Worth: What Are You Worth?

Boy, that's a loaded question.

One could write volumes; actually many volumes have already been written about a person's worth, value of a human life, achieving one's ambitions and all sorts of variations on these topics.

But I want to focus on a more objective answer to the question, not the subjective. Because it comes up all the time: candidates are always making the comment that "I feel I'm worth X dollars" etc, or "I'm worth more than I'm making".

In economics I remember the discussions around the 4 P's of pricing, product, promotion and place. The concept applies to the "price" (or value) of a person or employee, in economic terms.

Just like a glass of water might be free, or worth nothing, from a city water fountain, and worth a man's life savings if he's dying of thirst in a desert, a person's worth varies according to place, time, circumstances, etc.

What I'm saying is that the candidate comments about being worth more, etc are nonsense, or rather sort of irrelevant. We're all worth more or less depending on the situation, but in career terms, you are worth what you are making right now. You might make more later, or less later. But right now, you are worth what you are being paid, because you have accepted that situation. If you haven't found someone else to pay you more for something you'd accept doing, then you are worth what you are getting.

It's not hypothetical question. If you find another job and are there making more, you are now worth more. If you are fired a month later, you are now worth zero for the moment. If you can't find anyone to pay you what you think you are worth, go into business for yourself and see if you can make what you think you are worth.

Everyone tends to view their worth in terms of some sort of imaginary perfect world scenario. For that matter we tend to view the worth of our tangible possessions that way also. We tend to think our houses are worth more than the agent does (we don't see the dirty carpet, walls that need painting, etc., we just know what another bigger nicer house in the neighborhood sold for $100k more than what the agent is telling us to list ours for). Same with used cars; we usually set the price based on excellent or near excellent condition, but eventually end up selling for something less... usually.

Just because you made $150k a few years ago during the boom, and got stock options, etc, while you were working 70 hours a week and traveling 3-4 days/week, doesn't mean you are worth that when you've moved from San Francisco to Memphis and now have 2 small kids, want to work 9-5 and be home in the evening.

Just because someone else with a somewhat similar background is making $40k more than you doesn't mean you are worth the same.

Our expectations tend to rise easily, and adjust downward slowly. Which is a good thing in some ways since it means we tend to constantly strive for more, which is really the basis of our entire economy. Just don't let an unrealistic view stand in the way of a good new situation, or satisfaction with one you already have.

On the other hand, if you sincerely believe you should be making more, then find another situation and prove it. That's what recruiters are here to help you do. But recruiters will be very selective about the use of their time. We pay close attention to what WE think you're worth in the marketplace.


And another thing; be cautious of squeezing every last dollar of compensation out of every place you go. That's fine if you deliver more than the boss expects on a regular basis, because then you've got additional growth potential. But if you're getting pretty much the max that your worth, and the max that you can get, someone else who is delivering more for the money is more likely to be kept around when times get tough and the boss starts looking for places to make cuts.

Should Referrers Expect a Fee for Referrals?

To answer the question, ask yourself the following:

If you were someone looking for a job, and your friend would refuse to refer you for a good opportunity unless he/she was paid, is that person really a friend?

If you wish to be paid, does that mean in the future, if there was a great new opportunity for you, would you be happy not being referred for it if your friend/contact was not offered a fee?

If you are a recruiter, do you think someone who is referrring people to you for money is going to be as honest about how good the people he refers to you are as he would be if he was doing it voluntarily? Might that person refer people that are only 'OK' in hopes of getting a fee? Or maybe even someone who is 'not OK', in the hopes that they might land the job anyway?

How much work is there involved in referring the name, number and email of someone for an opening, vs. the work the recruiter does 40-50 hours/week, month after month, building connections, paying fees, paying for database systems, linked in subscriptions, subscriptions for databases and association fees that run into thousands of dollars, doing reference checks, counseling the candidates and clients, negotiating, scheduling interviews, etc. etc. A referral may take a minute, placing someone can take 3, 6, 9, 12 months of working with a candidate.

Defining Risk

One of my candidates turned down an offer from our client this past week. The position was remote, and he instead took a position with a local firm, with a lower salary, for a variety of reasons, but the one that seemed to stand out was that he felt more comfortable with a firm close by, a team to work with, and people that he knew. All good reasons for sure. And all the more understandable since he was the in the job market due to a layoff at his prior employer.

