialists, trying to integrate the way they do business with this new and exciting frontier. They look for new ways to promote themselves, and to find new ways to communicate with their customers. The potential benefits to both companies and people are huge. But it's not all sunshine and lollipops - there are big risks there as well, to both companies and individuals.

The more spectacular failings of businesses are easy to see. If they are particularly impressive these failures may even make the pages of the traditional paper press. The individual failures, however, tend to go a little more unnoticed - and it will be these failures that I want to focus upon. These failures, while not as publicly spectacular, are potentially worse for the individual caught up in them. These failures can cost a person their job, damage their career, and can damage both their personal and professional relationships.

But how do these things happen?

Primarily, I believe, that there is a gap between what people believe is private and what really is private. Many people consider Facebook to be private, and that what they post on their Facebook page is purely for private use and will never been seen outside of that private space. But let's examine that a little bit closer. In November of 2012 Facebook released an article called “Anatomy of Facebook”, which stated that the average number of “friends” that a person had on Facebook was 190 people. So every time someone posts something on their Facebook page they are telling, on average, 190 people! If you were stood up on a stage addressing 190 people, would you be feeling like what you said was private?!?!

And reality is actually worse than this. Every comment, every picture, every status update is recorded in an easily searchable, perpetual, database. And it's a database where any of your current or future “friends” can copy that post and send it on with the barest click of a mouse! So, going back to our example of standing in front of a crowd of 190 people, I now want you to imagine that every single one of them is pointing a video camera at you and jotting down every word you are saying. Still feeling like it's private?

By why does this matter?

Would you believe I have actually been asked that question? Multiple times in fact. The people who ask this question seem to have the concept that if something was posted in a place which they thought was private then it shouldn't matter, and that other people are in the wrong if they base a judgement on that post. All I can say to that is, guess what, the world doesn't work that way! People judge people on every piece of information they have, be it their dress, their speech or the comments they post on the internet. So, just because you think it should be ignored doesn't mean it will be. If privacy existed in places just because someone wanted it to there would be an awful lot less stuff filling gossip magazines!

So what to do?

Previously we have posted about the dos and don'ts of social media - http://skyerecruitment.blogspot.com.au/2010/12/avoiding-social-media-suicide.html So first I would recommend you go back and give that a quick read. But essentially it comes down to just one simple concept. Nothing - and by that I really mean NOTHING - is private on the internet. Anything you post, tweet, pin, comment or email on the internet is there for all time to be found in the future if someone wants to dig.

So before you post, be it about what you got up to at the weekend, how rubbish your day at work was, or what you are planning to have for dinner, stop and think. Would I want this published on the front page of my local newspaper? And, if it was published, what effect could that have on me personally? What if my boss, potential future employers, colleagues or clients saw this post?

(a mental) Hup, One, Two, Three…

In our last article we focused on how to help maintain a physically healthy workforce and workplace. Now we're going to look at both from the mental point of view. In other words, how can we help to keep and develop a mentally healthy workforce?

This is a much more difficult area to deal with, partly because the signs of mental distress are more subtle than their physical counterparts, and partly because most of us are unwilling to admit that we or a close colleague are having difficulty in coping.

Incidentally, in this blog we are looking mainly at the problems that develop, or which are first observed, in the workplace. Most of us have 'baggage' of some sort that we bring to work, but in most cases we have found ways in which to absorb that baggage and deal with it in a healthy way. That sort of issue does not usually show itself in the workplace unless, of course, it is triggered by other things such as tiredness, work stress, bullying or harassment and so on. Nor shall we be looking at those people who have psychological or psychiatric conditions. These should have been identified at interview, when appropriate arrangements should have been considered to help them, if appropriate, during their employment.

So let's start with the expression 'mental fitness'. What does it mean? There are probably as many answers as there are workers, because we each have our idea of what makes us happy, or satisfied, or motivated.

Perhaps a better question is 'what does it mean to be mentally unfit?' If we see a colleague who is always snapping at people, or who seems constantly listless and unmotivated, or who takes frequent unscheduled breaks from work, we would suspect that something is wrong, and that the worker's attitude is not conducive to good working relations, or productivity, or even staff retention.

