而你想要追求公司成長，記住二件事：
1. 長期而言，專案公司營收與規模成長速度，取決於開發人員總產能與默契如何提昇，不是訂單的成長速度。(台灣一堆小軟體專案公司會失敗，常常就是老闆看到訂單上的金額昏了頭。)
2. 公司成長的穩定性與對風險的承受能力，取決於你保留了多少閒置開發能量與可燒現金。(這會直接影響你覺可不可以睡好、胃會不會痛、你的員工可不可能喝西北風)
記住專案開發的風險是較高的，delay 個10%~ 50%是很常有的事，倒是提前完成的不多。為什麼？因為莫非就是在那裡，而軟體專案開發是最被宇宙定律詛咒的行業。
專案開發的生產模型，靠得就是消費一群專業人員的專注力與可工作時間，來完成且持續維運一個脆弱且動態的系統的各項功能，然後透過這個系統來供給滿足終端使用者的需求，賺取利潤。
這時宇宙讓我們碰上三個性質都非常極端的玩意：
第一是『需求』、第二是『人』、第三是『時間』
『需求』，特別是任何資訊類型的需求，是非常抽象而難以捉摸的東西。當一個需求被提出來，以這個世界的知識作為背景去延伸，無數的細節就會隱含在那裡等你來發掘。
開始規劃時你沒找到的，以後就變成地雷等你來踩。
開始客戶沒想到的，以後就變成『規格不符』等你來修。
需求與真實世界互動下無數的可能性與細節就是專案風險的第一來源。
『人』構成專案風險的第二來源。
不要講客戶，講自己人就好，人的能力提昇不是線性的、每天工作成果是不好預測的、情緒與健康狀況是不能阻止的、人與人之間的溝通與衝突是難以設計預防的。於是你看到小公司一個人離職會驅動整票人走，因為人走了工作就是留下來的接，長期的加班與不滿被新加進來的工作一次到位，公司的產能就那麼玩完了。像這樣子的非線性系統動力災難在『人的領域』裡到處都是。
再來是『時間』，時間是最沒有彈性的東西，不能儲存、不能移轉、一天就是只有那些。
而專案Critical Path上任何突發事件造成的『延遲』，都只會累加、不會減少。客戶慢了一天回你，那一天你就是沒有進展、這個專案的完成就是得多延一天！千萬不要小看一天，這一天的影響不只累加在這個專案裡，還累加到正在進行的其他專案裡、累加到下一個專案裡、一旦開始加班那就累加到員工對公司的不滿情緒裡、當然也累加到客戶的回應與滿意度裡。無數這種小小的漣漪擾動著整個團隊的情緒、也透過相依性驅動著無數的事件，帶給專案經理精彩又刺激的每一天。
『需求與人』這兩個巨大難以量化的統計波動來源，配上沒有彈性只會延長累加誤差難以提前縮短的『時間』，就是專案執行管理上的本質。
而『製造腦袋』的老闆們常常在這個行業摔跟斗也是因為他們無法理解，用不穩定的人(而不是穩定的機器)、以沒有彈性的時間(而不是有得商量的物質原料)、去滿足幾乎可以任意修改的需求(有沒有看過EIP系統從新增客製報表這樣的需求開始，變身成CRM的？)背後所代表的意義。
於是當客戶一通電話來說有個案子價格可以開到多少時....你得想想這真的是個機會還是什麼，你的公司還有『閒置產能』嗎？過去一年新人的年生存率是多少呢？你最擅長做事的人是不是最忙？你最能有新想法的人上次有空跟提idea是什麼時候？
你想『傾全公司之力』追逐『機會』？想碰運氣？
當所謂的產能提昇不是找即戰力、就是找免洗菜鳥。
當追逐訂單，把產能閒置率給用光。
當公司裡每個人都加班，老鳥最忙、新人沒人理。
當人來人去大家筋疲力竭死氣沉沉，再也沒有人在乎這一切。
當不小心錯把貪婪當成公司目標。
記住你選了這個行業，而在鬼島台灣上天的祝福早已遠去，你還是個被宇宙定律給詛咒的人！
想想公司可能會有多倒楣，那就幾乎必定會發生。
開軟體公司想追求長期持續的成長與創新嗎？
修煉一下那通電話的『逢魔時刻』來臨時，該如何應對吧。
2011年10月18日 星期二
2011年10月9日 星期日
你相信嗎？
你相信什麼，那麼在你真正相信的當下，你已經得到它了。
如果你相信人活在世上不需要這麼樣的去追逐慾望，那麼你就已經得到一個『不用追逐慾望』的生活了。如果你是基督徒，你相信神愛世人，那麼此刻當下你已活在祂的祝福下。如果你相信人存在就是為了繁榮人類生存的這個世界，那麼有一天你的人生結束時，這個世界會因你而繁榮。
你唯一需要去思考的，是你要不要捨棄這個你已得到的『絕對』，你有沒有跟外界對著幹，不論成功失敗希望絕望捍衛你的『信仰』的勇氣？
人不會因夢想而偉大。
人一天到晚被慾望擺佈撥弄，而要產生一大堆稀奇古怪的想望，這些想法都很令人興奮，但難道它們都有價值嗎？
人無時不刻被命運左右而要產生各種煩惱情緒意念，人該拿這些佛說三毒的東西來決定自己如何活著嗎？
人會因信仰而擁有力量。
能夠從慾望所生成的雜念中淘選出有價值的部份的力量。
能夠讓你面對命運不確定的本質而維持心靈恆定的力量。
能夠用來約束自己、要求自己最終超越自己的力量。
當你把你的人生奉獻給你的信仰，你就會有力量在眾人都反對你的世界理，去保護你已擁有的東西。
如果你相信人活在世上不需要這麼樣的去追逐慾望，那麼你就已經得到一個『不用追逐慾望』的生活了。如果你是基督徒，你相信神愛世人，那麼此刻當下你已活在祂的祝福下。如果你相信人存在就是為了繁榮人類生存的這個世界，那麼有一天你的人生結束時，這個世界會因你而繁榮。
你唯一需要去思考的，是你要不要捨棄這個你已得到的『絕對』，你有沒有跟外界對著幹，不論成功失敗希望絕望捍衛你的『信仰』的勇氣？
人不會因夢想而偉大。
人一天到晚被慾望擺佈撥弄，而要產生一大堆稀奇古怪的想望，這些想法都很令人興奮，但難道它們都有價值嗎？
人無時不刻被命運左右而要產生各種煩惱情緒意念，人該拿這些佛說三毒的東西來決定自己如何活著嗎？
人會因信仰而擁有力量。
能夠從慾望所生成的雜念中淘選出有價值的部份的力量。
能夠讓你面對命運不確定的本質而維持心靈恆定的力量。
能夠用來約束自己、要求自己最終超越自己的力量。
當你把你的人生奉獻給你的信仰，你就會有力量在眾人都反對你的世界理，去保護你已擁有的東西。
2011年10月6日 星期四
Firefox, what's wrong with you?
Recently the Mozilla foundation updated my beloved Firefox very often.
They moved their step to FF4 at the beginning of this Year, then 5, 6 now it's 7.
I used to use Firefox to deal with those HEAVY stuff, such as my three GMail accounts, famous Firebug for web development and some fantastic plugins to scraping web contents.
But now, my happy experience was gone.
