I asked Bard to rate my last article.
It said it was thought-provoking but wildly all over the place, unable to see the links between technology, Stoicism and The Toyota Way.
What happens when you crunch it all together?
Magic happens.
One of the key tenets of the Toyota Way is around problem-solving, something I covered in my article on 5 Why.
Getting to the root of any problem allows you to find its cause, which can be only one of two things:
1/ Something you have at least an element of control over
2/ Something you have no control over
Here’s a recruitment example on a popular area of complaint, typically from recruitment consultants in our LinkedIn feeds:
“Problem 2: Candidates keep ghosting us.
Why? They weren’t committed to responding.
Why? They didn’t accept my requirement for a response.
Why? They saw no value in my requirement.
Why? I didn’t create an environment where this requirement has value (root cause 1).
Or because they are very naughty candidates, with a bad attitude.
Why have we allowed someone with a bad attitude in our recruitment process? Because we didn’t prequalify them well enough (root cause 2)”
In both situations, there are opportunities to improve what we can control.
As Stoicism says “we should focus on what we can control and not worry about things that are beyond our control” - the dichotomy of control.
And so by applying a problem-solving approach to the issues we come across in recruitment, we can typically find areas for improvement if we are prepared to be accountable for our part in it.
What does it say about us if we complain about ghosting, rather than take action to find solutions?
Stoicism would say we can choose how we respond to anything that happens.
It’s a choice to complain rather than take action.
There is another root cause, which is that something has changed in their situation which makes updating us either difficult or, for them, impossible.
Arguably, this would be influenced by root cause 1.
In the case of the candidate who had a stroke the week before starting a new role, that was something out of anyone’s control, and hardly ghosting (he made a full recovery and started three months later with some short-term reasonable adjustments).
We can’t account for matters outside of our control, but there are opportunities to mitigate these situations.
Such as having an ongoing pipeline of candidates, so that if a vacancy reaches a failure state we can restart straightforwardly.
My temps colleague found them short-term cover with my help, and as difficult as that situation was, that candidate gained some experience, she got three months of margin, the employer was grateful for our help in a tough situation, and the original candidate was given comfort in the security of employment while he recovered.
You can look at any problem in recruitment to try and find solutions in the areas you can control.
Employers often complain of candidate shortages, as an issue that is out of their control, but how often have they been accountable for their part in it?
How about losing candidates to counteroffers and other vacancies?
Candidate shortages?
Boomerang hires?
Recognising the experiences candidates have of any given recruitment process, and the root of their decisions, is where we can apply improvements in the areas we can control.
Will it reduce those issues to zero?
Perhaps not, but without continually improving our own part in the process, it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy not to try.
But few of these problems require technology explicitly to solve.
Take the problem that ‘voice notes’ appears to solve on LinkedIn.
As a medium for contacting candidates, it’s still relatively unusual, and for that reason has a seemingly high response rate irrespective of the message.
The root solution though isn’t the tech, it’s understanding what a candidate is most likely to be responsive to.
Which is a combination of right person, right time, right message and right place.
The voice note only meets one of these criteria.
Whereas understanding the root cause of candidate behaviour allows a more rigorous strategy which is medium agnostic, and may include voice notes.
This is what I mean by getting the philosophy and process right first, then layering the tech on top.
Tech is the enabler, it isn’t in itself the solution.
If I look back at my career, it’s the problems that have led to the best relationships.
Typically because we are in it together trying to find a solution, with none of the BS of promises promises.
I think it allows a clarity of approach that sometimes business as usual hides.
So while a problem isn’t something we’d hope for, it’s always an opportunity.
Which is the Stoic way.
Thanks for reading.
Regards,
Greg
p.s. I’m available for Toyostoic ramblings in the guise of filling your vacancies, improving your recruitment or helping you do it better yourselves. Get in touch.