Lessons learned riding the wave

February 3, 2011

This post was originally published @ TechMap

2010 marked the year I felt out of love with Google. I mean… I still love Google, but I’m no longer in love with it. I’ve started seeing other companies.

Google has changed. It is impossible for a company as big as the big G to maintain a “do no evil” policy when evil is subjective. If you grow as much as Google grew then you are bound to rub people the wrong way even if other people think it’s the right way. And last year some things by Google I did not find 100% evil free.

But that is not why I’ve kicked them off the pedestal.

Google produced some serious product flops last year; maybe also as a natural consequence of growth. It’s not always easy to keep the highest standards. Sure, it had produced some crappy stuff before: Google X, Jaiku, Web Accelerator, etc. but these last few crashes were resounding and occurred in products that I believe were aligned with their strategy for the year.

As an obvious for instance Google Buzz. Seriously? That was your best attempt at kicking Twitter and FB in the groin? A poor looking, security fissured, opt in required crap-o-rama with some sharing capabilities?

Another not so obvious seriously bad thing is the Open Social Standard (although it has been around for quite a few years now). Not only Facebook’s single handed defeat of all other social networks put together is the reason this flopped. I fail to see how this might be called a standard when you need to write custom code for every single platform you want to deploy your app into.

But to me, the most resounding one was Google Wave. What happened there? The techiest of my tech friends and acquaintances all say it was by technology standards groundbreaking, a great idea. Tech and idea were cool, what went wrong?

Lesson #01: What’s good for the goose is not always good for synchronous stuff.
By goose I mean gmail and Google’s “You like it? Well you can’t have it!” brilliant marketing approach to beta testing and product distribution. I read my e-mail invite for wave a good three hours after the sender delivered it, got absolutely thrilled and entered the wave playground excited to collaborate with… no one. I was alone. My inviter then told me the same thing had happened to him. So, using an asynchronous invite method for synchronic collaboration might have not been the greatest idea.

Lesson #02: Less is more.
The Wave was a lot to take. It had to live up to the self imposed challenge of being the thing that would kill e-mail (really?) so I guess they packed it with everything they could short of a flame-thrower: it was an open source, real-time, expandable, extensible, embeddable, younameit-able set of collaboration tools including video, chat, drawing, infinite gadgets. When I finally got around to testing with a few buddies we played 5 minutes with something then moved on to the next thing. We did not get enough of a chance to let the WOW factor settle in.

Lesson #03: Don’t target nerds.
I get the feeling that at some level the wave was targeted to a nerdy public. Here’s a piece of news for you: Nerds don’t want to share. Gmail was something for everyone, in spite of nerdy Google tech lovers being the ones that absolutely had to have it, everyone else could gain what at that time was a groundbreaking approach to e-mail in size, organization, presentation, simplicity, you name it. If you target something solely for nerds, they will flock in and close the door behind them.

Lesson #04: Enterprise is not a bad word.
Google wave was clearly a great instrument for enterprise collaboration, and yet the idea of using it in the enterprise was not as apparent to me and most of the people I queried on this. Instead of pitching the “e-mail killer” maybe they should have pitched a “Google Docs on steroids”. We’ll never know.

El Shuje

On my next post I will replace all the a’s with smileys. Just for the heck of it. In the meantime… as always… comment, share, tweet, retweet, and mail me at shuje@holoom.com


Recruiting in the social cloud

January 25, 2010

Not so long ago the story of a job posting by Best Buy created a small buzz in the blogosphere. What was so special about this job posting? It required applicants to hold a minimum of 250 followers on Twitter and at least one year blogging experience.

Recruiting has forever been changed by the social web and the cloudification (not a word yet, but give it time) of everyone’s information. And it has done so for both employers and employees.

“Recruiters have been forced to reinvent themselves” say the founding members of Waragon, an Argentine based recruiting firm.

For recruiters (whether in-company or specialized firms like Waragon) information is no longer their biggest asset. Nowadays a lot of people share their information on LinkedIn, Namyz, Xing or any business social network. Professionals that do not have a seat in resume cloud are at a distinctive disadvantage, so more and more people are joining in.