0. Gmail Manager was malfunctioned.
I used GMail Manager to manage my GMail accounts, but now due to Google's new gmail policy(shame on Google for this), I cannot get any benefit by using firefox to manage multiple GMails, I hate to sign-in 3 times with 3 different browsers when I start my PC, I know it's for security, but it's still annoying and I do know this is not FF's fault, but this do reduces the score that FF get when comparing with Chrome. If there's any new plugins that can deal with this, please let me know.
1. New logic behind Firefox's Certification Key management is sucks!
It started to fuck me since FF4, have you ever encountered a "Secure Connection Failed" which Error code is: sec_error_reused_issuer_and_serial? After read the root cause from this link:
https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Certificate%20contains%20the%20same%20serial%20number%20as%20another%20certificate
and searched any possible solutions to workaround this, I must say this is a BIG WRONG DECISION that Mozilla made for Firefox after Ver 4. They intended to forbid any user to access the web in https through some old router that doesn't generate the security certificates well. I know they gave this restriction to prevent some kind of attack, but so what? does my parent who are already 60 years old working in a big company should buy in this? And compare to other browser: IE has no such problem, Chrome has no such problem, Safari has no such problem, if you are an IT guy and people put this on table then what will you do?
OF COURSE you won't do anything to that old but expansive router, because it's very possible that there's no one knows how to deal with it, the things that you will do is to write a batch file and put it into schedule which will REPLACE every Firefox to Chrome!
So now, I'll have to tell my big old company customers:
FORGET FIREFOX, because your router is too old to generate a proper certification so Mozilla foundation think you are not deserved to use their product! Imagine what they will ask you to do next.
Backward compatibility is not just compromise, it's an important feature!
In this case, what Firefox can do is simply provide a boolean config that MIS can turn on or off before they trigger the installation to every desktop, or, they can prompt this error with a special option to let user bypass the check after reading the possible hazard description.
But the only workaround that Firefox left you by now is to delete the cert8.db which stored every exception that you have while doing the certification,(Yeah, you can delete THAT certification if you know which one, but do you really know how many Cert was screwed up in your Firefox?) and you need to turn off Firefox before doing this.
They moved their step to FF4 at the beginning of this Year, then 5, 6 now it's 7.
I used to use Firefox to deal with those HEAVY stuff, such as my three GMail accounts, famous Firebug for web development and some fantastic plugins to scraping web contents.
But now, my happy experience was gone.
0. Gmail Manager was malfunctioned.
I used GMail Manager to manage my GMail accounts, but now due to Google's new gmail policy(shame on Google for this), I cannot get any benefit by using firefox to manage multiple GMails, I hate to sign-in 3 times with 3 different browsers when I start my PC, I know it's for security, but it's still annoying and I do know this is not FF's fault, but this do reduces the score that FF get when comparing with Chrome. If there's any new plugins that can deal with this, please let me know.
1. New logic behind Firefox's Certification Key management is sucks!
It started to fuck me since FF4, have you ever encountered a "Secure Connection Failed" which Error code is: sec_error_reused_issuer_and_serial? After read the root cause from this link:
https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Certificate%20contains%20the%20same%20serial%20number%20as%20another%20certificate
and searched any possible solutions to workaround this, I must say this is a BIG WRONG DECISION that Mozilla made for Firefox after Ver 4. They intended to forbid any user to access the web in https through some old router that doesn't generate the security certificates well. I know they gave this restriction to prevent some kind of attack, but so what? does my parent who are already 60 years old working in a big company should buy in this? And compare to other browser: IE has no such problem, Chrome has no such problem, Safari has no such problem, if you are an IT guy and people put this on table then what will you do?
OF COURSE you won't do anything to that old but expansive router, because it's very possible that there's no one knows how to deal with it, the things that you will do is to write a batch file and put it into schedule which will REPLACE every Firefox to Chrome!
So now, I'll have to tell my big old company customers:
FORGET FIREFOX, because your router is too old to generate a proper certification so Mozilla foundation think you are not deserved to use their product! Imagine what they will ask you to do next.
Backward compatibility is not just compromise, it's an important feature!
In this case, what Firefox can do is simply provide a boolean config that MIS can turn on or off before they trigger the installation to every desktop, or, they can prompt this error with a special option to let user bypass the check after reading the possible hazard description.
But the only workaround that Firefox left you by now is to delete the cert8.db which stored every exception that you have while doing the certification,(Yeah, you can delete THAT certification if you know which one, but do you really know how many Cert was screwed up in your Firefox?) and you need to turn off Firefox before doing this.
2011年9月27日 星期二
Re: [心得] 台灣的軟體工程師該何去何從？
This is a reply that I wrote at PTT.CC, I think it's good to post it here.
: 其實就軟體產業來說我個人也認為不太樂觀，
: 從中國近年薪資成長的幅度和高低差距就可以看出，
: 中國現在很像當初台灣經濟起飛的那個階段，
: 一般人民想要往中產階級前進，基本上走軟體這塊是非常迅速的一條捷徑
: 只要習得進階的技術，便很容易能年年身價跟著水漲船高
: 加上盜版真的也算是中國軟體業快速成長的幕後英雄
: 技術、資訊的易取得性，任何有心人士只要一台電腦和網路線
: 就可以在家閉門造車、甚至練成一身絕技
: 於是中國人材前仆後繼的投入這塊領域
我不否認現在中國大陸的軟體業比起台灣發展的更熱，但這個立論有幾個問題：
1. 對岸同水準的開發者，薪資比起我們只贏不輸。
當然我說的是台票40000+以上的在比，低標由於基本薪資還有物價水準的關係，台灣的低階行情薪資會比大陸高。而大陸職場軟體業專業開發者每年談薪水多是10%起跳的，一跳槽能翻兩翻的新聞還有聽到，這點台灣就輸很大了。
也就是說，同樣都是有賺錢的軟體公司，大陸的薪水不會以台灣差，而漲幅可能更好。
2. 盜版什麼的，台灣條件要不相同要不更好。
如果說靠盜版就能撐起軟體業，台灣當年都被『譽為』海盜王國，差點就要超級301了，那為什麼我們的軟體沒起來？明明一切都早了別人十多年。至於資訊開放，我們的網路沒有金盾擋著，沒有censorship，種花電信官僚歸官僚，還不至於是黑心ISP，我們連國外可一向比較快且穩的。
所以，『大陸軟體業比台灣火爆』的成因不會是低成本、盜版、資訊流通快速。
: 即使中國就軟體人員的素質來說，相較於台灣還算是比較參差不齊
: 但縱使假設台灣 10 個軟體人員裡面，稱得上優秀的有五個好了
: 而中國保守假設 10 個只有一個
: 但中國人口數是台灣的 50 倍之多
: 整體下來可用之兵還是足夠打掛台灣..