So a person who is seen as 'mentally unfit' might be so stressed by work, or co-workers, or outside factors that are unresolved, that it impacts negatively on their ability to fulfil their employer's reasonable expectations of them. These might include, for example, meeting targets, or amount of time spent working, attending training courses, flexibility in taking on different jobs, etc.

And all this can be true of a manager, even a senior one, just as much as of a junior employee.

As always, there are responsibilities on both employers and employees in trying to achieve a healthy workplace – not forgetting, of course, the increasing expectation through legislation and the courts that employers are the ones to shoulder much of the responsibility and cost of putting effective measures in place, and they are the ones with most to lose financially if things go wrong.

So here are some suggestions, starting with the workers, that may be helpful – as before, these are in no particular order:

• Your main concern must be for your own mental welfare. After all, if you are not functioning properly, how can you be sensitive to how others are coping, and how are you going to help them?

• Your holiday entitlement is given to you for a very good reason, so make sure you use it. A survey carried out by CareerOne in August 2011 revealed that some 88% of workers (across all industries) worked more than their scheduled hours during the first 6 months of the year and, with the skills gap increasing, that figure may now be higher. We all need to work outside our agreed hours from time to time, but even if you get paid for overtime, make sure you are not working to the point of overtiredness. If you're too tired, your judgement starts to become faulty, leading to poor decision-making, irascibility and lack of creative insight. And if you are involved with machinery, you can become dangerous!

• Don't be afraid to talk to someone if you feel that you're not coping. There is no shame in admitting to feeling out of your depth, or overworked, or stressed. After all, if you broke a leg at work, you wouldn't try to hide it, would you? Things that happen to us, or affect us, mentally, are no different in that they simply reflect that a part of our body needs some help to perform better.

• So you can try talking to a friend, or colleague with whom you get on, or a line manager. You may well eventually be referred to HR, where there should be staff trained to deal with this type of issue and who will have access to programmes or techniques that can help.

• Remember, if you are good at your work, the business will want to retain you, and they will be just as interested in promoting a good outcome for you as you are.

• Unless there are problems of a developing mental illness or some other chronic problem, there should be no impact, long term, as far as your job and promotion prospects are concerned. Indeed, if there were these could be regarded as discriminatory and potentially illegal.

• Make sure that you have a life outside work. There is much pressure and competition in the workplace, and this sometimes encourages people to focus too much on work matters and promotion, even to the exclusion of friends and family. This is wrong. Work should provide you with stimulation and security, along with the money you need to develop your home, your family, your interests and so on. One day you will retire from work, and the people and interests you have maintained outside of your career will be more important than ever to you.

For employers, the position is in many ways quite different. The legal and administrative burdens associated with employment are heavy, and increasing, and so often an employer can only deal with any stress or other mental issues after the problem has arisen, because they simply won't know that there is a problem until someone says something.

Fortunately, there some good and well-established things that can be done, both to help the worker who develops a problem and to help the employer in dealing sensitively and correctly when the time comes:

• Where possible, and where appropriate, staff involved in HR and those who are in charge of groups of people (project managers, team leaders, and so on) should be given some degree of training regarding how to deal with mental health issues in the workplace.

• Anyone attending training will need to attend refresher courses every one to two years. Health in the workplace is not a static issue, and new guidelines and legislation are always in the pipeline, so businesses need to be able to best protect themselves and their workers.

• Your books of instruction and guidance manuals should make all workers aware that the business treats mental health issues seriously, that it will do all it reasonably can to support workers who run into problems and should set out a 'pathway' which workers can follow to seek assistance.

Indeed, it may be worth considering including some form of statement of intent, along the lines of the Mindful Employment Charter proposed by Sane Australia. Although this is a purely voluntary arrangement, it does demonstrate that an employer is taking the subject seriously and is keen to look after its workforce.

• As part of the training requirement mentioned above, managers etc. should receive guidance on how to deal with interviews that take place regarding mental health issues. These need to be sensitive to the individual, of course, but some real skill is needed by the interviewer in trying to get an understanding of the worker's problem/s without seeming to be too intrusive or hectoring. Good communication is needed, here, to help discover the correct way forward – and to protect the business in case of any legal backlash.

