Nice post by sister blog Referralogic.
The recruiting and placement of ability must be improved for effectiveness, not only optimized for efficiency. By solely focusing on optimization past solutions are merely failing faster and faster to recruit and place ability at best-fit. Past results are horrible evidenced by the percentage (72% according to Gallup) of workers who are not engaged at work. Currently, in my opinion, there is not any leadership to improve recruiting and placement effectiveness in the long-tail of markets. So, we are going to be that leader.
A 2011 Harris Interactive poll commissioned by the National Career Development Association (NCDA) provides feedback that is very clear regarding those who provide career advice: career practitioners are a vital resource for the livelihood of workforces and are underutilized relative to their potential need and value. In the poll, 24% of adults report that they have visited a career practitioner and 86% of them found it to be helpful. However, there are not enough career practitioners, in the traditional sense, to cover the masses, and there never will be, in the traditional sense.
Instead, Placement Loop embraces the role of domain expert to deliver recruiting and placement advice that is “good enough” to serve the masses. Indeed we are architecting our technology to support a layer of domain expert networks that will serve the market. To that end, our placement ecosystem design is supportive and accepting of the shift away from control and coordination at the center towards collaboration and discovery at the edge. Our design is about participants over platforms and individuals over institutions.
In addition, Placement Loop views human capital like financial services companies view financial capital, that is, from a traditional brokerage and distribution perspective. We use proven advisory models that effectively distribute financial product to design solutions for the distribution of ability, as if it were product. Not only does this provide the insight to recruit and place permanent workers at best-fit but it also addresses the growing market of independent workers.
The solutions are simple although quite complex to execute. The good news is that technology and methodology have advanced and network effects are more understood to increase the confidence to deliver utility, that is, effectiveness.
Placement Loop intends to motivate the delivery of recruiting and placement advice from domain experts who are already embedded in talent-based communities. We intend to provide a platform for all recruiting and placement participants in those communities to save time in their quest to make better decisions quicker. Sound familiar? That’s the foundation of how the financial services industry works.
Placement Loop is designing a solution for domain experts to become network entrepreneurs in the industry or sector that they are passionate about.
How profitable will it be in the future to be a network entrepreneur in this space? Sign up at our website to learn more when we open up your sector or “loop”.
Recently, I read Michael Horn’s Forbes article titled “Disruptive Innovation and Education” in which he writes that the current higher education system is patterned after the once prevailing factory employment model of the industrial age. It’s no surprise that higher education systems have and will continue to adapt to employment models.
Also recently, I listened to Brandon Busteed’s case for the “Educonomy” in which he points out that the market clearly understands a college education as a pathway to get a “good job”. That should not come as a surprise either. After all, the learner’s (i.e. higher ed’s customer) greatest pain point is to find a best-fit opportunity to utilize what has been learned.
As a Global Career Development Facilitator and entrepreneur in the human services industry what is particularly interesting to me is that both authors can relate to the challenges facing higher ed today but each misses the deeper critical problem in the industry. Michael sheds light on innovation; that is online learning. Brandon sheds light on causation; that is the link between education and long-term success in life and work. However, each seems to miss the critical baked-in assumption in the higher ed business model; that learning quality should be the value proposition delivered to the mass market. In my view, it should not.
The following is my attempt at explaining why placement quality should replace learning quality as the value proposition in higher education.
First, using the job-to-be-done (JTBD) framework , the learner’s JTBD can be labeled as placement quality or as Busteed says “to get a good job”. Education then is the learner’s related job-to-be-done (rJTBD) and can be labeled as learning quality in support of reducing/eliminating the learner’s greatest pain point; placement at best-fit.
Considering the long-tail of the market, if we design for learning quality as a key activity (rather than a value proposition) within a larger placement ecosystem THEN the seed for innovative disruption can be planted. I think that higher education disruption will come from an innovative business model utilizing #hrtech to better deliver a value proposition of placement quality and NOT #edtech to better deliver a value proposition of learning quality.
Today, higher education seems to be stuck in a legacy business model that stubbornly keeps learning quality as the JTBD. Therefore, leaders and academics continue to see it as the value proposition. However, the great recession dried up subsidies of an always nonviable value proposition and the error in the business model design is surfacing. As the idiom goes, “the chickens are coming home to roost”.