整個非洲加起來的人比我們多，但沒有人在害怕非洲。
整個新加坡人口比台北市還少，但我們羨慕他們的成果。
(他們當然有很多不好的地方)。
另外，『打掛台灣』？
產業是市場經濟的領域，不是統獨政治的場域。大陸人開軟體公司的目的是為什麼？就為了搶台灣人的飯碗嗎？我看不出大陸老闆特別針對台灣會有何利益上的合理性。
人多從來都不是問題，軟體業只是一個統稱，裡面有太多的專門領域以及各式各樣特殊的獲利模式。
一個已經有100人，平均個人年薪70萬台幣的公司，沒有辦法全力去進入一個年產值只有10億的市場，因為CEO會在董事會議上被釘到牆上去。一個需要聘請Sales去跑業務、接單抽成的軟體公司，沒有辦法去做一套可以只賣100美金的軟體。一個想跟VC拿500萬美金的團隊，當初跟VC的承諾，絕對不會只有每年穩當淨收50萬、年獲利成長率10%、五年後開始獲利。
台灣一個團隊的資源與人數比較小，那就挑對手也只能丟一樣的人數、資源的領域去做就可以了。
: 加上個人曾經跟公司內中國分部合作的經驗
: 發現或許是他們那的誘惑少很多
: 有的工程師竟然只要沒事的話，都是在 trace 一個數十萬行程式碼裡面
: 各 function 和流程，真不知該說是佩服還是無言來形容....
我想包括我在內，版上很多人閒著沒事都是在看Code的。
你如果挑得是Eclipse還是Linux，那你還可以說『我看得是百萬行級的程式碼』。這不是誘不誘惑的問題，這是知識工作者對自身專業的態度與要求問題。: 現在中國一些著名的軟體和公司，不管是 UI 或是功能設計， : 其實蠻多都已超越外國軟體 : 反之台灣或許就是富有慣了 軟體產業像是一個邁入退休階段的老年人 : (但卻沒有一般到達退休階段該有的薪資水準) : 以致於大部份的人興趣潰乏 只求不要過勞死、能溫飽就好 : 唯部份人還能依靠著「熱情」不斷向上充實提升 : 但現實是....熱情會永遠歷久不綴嗎? : 想當年資訊產業剛盛行時 : 很多中文軟體技術文件的第一手資訊都還只能找繁體版咧... 我認為中國大陸軟體業長期來說會起來最重要的兩點： 1. 市場為創新之母，而他們有夠大的本土市場。 大陸新興了這麼多少則數百、動輒成千上萬名員工的企業，如果這些企業在自己的市場裡要跟對手競爭，他們一定要依靠IT建設來流通資訊。 而他們競爭的對象可不只國內自己人，多得是有外商來插一腳、分杯羹的。 所以中國企業要存活，他們一開始就會考慮用目前世界現役水準的IT科技才能至少不輸給外商。那麼需求誕生了，你是在中國開公司做軟體的，你會不鑽研最前面的嗎？ 2.政府專制。 很諷刺的，中國政府在資訊控制與言論管制，不論在實際政策執行與法規方面都相當的『有效率』。這樣的效率還有中國獨特的對『法』的認識與解釋，使得顯著比例的外商在中國栽了個大跟斗。(中國對自己人偏心，但誰叫你外國人看到人家市場大就犯賤要來做生意呢？)不民主、不法制、語言也不是很通，這都給了本土有心想發展的企業很好的機會鑽空子。 至於台灣，只能說，這十多年的軟體現況，就像是棵矮樹站在『硬體製造』的參天巨木旁，掙扎著要去多照一點光、多吸一點水。資金、人才、政府關愛都被吸走，而不論是業界還是學界，從來也沒有凝聚什麼特定共識最後做出成績出來。 台灣小，但小不是藉口。 韓國也小，而在我們嘲笑他們的公家機關網站很爛的時候，他們的公務員跟民間卻硬是把遊戲產業做起來了。而台灣人的政府只會在那邊戰藍綠，沒在討論共識的。 回到正題，在台灣要開一間在特定領域作到『世界級』的軟體公司，大概Google Search該領域關鍵字，同領域產品可以排進前五名這樣的水準，並不是辦不到： 1. 如果目標是賺外國人的錢，那就要做『文化中性、領域專門』的產品。 簡單的說，你的目標用戶，最好是某個非常專門領域的知識工作者，而那個領域基本上沒有地理區域上的文化偏好。舉例來說，你做的如果是Matlab、RDBMS，會對這種東西有需求的人通常都是為了他們專業上的需求而用，而不論是哪裡的科學家，他們對matlab的需求價值不會有文化上的不同。 做領域專門的東西有幾個好處： 1)池塘裡養不了鯨魚。如果該領域真的很特殊，那市場總產值一般就不高，跳下來對那些大傢伙來說只有資金資源擱淺的份。 2)機會成本構成進入障礙。學歷身份太好，想要年薪15萬USD起跳的人不會進來。本來產業就沒多少錢，當然不可能冒險請尊神像供著。 賺外國人的錢，而不抱台灣企業的大腿有幾個好處： 1)客戶不會三天兩頭要你"onCall onSite onSchedule"，人不近不親就沒有可以盧人情的空間，沒有人情買賣的成本就好損害控制。不要小看Local Support這種Event Driven的Task對團隊開發效能的侵害，寧可生意不做，不要Over service。 2)保證的事有作到，他們普遍給錢不囉唆。特別是法制國家的客戶。 3)市場大多了。只要產品領域是文化中性的，台灣人做的跟美國人做的分不出來，那就是產品說話:價值取向、品質、價格決勝負。 4)開發者的滿意度會比較高。兩個開發者，一個中華民國政府、台灣中小企業的專案三年接10個，一個走自己的步調開發公司的產品，透過網路與世界各地的客戶做Consult Support也是做三年，是你你選哪一個？哪間公司比較好留人、比較好累積知識資產？哪一個從公司畢了業要找工作時履歷比較好看？答案很明顯。 2. 要做低單價的東西。 最好一張訂單可以壓在1000 USD以內(可以是任何夠低的價格，目標市場的客戶可以不用 經過層層審核就能動用的錢以內最好)，低單價可以保證二件事： 1)你會強迫自己在產品的價值訴求上採取『大廠不可能用』的差異化策略。 也許你的產品跟某大廠生產的的產品都叫做A，但是市場上會買你的東西的人，跟會買大廠的東西的人將會非常的不同，因為他們是基於不同的需求來評價各自心中的A的。 2)市場上VC投資很多錢的競爭對手，被迫得要燒更久的錢。 單價與客戶數量決定流進來的現金，而現金決定獲利。當你跟競爭對手提供的產品服務有著重疊度很高的價值取向、而不論那一方都難以訴求新的價值來爭取客戶時，價格就會決定何者採用。這時候透過壓低單價把回報期拉長，就會使競爭中燒錢速度快的那方 - 特別是有VC投很多錢佔投資比例高的團隊會變得非常痛苦。 VC的特性就是：他們想要一個大的錢投下去、快快燒、快快回報，年報酬率數字好看公司就能賣到好價格，因為對他們來說資金週轉率很重要。這樣的特性使得VC普遍的缺乏耐心，他們會在Review時去『建議』他們認為可以衝高業績來讓帳面數字好看、讓投資人安心的『作法』。 簡單的說，如果錢都要足夠燒超過兩年，當你背了100萬，而對手背著500萬，那麼當單價被壓低時，VC臭臉的程度、Funder胃痛的程度、團隊在壓力下做出錯誤決策的風險，你的對手就是你的五倍。 基本上以上的策略就是在消除『超級對手』出現介入的可能性。 我個人相信台灣有很大一塊的中高階人力(秀才)，都是浪費在國內很多吃不飽餓不死、累積不了專業、也沒有能與高報酬匹配的挑戰的專案環境裡。這些人其實都是可用的兵力將這些人釋放出來，或從新一代開始把人往這樣的方向導過去，我們可以拿優秀的小團隊去對付那些傻傻跳進來沒有穿吊嘎拖鞋去苦幹五年的心裡準備的對手。 回到政府的作為。台灣政府有個白痴的思考方式，就是認為：『產業產值越大，越值得大家跳下去。』
看看新聞講得那些： MEMS很大很好我們要做、生科很大很好我們要做、Cloud很大很好我們要做。 一堆專家學者們還在做著有一天自己的研究可以『超英趕美』的白日夢，結果總是讓產業被各國專利打臉，只因為『市場在人家的土地上，而人家地雷已經埋好了』。都已經21世紀了還在幻想可以像過去竹科那樣，靠一個產業幾家指標企業養所有人。兩兆雙星、新的園區、新的產業條例都是這種好大喜功的思維表現。 台灣軟體的產業開拓，應該要朝一籃子特殊領域產業開始前進。 軟體是一個需求變化多端、快速、零碎，供給價值的前提假設變化莫測的領域。 戰爭迷霧大，目標模糊，就總是有外國企業重艦巨炮無法著力的地方。 化整為零打游擊，從低產值的『鄉村』偏僻領域開始，一個一個的用優勢兵力局部聚焦方式做出優秀產品把市場打下來，那麼只要累積到一定程度，鄉村就會包圍城市，只要剛好在一個關鍵的大需求上我們湊齊了一條龍，那就是螞蟻搬象的時候到了。
2011年9月26日 星期一
Re: [職場] 派遣是真的是好跳板??