• Encourage workers to take their holidays! For example, at the start of the business year, consider getting your workforce to specify first/second/third choice dates for their main holiday, and then discuss these at a meeting (this can be done by section, or department) when all the affected workers can discuss this with the group leader. The business shows that it cares enough to make the workers take their entitlement, and all the different dates can be properly synchronised so that the business operation is not unduly affected.

• Encourage line managers and supervisors to look out for the warning signs, perhaps by talking to each of the workers in an open, friendly, way and by being aware of the 'mood' of the workplace. These health issues always have a starting point, and the earlier it is identified the more successful an outcome you are likely to achieve.

• Don't forget that proper, detailed, reporting (in writing) of the whole process is essential. As far as possible this should be open reporting, so that the worker gets to see and agree copies. The report should cover, but necessarily be limited to, a statement of the problem, the subsequent discussion leading to an agreed definition of the problem, identification of any other factors which may be relevant (such as bullying, too much work, and so on) and an agreed statement of the way forward. This could include, perhaps, re-training, counselling, the seeking of medical advice, use of an Employment Assistance Program or, of course, the invoking of disciplinary procedures. Again, everything must go in writing, and the employee must receive two copies, one of which is to be signed and returned to the interviewer. It is always best to assume that matters such as this will proceed to court even though, in reality, only a minority of cases do.

According to ComCare (November 2012), the average cost to an employer of an employee taking leave due to stress is about $250,000. If (as discussed in the previous article) some 45% of the workforce will develop some form of mental illness, the potential cost to a business having, say, 1000 employees is, on current figures, $112,500,000. And that figure does not allow for inflation, and assumes that each employee has only one bout of illness! This means that there's an excellent business case for the relatively small investment in your employees' well-being

If you are the victim, of course, it's even worse. You will have to cope with the disruption to your life and work, and the measures necessary to get you back on your feet, and your family and friends will have to cope with you! This means that there's also an excellent case for the relatively small investment in your own well-being, as well.

Hup, One, Two, Three...

Question: how fit are you?

Answer: probably a lot less than you think you are – but, there are things that can be done which are fairly painless and can help you a lot.

We all know that current lifestyles encourage us to be lazy in many ways. We sit down to do our jobs, we shop online, we listen to music or watch movies, we love to go out to restaurants and bars. In fact, too many of us spend too much of our time doing just one thing – sitting.

And, some years down the line, we see our doctor about something and find out that our blood sugars are too high (diabetes), or we can't sit comfortably on ordinary chairs (too fat), or we're coming down with one of the various depression-related conditions. And that's if we're lucky. Because if we're not, we have a heart attack or stroke and our lives really go pear-shaped.

So being 'fit' is not just about the number of press-ups you can do, but is also about being mentally fit and it is only if you are both mentally and physically fit that you are able to give 100% to your work, and that is something that should concern an employer just as much as an employee.

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), about 60% of workers do not manage to attain the recommended 30 minutes per day of moderate physical exercise. In fact, in every single occupation group that was measured, more than half of the workforce failed to meet this guideline. And in the National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing, carried out in 2007, the ABS found that 45% of Australians (adults from 16 to 85 years of age) have had, or will have, some form of mental illness.

That means that, statistically speaking, 27% - about one in four – of the workforce has, or will have, both mental and physical problems at some point during their working life. Potentially that represents a huge cost (and not just in money) to employers, and perhaps the time has come when employers should be thinking about how they can help workers achieve not just work targets but also life targets. In that way, an employee stands a better chance of not only surviving employment but also being better equipped to deal with the pressures and changes that arise. They may also be able to make a much better contribution to their work, both in the form of the physical energy that better physical health will give them, and the motivation and creativity that so often comes out of a better state of mental health.

To stick with the employers for the moment, it is difficult to say with any certainty what legal responsibility employers have for their employees' health. Whilst there is a general duty of care for the health and general well-being of staff, with specific reference to safety in the workplace issues, for example, (physical health), and the anti-bullying and anti-discrimination provisions (mental health) there is as yet nothing to require an employer to take any further general steps to help employees with their health requirements.

