Saturday, July 31, 2010

Self Branding Part 1 - the resume

So from what I can tell, there isn't a substantial amount of information out there about self branding, and everything I do see is very self-motivated: I like self branding because I brand myself and like it - I am a product to be bought and sold, or I hate self branding because I oppose the idea in principle and am not a commodity. There's not much there in terms of an actual somewhat objective analysis as to what self branding might accomplish, in what circumstances it's appropriate, and what it may entail. So consider this a tutorial for those interested, this being part 1, the basics. When you don't know where to start, start with the resume.
Designer Callie England's application package. Self branding in action. 

Your resume is extremely important, in more than just the way most people think. Yes, it outlines your qualifications and skills, your experience, and expectations from a job, etc etc. It's vital to ensure your resume aligns with the expectations of the hiring manager, so on and so forth. This is all old news. What has changed over the past couple of years is the start of self branding on resumes.

The advantages of self branding on a resume are numerous, but mostly, it just means it's more eye catching and memorable than other resumes. When they're looking at a stack of resumes, sometimes it's even more important to just stand out in their mind rather than meet the qualifications. Wow them into forgetting you are missing a couple of their desired traits.

There are however, disadvantages as well. These can be avoided with well thought out branding strategies, but it's very important to keep them in mind when you're developing a self brand, or even considering it. If you don't have artistic talent, chances are your efforts will look contrived and juvenile. Your resume should look flawless, and  putting on any type of branding just for the sake of it, will likely lead the hiring manager to send your resume around the office as a laugh rather than a serious candidate. Second, you need to ALWAYS keep in mind the industry you're applying in, and the position you're applying for. If you're applying for a job at an ad agency, things like a well done brand will make you stick out, whereas if you're applying for a job in manufacturing, they might just think you're not the right fit for the job. Finally, it really just depends on who's reading it. If it's a manager in your department, they'll see it much differently than if someone from HR is reading it, or if it's just being screened through software. So find out as much as you can before sending anything in.

So really, it's not black and white. It's not, self branding is horrible, it's a way of getting something more about you across than a normal resume would, but it's also not the end all be all of applications, and without it you'd be lost. Make the right decision for your capabilities and industry choice.

That said, I am not a self branding expert. I am an HR Generalist, not a marketer, who would probably be able to give you tips on colour choices, shapes, and other ideas. What I can tell you is from an HR perspective, if you're going to use a self brand on your resume, make sure it's small enough so that the hiring manager doesn't think that you're just filling in dead space, and make it easy to read and understand, we're not marketers either.

Coming up, Part 2 - the cover letter

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Illegal HR business practices

What do you do when your boss makes a lewd comment you find offensive? How about if they undercut your pay by not giving you your overtime? Have they somehow managed to pay you less than minimum wage? These are everyday situations many Canadians, and throughout the world have to go through, often alone. In certain places where I've worked, I was told the way to progress is to wear short skirts and low cut tops - certainly the women at the top proved this true; or paid less than the minimum, and so on and so forth. These situations tend to be known organization-wide. So if everyone knows about it, why does it continue?

Mostly, employees fear their jobs would be threatened, otherwise some organizations will simply just rely on their employees being too desperate for work to make waves, or people too invested in the company (a la the proverbial golden handcuffs) to leave. Other employees enjoy having the kind of power you have over a person when you can do something you know is wrong and suffer no consequences. Finally, many people know what has, over the years, become known as the whistleblower's curse, wherein you're commended for unveiling the evils of an organization, and rewarded with the inability to ever find work again.

The resolution? You know, it's really not that simple. Most cultures see the employment relationship as uneven, biased towards the employer, and for these situations to fade from the working world, cultures have to be rewritten to understand that authority does not mean unsurpassable power. So I suppose I'm not optimistic about eliminating this type of working relationship, but that doesn't mean there isn't anything we can do. 

We can, for example, make it easier for people to come forward. 

  • All these protections we supposedly have for whistleblowers have to actually be in place and actionable. 
  • Whenever an employee comes forward with an issue, it needs to be dealt with swiftly and publicly (within reason). 
  • Make use of the new legislation changes to the Health and Safety Act (Bill 168) to make the steps for what to do if an employee suffers harassment or violence in the workplace clear and easy to follow. Make the most of the evaluations the Act requires you conduct.
  • When in doubt, an open door policy is always in order. At least the employees should feel safe coming to HR with their issues.

As always, whatever the problem, HR is always part of the solution.

Monday, July 26, 2010

The economic recession and the latest job data

So it looks like we're not quite out of the storm yet. In fact, even though employment is up, it mostly consists of people who are underemployed (for example, I'm a university graduate currently working a job that requests a high school diploma). The situation is so dark for most people, that even the Ex, where jobs include cleaning up after the animals, and where every year since the Ex's inception they have been chronically understaffed, they have been turning away people by the THOUSAND.

This tidbit brought on a number of questions in my mind. Working at the Ex is something even (and usually only) high school students can do to earn some extra cash during the summer, there are absolutely no requirements other than, presumably, being legally allowed to work. So how does their HR staff, used to just go through the motions of interviews and such to give these kids work, decide who is best suited, based on their qualifications, to shovel shit? It puzzles me. Do they prefer those with additional education, as they are less likely to quit (as they probably have financial obligations more urgent than going out for ice cream and lattes with friends) even if the job sucks; or do they go with young people who would earn less money? Does previous experience matter? I suppose only if you've worked at the Ex before.

This lead me to the eventuality that there are many companies out there, who typically have no choice in their employees, because their positions are strenuous, unpleasant, and poorly paid, and are suddenly in a position where for the first time, they need to make actual hiring decisions.

What do you do when you're woefully unequipped to do the job you're paid to do?