This is an email response around an year ago, now I think it's good to release it.
: 您好
: 我在 Salary 版看到您發的這篇文章
: 想請問的是最後這幾句話
: 先說明我本身的背景
: 我目前為大四生，今年即將畢業
: 而去年曾經去某知名科技外商公司面試
: 當初他們想徵的人是有某專業背景，並希望畢業後能繼續留任的
: 而很幸運的我被入取了
: 並分發到某專案去 而直屬上司即是專案的PM
: 但上任第一天 PM才跟我說 其實我畢業後
: 我的email 名片 上班同事等等都跟正職相同
: 但我的人頭是掛在公司自己的人力派遣公司名下
: 而如今已經5月多了 我都沒投過任何履歷
: 專案的顧客公司PM知道後 還建議我去投另一間比現在名聲小一點的外商科技公司
: 說正職比派遣的好!!???
你確實應該投看看，而且不只一家，而是要投很多間。人出來工作一定要清楚知道自己的行情，你可以因為『
職場中人對別人好有沒有什麼算計不是三兩年看得出來的，
我個人只相信等價交換，如果我值得這麼多，
這個代價可以是薪資、可以是福利、可以是一個機會、
這是誠意與承諾，而確實的履行承諾才能形成信用。
公司對員工投注的心血與人力成本，
: 老實說 自己也知道公司是因為要節省成本才會考慮先用實習生再轉派遣員
: 但就如您所說的 我是由外商公司徵選進去 而現在帶我訓練我的人也是外商公司的人
: 而且的確學到很多東西 而帶我的師父也很不藏私的在教我
: 可是考慮的點是:
: 1. 直到現在都還沒和PM談過薪水問題，但預計大概部會超過三萬..
: 且這非正職員工(但此公司很少用新鮮人當正職的....)
談薪水的重點在於：
你作過什麼，
越菜的就越會喜歡寫一些學校裡有的沒的，
: 2. 若真的想要找其他正職，必須盡快了! 但公司內的資深員工卻說公司一直都是先將較
: 菜的員工先放派遣公司下 過幾年再轉正職的!!
: 而前輩您文章最後的那幾句話，是不是反應了這樣的做法是正常的?
統計上的外商公司這樣是正常的，
: 3. 在實習期間，公司沒幫我保勞健保，當初也不懂原來是要保的! 而現在實習生的
: 身分下，我沒簽屬任何一份文件(除了保密文件外)，
: 派遣公司，在外商公司中也沒身分....
: 我現在領的薪水是專案擠出來的錢，是每個月PM親手拿錢給我的.
: 但很確定畢業後是會掛在公司自己的派遣公司名下
這個我猜是台灣人在外商底下做事搞出來的權宜之計。其實也沒啥不好，只要確定未來不會繼續如此就好。
: 我其實一直很迷網.... 不知該如何是好...
: 能進這家公司 其實是真的很幸運 而且也學到了很多東西
: 但卻又有種被騙的感覺....
: 想請問前輩外商公司這樣是正常的嗎?
: 而如果這兩年人頭掛在這間派遣公司，再轉正職前去別家公司應徵 會有負面影響嗎?
: 我真的很迷網 希望前輩能好心指點一下!!
: 真的很感謝你 ORZ
人跳來跳去很正常，會不會有負面影響不是因為你想跳，
至於被騙，你失去了什麼嗎？
如果答案都是『不是』，那我想你知道你是被騙了，
如果是後者，我告訴你一個事實。
這世上原本沒有公平，要不是人類想要把每個個體組織起來，
你可以仔細想一下，如果不是放在需要被組織起來的社會架構中，
兩個原始部落的個別的兩個獵人在密林裡遭遇了，他們會討論公平？
美國跟中國在澳洲、中東、俄羅斯搶爭天然資源開採許可權時，
八國聯軍打進中國瓜分土地財富時，他們有想到公平？
你看，
你的公司會跟你講公平嗎？會，但對不起，
所以比起公平，更重要的是利益。
你得到什麼利益？
: 您好
: 我在 Salary 版看到您發的這篇文章
: 想請問的是最後這幾句話
: 先說明我本身的背景
: 我目前為大四生，今年即將畢業
: 而去年曾經去某知名科技外商公司面試
: 當初他們想徵的人是有某專業背景，並希望畢業後能繼續留任的
: 而很幸運的我被入取了
: 並分發到某專案去 而直屬上司即是專案的PM
: 但上任第一天 PM才跟我說 其實我畢業後
: 我的email 名片 上班同事等等都跟正職相同
: 但我的人頭是掛在公司自己的人力派遣公司名下
: 而如今已經5月多了 我都沒投過任何履歷
: 專案的顧客公司PM知道後 還建議我去投另一間比現在名聲小一點的外商科技公司
: 說正職比派遣的好!!???
你確實應該投看看，而且不只一家，而是要投很多間。人出來工作一定要清楚知道自己的行情，你可以因為『
職場中人對別人好有沒有什麼算計不是三兩年看得出來的，
我個人只相信等價交換，如果我值得這麼多，
這個代價可以是薪資、可以是福利、可以是一個機會、
這是誠意與承諾，而確實的履行承諾才能形成信用。
公司對員工投注的心血與人力成本，
: 老實說 自己也知道公司是因為要節省成本才會考慮先用實習生再轉派遣員
: 但就如您所說的 我是由外商公司徵選進去 而現在帶我訓練我的人也是外商公司的人
: 而且的確學到很多東西 而帶我的師父也很不藏私的在教我
: 可是考慮的點是:
: 1. 直到現在都還沒和PM談過薪水問題，但預計大概部會超過三萬..
: 且這非正職員工(但此公司很少用新鮮人當正職的....)
