When Working With A Recruiter May Not Be Right For You

Posted by Adam Malanaphy, Project Coordinator at Glenmont Group

Practicing good ethics is one of the core values that we recognize at the Glenmont Group. It is important to understand that recruiters can be an extremely useful tool for both the client and the candidate if used in a manner that will be mutually beneficial for both parties. With that being said, there are certain situations that are unlikely to bode well for all of the parties involved. I find that it is important to point out these scenarios early in the process to ensure a positive outcome.

If a candidate is experienced in the proper subject matter, but has been out of the job market for an extended period of time – it can be difficult to ensure a placement. In this situation, one must understand that our clients are charged a fee to attain the most relevant and talented candidates on the market. Although the candidate in question may be very talented, the fact remains that they will be perceived as less relevant than candidates who are currently working. If you combine the previous relevancy issue with the fee, it equates to a situation that is less than optimal. Two additional instances in which I would take the same approach are:  1) if a candidate is skillful, but still very early in their career, or 2) if a candidate is switching industries. In fact, we will often advise a candidate in either of these positions that they may be better off applying for a given role on their own. This will take the fee out of the equation and reduce the risk of hiring him/her for the position.

Let me now take the opportunity to point out the fact that it may seem taboo for a recruiter to advise candidates that using a recruiter is not always their best option. At first glance, some may even feel that blogging on this topic would be counterproductive. I think that either of those two conclusions could not be farther from the truth. We understand how important it is to “take our recruiter hats off” for a moment and implement a more consultative approach in order to provide our network with the best strategy available. That is one of the biggest advantages that we, as leaders in the recruiting market, can provide to our customers.

Legal Eagles – Law Fims Soaring or Grounded on Information Security?

Guest Blog by Jamie Herman, Firmwide Information Security Manager at Withers Bergman LLP

Law firms face similar information security challenges as financial institutions, yet they continue to drag their feet on developing a robust security strategy. Is cost the inhibitor or are we just witnessing a natural progression towards the multidimensional model of information security evolving within the legal industry? The answer can be broken down across three categories (which one might argue are variations of each other), of which are culture, cost, and alignment. I like to call this the CCA model (self-explanatory I know). Like most partnerships, law firms have culture to contend with, not just culture within the confines of the firm, but for an international firm, the cultural asymmetry between the American offices, European offices, and Asian offices. This unconformity creates a slippery slope that information security leaders and business leaders must navigate their way around to achieve an agreed upon strategy and set of policies. Let’s take a look at the CCA model in slightly more detail, and put parameters around achieving success in this space.

Culture

• Understand the culture of the firm, the partners, the support staff, and the regions the firm operates in.
• Work  within the structure provided at your firm, as deviating too far aware from current practices will throw up red flags and hinder progress.

Cost

• Most firms have a minimal amount of budgetary resources allocated for infosec…change this. Creating business cases or ROSI (Return On Security Investment) projections can go a long way to convincing the firm that it can’t afford not to increase infosec spending. This is not about technical controls solely, but more about user awareness training, administrative and operational controls collectively.
• Work with other I.T. leaders to identify projects that might be of a lesser priority in favor of information security initiatives in the coming year. Having all technology leaders aligned in their thinking will present the unified front necessary to push it forward, without resource conflicts.

Alignment

• Align the information security strategy with the business strategy. Without doing so, your attempts will fail. This takes time, not only to draft the strategy within proper alignment, but to get the much-needed feedback from other key stakeholders to ensure you are on the right path. Nobody wants to draft an infosec strategy and find out a week later that the business has shifted the organizational goals for three to five years from now. Remember, we are identifying how infosec can not only protect the firm and client’s data, but also potentially give the firm a competitive edge in the end.
• Recognize legal or regulatory drivers that can help to expedite the buy in for infosec in your organization. There is legislation, directives, and regulatory requirements passed throughout the year, which can impact the stance that the business takes.

Look, this is the white elephant in the room, and everyone knows that at some point they need to get their checkbooks out and get their house in order. But this is not just about the money…for the first time in technology we can innovate and make drastic changes that can massively benefit the business, without a great deal of spending! They key is shifting the mindset from a reactive position to a proactive one. Training the business to conduct itself in a more secure fashion is priceless, and it is not until that is achieved that you will see the ultimate return on your investment. This is not about installing some really slick IPS and carrying on with your business. Infosec is a living, breathing animal, which needs care and feeding. Nurture security like it was your child, take care of it and build the right foundation for it, and you won’t be bailing anyone out of jail, being deposed, or sitting up at 3:00 am trying to figure out where you went wrong, and how you were compromised.

