HR Examiner - Latest Comments

Re: Top 100 Influencers v 1.83 Lars Schmidt

Susan D. Strayer — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 12:42:01 -0000

Don't miss Lars at this year's RecruitDC Spring Event...be on the lookout!

Re: Performance That Matters by Susan Strayer

Susan D. Strayer — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 11:46:35 -0000

Ah, that's what I get for trying to pseudonym. Dang. Same kid. Different pseudonyms!

Re: Performance That Matters by Susan Strayer

gregg dourgarian — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 07:39:29 -0000

Hey Susan, i enjoyed this, and the title 'Performance That Matters' is right on. i see it all the time in software development as well...it can take several years to see how well a body of code holds up. One small thing... was the student's name Ed or Javier?

Re: Star Candidate Experience in 17 Steps

Nick Price — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 10:06:53 -0000

Hi John,
Good piece. It's interesting to look at how people define the candidate experience from both the candidate's and the organisation's perspective. The candidate experience should be from the first touch the candidate (or even prospective candidate has) to their experience throughout the recruitment process. The user experience as an applicant applying is very important, but also the way they are treated and communicated with until the final outcome is reached - and even beyond as some talent communities are demonstrating. An organisation should also be looking at how the experience they deliver is appropriate to their values and behaviours also.

Nick

Re: Star Candidate Experience in 17 Steps

David A. Lee — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 08:29:04 -0000

John,

Great start! I'd like to add a few more:

- Describe the application process up front. How long will it take, cover letter (yes or no), what is best format for resume. No really, I get you can accept PDF but does it really work with your system? How about formatting in a word document?
- Include an estimated end date for applications. This will eliminate the rush to apply because "the posting may be gone tomorrow." This allows candidates to reduce many of the errors recruiters complain about.
- If recruiters are on social...be social. Don't just use Twitter and Facebook as a job board. If 70% of positions are filled via networking then use social to expand your company's network!
- BE HONEST! Social media connects your candidates...they are comparing notes! If you lie to them the word will spread and you will hurt your brand, as an employer and in the eyes of consumers too.

Dave

Re: Tim Sackett: Top Influencers Special Edition v0.00

Dawn Hrdlica-Burke — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 15:12:42 -0000

I can't believe you caved to Tim Sackett's discontent with the list! I thought the list was most excellent (say's #25 @dawnHRrocks). ; ) . All kidding aside... Sackett is tops.

Re: Tim Sackett: Top Influencers Special Edition v0.00

kyle_lagunas — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 13:46:58 -0000

"You can see the signs of Sackett’s influence everywhere you look. That framed and autographed photo behind the local HR Vp’s desk? It’s Sackett. Most intro HR text books are being revised to include the Sackett story. Next year’s SHRM conference will feature a Sackett Pavilion."

Ha! I love it...

Re: Tim Sackett: Top Influencers Special Edition v0.00

Francois Guay — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 13:37:02 -0000

Hopefully Tim does the Sumser family history. Could be a hoot!

Re: Top 100 Influencers v1.82 Chris Hoyt

John Sumser — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 11:36:23 -0000

nice.

Re: Top 100 Influencers v1.82 Chris Hoyt

Chris Hoyt (aka: RecruiterGuy) — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 11:24:33 -0000

Thanks, John - and thank you to everyone who tweeted, posted comments and sent emails. These lists are fun.
Truthfully however, I'd trade every list and ranking for a huge table, a few rounds of drinks and passionate conversation with each of you about what we really do and want to get done in the next few months and coming years.

Keep at it, gang!

Re: About What to Whom? The Heart of Online Influence

Martin Snyder — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:44:34 -0000

Emergence is the way complex systems arise out of many simpler interactions. Online influence must be thought of as an emergent phenomena.

Influence and Brand (The American Marketing Association defines a brand as a "Name, term, design, symbol, or any other feature that identifies one seller's good or service as distinct from those of other sellers") must be thought of as interacting, and what we buy and why we buy it must also be thought of as a form of fashion. Fashion is a language of signs, symbols and iconography that non-verbally communicate meanings about individuals and groups. Jim is especially (and naturally) concerned with how influence ultimately impacts buying behavior. John probably has more interest in how influence affects attitudes and philosophies (that may or may not affect buying behavior, but do affect the semiotics and language of the recruiting industry/profession.