談薪水的重點在於：
你作過什麼，
越菜的就越會喜歡寫一些學校裡有的沒的，
: 2. 若真的想要找其他正職，必須盡快了! 但公司內的資深員工卻說公司一直都是先將較
: 菜的員工先放派遣公司下 過幾年再轉正職的!!
: 而前輩您文章最後的那幾句話，是不是反應了這樣的做法是正常的?
統計上的外商公司這樣是正常的，
: 3. 在實習期間，公司沒幫我保勞健保，當初也不懂原來是要保的! 而現在實習生的
: 身分下，我沒簽屬任何一份文件(除了保密文件外)，
: 派遣公司，在外商公司中也沒身分....
: 我現在領的薪水是專案擠出來的錢，是每個月PM親手拿錢給我的.
: 但很確定畢業後是會掛在公司自己的派遣公司名下
這個我猜是台灣人在外商底下做事搞出來的權宜之計。其實也沒啥不好，只要確定未來不會繼續如此就好。
: 我其實一直很迷網.... 不知該如何是好...
: 能進這家公司 其實是真的很幸運 而且也學到了很多東西
: 但卻又有種被騙的感覺....
: 想請問前輩外商公司這樣是正常的嗎?
: 而如果這兩年人頭掛在這間派遣公司，再轉正職前去別家公司應徵 會有負面影響嗎?
: 我真的很迷網 希望前輩能好心指點一下!!
: 真的很感謝你 ORZ
人跳來跳去很正常，會不會有負面影響不是因為你想跳，
至於被騙，你失去了什麼嗎？
如果答案都是『不是』，那我想你知道你是被騙了，
如果是後者，我告訴你一個事實。
這世上原本沒有公平，要不是人類想要把每個個體組織起來，
你可以仔細想一下，如果不是放在需要被組織起來的社會架構中，
兩個原始部落的個別的兩個獵人在密林裡遭遇了，他們會討論公平？
美國跟中國在澳洲、中東、俄羅斯搶爭天然資源開採許可權時，
八國聯軍打進中國瓜分土地財富時，他們有想到公平？
你看，
你的公司會跟你講公平嗎？會，但對不起，
所以比起公平，更重要的是利益。
你得到什麼利益？
2011年9月23日 星期五
Top 10 Mistakes Employers Make in the Recruiting and Hiring Process
Directed copy from this link:
http://www.fordyceletter.com/2008/02/01/top-10-mistakes-employers-make-in-the-recruiting-and-hiring-process/
We have been here since 1952 and have been through literally thousands of hiring processes. We are asked about the biggest and most frequent mistakes that hiring authorities make in the recruiting, interviewing, and hiring process. Here they are:
1. Not having a clear idea of what they are looking for – that everyone understands.
Hiring authorities aren’t specific enough about the duties, skills, and competencies they need. They confuse amount of experience with competency: “8 to 10 years of experience” – does that mean that someone with six years of experience can’t do the job? Or what about the candidate who has had one year of experience 10 times? Putting any kind of numbers of years of experience limits them. What is important?
Employers would be better off defining the functions they want done very specifically, and then finding someone who can do it. This may mean someone who has done it well before or someone who has the potential to do it well. The specifics need to be written by the hiring authority who has the “pain,” i.e., the person who needs the help and is going to be responsible for the new employee.
Concocting “wish lists” of super-human attributes, combined with unrealistically low pay scales relative to expectations of the experience needed, will create havoc in a talent search. Hazy, ambiguous descriptions along with generalities like “good written and oral communication skills” don’t help either. Know your target.
2. Having an unrealistic idea of what kind of candidates might be available and the money it may take to hire them.
Just because everyone would like to hire Superman or Wonder Woman, that doesn’t mean they are available or will go to work at your company. There is no perfect candidate, and waiting for one is as unrealistic as searching for one.
The only way to become realistic about what the market might bear is to interview enough candidates to know what is available and the commensurate earnings expected. It may take quite a few interviews. The number of quality candidates is drastically lower than it was even two years ago. Our clients are often shocked that the salaries they are locked into won’t allow them to hire the quality or experience they wish for.
And just because you believe that your company is wonderful, it doesn’t mean: (1) everyone wants to go to work there, (2) they will accept any amount you offer, and (3) there aren’t four or five other firms like yours trying to hire the same candidates.
3. Having too many people involved in the interviewing process . . . and the wrong ones.
More than a number of studies have shown that hiring is just as successful when one person, the one with the “pain” (i.e., the direct manager), is the only person involved in the hiring process as opposed to more than one. In fact, other studies have shown that once the number of people in the interviewing and hiring process exceeds three, the probability of a bad hire is greater. The reason so many people are usually involved in the interviewing and hiring process is that people, naturally, want to spread the risk. So if it turns out to be a poor hire, people can justify their decision with “Well, you interviewed him too!” Few people have the courage to interview and hire alone and take the responsibility one way or the other, even though better hiring decisions would probably be made.
. . . and the wrong ones. Relying on people to screen, interview, or have a say in the hiring who have no personal, working benefit from the potential new hire’s performance (i.e., their position is in jeopardy if a poor hire is made) is a big mistake. Most managers will claim that hiring good people is the second or third most important function they have, right behind making a profit. We can never figure out why, if this is so, hiring authorities will delegate screening or interviewing of candidates to people, although wonderful people, who have no direct experience, knowledge, or “skin” in the position to be filled. “But I don’t have time to look at résumés and interview all those people,” is what we hear. Well, if hiring is one of a manager’s most important functions, he or she should take the time and make the effort to do the whole job from start to finish. How can they afford not to?
4. Process takes too long.
The average manager thinks that it takes about 30 days to fill a vacant position. Try the truth: between 90 and 120! Why? Because folks drag things out that should be simple – not easy, but simple. When the hiring process takes too long, good candidates are lost to more decisive companies, managers look inept at hiring, and it gets harder and harder to fill the vacancy. Managers, again, don’t give this the priority status needed – shown by action, not lip service. Time kills! The “shelf life” of quality candidates is shorter and shorter.
5. Poor interviewing techniques.
If hiring authorities would simply write out a simple (or complicated) list of questions and ask every candidate the same questions, record the answers, and compare the responses – quickly – hiring decisions would be easy to make.
“Tell me about yourself” is the first question down the wrong road. Most employers start with that, ask random questions to “get to know the candidate,” make notes on the résumés, and then three weeks later try to compare the candidates. They often spend hours with candidates and don’t remember the differences between them.
A structured, disciplined interview technique that is applied to every candidate in exactly the same manner is the only real way to compare candidates. It is so simple and yet so seldom practiced. (We have samples of structured interviews for the asking.)
6. Interviewing or not interviewing a candidate on the basis of a resume!
Forty percent of hiring a person is based on personality and chemistry! Then why do people rely on resumes instead of interviews? Because they don’t know how to use a resume.
I can’t tell you how many phenomenal candidates get eliminated because of a resume and how many poor performers get interviewed because of a well-written resume. “But I can’t interview every resume I get!” OK, right. But if a candidate even looks like a possibility of being a good one, at least pick up the phone and spend 15 or 20 minutes with him or her. Or, better yet, spend 30 minutes face to face with them. Get a quick take on who they are and what they can do. Do this with a number of candidates. You can then thoroughly interview the ones that are the best for your situation. This method is quick and efficient, but it takes discipline – no more than 30 minutes on the first one!