Let me be clear, learning quality in higher education IS NOT a viable value proposition to serve the masses, the long-tail, those “below-the-line” of elite. The time is now for placement quality to be the value proposition. It is highly monetizable and can subsidize learning quality better than any alternative.
In the coming “talent wars”, which will be fought in the long-tail of markets as well as in the short-head, we need business models that treat higher education institutions as aggregators with distribution-capable nodes in a much larger network; the placement ecosystem. Then and only then, in my opinion, will we be able to define learning quality that integrates purpose (vocational guidance and life-design) with competency (career education and mastery learning) for the masses. We can get back to the personalized academy experience before the industrial age and we can provide it for the masses but it’s going to take a distributed solution to solve what we are failing at–the distribution of dedicated personal assistance to develop and place ability at best-fit.
Again, learning quality unsurprisingly adapts to the prevailing employment model. In the future work will be performed by independent workers (freelancers, independent contractors, consultants and solopreneurs), highly distributed across communities and domains. In fact, independents represented 17.7 million workers in 2013 and are expected to reach 24 million in 2018, a 40% increase. Nearly 10 million households receive at least half of their income from independents today. Based on existing trends, there is expected to be 65 to 70 million independent workers (over 50% of the workforce) by 2022 in the U.S. alone.
As a result, you are starting to see the distribution of learning quality to the relevant edges of pedagogy. If higher ed leaders fail to adapt to a value proposition that is placement quality then, it is my view, they’ll go down as leaders of the most underutilized ability placement network ever created by man.
I spend a fair amount of time reading and thinking about disruptive innovation because I need to understand the past failures to place human capital at best-fit. And here’s a great post by Ketan Jhaveri that dissects Elon Musk’s approach to disruptive innovation which is based on reasoning from first principles.
So, here’s the problem: According to Gallup, 53% of American workers are “not engaged” and 19% are “actively disengaged” at work. In The Coming Jobs War, author Jim Clifton writes:
The 53% of not engaged workers are not hostile or disruptive, and they are not troublemakers. They are just there, killing time with little or no concern about customers, productivity, profitability, waste, safety, mission and purpose of the teams, or developing customers. They’re thinking about lunch or their next break. They are essentially “checked out.” Most importantly, these people are not just part of a support staff or sales team. They are also sitting on executive committees.
And then there are the 19% of actively disengaged employees who are there to dismantle and destroy employers. They exhaust managers, they have more on-the-job accidents and because more quality defects, they contribute to “shrinkage” – as theft is politely called, they are sicker, they miss more days, and they quit at a higher rate than engaged employees do. Whatever the engaged do, the actively disengaged seek to undo, and that includes problem solving, innovation, and creating new customers.
I’ve come to realize that designing solutions around first principles might allow for looking at a problem from a more foundational level—where the seed of disruptive innovation can be planted.
Musk is quoted as saying:
“First principles” is a physics way of looking at the world…what that really means is that you boil things down to the most fundamental truths…and then reason up from there…”
The utility about Musk’s approach is that it provides a framework with which to do this. Breaking a problem down to its core components and then building back up from there helps me arrive at very different designs than relying solely on analogs.
The other really nice benefit of reasoning from first principles is that it can get me out of the “it can’t be done” mentality. And that’s especially handy when I’m trying to understand the failures in the human services industry. If I reason by analogy and I can break the problem down to its core first principles, then I can logically state “If all of these things are true, then there’s a problem that can be solved.”
I’ve identified the following first principles that will lead to the improvements we are looking for to place ability at best-fit at scale.
Abundance: Every abundance creates a new scarcity. For example, a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention. Attention can be monetized.
Information: Scarce information wants to be expensive. That is, the price of context is valued at marginal utility—what it’s worth to talent seekers or candidates—the customers. Scarcity can be monetized.
Context: Context is embedded with experience, license, proxy, credential, or reputation and the like and is distributed far down into the long-tail of ability placement markets. Context can be monetized.