Big Data (by any name, including MoneyBall) can be a superior rear-view mirror, but like any mirror, the image presented will carry some level of distortion and subjectivity. Mirrors are also notorious for absorbing human attention. Precise future-oriented prediction of emergent phenomenon is difficult or impossible, regardless of the processing power, quaility of modeling, or available measurement/instrumentation, although modeling boundary conditions and probabilities is more of a practical ambition.

In other words, the Internet does not repeal the laws of nature, or of human nature. Great leaders and decision makers somehow exploit the still unrivaled per-unit processing power of the human mind to synthesize the laws of nature and man to MAKE things happen in objective reality.

To simply answer Jim's question: John's concept of measuring influence is an attempt to find boundary conditions and predict probabilities from the emergent processes involved with social use of the web. It is not, and never will be, a method to reliably predict winners or losers (e.g.the precise future) any more than the Daily Racing Form or the Vegas line might be. The games still must be played.

Re: Top 100 Influencers v1.82 Chris Hoyt

Rayanne — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:09:39 -0000

Congrats, Chris ---

It's nice to see and hear about people you know and have watched grow with the industry while mobile and social changed everything.

We work in a day and age where flexibility and creativity are a must for almost every business decision. Chris does this with aplomb and is a constantly moving fixture.

Re: Top 100 Influencers v1.82 Chris Hoyt

Sean Sheppard — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 12:04:38 -0000

Congratulations Chris. A truly deserved honor.

Re: Top 100 Influencers v1.82 Chris Hoyt

marenhogan — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:29:12 -0000

Chris is a fine person, first and foremost. He has obvious passion for what he does and has dove (diven, dived ??) into this community headfirst. I think one of the first things I asked Chris way back in the day was how in world he did it all. I think he said something about illicit drugs. But seriously, he has unparalleled energy and a willingness to try EVERYTHING new, work hard and give it a fair shake and unapologetically ask who will come with him. That's why he's innovative. That's why he's brilliant and that's why he'll always be one step ahead.

Re: Top 100 Influencers v1.82 Chris Hoyt

Gerry Crispin — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:36:28 -0000

Nice.

Re: Top 100 Influencers v1.82 Chris Hoyt

jessica lee — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 15:05:28 -0000

happy to see this... totally a no brainer. big thumbs up to chris. i want to be like him when i grow up.

Re: About What to Whom? The Heart of Online Influence

John Sumser — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 11:39:56 -0000

I think the answer is as simple as we're still figuring it out. The inital premise of services like Klot, PeerIndex and Kred is that connections and content can be predictive for retail buying behavior. There's also a fair amount of time and money being invested to figure out whether this makes for better referrals in the job market.

The jury is out and some of the preliminary stidies are suggesting that influence (as measured by those services) doesn't really predict buying behavior. The studies around referrals are les structured and the answers are still being formulated.

Professional influence is an interesting topic. That's where services like SocialEars have some serious potential. At a minimum, dominating search engine results shifts the public view of a profession.

Re: About What to Whom? The Heart of Online Influence

Jim Holincheck — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 11:24:09 -0000

Thank you for the kind words. I know you have been studying influence closely so I asked a question. I wanted to learn from your experience. I was really asking about Klout and other measures of the influence seem to be focused just on onIine, social network-related measures. There are people who have high interactivity (readers, followers, etc.) on social media that have influence. The question I had is: what are they influencing those readers, followers, etc. to do? They may just educate, inform, or even entertain (or all of the above). However, they may influence decision-making either personally or professionally. This may be a higher form of influence, actually doing something based on an interaction. I was not expecting that you had the definitive answer, but I knew you would have a point of view. I will look forward to your ongoing experiment.

Re: If it Doesn’t Matter, It’s Not Influence

Rayanne — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 17:50:04 -0000

Love this and agree. Influence is deep and may take years to be evident or passed along. Like how important it is to talk nicely to your mother - you learn this really well, when you become a mother.

Thanks Heather. Inciteful and Insightful, as always.