Hiring authorities and screeners put way too much emphasis on what is on a resume. They try to judge the total quality of a candidate by a resume. A resume is a “go by.” It should simply define a candidate as a “possibility”- and a broad possibility at that. The interviews have to be the qualifiers.
People who “qualify” a candidate and decide how he or she is going to perform should read Tony Romo’s resume a nobody; or Kurt Warner’s – a bagger at a grocery store; or Abe Lincoln’s – many failures. Don’t rely on resumes!
7. Not interviewing enough candidates – or interviewing way too many.
Most hiring managers err on the “too few” end of the spectrum. “I want to talk to the three best candidates!” “I don’t have time to talk to everybody!” No one person other than a hiring authority can tell who is “best.” Three or four is usually too few. The “bell curve” for most professional hires is about 9 or 10 candidates. This, of course, depends on the level of job and the availability of certain types of candidates. The key is to know what kind of availability there is in the marketplace for the kind of person being sought. Our banking division, for instance, may be lucky to find three or four qualified VPs at any one time. A mid-level sales position may require 10 or 12 candidates. Even recruiting a number of quality candidates for administrative positions, which traditionally would bear many quality candidates, isn’t as easy to do in this market.
The key is to interview a range of quality candidates and know what is available. If you want to wait for superman or superwoman, I guess it’s OK. It just depends on how badly you need to hire someone. Just be sure you know, firsthand, the quality of candidates on the market. The only way to do that is to do your own interviewing of the numbers necessary and available.
The other end of the spectrum is the hiring authority who wants to interview forever, thinking unrealistically that the quality of candidates will get better the more that are interviewed and the longer it takes. All too often, we hear from hiring authorities, “We have interviewed 20, 25, or 30 candidates.” There is something wrong here. They exhaust themselves in a “process,” forgetting the result, and then complain about it. It doesn’t get a good employee. They confuse activity with productivity.
Interview the number of candidates necessary. Don’t make the mistake on either end of the spectrum.
8. Not communicating with candidates after interviews and not giving honest feedback.
For some reason, hiring authorities don’t seem to mind being rude – even to candidates they are interested in hiring. Everyone is busy. The truth is that, to a candidate looking for a job, whether presently employed or not, finding a job is a very high priority. To a hiring authority, in spite of the lip service about how important hiring is, it is simply one of their functions. Hiring is a risk. Most employers don’t really like doing it. So the process often gets postponed, sloppy, and rather unprofessional.
As the market tightens, quality candidates will have many suitors. A good candidate will simply lose interest in a possibly good opportunity if they are treated rudely. We have had many candidates elect to pursue opportunities simply because they were treated with respect and courtesy.
Also, if the candidate isn’t going to be considered, he or she should be told as soon as possible. We are amazed at the number of hiring authorities who won’t return a candidate’s call, or multiple calls, just to say that they have found a more suitable candidate. We never know when that kind of lack of courtesy will come back to us. Years ago, I had a candidate who was rudely ignored by a hiring authority. A few years later, the roles were reversed. The candidate was now a hiring authority, and when I tried to get him to see my candidate, the hiring authority of a few years ago, my client laughed and said no with vengeful glee. He remembered how he had been treated. What goes around often comes around.
9. Not selling the job and the company.
Although this isn’t the biggest mistake hiring authorities make, it is certainly the most prevalent one. We can never figure out why, in trying to find the best talent available, hiring authorities act as if they are doing someone a favor by granting them the privilege of an interview. They act as though they have the only job on the planet, and candidates are begging to work there. Wrong! Good candidates will have many choices. The days of the early 2000s, when there were endless numbers of candidates, are gone. The company and the hiring authorities that sell their job the best will hire the best talent. It is a candidate-driven market. We can also forget lowball offers, poor benefits, or a “take it or leave it” attitude when making an offer.
10. Not having “backup” candidates.
This means continuing to interview even though a great candidate may have been found. In fact, we recommend having three great candidates in the queue.
As happens too often, a hiring authority zeroes in on one candidate, and as the interviewing process drags on (see #4), the hiring authority quits interviewing because it is a pain. They get to the end of the process, make an offer, and it isn’t accepted. The frustration of having to start all over is astounding. So the solution is to keep interviewing until someone is hired – and has started the job. We simply expect that a good candidate is going to get multiple offers.
10 (a) Not firing a new hire when the hiring is obviously a mistake.
This is a tough mistake to make. Everyone wants to see a new employee make it. But too often, cutting new hires too much slack because they are new is a mistake. The numbers of failed new hires we have seen that were let go or quit six or seven months after their hiring, with the hiring authority complaining, “I saw it in the first week!” would make us all cry. It becomes disruptive to the business, it destroys the chemistry of the employees working with the new hire, and worst of all, everyone can detect it, but the hiring authority chooses to overlook it. Respect for the hiring authority diminishes, and eventually the new employee leaves or is fired.
The solution that better hiring authorities adopt is to keep new employees in line in the very beginning, even “over manage” a bit. If disregard for company policies, or poor work habits, like showing up late, missing work, having numerous “personal” problems, emerge in the first few weeks of employment, it isn’t going to get any better. Besides, the “honeymoon” isn’t even over.
There is a big difference between “rookie” mistakes and poor work habits, low integrity, bad manners, or serious personal problems that impinge on work. Even the most rigorous interviewing process and extensive reference, background, and credit checking can’t prevent this from happening.
One of the most successful hiring authorities we worked with years ago had a great philosophy. He was the most successful general manager of a nationwide insurance company. And he was that for 15 years in a row. He managed 110 people, directly and indirectly. He told me one time that he wasn’t successful because he hired better people than the other GMs around the country. The difference was that he fired people “when he first got the inkling.” He simply didn’t waste his time on people he knew weren’t going to make it.
The sense of when to fire a new employee is personal. Good managers know when to do it. Hire carefully, but fire quickly! If a bad hire is made, eliminate it quickly. The hiring authority will look like a true manager, and everyone is better off.
Tony Beshara is a legendary big biller and heavy hitter. He has been a major player in the search and placement business since 1973 and is the owner of Babich & Associates, in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. He authored “The Job Search Solution” and has appeared on the Dr. Phil show several times. His new book, just released, is “Acing the Interview.” It’s chock-full of information for the job seeker, and I give it a two thumbs up for everyone in our business as well. Over 450 questions (and the optimum answers) are included. Available at your local bookstore or through Amazon.com, Barnesandnoble.com, and other Internet book-selling sites at an amazingly inexpensive price.
Since 1973, Tony Beshara has placed more than 7,000 people on a one-on-one basis, in more than 100 different job categories. His candidates have accepted positions earning minimum wage and salaries up to more than a million dollars a year. Tony has directly worked with more than 24,000 hiring authorities, at 21,000 different hiring organizations. The system he has developed has helped more than 100,000 people find jobs. Tony‘s first book, The Job Search Solution, was one of the top ten best sellers in 2005 in its category and its success led to the creation of TheJobSearchSolution.com, a web-based training program believed to be the first of its kind for people going through the job search process. His second book, Acing the Interview, was released in January of ‘08 and has received very positive reviews from critics.
http://www.fordyceletter.com/2008/02/01/top-10-mistakes-employers-make-in-the-recruiting-and-hiring-process/
We have been here since 1952 and have been through literally thousands of hiring processes. We are asked about the biggest and most frequent mistakes that hiring authorities make in the recruiting, interviewing, and hiring process. Here they are:
1. Not having a clear idea of what they are looking for – that everyone understands.
Hiring authorities aren’t specific enough about the duties, skills, and competencies they need. They confuse amount of experience with competency: “8 to 10 years of experience” – does that mean that someone with six years of experience can’t do the job? Or what about the candidate who has had one year of experience 10 times? Putting any kind of numbers of years of experience limits them. What is important?