This area will, no doubt, develop as legislation and the courts become involved, but there are very good non-legal reasons for which employers should become proactive, not least the ones mentioned above. All employers want their workers to be more productive. Indeed, many employees will want this as well, especially those working on targets and looking at bonuses. So here, in no particular order, are some suggestions as to how to improve staff satisfaction and productivity, and the company's bottom line:

Is it possible, in the case of workers who spend time at a desk, to encourage them to move around a bit more?

• For instance, introduce a 'no food on the desk' policy, so that workers have to go to another area to eat, and are unable to work through lunch.

• Depending on your type of business, you may consider removing fixed telephones from the desk, so that workers have to use mobiles, and encourage them to walk around whilst using them. (This may not be possible in offices where staff spend a lot of time on the phone, and would require computer access while talking.)

• You could have a fridge in the kitchen/staff room, to encourage people to bring in their own food rather than purchase fast food.

• You could set up a games area, so that staff can enjoy activity games such as those played on a Wii or Xbox while they are having a break.

• You could also consider offering subsidised gym memberships, and staff activity days out as incentives for targets achieved.

And here are some ideas for those in the workforce:

• After you've had your lunch or other meal, try to get away from wherever you're working and walk for 5 or 10 minutes. This will raise your metabolism and your mental alertness.

• Make sure that, if your employer offers you 'healthy' facilities, you take full advantage of these. An employer may have some responsibility for providing a healthy workplace, but workers also have a responsibility to use the facilities offered.

• If your work involves significant periods in front of a monitor, make sure that you get a break every hour or so away from the screen. Otherwise, you may well find that you get headaches and/or eyestrain, and will quite likely get some postural problems as well. Also, do think about your seating and hand positions – you don't want to get RSI or back problems, and both can be quite easily avoided with appropriate chairs or wrist supports.

• If you can, try cycling to work. It's good for the environment, you avoid the traffic queues and you get to work feeling good about the day. And when you're going home, it's a good way to get rid of the stress of the day, so it's good for the family as well!

Of course, all the above is about physical health and there's no doubt that, if physical health can be improved, then mental health issues are likely to be less of a problem.

On the other hand, to ignore the problems of stress, depression, burn-out, etc., is to encourage potentially significant problems in the workplace, and these can affect other workers as well, which will inevitably impact upon targets and output. We will have a look at this area in our next article.

Communication - or is it?

“Communication” is a much-used word, and a very important one at that, one which we all use frequently and, perhaps, have pride in ourselves for our ability to achieve.

Governments 'communicate' their message to us, people send each other 'communications', we use 'telecommunications' to talk to each other on the telephone, or send emails and texts, we 'communicate' with our inner selves to better understand and project ourselves to others – we do so many things that involve the word 'communicate' (and its derivatives) that we surely all have a pretty good idea of what the process entails.

But perhaps we are kidding ourselves.

Well, firstly, let us look at the word itself. “Communicate” comes from a derivative of the Latin word “communicare” and means to share out or divide, communicate or impart, all sharing the quality of “making common”.

So we already have a problem – you cannot communicate 'to', you can only communicate 'with', because only the latter enables you to share information or opinions with someone else.

So what, you might ask?

Well, almost every aspect of our daily lives involves talking – on the phone, in person, via computer, and so on – or sharing information, such as text, images or video footage, and there is little point in our having all these interactions with other people if what we are trying to convey is different from what these other people are seeing and hearing. We might as well be talking in different languages to each other (actually, we are, in effect) because it is only if A has correctly interpreted what B has said that A can respond in a way that is relevant and actually advances the course of the conversation.

Of course, in day to day life it doesn't really matter if confusions or ambiguities arise out of a chat about the weather, or the film you watched. But it really does matter in a business context, where clarity is essential to (for example) the making of a legal contract, or dealing with a disciplinary issue, or perhaps helping a co-worker in an emotional situation.

Here are some suggestions, in no particular, order, as to what we can all try to do. It's not an exhaustive list, and if you have some different, or better, ideas of your own, that's excellent – at least we'll all be thinking about the subject, and that can only benefit us all:

• Have a clear idea, in your own mind, of what you want to say, and how to say it, before the mouth opens! If the message starts out as garbled, it's not going to get any better on its way to the other person.