Re: Another Look at Influence

Mtytel — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 08:00:22 -0000

John,
The notion of measuring influence has always been intriguing. One can surely measure simple examples at the local level (Are you ordering the fish? I think I will, too.) but the trick is to look beyond the outcome to long-term impact. I believe influence is the only real power we have, and it can be infinite like the ripples in a pond. Recognizing we inhabit a non-linear, open-systems world, there is often no way to link cause and effect with certainty. Pundits and those with the loudest voices clearly get more air time, and that is influence, if only becuase it got me to turn them off. As for me, I believel influence boils down to one thing: Being There. Even the fly on the wall makes a difference. Thanks!
Mallary Tytel
www.heatlhyworkplaces.com

Re: If it Doesn’t Matter, It’s Not Influence

Alex Grech — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 05:37:54 -0000

Great post and interesting comment stream. My concern with measuring influence is that it's still a numbers game. I go back to the analogy of a blog where the blog does not get much traction in terms of numbers of visits or comments; but where the regular reader / watcher is someone with social capital / influence in civil society - say a mainstream media journalist, a political agent, a teacher. Is that blog influential? When influence is such a loaded political term in the first place? My research on blogging in the hyperlocal keeps tugging away from Shirky's Power law theory and into more strategic territory. I thought your post is spot on, both in terms of its scepticism - and thinking that we may still be counting the wrong stuff. The question of online influence, of course, remains very important. It may just be that we may need to apply some critical theory in addition to the various Klouts of this world.

Re: If it Doesn’t Matter, It’s Not Influence

Gerry Crispin — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 11:21:56 -0000

What a great thread you sparked Heather. Thank you. Your bullet points, Paul DeBettignies' and Neil Morrison's comments as well resonated the most with my experience.

Seems to me that influence (assuming we were to agree on just what it is- which hasn't happened yet) is partly what is being tapped via the online calculations. Emphasis on partly. Some folks just want to embrace it as if it were a 1:1 reflection and, of course, Klout by its very name implies the same.

Certainly its not sufficient (to me at least) to call the quantity of followers of online musings influence. Even with John's added Reach, Relevance and Resonance, too many other factors are missing. Still, it makes for great conversation.

About definitions. The comments Neil made (particularly if you follow his links to his blog) on measuring an 'effect' on an individual's life is what I find missing in online measures. While my sources of inspiration around 'influence' are different, more academic, and go back to the original off-line studies of power and influence, they don't add more to this conversation than what Neil has said.

I think Paul also adds a critical component that is missing. Reality embraces both the online and the off-line worlds. And it is in the off-line world that we see most of the 'effect'. Paul points out that in his 'locale' few people 'knew' FOT. My take on his comment: If you spend most of your time building an online persona it is easy to imagine that your online conversation fills the universe and some how trickles down out of the internet into everyone's consciousness. How amazing it is to then discover how little your footprint really is. How big a deal is your online 'Influence ranking' if it effects such a small number of the people who make up the universe of your profession?

So John (Sumser), what if, in addition to the scores you develop, you were to ask 'front line doers' - people who actually accomplish stuff. People who are actually transforming their firms right now. People who are 'admired' for innovating recruiting methods and strategies in real companies affecting 10s of thousands of lives. And ask 100 of them "who influences you the most?" "Who do you follow BECAUSE you learn about new things to try?" "Who has changed your life professionally?" (I'll leave this up to you to wordsmith)

Then see if any of those 'scores' correlate with the names that get mentioned more often. Just a thought.

Re: If it Doesn’t Matter, It’s Not Influence

Gareth Jones — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 07:41:27 -0000

This is an interesting thread! Influence is alive and kicking - offline and online. Its been around online for over a decade but, for me, the problem with the current attempt to define influence is that it is aiming at the wrong people.

8 years ago my wife changed career and as part of that embarked on a journey that introduced her to forums and online groups where her peers hung out. I wrote an article at the time - before i found blogging! - where i observed that this group of peers that she had never met had effectively neutered the brand/marketing spend of the products that she was about to purchase. She started to draw all her spending influence from online peers, most of whom she had never met.