Employers would be better off defining the functions they want done very specifically, and then finding someone who can do it. This may mean someone who has done it well before or someone who has the potential to do it well. The specifics need to be written by the hiring authority who has the “pain,” i.e., the person who needs the help and is going to be responsible for the new employee.
Concocting “wish lists” of super-human attributes, combined with unrealistically low pay scales relative to expectations of the experience needed, will create havoc in a talent search. Hazy, ambiguous descriptions along with generalities like “good written and oral communication skills” don’t help either. Know your target.
2. Having an unrealistic idea of what kind of candidates might be available and the money it may take to hire them.
Just because everyone would like to hire Superman or Wonder Woman, that doesn’t mean they are available or will go to work at your company. There is no perfect candidate, and waiting for one is as unrealistic as searching for one.
The only way to become realistic about what the market might bear is to interview enough candidates to know what is available and the commensurate earnings expected. It may take quite a few interviews. The number of quality candidates is drastically lower than it was even two years ago. Our clients are often shocked that the salaries they are locked into won’t allow them to hire the quality or experience they wish for.
And just because you believe that your company is wonderful, it doesn’t mean: (1) everyone wants to go to work there, (2) they will accept any amount you offer, and (3) there aren’t four or five other firms like yours trying to hire the same candidates.
3. Having too many people involved in the interviewing process . . . and the wrong ones.
More than a number of studies have shown that hiring is just as successful when one person, the one with the “pain” (i.e., the direct manager), is the only person involved in the hiring process as opposed to more than one. In fact, other studies have shown that once the number of people in the interviewing and hiring process exceeds three, the probability of a bad hire is greater. The reason so many people are usually involved in the interviewing and hiring process is that people, naturally, want to spread the risk. So if it turns out to be a poor hire, people can justify their decision with “Well, you interviewed him too!” Few people have the courage to interview and hire alone and take the responsibility one way or the other, even though better hiring decisions would probably be made.
. . . and the wrong ones. Relying on people to screen, interview, or have a say in the hiring who have no personal, working benefit from the potential new hire’s performance (i.e., their position is in jeopardy if a poor hire is made) is a big mistake. Most managers will claim that hiring good people is the second or third most important function they have, right behind making a profit. We can never figure out why, if this is so, hiring authorities will delegate screening or interviewing of candidates to people, although wonderful people, who have no direct experience, knowledge, or “skin” in the position to be filled. “But I don’t have time to look at résumés and interview all those people,” is what we hear. Well, if hiring is one of a manager’s most important functions, he or she should take the time and make the effort to do the whole job from start to finish. How can they afford not to?
4. Process takes too long.
The average manager thinks that it takes about 30 days to fill a vacant position. Try the truth: between 90 and 120! Why? Because folks drag things out that should be simple – not easy, but simple. When the hiring process takes too long, good candidates are lost to more decisive companies, managers look inept at hiring, and it gets harder and harder to fill the vacancy. Managers, again, don’t give this the priority status needed – shown by action, not lip service. Time kills! The “shelf life” of quality candidates is shorter and shorter.
5. Poor interviewing techniques.
If hiring authorities would simply write out a simple (or complicated) list of questions and ask every candidate the same questions, record the answers, and compare the responses – quickly – hiring decisions would be easy to make.
“Tell me about yourself” is the first question down the wrong road. Most employers start with that, ask random questions to “get to know the candidate,” make notes on the résumés, and then three weeks later try to compare the candidates. They often spend hours with candidates and don’t remember the differences between them.
A structured, disciplined interview technique that is applied to every candidate in exactly the same manner is the only real way to compare candidates. It is so simple and yet so seldom practiced. (We have samples of structured interviews for the asking.)
6. Interviewing or not interviewing a candidate on the basis of a resume!
Forty percent of hiring a person is based on personality and chemistry! Then why do people rely on resumes instead of interviews? Because they don’t know how to use a resume.
I can’t tell you how many phenomenal candidates get eliminated because of a resume and how many poor performers get interviewed because of a well-written resume. “But I can’t interview every resume I get!” OK, right. But if a candidate even looks like a possibility of being a good one, at least pick up the phone and spend 15 or 20 minutes with him or her. Or, better yet, spend 30 minutes face to face with them. Get a quick take on who they are and what they can do. Do this with a number of candidates. You can then thoroughly interview the ones that are the best for your situation. This method is quick and efficient, but it takes discipline – no more than 30 minutes on the first one!
Hiring authorities and screeners put way too much emphasis on what is on a resume. They try to judge the total quality of a candidate by a resume. A resume is a “go by.” It should simply define a candidate as a “possibility”- and a broad possibility at that. The interviews have to be the qualifiers.
People who “qualify” a candidate and decide how he or she is going to perform should read Tony Romo’s resume a nobody; or Kurt Warner’s – a bagger at a grocery store; or Abe Lincoln’s – many failures. Don’t rely on resumes!
7. Not interviewing enough candidates – or interviewing way too many.
Most hiring managers err on the “too few” end of the spectrum. “I want to talk to the three best candidates!” “I don’t have time to talk to everybody!” No one person other than a hiring authority can tell who is “best.” Three or four is usually too few. The “bell curve” for most professional hires is about 9 or 10 candidates. This, of course, depends on the level of job and the availability of certain types of candidates. The key is to know what kind of availability there is in the marketplace for the kind of person being sought. Our banking division, for instance, may be lucky to find three or four qualified VPs at any one time. A mid-level sales position may require 10 or 12 candidates. Even recruiting a number of quality candidates for administrative positions, which traditionally would bear many quality candidates, isn’t as easy to do in this market.
The key is to interview a range of quality candidates and know what is available. If you want to wait for superman or superwoman, I guess it’s OK. It just depends on how badly you need to hire someone. Just be sure you know, firsthand, the quality of candidates on the market. The only way to do that is to do your own interviewing of the numbers necessary and available.
The other end of the spectrum is the hiring authority who wants to interview forever, thinking unrealistically that the quality of candidates will get better the more that are interviewed and the longer it takes. All too often, we hear from hiring authorities, “We have interviewed 20, 25, or 30 candidates.” There is something wrong here. They exhaust themselves in a “process,” forgetting the result, and then complain about it. It doesn’t get a good employee. They confuse activity with productivity.
Interview the number of candidates necessary. Don’t make the mistake on either end of the spectrum.
8. Not communicating with candidates after interviews and not giving honest feedback.
For some reason, hiring authorities don’t seem to mind being rude – even to candidates they are interested in hiring. Everyone is busy. The truth is that, to a candidate looking for a job, whether presently employed or not, finding a job is a very high priority. To a hiring authority, in spite of the lip service about how important hiring is, it is simply one of their functions. Hiring is a risk. Most employers don’t really like doing it. So the process often gets postponed, sloppy, and rather unprofessional.