• You may feel impassioned about a particular matter but, even if it is your passion about something that you want to convey to someone else, keep it under control and retain the discipline to get across the key points of the message.

• In a formal setting, such as a staff appraisal, or a disciplinary meeting, there are a number of things to consider:

• make an agenda of all the important points you want to raise before the meeting, and stick to that agenda no matter what. Tell the other person what these points are, so that there is no surprise in store for them during the meeting and they have the chance to consider their response.

• during the meeting, these points should be presented in a succinct way, but always in a manner that is seen as open and unthreatening, and which invites thoughtful and positive response.

• don't get side-tracked. If issues are raised which need thought or comment, that's fine but if they are not directly relevant to the matter in hand, they should be deferred until a separate meeting.

• think about the language you are using. If you are senior to the person to whom you're talking, they may feel reluctant to ask for clarification or expansion of any points you are trying to make. Of course they won't tell you, so you'll be having a conversation but without full comprehension taking place. In other words, there will be no communication. A position of authority may not be the only stumbling block to communication. If you and the other person don't have the same language as your first language, or if the educational background of one person is inferior to that of the other person, there are many ways in which problems can arise, so (if necessary) ensure that your words and your concepts are expressed simply, and clearly, and if necessary have a translator with you.

• try not to talk in a monotone! If you can vary your speech patterns (louder and softer, for example, or slower and faster) there is more chance that your listener will stay interested and want to be a part of the conversation.

• listen, listen, listen! Remember, you have two ears and just one mouth, but you will only learn anything through the ears. Your point of view may not be the only one, or even the right one and, especially when dealing with a sensitive issue, you need to hear what the other person has to say – and to make sure that they know that you are hearing them.

• be aware of your body language. This will reveal more than you think, and you don't want to look as if you are bored, or in a hurry to do something else (even if you are)!

• If possible, try to be on the same (physical) level as the person with whom you're talking. Otherwise, the conversation can look or feel like bullying, and is always an obstacle to an open, candid, exchange of views.

• In a disciplinary situation, it can be very tempting to open with conversation with something like “ Mr X tells me that you've made an inappropriate comment to your team” or “Ms Y says that you always try to undermine her authority”.

Make sure you resist the temptation to put the conversation on an accusatory or aggressive footing, as the person you're talking to will just feel got at, and will retaliate in some way, or will just close up into their shell. Neither are helpful responses, and your behaviour could be regarded as hostile should matters proceed toward a formal claim of some sort.

Instead, you could try an approach along the lines of “Look, it's been suggested to me that there may have been a problem with your team meeting yesterday/ your interactions with Ms Y. I don't know anything about this, so why don't you tell me how you see the situation, and if there's anything I can do to help”. This may encourage the person to open up to you, and this will pave the way to a resolution of the problem. After all, just because you get a complaint about someone, it doesn't mean the complaint is valid, and disaffected persons can just as easily turn into aggressors as victims.

It is probably appropriate to say, at this stage, that whatever communications arise in the workplace, and particularly when these arise as the result of meetings of any sort (appraisal, disciplinary, board, planning, etc.) they should always be recorded in writing and, generally, copies should be circulated to each of the participants for them to sign and return as acknowledgement that what is claimed as taking place actually did take place, that all relevant points have been accurately documented, and that a diary is set up for any follow-ups that may be needed. And all this should be in plain English, translated if necessary into the recipient's native tongue.

Finally, perhaps we could all learn a lesson from the service industries, against which the single biggest source of complaint, year after year, is lack of communication. That doesn't just mean a lack of letters or emails (although that is infuriating enough), it also means that the organisation doesn't listen to what is being said to them, ignores or only deals with a part of the question or problem, or responds in a language that the recipient doesn't understand. And the funny thing is that it takes so much less time to deal with the matter correctly in the first place!

Why Internal Recruiters and External Recruiters Clash

Or why can't we all just get along?!?!?!

Firstly I think I need to let you know that I have only ever worked on the external side of this clash. But many of my friends and also our Operations Manager, David Styles, either are or have been internal recruiters in the past.

That out of the way, today I want to talk to you about what I see as an increasing level of hostility and frustration between internal and external recruiters. Why is this the case, and what can we do to make things better? And how do we get to a place where both sides can see each other's worth?