I got the impression that it seemed a 'safer' choice to him than the opportunity I presented.

But it got me thinking about risk. For example, people typically view stocks, bonds, commodities, etc as 'riskier' than savings accounts, CD's and other insured deposits. However, financial advisors frequently point out, that there is another type of risk with insured investments, and that is the risk that these 'safe' investments will generate lower returns over time (say 3 or 4% annually), than stocks or bonds, which might generate 5-10%. The risk is that when you retire, you may end up with substantially less with a 'safe' investment, than with a 'risky' one.

The same can be true of career considerations. Taking the safe career path, avoiding the risk of failure, may seem the safer route, certainly more comfortable for many. But after years of looking at resumes, you rarely see executives, business owners, or investors who usually took the 'safe' route. They almost always took risks, took them regularly, and usually made some mistakes along the way. But they typically identified those quickly, made adjustments, and moved on.

In this day of frequent and often surprise corporate acquisitions, divestitures, expansions, contractions, bankruptcies, etc, becoming accustomed to risk and being able to assess it quickly and accurately may be one of the greatest assets a person can have. Seemingly 'safe' choices can turn out not to be, sometimes surprisingly quickly. As with investing, you may find upon retirement that having consistently taken the 'safe' path throughout your career, may not leave you as well off as having taken more risks along the way.

Career Coaching, Career Counseling

A couple of anecdotes came my way recently regarding 2 related subjects. Career Counselors' (as in an academic career counselor) and paid career coaches or job finders.

One came from Linked In: A fellow had apparently been burned by one of these outfits that claimed to have "the secret to the hidden job market". My take on anything related to career search that you as the candidate pay for: No one has the secret to the hidden job market. Only you know what fits you. The most that these places will do is spam your resume' out to a bunch of recruiters and industry contacts, probably ones that they don't know well or at all.

There are cases where you might pay someone for career help; interview coaching, resume' writing, or other discrete tasks, or training on how to do your own search, research, write cover letters, identify prospects. But the less work that you supposedly have to put into it, the less valuable it will be.

The other example came from a network security candidate, a new college graduate. His career counselor at the college cautioned him against pursuing 'too narrow' a field, like network security, and advised him to take a broader curriculum. He then graduated and contacted us about a network security career, and guess what: he didn't have enough studies in the field. He was extremely upset, and rightfully so; I've never met a career counselor that had enough expertise in multiple fields to be making any kind of specific recommendations on a particular career. What they should do, again, is provide guidance on how the student should go about making a decision, the pro's and con's of a broad vs. a narrow curriculum, statistics on growth in particular fields etc. But I would never caution someone with a passion for a particular area to avoid it. Just the opposite; I think the real path to success lies in pursuing your passion, not just 'finding a job'.

Opinions are a dime a dozen, mine included. Your best career resource is going to be you, when you've studied and researched and evaluated numerous opinions of others. Never rely on one person or entity to make decisions for you.

Another note: My impression is that there are plenty of generalists out there. In any field. I frequently see such people struggling with job changes, finding a fit, etc. Top notch people in any field will rarely have trouble finding work, so your goal should be to be one of them. And just make sure that field is not a dinosaur. If you pick one that turns out to be headed that direction, re-train yourself in something related and growing and move on from there. Again, a top notch person will not have much trouble making the transition.

Your Résumé and ATS Systems

A small tidbit of advice:

Most recruiters and hiring organizations use some sort of ATS (Applicant Tracking System) today for managing and storing applicant résumés.

Some of these tips have been shared in other places, but it's worth a reminder:

Try and keep the formatting fairly simple; too many tables, boxes, graphics and other creative effects to show off your skills, can get either lost completely, or corrupted, sometimes leaving the document unreadable.

Try and minimize graphics that end up bloating the file size.

Name the attachment something useful; not "Résumé", or the modified date, but your preferred job title (e.g., VP IT Services), or something else descriptive. Many of the ATS systems default to the document name for the title of the record when they are imported, and if the recruiter forgets to edit it, you end up in the system under some undecipherable heading.