Advancing Your Career in Litigation Support

Posted by Adam Malanaphy, Project Coordinator at Glenmont Group

Litigation support is one of the best industries to be in. At the right firm, litigation support can have a very clear career trajectory, and a relatively high level of stability. The top-level employees at AMLAW 100 firms can reach well into the 200k range plus the best benefits in the job market and a long list of other perks traditionally found in the corporate environment. Over the course of the last year I have spent countless hours speaking to litigation support professionals across the USA. What I have found is that the majority of people in this industry take one of the following two paths.

The first group of litigation support professionals I will describe are very likely to have had an interest in the space early on in their career. These are people who may have pursued a major related to the industry in college, or may have spent time in law school before inevitably realizing that they did not want to practice. The typical trajectory we find here begins with an entry-level role like legal assistant or data processing before advancing to an analyst level, to specialist, to coordinator, to project management and on to litigation support manager later in their career (please note that the titles listed in the previous statement may be interchangeable from one firm to the next).

The second most common career trajectory takes a very different route. This group is less likely to have planned on basing their career within the litigation support space, but instead ended up here due to a specific need for their skillset. Now more than ever, I am seeing IT majors begin their career in the technical support departments of big law firms. Those that take this route learn the relevant technology through maintenance of review platforms and databases, then segue to a more operational role where their superior knowledge of the technical landscape can be applied in a more effective manner.

Regardless of which road one takes on their way to becoming a professional within our industry, it will take time and effort to rise to the top. That being said, we do see some candidates rise to the upper echelon much faster than others. In order to separate yourself from the rest of your peers it is important to have some sort of competitive advantage. I see the strongest advantages in candidates who have a well-rounded understanding of the subject matter relevant to their role, with an additional specialty that helps to distinguish themselves from their peers. This specialty can come in the form of trial experience, ability to speak various languages, knowledge of a specific technology, etc.

One must also consider the value of making calculated, strategic moves. It is very important to be sure-footed in one’s consideration of new opportunities because not every new position warrants consideration. Here at the Glenmont Group, we provide expert advice on open positions within the space. Speaking with a recruiter can offer tremendous value because we see the strengths and weaknesses of the top organizations from a bird’s eye view. We are constantly helping candidates find new opportunities, and in doing so – we see which firms people stay at for extended periods of time, which one’s cannot retain talent, and which firms offer the best opportunity for growth. Helping candidates make the right move at the right time is what our business is founded on. In many cases a new role can help one advance in title faster than they would by remaining in one role for many years, offer a 10-15% increase in compensation, and help reinstill passion in the subject matter by offering analysis from a different viewpoint.

When one stands back and takes a look at the litigation support space on a macro level, the benefits of a career within the space truly stand out amongst the many different industries which compose our economy. Whether you take the traditional route into litigation support, or you find yourself in the space via another avenue, the potential to earn a successful living is very high. Remember that learning a specific skill in addition to a foundation of the best practices and procedures within the industry can truly set you apart from the pack. Finally, when the right opportunity presents itself, be ready to seize the moment and proceed accordingly!

ILTA Conference= Excellence

Posted by Geoff Zodda, Managing Director at Glenmont Group

Coming back on the Amtrak Northeast train yesterday from the ILTA conference, I had time to think about the event as a whole.   I have to say that ILTA was one of the best conferences I’ve ever been to.  It was my first ILTA conference, and my expectations were for it to somewhat resemble the Legal Tech conference held yearly in NYC.  While I do enjoy Legal Tech, it has its pros and cons and ILTA certainly exceeded my expecations.

To start with, the location of the ILTA conference was very scenic, right on the Potomac, with a view of our nation’s capital across the way.  The number of subject matter experts speaking at the conference was impressive and diverse, coming from law firms, consultancies and corporations.  With so many different sessions on the agenda, it was tough to choose which ones to attend.  The panels were well thought out by the ILTA conference committee, with informative individuals across the board, each bringing different perspectives and nuances to the table.

Also, the environment of the conference was very cordial, friendly and more casual than I expected, which I consider to be a great thing.  Everyone, from the top CIO’s to best-selling authors to the ILTA Executive Board members, was approachable and genuinely happy to speak with others.  Since ILTA is a peer to peer group, the feel and atmosphere matched up in that manner.

It should not be surprising that another strength of the conference was the technology which made it so user friendly.  Between the iPhone & iPad application with all the information available on speakers, locations of events, etc, plus the technology available in the conference rooms, ILTA was filled with what you’d expect – a high level of technology.