I have been doing this job for over 10 years now, for both big and small companies. And right now the level of hostility between internal and external recruiters appears, to me, to be at an all time high. This is manifesting itself in outcomes that are good for no one: people not getting jobs, jobs staying unfilled, aggressive communications from both sides and dubious behaviour - again from both sides.

There are a couple of reasons why I believe this to be the case. The biggest of these, I feel, surrounds the perception that internal recruiters have of external recruiters. This perception bleeds in to all dealing with externals and sits at the base of many of the issues externals have with internal recruiters. But what is this perception, and where does it come from?

External recruitment is a sales job, and it shares many of the same employment issues that plague other sales jobs. Financial targets, KPIs, and performance bonuses that can lead to a high pressure environment that many (I would even say most) simply cannot stand. Add in to this the often perceived power differential between the client company and the agency and you end up with a high turnover industry which quite often leaves a toxic taste in the mouth of people that don't gel with it.

Now have a look at the background of many, if not the majority, of internal recruiters. Notice the trend there? Many many internal recruiters have come from an external background. This background colours their impression of external recruiters right from the word go. Now I will admit that sometimes it does happen but, really, how often do people change their careers if they enjoy what they do? So now we have a new internal recruiter with an external background that, at best, has left them with an ambivalent attitude and, at worst, an outright hostile attitude towards external recruiters.

Now let's look at why a company hires external recruiters to do their internal work. The first reason is recruitment is expensive, in both time and money and, on paper, bringing in an experienced external recruiter to remove agency fees and to manage the recruitment process makes great sense. Why wouldn't you pay a couple of hundred thousand in salaries for internal recruiters, if last year your agency spend was multiple millions? But talk about massive expectations! To justify your existence you have to find people - just like an external recruiter, but for only one client! Not only that, but every time you do have to use an external recruiter you will be holding your hand up and saying you failed on that one. Ouch!

So that brings us to the basis of where we are today. Internal recruiters with a poor opinion of the recruitment industry are having to deal with the very people they were meant to replace, but are unable to do so. It's no wonder it starts bad and from there it just gets worse.

Given the starting point of the relationship between internal and external recruiters, the interactions between the two rapidly deteriorate. External recruiters quickly develop a poor impression of their internal counterparts which is seen purely from their own vantage point. Where an internal may be doing their job well they can be leaving an external recruiter with the impression that they are blocking for the sake of blocking, are more interested in the process than the result, and many many other complaints. When these frustrations kick in external recruiters start behaving in ways that simply make internal's impressions even worse, such as contacting line managers directly or deliberately trying to cut the internal recruiter out.

So how do we get past this? And, while I know there are bound to be other options, my thoughts follow.

The first step is to acknowledge that both roles have their place in the world and to acknowledge that neither internal nor external recruiters represent a singular solution to a company's recruitment challenges. In the same way that no external recruitment consultant can fill every role a company has, no internal recruiter can either. This means that an internal recruiter needs to be able to utilise external recruiters without it being seen as a failure. This needs to be built in to the understanding a company has of what an internal recruiter can and can not do. Expecting to replace a multi-million dollar spend with a significantly lower salary cost should raise alarm bells straight away.

Once a company has a realistic expectation of what an internal recruiter can do for them, the next stage is to actively work with external recruiters to build a mutual understanding of what each party needs. External recruiters are not there to replace your internal recruiters. They are there to complement them. Build up relationships with external recruiters through open communication and you will have the best of both worlds - someone to minimise your recruitment spend, as well as a backup net to source those people who are just too hard to consistently find directly.

External recruiters, you need to realise that there is a place for internal recruiters and they aren't there just to make your life hard. Build a relationship with your internal counterparts and they can become some of your best clients. Try to put yourself in their shoes and understand how your actions can be impacting on them and, in turn, making their lives difficult. Once you have an internal recruiter on side you will have a powerful advocate in that company.

Finally, life is too short to give ourselves heartburn by setting ourselves up in conflict with either our clients or potential suppliers. Everyone needs to take a deep breath, accept that the other exists, and then look at a way in which to work with the other. In the end, while recruitment is what both sides do, the jobs we do are different and internal and external recruiters should be complementing each other and not trying to destroy the other.