The Big Cheez blogged recently here about how twitter has overtaken msn as a driver of traffic to Cheezhead. So I signed up for a free account, invited some folks from my gmail account to follow (Cheez, Shally, Penelope Trunk, Amybeth Hale, Jim Stroud, and others) and bingo I had some things to read! That was fun so I added a couple of things that I was doing. Of course, as of right now, nobody is following me so probably nobody saw my mini-posts. No big deal since it's only been a couple of days.

You can follow me here. 

So what value will twitter provide for me? I have no idea yet but I'm watching...

If you read Shally's blog Randy Bailey is a LinkedIn Group Maniac then you're already aware that LinkedIn groups are a great way to expand your LinkedIn network with people who have an interest in areas that interest you. Hat tip to Stacy Zapar who pointed me to Jason Bailes' very cool LinkedIn Groups Search. Here's what Jason has to say about his creation:

Search by keywords for groups to join on LinkedIn.com.

There are thousands of groups to join on LinkedIn. However, LinkedIn does not yet have a "group search" feature. I have noticed many of us LinkedIn members asking how to find and join groups. My goal was to provide us with a simple solution.

New groups may take longer to display in the search results pages. Therefore, it is advised to search often for the types of groups that interest you the most.

Supports Google's Advanced Search features.

Examples:
"alumni", "marketing -web", "certified OR certification".

searches 3 sites, including: www.linkedin.com/groupInvitation*, www.linkedin.com/e/gis/*, www.linkedin.com/static?key=groups*

In this 24/7 connected world, does it make sense to start your job search with an MS Word resume that hasn't changed much since before Al Gore invented the Internet? If you're a recruiter, haven't you looked at enough resumes over the years? If you're a hiring manager, have you tired of trying to figure out who has the right goods based on a couple of pages of hyperbole? One would think, with all the incredible advances in technology over the past 20 years, that we'd have moved on to something more advanced. But the venerable resume is still the primary way that candidates endeavor to open the door to new employment opportunities.

Are there any contenders to replace the resume as we know it? The hullabaloo about the video resume seems to have died down. Sure, there are some vendors touting various advantages of a visual approach. A search for "resume" on YouTube yields about 23,700 results but  the video resume hasn't made a dent in the lives of either corporate or agency recruiters. I guess you could say that profile pages on Myspace, FaceBook, and other social networking sites are a kind of resume. But pictures of your scantily dressed friends partying hard are probably not the best way to attract a potential employer. LinkedIn profiles are probably the most widely used alternative to resumes but they are so similar to the traditional resume that one could easily argue that they actually are resumes. But the fact remains that by far the majority of people looking for their next gig will start their search by dusting off their resumes.

So there seems to be an opportunity for some enterprising people to invent something better than the traditional resume. Something modern. Something electronic. Something searchable. Something portable. Something, well, something that fits with our modern culture...

If you have a LinkedIn network then you may well know the name Ron Bates. He’s the #1 most linked person on LinkedIn. But who is he? Listen to this Podcast from Stan Relihan to find out.

This Podcast will answer many questions you may have had about why build a LinkedIn network, why you might want to build a large rather than small network, quality versus quantity in networking, how to use LinkedIn day to day, how much time it takes each week, why be an open networker, and why bother to have an on-line presence?

So you think that the job market is going to get tough?

Evil has a brief post about Not Hired.

Looking at the cover letters, resumes, and other things from these clueless people is a bit like watching the early auditions for American Idol. I've weaned myself off that activity but these are just too good to pass up!

See some of my favorites here, here, and here.

Active candidates are actively looking for a new job. Passive candidates are not. Some pundits have coined the terms actively passive, somewhat passive, and probably a whole lot more. The popular opinion among non-corporate recruitment professionals is that passive candidates are somehow better. I suspect that the corporate view is the opposite. It makes sense that corporate recruiters and third party recruiters would have differing views on this. If you're placing a candidate for a fee you'd clearly want to be the only person working with the candidate and you certainly wouldn't want that candidate's resume all over the Net where your client could easily find it. If you're a corporate recruiter, you've probably got an hour or two per week to work on each of your open requisitions. You'll source but first you'll look at everyone who has applied at your company and said "Hey company, I'm interested in your company and this particular job."

Let's look at several different scenarios to see where the best candidates fall:

1)  Joe Always Looking is always open to every opportunity. He just took a new job but he's ready to jump ship immediately if the pay is better, for a grander title, for a shorter commute, or just about anything. Take a look at Joe's resume. How many jobs has he had in the last 5 years?

2) Emily Never Looking is never open to talking with you. She never returns your calls and only answers your call if she picks up the phone by mistake and then she ends the call abruptly. Don't even think about asking Emily for referrals. Of course you'll likely hear from Emily the same day the layoff notice arrives.

3) Nancy What Have You Got is open to a new opportunity if you catch her interest in the first 10 seconds when you call her. She's happy at her current job but reasons that it just makes sense to keep an open mind. She's a realist and knows that a seemingly secure job can evaporate in an instant.