Identify preferred locations, travel ability, complete address info, and identify phone numbers as office, home, cell etc so the recruiter can document your info properly and quickly. Make sure to include the info on the Résumé since it is probable it will be separated from the email you sent.

Wallowing in Self Pity

Evidently the economy is slowing down. I've been slow to see it in ROI's business, but am starting to see the signs of frustration in some groups of candidates.

There's always going to be those who do well more or less regardless of the current economy, and those that struggle regardless. I suppose the difference between a good and bad economy is how it affects the majority.

I posted a new position for a fairly junior level opportunity this week, (2-3 years experience) and was amazed at some of the negative emails regarding the salary (right at market level base on Payscale data.

The position was posted to a regional job forum, where a lot of folks hang out looking for work.

One of the dangers I've seen of a job support type group, is that you have a group of people facing some challenges, and who need above all else to maintain a positive frame of mind, some enthusiasm, etc. Yet, there is a strong tendency, that must be fought vigorously, to wallow in self-pity, complain about this, that or the other thing (in this case companies, the economy, outsourcing, government, recruiters, advertising, H1B visas, NAFTA, politicians, executives, or [add endlesslessly to list here ____].

I've had a number of occasions where I've had an opportunity in an arena where perhaps there aren't many jobs, but with an employer who wants to find a certain someone, etc. And I run across someone. But their cover letter conveys a certain frustration or resentment, or it doesn't, but it comes across when we speak on the phone. So I move on. And they've completed the vicious circle once again, not recognizing that they are the ones once again responsible for their situation.

The last thing I'll do is present someone to a client, that comes across as bitter, or unenthusiastic, or resigned, or whatever. These people need to stay positive and focused, and they need to cull anyone from their circle that doesn't help them do that. Having others telling them they're being 'preyed upon' or 'undervalued' or whatever, is NOT helpful.

No one on this earth is guarenteed a long life, or prosperity, or career satisfaction. You have to work for it. And no other person or company or government is responsible for giving it to you. You have to either find it or create it yourself.

If your situation isn't to your liking, either change it, or shut up and live with it. It's no one else's responsibility to do it for you.

"Poker Tells", Recruiting & Life

It's funny how a topic can seem to surface repeatedly in a fairly short period of time.

The subject of 'tells', like a poker tell, or behavior that serves as an indicator to others, has popped up several times recently.

Several movies and shows recently touched on the subject:

"Lucky", with Drew Barrymore, Eric Bana, and Robert Duvall, revolves around poker playing, including "tells", both at the poker table, and in life.

"Next", with Nicolas Cage and Jessica Biel, stars Cage as a Las Vegas magician of sorts, who makes some side money playing poker using some special abilities.

"2 1/2 Men", with Charlie Sheen, recently had an episode that referred specifically to poker tells, when Charlie was playing cards with his nephew.

About the same time I saw the above, one of ROI's recruiters and I got into a discussion about 'tells' on the part of candidates.

One of the most critical dynamics in recruiting is the give-and-take of information sharing between recruiters and their network. Trying to recruit without trying to sincerely help candidates, doesn't work very well. Likewise, candidates that want you to find them a new job, without helping you, don't provide a lot of motivation to the recruiter.

However, the sharing of information takes at least a little time to develop. I give a little, you give a little, I give a little more, you give a little more.

We've discovered that as long as we, as recruiters, are being reasonably generous with our time, and sharing, that we frequently get a pretty accurate and consistent 'tell' on the quality of the candidate based on how they respond.

Candidates who are a bit insecure, have had sort of average, or bounce around type of careers, or are more junior level, frequently don't want to share information on their contacts and friends. They give the perception of either mistrust, or fear that one of their contacts might win out over them for either a position we are discussing, or some future position, so they don't want to increase their competition.

High caliber candidates, on the other hand, typically have the attitude that there are plenty of jobs out there, the right one will come to me, and I want to help my friends and contacts so they'll help me. If someone I know is a better fit for a position than I am, then they should get it. They are more discerning about positions they go after, are quicker to disqualify themselves when it doesn't seem to be a fit, and frequently volunteer other contacts without even being asked.