Next year’s conference is being held in Vegas (that alone will draw me there), and seeing how things were run this year, and being anxious to see how they can “one up” this year’s conference, I already have my bags packed!

Time Is Money and The Clock Is Ticking

Posted by Adam Weissman, Director of IT and Legal Technology at Glenmont Group

There are hundreds of recruiting industry-related seminars, webinars, conferences, discussion groups and training events. Many of them are offered free of charge, but there are a small percentage of those which charge a fee for participation. Regardless of how much or how little the expense, if you are paying to participate, it is reasonable to expect that you are listening to or speaking with a leading industry-recognized expert, and that it theoretically and practically adds value to your business. Topics run the gamut from Getting Clients to Call You First, and The Art of Targeted Cold Calling, to 5 Simple Steps to Get Top Talent to Find You, and Behind the Scenes of the Hiring Process (just to name a few I’ve seen throughout my recruiting career). If you look hard enough, you can likely find one that potentially provides some level of benefit to your business, and hopefully your bank account.

I recently participated in such a seminar designed to provide new techniques for recruiters to grow their individual businesses. This was widely-marketed and geared towards established recruiters across industries, and touted as expert advice on how to take a book of business, no matter how successful, and substantially increase individual revenue. I paid a higher-than-average fee to “attend” and listen by phone. By the 30-minute mark of this seminar, I hung up and disconnected from it.

In those 30 minutes, I gave 100% of my attention to the presenter – I paid money to listen to ideas that were supposed to enhance my day-to-day business, so I wanted to get my money’s worth! I neither made nor accepted other calls, did not respond to emails, nor reviewed resumes (all activities that help me make money). In addition, this seminar was scheduled right in the middle of the day, at what we consider prime-time for calling candidates and clients.

(NOTE: The following comments are not intended to be cruel, spiteful or discrediting to the host.)  The information presented in this seminar was catered to inexperienced and independent recruiters whose business may be stagnant, struggling to grow, or just getting off the ground. However, it was also advertised to experienced agency and executive recruiters. The presenter stopped short of recommending that recruiters should consider finding humans to fill jobs for their clients, but the level of advice being offered, excuse me, being paid for by more than 100 participants, was at best elementary.

It would be equivalent to a doctor attending a one-hour medical industry seminar advertised to practicing physicians, conducted during regular office hours, and the presenter spending the opening 15 minutes explaining the value of having a stethoscope. Following the handy outline, the speaker then uses the next 15 minutes to break down why having two stethoscopes is better than only having one, and where one might look to procure said value-adding second stethoscope.

When someone targets experienced professionals who are, in other words, industry peers, with the notion they will be bringing new ideas or concepts to the attention of the “community”, the audience has a reasonable right to expect exactly that. There are probably no more than a handful of legitimate thought-leaders in the recruiting world whose ideas are worth spending time and money to hear. It is not always easy to decipher the good ones from the bad simply from the topic of the seminar or from whether you recognize the names of the presenters. However, you also cannot assume an event is inherently going to be worthwhile simply because it was promoted on a popular industry website or is booked at a banquet hall at the chain hotel in the City. Substance is substance. You don’t want anyone to steal your money, so don’t let anyone steal your time.

Taking the Leap

Posted by: Adam Malanaphy, Project Coordinator at Glenmont Group

“Sometimes you need to take a big step, you cannot cross a chasm in two small steps.” David Lloyd George (January 17, 1863 –  March 26, 1945)

One of the most important aspects of recruiting that I have learned at the Glenmont Group is the importance of simply reaching out to as many candidates as possible and presenting them with some variation of the following question, would you consider pursuing another organization at this point in your career? The three most common answers to this question are; yes I would, no I would not, and maybe. Now, as the first two responses are quite easy to interpret, the third response can be especially tricky.

Whenever I am engaged in a dialogue exchange with a candidate whom I feel would be a strong candidate for a given opportunity and they tell me they are in the “maybe” stage of considering opportunities, I feel compelled to try and get to the root of their thinking. The fact is that if one is in the “maybe” stage of considering a new opportunity, it is because they are unhappy with some aspect of their current position. Furthermore, one would expect that it is a good time to (at the very least) start tuning in to relevant opportunities within the space. However, many candidates at this point in their career are far less open to even hearing about opportunities than you may have predicted.