It is this collective and sometimes individual influence or wisdom that makes a difference - much more so than the influence of the 'rock stars', in my opinion. The attempt to measure influence and build it around those with high profile is nothing new - we were doing that before the online days. In fact, doing this misses the whole point/difference of the social mesh - the influencers are the mass of individuals like you and me. Go check out Amazon or "my favourite forum dot com" or wherever to see that. Social democratises influence and means we dont have to look to one or two 'experts' or be influenced by he who has the highest profile.

So in that way i do disagree with John when he says "If someone has no published ideas and no pointers to those unpublished ideas, they have no influence in the online world". There are millions of people out there in the online world that have huge influence yet have never published an idea. It's just that these are Joe Schmo's who are influencing their friends and family and other loosely connected individuals. They are real. But they are not rock stars.

Sure, if you are some vacuous PR looking for a short cut to the most influential people in the online world on fashion for example, and you need a a quick way to determine which people have that and therefore which people get the invite then go ahead and use these tools. But as the social world develops (it is still embryonic) i suspect that this is not where the currency of true influence will lie.

Re: If it Doesn’t Matter, It’s Not Influence

Jason Lee Overbey — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 20:32:51 -0000

Heather started the post with, "... algorithmic Kool-Aid of influence measurement". Unless I am mistaken, I think we are speaking about Klout and tools like it.

I, too, think the problem might start with the way we are defining and using the word influence. Loosely, it means to drive someone to action. Where the action can be measured but the "drive" cannot. Strictly, it means power or capacity of causing an effect in indirect or intangible ways. You cannot measure either. The results, maybe.

Whether we are talking about selling an item, swaying someone to your political views, or getting someone to adopt your ideas about your industry... Klout or any other algorithm cannot measure that.

What they can measure, I think, is engagement. I love Klout and other scoring utilities. I am a sanguine personality temperament and am motivated by popularity and praise. So you won't find an argument from me if I have a higher Klout score. But I cannot kid myself or people that look to me for advice on the matter. I know what algorithms tracking social media measure: clicks, following/follower ratios, mentions, ReTweets, comments, et al. Fundamentally, they are measuring a form of engagement.

I suppose with the offering of the above definitions one could argue that clicking and ReTweeting and following is an action that was taken as a result of influence and so my points are moot. But I think we can all agree that when we talk about our personal desire to influence people - which is tacitly stated when we sign up on a social media platform to broadcast our thoughts - that our very human desire to be heard and affect people's thinking and influence them goes beyond the initial enagagement of a click, follow or mention.

I know I want people to engage me in those ways, to be sure. I want them to be influenced by the thoughts I present in those interactions and adopt my ideas, challenge me, and take real action.

Re: If it Doesn’t Matter, It’s Not Influence

John Sumser — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 15:17:00 -0000

I'm sort of puzzled by this thread. That the web profoundly influences the way we see reality is beyond question, as Marty Snyder notes. Any investigation of search literacy will clearly tell you that what matters is placement on Google's first page.

The various experiments in measuring influence are all about trying to understand whose voice is the loudest (and therefore the top of the search results). Although it may well be a better world if influence were limited to high quality, positive and life affirming values, it isn't.

A significant part of the critique comes from the fact that the measurements are imperfect at best and primitive at worst. That's how innovation happens. Stupid ideas (like everyone needs a personal computer) transform the world. Smart ideas like 'that doesn't work because it's imperfect' are the way that Luddites bury their heads in the sand.

Take a look at http://searchengineland.com/ho... . The story talks about the problems that the Santorum campaign is having with getting their online reputation properly curated. Do they care because online information has no influence? HArdly.

This morning, I was trying to find office supplies online. I asked around the house about the spelling for the kind of store taht sells that sort of thing. Was it stationary or stationery?

A quick look online found a number of stationary stores. Even Crane's, the paper and notecard maker, used this spelling. It took a deeper dig to verify that the correct spelling is stationery.

Crane's and its competitors use the wrong spelling in order to reach the sorts of people who make this little spelling error. The problem gets recursive as others, using the web to check spelling errors come upon the stationery stores' marketing tactics.

What is online is what is.

Were I betting on this, I'd expect the work of measuring and understanding influence to deepen and broaden.