Innovation and technological advantage are highly sought after in the Recruiting and Talent Acquisition world, aka “The Recruitosphere.” Press releases about new products, daily webinars, product launches at tradeshows, articles among our industry’s wider read networks, blog posts… and frankly, the majority of the Recruitosphere’s Twitter stream revolves around these topics. You might say it’s somewhat of a reinforcing loop. News and chatter begets more news and chatter.
This thirst for technological advantage doesn’t only exist in the Recruitosphere (or the B2B world, for that matter). Consider national defense and the notion of “modern warfare” for a moment. Examples of technological advantage range from weaponry to mobility to communications, etc. UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) Drones allow an operator (meaning a human battlefield resource) to deliver air support from a laptop. Heartbeat sensors and thermal sights attached to weapons allow for quick identification of enemies that may be hidden to the human eye. Lightweight armor allows relative protection while allowing for operators to quickly and quietly move in and out of situations and environments previously non-negotiable. The list goes on and on.
And despite all this technological advantage, the modern battlefield renders many of them useless. Case in point: Afghanistan, a country whose sand and rock is stained by thousands of years of bloodshed. The mountainous regions, treacherous terrain, caves and tunnel systems, etc. are such that many of our advantages are rendered moot. The enemy is so “dug in” that, in many cases, the only way to get them to move their location is to “smoke them out.” Yep, we have millions of dollars in weapon systems, mobility systems, etc. ready to be employed… yet we can’t employ them. The Soviets, with all their defense superiority, lasted 10 years before their withdrawal in 1989. As of 2009, the U.S. has already been there 8 years, only to find that the Taliban has grown stronger while we today debate troop strength and overall strategy. The enemy isn’t “out in the open” – rather, they have mastered the art of condensing and shrinking the battefield to suit their own strengths (ergo the Battle of Thermopylae or “300“). They are so primitive that they force you to ‘play their game’… meaning become more guerrilla-like and primitive yourself, hence recalling memories of the Vietnam War.
So this lends the question: Is there a lesson for Recruiting in Afghanistan? I believe there is. See, it’s often the case that the Recruitosphere (and again, the entire B2B world) engages in a race for technological advantage. Many organizations copy the competition or those cited as “highest performing” or “award-winning” because they want to achieve the same accolades, or at a minimum, attain perceived parity. Some even engage in a flat-out spending war, priding themselves in staying on the “bleeding edge.”
And just like in Afghanistan, as the Soviets and U.S. have learned, technological advantage yields little to no benefit. What’s most important on the modern battlefield is not technology, but moreover, the ‘will to fight‘. The same is true of Recruiting organizations – your competition may have the most sophisticated sourcing applications, the best contact management system, a better branded careers site, etc., but that doesn’t mean they share your ‘will to fight’, or better, your ‘will to win’.
What I’m suggesting is the following: Through nothing more than ‘primitive technology’ (i.e. a phone, email, etc.) and engaged recruiters who care and are committed to winning, you can render the competition’s technological advantage useless. While their technology may offer them certain advantages, it also encumbers them and creates points of weakness – it’s your job to identify those soft areas and weaken them further. Pat your fellow brethren and team members on the back with the Roman Legion motto, “Strength and Honor” (or if you prefer, “Get Some”, as we say in the USMC infantry) and get out to the front lines right now with pride that the ‘will to win’ trumps everything else.
Great post. Never fight on the battlefield your opponent chooses. If you must, don’t fight in the manner your opponent chooses.
People try to use technology as a substitute for will all too often. Sometimes there are advantages in systems that require committed people to get them to work.
This was a deeply moving post. I read a lot of blogs, and recently started one myself. However, there are few posts that really touch my heart. This one did, and for that I thank you.
Sincerely,
@HRMargo Margo Rose http://hrmargo.com
Josh,
As usual, an excellent post and poignant analogy.
Although Dan Hilbert (a recruiting leader who’s unequivocally proven what technology can do for a Fortune 25 company’s recruiting efforts) has said that “When the war for talent is waged over the Internet, major corporations will be won and lost over staffing technology,” I agree that it doesn’t take sophisticated sourcing applications, the best contact management system, a better branded careers site, or a “bleeding edge” social media strategy to be hugely successful in the war for talent (or whatever you’d like to call it).
However, regardless of high-tech or low-tech (or no-tech!), I will say that today’s level of access to large volumes of information/data at the candidate and corporate level is a game changer.
The ability to filter through the noise and abstract, evaluate and understand relevant information (intel, to stay in your analogy) and extract value out of it in a timely manner confers an advantage over those who are unable to. The quality, quantity, and timeliness of intel (good, bad, late, none, etc.) can drastically affect the outcome of any military effort, and I’d say the same is true with regard to staffing and recruiting.
There’s an unprecedented amount of candidate data out there – public and private – and the ability to access it and extract value from it in a timely manner is without a doubt a competitive advantage IMHO. Interestingly, it doesn’t take advanced technology (or a great careers site or a social media strategy) to take full advantage of the vast amount of human capital intel available today.
A military force using outdated gear and weapons but with abundant and highly accurate intel has a significant advantage over an opposing force with the latest weapons and gear with low quality or no intel at all.
Thoughts?
Glenn, great and super thought-out comments.
I am in agreement with you that super intel is a game-changer. There is definitely no denying that.
What I often observe is that it’s a rarity to find Recruiters who blend both the “will to fight” with tools that can deliver the greatest intel. A Recruiter or Sourcer with both is a true gem.
If I had to choose, I’d rather take the “raw material” first – the never-say-die-because-I-will-make-it-happen Recruiter/Sourcer. If I have that, then I can introduce technology and truly accelerate their success. But if it’s a lazy Recruiter who would rather let their Careers Site do the work, then all the technology in the world would prove wasteful in their hands.
What you often observe in the military is a vast amount of information coming at you, but intel is often slim or partial. It’s easy to capture satellite imagery of a large front coming your way, but it’s difficult to pinpoint the location of a single terrorist with nothing but a dirty bomb and cellphone detonator. Ultimately, it’s all relative as the “Fog of War” is not quite the same in the Recruiting/Sourcing world – we don’t deal with such extreme conditions, such as the decisions we make leading to the loss of human life.
An analogy might be one in which we’re considering groups that pride themselves on the “will to fight”. Even if we have perfect intel, meaning we know they’re coming, doesn’t mean we’re not in for a dogfight. So even if we knew the Samurai Warriors were coming, we’d still have our hands full, right?
I was just reading a mind-blowing blog post today titled, ”
Hybrid, Homegrown and Transnational: The Indian Mujahideen and the Islamist Terror Matrix” (http://bit.ly/5HtcUl). I can’t imagine the lives that were saved by finding the “hub” and getting him to confess the group’s plans.
Ultimately, I’m with you 110% that great intel in the right hands is a tremendous advantage. Now if we could only have gotten the former Sec of Defense (Rumsfeld) to cooperate with the Former CIA Director (Tenet), then we would have had Bin Laden pinned down in Tora Bora in December of 2001. That’s another story, though, right?
After World War II, military recruitment shifted significantly. With no war calling men and women to duty, the U.S. refocused its recruitment efforts to present the military as a career option, and as a means of achieving a higher education. A majority 55% of all recruitment posters would serve this end.
Thanks for the great post as always, I read a lot of blogs, and recently started one myself. However, there are few posts that really touch my heart. This one did, and for that I thank you so much.
Thanks for taking the time debating this subject, I really feel passionately about it and love learning more on this topic.