As the market tightens, quality candidates will have many suitors. A good candidate will simply lose interest in a possibly good opportunity if they are treated rudely. We have had many candidates elect to pursue opportunities simply because they were treated with respect and courtesy.
Also, if the candidate isn’t going to be considered, he or she should be told as soon as possible. We are amazed at the number of hiring authorities who won’t return a candidate’s call, or multiple calls, just to say that they have found a more suitable candidate. We never know when that kind of lack of courtesy will come back to us. Years ago, I had a candidate who was rudely ignored by a hiring authority. A few years later, the roles were reversed. The candidate was now a hiring authority, and when I tried to get him to see my candidate, the hiring authority of a few years ago, my client laughed and said no with vengeful glee. He remembered how he had been treated. What goes around often comes around.
9. Not selling the job and the company.
Although this isn’t the biggest mistake hiring authorities make, it is certainly the most prevalent one. We can never figure out why, in trying to find the best talent available, hiring authorities act as if they are doing someone a favor by granting them the privilege of an interview. They act as though they have the only job on the planet, and candidates are begging to work there. Wrong! Good candidates will have many choices. The days of the early 2000s, when there were endless numbers of candidates, are gone. The company and the hiring authorities that sell their job the best will hire the best talent. It is a candidate-driven market. We can also forget lowball offers, poor benefits, or a “take it or leave it” attitude when making an offer.
10. Not having “backup” candidates.
This means continuing to interview even though a great candidate may have been found. In fact, we recommend having three great candidates in the queue.
As happens too often, a hiring authority zeroes in on one candidate, and as the interviewing process drags on (see #4), the hiring authority quits interviewing because it is a pain. They get to the end of the process, make an offer, and it isn’t accepted. The frustration of having to start all over is astounding. So the solution is to keep interviewing until someone is hired – and has started the job. We simply expect that a good candidate is going to get multiple offers.
10 (a) Not firing a new hire when the hiring is obviously a mistake.
This is a tough mistake to make. Everyone wants to see a new employee make it. But too often, cutting new hires too much slack because they are new is a mistake. The numbers of failed new hires we have seen that were let go or quit six or seven months after their hiring, with the hiring authority complaining, “I saw it in the first week!” would make us all cry. It becomes disruptive to the business, it destroys the chemistry of the employees working with the new hire, and worst of all, everyone can detect it, but the hiring authority chooses to overlook it. Respect for the hiring authority diminishes, and eventually the new employee leaves or is fired.
The solution that better hiring authorities adopt is to keep new employees in line in the very beginning, even “over manage” a bit. If disregard for company policies, or poor work habits, like showing up late, missing work, having numerous “personal” problems, emerge in the first few weeks of employment, it isn’t going to get any better. Besides, the “honeymoon” isn’t even over.
There is a big difference between “rookie” mistakes and poor work habits, low integrity, bad manners, or serious personal problems that impinge on work. Even the most rigorous interviewing process and extensive reference, background, and credit checking can’t prevent this from happening.
One of the most successful hiring authorities we worked with years ago had a great philosophy. He was the most successful general manager of a nationwide insurance company. And he was that for 15 years in a row. He managed 110 people, directly and indirectly. He told me one time that he wasn’t successful because he hired better people than the other GMs around the country. The difference was that he fired people “when he first got the inkling.” He simply didn’t waste his time on people he knew weren’t going to make it.
The sense of when to fire a new employee is personal. Good managers know when to do it. Hire carefully, but fire quickly! If a bad hire is made, eliminate it quickly. The hiring authority will look like a true manager, and everyone is better off.
Tony Beshara is a legendary big biller and heavy hitter. He has been a major player in the search and placement business since 1973 and is the owner of Babich & Associates, in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. He authored “The Job Search Solution” and has appeared on the Dr. Phil show several times. His new book, just released, is “Acing the Interview.” It’s chock-full of information for the job seeker, and I give it a two thumbs up for everyone in our business as well. Over 450 questions (and the optimum answers) are included. Available at your local bookstore or through Amazon.com, Barnesandnoble.com, and other Internet book-selling sites at an amazingly inexpensive price.
Since 1973, Tony Beshara has placed more than 7,000 people on a one-on-one basis, in more than 100 different job categories. His candidates have accepted positions earning minimum wage and salaries up to more than a million dollars a year. Tony has directly worked with more than 24,000 hiring authorities, at 21,000 different hiring organizations. The system he has developed has helped more than 100,000 people find jobs. Tony‘s first book, The Job Search Solution, was one of the top ten best sellers in 2005 in its category and its success led to the creation of TheJobSearchSolution.com, a web-based training program believed to be the first of its kind for people going through the job search process. His second book, Acing the Interview, was released in January of ‘08 and has received very positive reviews from critics.
2011年9月1日 星期四
拒絕平庸
這是大陸今年高考的作文題目。
老實說，這個題目超爛。
那些我們認為不平凡而值得尊敬的人，他們的不平凡不是因為他們『拒絕平庸』，而是因為他們可以為想要實現的事情犧牲奉獻到常人無法理解的程度，從旁觀者的角度來看，這群人就是不會放棄。對這些人來說，面對那個『必須被實現的事情』沒有做不做得到的考慮，只有下一步該如何進行才能再靠近一點。
『拒絕』平庸？用這種角度思考跟小屁孩說他討厭吃青菜有啥兩樣？
人沒有辦法透過『拒絕』來建立什麼，只有將那個你無法『拒絕』、沒有藉口、那個你知道你的人生就是為了實現它而存在的價值給找出來，你才有可能不再平庸。
台灣最近有一個人，他從199x年就開始相信他該拍一部電影，他一路走來，從在電影圈工作打雜開始、執導短片、為了凝聚足夠的力量與信任拍出第一部賣座片、到最後終於眾人也開始相信他所相信的：『這部片台灣拍得出來。』於是大家開始出錢出力。
這部電影2011年9月9日上映，賽德克巴萊，一部導演從還不是導演只會說夢話開始，走過10多年去實現的那個價值。
一部電影如果可以看作是一個藝術品，這位導演這10幾年的人生也可以。
老實說，這個題目超爛。
那些我們認為不平凡而值得尊敬的人，他們的不平凡不是因為他們『拒絕平庸』，而是因為他們可以為想要實現的事情犧牲奉獻到常人無法理解的程度，從旁觀者的角度來看，這群人就是不會放棄。對這些人來說，面對那個『必須被實現的事情』沒有做不做得到的考慮，只有下一步該如何進行才能再靠近一點。
『拒絕』平庸？用這種角度思考跟小屁孩說他討厭吃青菜有啥兩樣？
人沒有辦法透過『拒絕』來建立什麼，只有將那個你無法『拒絕』、沒有藉口、那個你知道你的人生就是為了實現它而存在的價值給找出來，你才有可能不再平庸。
台灣最近有一個人，他從199x年就開始相信他該拍一部電影，他一路走來，從在電影圈工作打雜開始、執導短片、為了凝聚足夠的力量與信任拍出第一部賣座片、到最後終於眾人也開始相信他所相信的：『這部片台灣拍得出來。』於是大家開始出錢出力。
這部電影2011年9月9日上映，賽德克巴萊，一部導演從還不是導演只會說夢話開始，走過10多年去實現的那個價值。
一部電影如果可以看作是一個藝術品，這位導演這10幾年的人生也可以。
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)