The reason that candidates in the “maybe” category find themselves in that position is that they recognize the fact that something is wrong, but have become too comfortable in their current position to seriously consider making a change. This will often yield a situation in which no party wins. The employee is unhappy at work, and in turn, not performing at their best. The employer suffers from subpar performance and morale takes a hit as disgruntled employees are present in their work environment. I know that change can be very uncomfortable, but sometimes to achieve a better quality of life – one must strongly consider making a change.

Do We Need a Crystal Ball to Predict Employment Statistics? Yes!

Posted by Dana Fink, Director of Staffing at Glenmont Group

As “lifer” in the recruitment I have lived through thousands of employment reports in an effort to console myself through slow hiring periods or convince myself that the best is yet to come. Conflicting reports most recently have me perplexed however.  Last week’s dismal employment report sent the bankers on Wall Street running for the hills, gave political candidates more reason to attack their opponents, and left me with a sense of malaise.

The U.S. government reported that only 80,000 jobs were created in June, the third straight month of weak hiring.

The reluctance of U.S. employers to add jobs shows that the economy is still struggling three years after the recession officially ended. An average of just 75,000 jobs were created every month in the April-June quarter, far below the 226,000 created every month in the first three months of the year.

But in my inbox this morning I foundthe following news report to be more encouraging.  The employment market has always been cyclical. It just stinks to be on the losing end of a slow economy. I can say first hand, from my own pool of clients, that business is improving slightly. Clients are calling us with multiple openings but hiring slowly. So I read these reports with a grain of salt, consult my crystal ball and keep plugging along with my positive attitude.

HSZ Media’s Human Capital News Update delivers market intelligence to human capital business leaders seeking a competitive edge in the global war for talent. Our real time daily briefings and weekly Q&A’s track human capital news for subscribers seeking global talent management knowledge.

Today’s Headlines

Friday, July 13, 2012

• EMPLOYMENT OUTLOOK IMPROVING ACCORDING TO NEW STUDY While the jobs recovery continues to lag that of previous recessions, the outlook for the back half of 2012 shows continued improvement over 2011, according to CareerBuilder’s latest nationwide survey. Forty-four percent of private sector employers reported they are planning to hire full-time, permanent staff from July 1 through December 31, 2012, an increase of nine percentage points over the same period last year. In last year’s forecast, the number of companies planning to hire full-time, permanent employees (35 percent) increased seven percentage points over 2010. The nationwide survey, which was conducted by Harris Interactive from May 14, 2012 to June 4, 2012, included more than 2,000 hiring managers and human resource professionals across industries and company sizes. “The rate of job creation has been slower than what we would have expected at this point in the recovery, but the market is stable,” said Matt Ferguson, CEO of CareerBuilder. “Two years ago, the hiring activity in the U.S. was driven primarily by large employers recruiting in metropolitan areas for a handful of industries or job functions. Today, we see job listings in all industries, market sizes and company sizes.” One-third (34 percent) of employers added full-time, permanent headcount in the second quarter, up from 29 percent last year and 33 percent last quarter. Nine percent decreased headcount while 56 percent made no change to staff levels and 1 percent were unsure. Looking ahead, 30 percent of employers plan to hire full-time, permanent employees in the third quarter, up from 26 percent last year.

First Round of Interviews: Phone vs. In-Person

Posted by Geoff Zodda, Managing Director at Glenmont Group

 Everyone has different opinions on whether they’d rather have a phone or in-person interview during the first round of interviews. Some prefer the phone call; some dread a phone conversation as a first impression. Here is a breakdown on when to utilize a phone interview as the first round of the vetting process, and when to bring in the candidate. Also, the pluses and possibly the adverse effects of doing so.

 When to conduct a phone interview:

-The position is time sensitive – There needs to be a quick vetting process and the client does not have enough time to have thorough conversations with each candidate. This brief conversation will give them a feel of the candidate’s background and whether they are a close enough fit technically speaking and personality wise, to bring in for interviews.

Adverse effect: Individuals do not necessarily portray themselves in the same manner on the phone as they do in person. That would make taking the time to conduct phone interviews, an additional step that ends up being a time eater.

 -There are a ton of candidates to choose from - If the resumes are pouring in and there just is no way to meet with each candidate individually to start off the process, a phone interview would work perfectly. Make sure you ask to the same type of behavioral and technical questions to each candidate to make sure that everyone is on an equal playing field.

 -Different locations – If the hiring manager is located in a different location from the candidates, it makes perfect sense to conduct a phone interview. In geographically challenging situations, it saves the client time and money, and both parties time.

 When to conduct an in-person interview:

-The position is very niche - In the case that the position is very niche, where there are only a few experts for the opportunity, an in-person interview is the way to go. You do not want to pass up or delay the process by starting off with a phone interview when you can as easily meet with the candidates.