As a consequence channels are now full duplex. This means the passive player (e.g. someone who is on LinkedIn but is not job hunting at the moment) is now a candidate for a job offer push. Something unthought-of, say, ten years ago except for people targeted by head hunters. Back then, you used to answer job postings from a newspaper. It was a one way channel, no exposure of your persona if you did not want to.

Given this new scenario, recruiting teams had to adapt their craft dramatically and write a whole new rulebook. The information they amass as a result of candidate analysis (e.g. interviews) is still a very valuable element, but the unprocessed information used as an offset is now public and really abundant.

The new elements at play in recruiting 2.0 place the focus on the how (to use the information) as opposed to the previously predominant what (the information in itself). Some of them are:

  1. Using tools for fast search and match of candidates to positions. Companies like Linkedin have pretty cool services for recruiters. They are exploiting the precious information amassed during the years and making a profit out of it.
  2. Getting creative. There is an amazing tilt in the scales when recruiting with Google style campaigns. Although eccentric, they are incredibly effective and more and more companies are starting to copy their methods.
  3. Brand-streaming. Communicating your company values, positive that is (you obviously tend to hide the dirt. Duh!) This often means a candidate already knows your company, even before you pre-select him.
  4. Crowd-sourcing. As a result of the buzz in the Best Buy example presented at the beginning of this post, Best Buy quickly became, by word of mouth, the apple in the eye of many a professional seeking a job with matching characteristics. Money could not have paid for that kind of publicity. That is what crowd-sourcing your recruiting is all about: getting the buzz to do your work.
  5. Taking advantage of the new channels. I’ve seen a lot of recruiters posting on Facebook, Twitter, etc. Besides being directly related to crowd-sourcing, it implies learning how to use these new tools efficiently.
  6. Listening to the social alerts. Whenever I get asked for a recommendation, or see someone getting them; whenever I see someone polishing his online resume beyond the obvious, then I know… this guy is moving from passive to active job hunting. That gets to the HR staff in your company too. I recall a number of times when as a manager I got calls from HR saying: “John Doe is on the move”. This is an advantage for employers because they are allowed pre-emptive damage control. If they are attentive that is.

On the employee side of things, aside from the obvious new jobs created by the cloud and the web 2.0, things are also significantly changed. A few things that caught my attention:

  1. New skills. As the Best Buy experience suggests, job requirements have additional social skill-sets in demand: Blogging, tweeting, etc. These are a plus in certain job descriptions, even if not related to social marketing positions per se. For instance: If you have a big network, you are a potential recruiter of your friends and colleagues once you are in.
  2. Everyone is a networker. In the old days networking was reserved for sales people, hr people, high management types and public relations professionals. The new model increases your chances to find new jobs by word of mouth or, as mentioned before, be targeted by companies seeking to fill a position.
  3. Decisions are made in a much more informed manner. You can find opinions of your potential new employer in blogs, forums, comments, or other formats. Here is where an appropriate brand-streaming is important on behalf of employers. If your brand is shot down in the blogosphere, then you will be hard pressed to get candidates to hop on board.
  4. Personal brand-streaming. You can build a pretty decent online persona even if you are not one in actuality. The right amount of bullshitting in the right places can get you a long way these days. Before your true self catches up with you, you can be comfortably seated in your new office.
  5. Odd situations. People in my teams were sometimes called by HR people in our very company to offer them the same position they held, with a higher pay! It was hardly an isolated incident, as this story suggests.

Waragon dixit: “What hasn’t changed is that if you are good, you will have options”

Maybe nowadays you will have a lot more options without looking for them. Deciding what to do with them is a test of character.

Welcome to Recruiting 2.0

Shuje

On my next post I will tell you who dah man is. I can anticipate this much: It’s not you. In the meantime, tell me your experiences in the new recruiting era. Post them below or mail me at shuje@holoom.com


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 158 other followers