4) Jeremy Open Networker is always working to expand his network of contacts. He believes that the more connected he is the better. He'll often refer candidates to you just to help them and you. He'll give you leads and is open and friendly. He's probably totally happy where he is but wants to be connected with you.

5) Joyce Quit Calling Me is pissed off because you called and bothered her. She'll call your boss to complain if you don't cut it out or at least will threaten to do so. It's a race between Joyce and you to see who can get off the call fastest.

I could go on. There are lots of other examples of the types of potential candidate interactions out there. Should you care? Probably not! If you're making calls to generate new candidates then you are going to have to make some calls. Most of the people you reach will be polite and some will be interested. But should they be interested?

In a declining economy candidates should be more aware of the lack of security of their current position. In the good times, when everyone is fat and happy, many people believe or hope that things will go on forever. Reality is that nothing continues the same forever and those same fat and happy candidates will be clamoring at your door when the wind changes. Recruiters who have established strong relationships during the good times will have lots of people to call and lots of candidates calling them.

My view is that every candidate should always be interested in a brief conversation about a new opportunity with a recruiter. It's just such a short sighted and narrow view to not be interested. However, if you're hearing a lot of "not interested" when you call, perhaps the problem isn't with the candidates but with your approach? The rejection to your call isn't personal but the results you produce are.

Today I read about a resume posting scam that is new to me. Perhaps you've heard of it? It seems that an unscrupulous recruiter took another recruiter's resume and substituted their own name and contact information. They then posted the resume on craigslist, monster, and careerbuilder saying that they only wanted to be contacted by hiring managers and decision makers. When someone bit on the resume, the unscrupulous recruiter represented the original resume owner to the potential client company for a 25% fee. As if this wasn't enough, they then contacted the owner of the resume and offered to represent them to the potential client for a $500 fee! This is wrong on so many levels. Sheesh!

Just in case you run into this guy, the substitute name used was Alok Bhargava. No doubt that name is bogus. The email address used was softdspace-tabaf@yahoo.com.

I took a brief look at this subject when I wrote Everything You Thought You Knew About Reading Resumes Is Wrong! Let's dig a little deeper this time.

Is a stable job history good? Is an unstable job history bad? Both are true and false in certain situations. Read on to see why.

The first thing to consider is the requirements for the position you're trying to fill. Is it a regular, full-time position or perhaps a requirement for a temporary worker or consultant? Does the client tend to hire people with stable job histories or do they focus mainly on experience. Startups tend not to care much about job history while Fortune 100 companies tend to care more. So consider the job and the client before accepting or rejecting a resume based on job history.

If you match resumes with requirements primarily by matching skills then clearly job history doesn't much matter. In fact the more jobs someone has had the more likely that they have been at least exposed to a wider variety of experience. This kind of matching is prevalent in temporary placement. It makes sense that this is true because, by definition, temporary workers aren't expected to stay in any job very long. But what if you're looking at a resume of someone who has had 3 regular, full-time positions in the past 10 years and now they say they are interested in a temporary position? They probably are getting desperate and need the work. Nothing wrong with that but they are not likely to be as strong a candidate for temporary placement as someone whose resume is full of temp jobs. Of course, if the job is temp to direct then they are ideal because they will likely make a good direct employee should they convert.

Now let's say we have a resume with 8 temp jobs and one 2 year regular, full-time job over the past 5 years. Would you represent such a candidate for a regular, full-time position? The best answer is maybe but it depends. It depends, of course, on the whole story but I'd probably present them as a temp to see how it works out.

Consider the case of someone who has had 5 jobs in the past 10 years. Twice their employer went out of business and they were laid off 3 times. Unlucky perhaps, but they are probably not a very strong candidate. Their judgment about what companies to work for is questionable. They may have a history of settling for what they can get. And a history of being laid off is never good. I'd probably keep looking in a case like this.

What if the resume you're looking at is for someone who has 20+ years with the same company right out of school and they tell you that they're looking to see what's out there? Folks like this are really hard to place. They are certainly stable, too stable! They only know how business is done in one place. They have no variety of experience. Unless your company or client's business is very similar to where they currently work, placing them is high risk because they will likely have a difficult time adapting to a new environment. I'd probably keep looking.

The reason for giving you these scenarios is to make it clear that job history does matter. It may not matter in the way you first thought it may when you started reading this blog.

Thoughts? Please leave a comment...

You probably already know that I'm a big fan of Spock based on my numerous blogs about it here on SittingXlegged. In case you missed those, you can catch up here. I just listened to Stan Relihan's podcast with Jay Bhatti, co-founder of Spock. Clearly Jay is a smart guy who very clearly espouses some of the benefits of Spock. Here are just a few:

• Spock plans to include every living person and every person ever living.

• Spock is not a social network site. It is a people search engine.

• Spock users do not have to do much to get a lot of value.

• Spock is quickly becoming the #1 place on the Internet to find great images of people.

Go listen to the podcast. It's about 19 minutes long.

When you're done, see if you're already on Spock.