Adverse effect: You may think you have the right candidate on paper, but when you meet with them, it could be a totally different story.

 -The role is one with a lot of client facing – If there is a lot of interaction with customers, or users, one may opt for an in-person interview first. The fact that part of who the client will choose for this position is based upon how the individuals present themselves should be a good enough reason to skip the phone interview round itself.

 If you are a hiring authority and have to make this sometime difficult decision on whether to conduct phone interviews or in-person meetings to start off the process, go through this brief check list and see what works best for your situation.

Teaching Children Companies the Value of Learning from Mistakes

Posted by Adam Weissman, Director of IT and Legal Technology at Glenmont Group

Over the last 12 months, several technology giants have made significant headlines for themselves – good, bad, and downright, painstakingly ugly. Some have captured our imaginations with ground-breaking innovations that have once again changed the landscape of social media use or the ideas of technology integration into business modeling. Others have made questionable or, some would say, glaringly poor choices with regards to specific product introductions, competitor acquisitions, or missed investment opportunities. And a select few have made more egregious, albeit often less-public, decisions that have already shown disastrous results, or are just now revealing potentially catastrophic effects. I know these are categorically ambiguous statements that my two-and-a-half-year old could surmise. So, let’s take a look at a global technology giant under a microscope, Microsoft.

At its face, it is probably safe to say that the majority of the end-user market pays little heed to corporate on-goings of Microsoft’s business, unless you are a shareholder in the company, or your buying patterns are moved by such things. Most of us look at investing in technology (i.e. devices, computers, software, etc.) based on reputation of functionality, reliability, and familiarity with those products. If you know a product works well and can benefit you personally and/or professionally, and is still a worthwhile investment, would you recoil at the register if you knew that the company’s working culture was causing self-destruction? I think it’s a safe assumption that most of us would not. However, there are valuable lessons to be learned by the behavior and, to an extent, the organizational operations of a company like Microsoft.

Frederick E. Allen, a writer on Forbes.com staff, puts a magnifying glass to the Operations infrastructure of Bill Gates’ brainchild that is actually preventing itself from continuing to do the one thing that has maintained it as a front-running corporation for decades, creative competition. It highlights the internal practice of “stack ranking”, which requires each business group to identify the strongest performer, the middle-of-the-pack performers, and the bottom-of-the-pile performer. Instead of thinking about innovations that will keep Microsoft ahead of its stout competitors, employees were working to not be at the bottom of their peer group.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2012/07/03/the-terrible-management-technique-that-cost-microsoft-its-creativity/

The Opportunity you ALMOST Overlooked!

Posted by Adam Malanaphy, Project Coordinator at Glenmont Group

Have you ever had the feeling that things just aren’t quite right at work? Perhaps your commission plan has been reduced, your favorite manager has just left, or you simply feel that you are not getting the recognition that you deserve. So, you arrive at the conclusion that it is now time to possibly make a move. Whether you decide to embark on this journey alone or using a recruiter it can be a daunting task.

As the job search begins, one often looks toward the most visible organizations within his or her competitive landscape. These organizations are likely to be cash healthy, mature, and stable in nature. Although these organizations have generated a certain allure amongst your peers, a question emerges. Is this company right for me?

I am a recruiter at the Glenmont Group, specializing in the eDiscovery space. Throughout the progression of my career within recruiting I have developed a relatively unbiased overview of the talent that composes the industry, and where these skillsets are most likely to thrive. Upon finding a strong candidate that is actively seeking new opportunities I am often compelled to begin by asking the candidate if there are any organizations that have attracted their attention. I often notice that the candidate has narrowed the realm of possibilities by pigeon-holing themselves to one specific type of organization. For example, a candidate may say they are looking for a company that provides the opportunity to influence high level technology decisions and then mention the largest player in the space. The problem here is that although this “big player” is thriving, their size prohibits candidates of this level from accessing the proposed level of decision making. Here at Glenmont Group, we have been trained to take a consultative approach and recommend a smaller organization that affords any employee the opportunity to have the ear of their CEO. For some candidates it may be more valuable to be a big fish in a small pond.

After taking the information provided above into consideration one must understand that it can be difficult to notice the best option for them due to the fact that their opinion is intrinsically biased. Of course, this is not always the case, but there is great value to be achieved through an outside opinion. I have worked with many candidates that have initially overlooked a certain organization only to find that it was the best option for them. Finding a new opportunity is never an easy task which is why it is important to utilize all of the tools that are available, especially services that are free of charge!