Search & Influence: The advice and counsel of a trusted and liked person is always searched for when a placement process decision is important enough. Search and influence can be monetized.
Goodwill: Enlightened self-interest motivates goodwill. There are enough people who want to help others gain a commitment at best-fit in their community* if only to improve their status. Reputation can be monetized.
Less is More: As technology reduces coordination costs it enables more small placements and interactions—monetizable actions, reactions, and transactions—that had been previously dismissed below the economic fringe. In aggregate the monetized value of these small placements exceed that of high-dollar placements.
Business Model Generation: Businesses don’t fail; business models do! Designing around ability development as the value proposition is too risky. It has never been the most viable and sustainable monetized value proposition. Development is merely a key activity—a related job to be done—that plays a supportive role to placement at best-fit—the job to be done for the customer. (Note: Until higher education solution providers make that shift on their business model canvas their innovation will only be sustaining, not disruptive. That is, they are merely rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.)
When a problem is broken down to it’s component parts at a fundamental level it becomes possible to see how seemingly disparate themes, when connected, can be part of the solution. Placement Loop is a platform forged from these first principles for solution providers on the supply-side to solve problems for talent seekers and candidates on the demand-side.
Which of these ‘first principles’ resonate with you?
*Community can be defined geographically, by industry or by common interests.
First, let me just say to all the recruiters in the industry who will read this post and immediately say that successful recruiting depends on a skill set earned from professional training and experience. To those, let me suggest that they are motivated to service the elite segment of markets otherwise known as the short-head. For they simply can not afford to service the long-tail of markets in a traditional recruiter business model.
On the other hand, we are in the midst of a seismic shift in business models, powered by the internet and a generation of connected users. Today, platforms are being developed that connect diverse participants with one another and enable them to interact–act, react, and transact. They aid the creation of entirely new solutions to solve market problems and many times involve the contributions of every day people. Every day people with tacit knowledge and spare capacity that consumers value.
In ability placement markets three forces are powering the rise of new solutions that can reach farther down the long-tail of opportunity and ability: ubiquitous network access with ever-increasing mobile penetration, reputation systems that enable trust among distributed strangers, and access to low cost shared infrastructure with tools and data to capture and coordinate interactions. These are going to have a huge impact on how ability will be placed at best-fit.
As I build the Placement Loop platform I think about the role of the referrer, not the recruiter, and what they have that can be monetized.
So, here are some of the capabilities that I believe are essential for referrers to have to distinguish themselves in ability placement markets:
Sales and marketing capability. Referring opportunity or ability as best-fit involves sales and marketing. Referrals want to feel confident that the referrer knows and understands what they’re looking for in a match. But does it have to be done in a way that recruiters do it? Nope. In the long-tail the expectations and therefore the behavior of placement process participants is nothing like in the short-head.
Network building capability. There are members in every industry with deep domain expertise and the will to place ability at best-fit in that industry. I like to describe these people as network entrepreneurs, motivated by their empathy for the domain, whatever and wherever it may be. Influence coupled with empathy resonates with community members like no other. It is tacit and only found distributed in community membership.
Social media capability. Just behaving normally and being yourself will attract those like you. Share. Give. Help others. Those who want to become the go-to person in a community to place ability at best-fit will build trust and a reputation. They will be rewarded for their efforts in ways not imagined when they started.
Context production capability. I am not saying that distinguished referrers have to become prolific content producers. What I am saying is that talent seekers and candidates alike are bombarded with all the content being thrown at them. This creates so much noise that they can’t hear a signal that resonates. A distinguished referrer, as a deep domain expert in their industry, can share their understanding of content within the marketplace. Messages from community-based referrers resonate with community members more than any alternative.
Technology capability. This where Placement Loop comes in with a motivated ecosystem of suppliers that work hard to earn referrers attention by making their life easier. The whole ecosystem of suppliers on the platform is motivated to assure referrers are able to provide advice to employers/talent seekers and candidates accurately, quickly, and affordably.
I hope I have stimulated your thinking that it is time for anyone to have the opportunity to become a distinguished referrer in their industry and get rewarded for it.
Do you think community-based referrers will help make improvements we are looking for in ability placement markets?