Time for a change

Dennis Howlett at Accman Pro has a great blog.  He is always open to new ideas.  Dennis took a whole new approach to a job advert of mine and re-wrote it and put it on his blog (ably supported by David and Jason).  For example:

The original advert:

You will be very computer literate and have good technical accounting knowledge.  You will possess strong communication skills, have the ability to manage others and to work independently.  Strong practical experience of accounting systems and Excel is essential.  Knowledge of Crystal Reports an advantage.

Dennis’ version:

Technical skills:

Strong practical accounting skills are assumed with an emphasis on assisting business managers rather than preaching the numbers. In addition, candidates will need to demonstrate a genuine passion for technology. The geekier the better but not to the point of speaking in Java or PHP. You need to be an Excel Wizard and if you have Crystal skills, that’s a bonus. You need to have solid communications skills - written and oral.

Social abilities:

Team player? Good. Able to work unsupervised without goofing off or panicking? Ideal. Flexible? Goes without saying.

In fact it was so good Malcolm McLelland  showed it to about 100 intermediate financial accounting students at Purdue University.  9 out of 10 preferred Dennis’ ad when compared to a typical ad.   

I would like to see more ads like the one Dennis created, but I don’t expect I will (in the near future at least).  Changing from the normal and expected to something new and unexpected is often unsettling.  People generally don’t like change; with change comes risk and with risk comes potential failure.  It’s easier to play safe and stay with the status quo.

Let’s look at the downside if I created an ad in the informal style used by Dennis then where could I go wrong?  I can think of the following:

•    Add inadvertently appears ageist, sexist or raciest due to adopting an untested approach
•    Job criteria appears too woolly and a rejected candidate challenges the selection process
•    Lawyers involved fighting a case brought on by the wording of the ad

Let’s now consider the advantages:

•    Differentiates the company making it stand out from the crowd
•    Gives the candidate a clearer idea of the company and the position
•    The company appears a more attractive place to work

With change comes risk.  The trick is to properly consider and minimize the risk;   managing the downside, whilst delivering on the upside.  For example, the HR specialists can check the ad wording before release and remove any potential problems.  The ad still needs to be well written and touch the right spot to deliver the upside, but the downside risk is controlled.

If risk can be managed then what are the other barriers to change?  The biggest, in my opinion, is the extra effort involved.  It’s hard work to change and make change successful.  Attempting the new is always hard work, at least initially.  It’s easier to stick with the tried and tested. 

In business the phrase cost v’s benefit is common.  To take this phrase in the context of the above raises a question.  Is the cost and risk of change worth the effort?    That’s a question of judgement and it’s your call, but don’t forget that we are all living in a technology revolution and revolutions cause change.

Technorati Tags: small business medium sized business sme smb blogging accountants  sme-blog

Philip Woodgate

Comments

[Malcolm McLelland]

Hi Philip,

I'm in complete agreement with potential legal outcomes of job posting ads in general. But I wonder about whether the relative risk and reward trade-offs to an ad such as the one Dennis proposes are as uncertain as they might seem at first. I can always mock up an argument as to why *any* job position ad is ageist and probably sexist too.

For example, the phrase "requires extensive out-of-town travel" implies "married individuals or single parents with children probably shouldn't apply." Another example would be "candidate should have between 0-7 years experience and ability to take direction from superiors" implies "don't apply if you have more experience, even if you're otherwise perfectly qualified, because we don't want disagreements between staff and managers that result from staff knowing more than managers." In my view that can easily be construed as ageist.

To me the real issue is whether an ad clearly, concisely, and attractively *informs the reader about the actual job opening*. From having read many hundred of job ads full of disingenuous hyperbole, I would think the risk of litigation would be quite as high from what have become "traditional job ads" like the one at ...

http://www.cliftoncpa.com/Careers/opps/desc.asp?job_id=1612

Although the law generally allows for "puffing" in selling activities, I would guess the courts would take a dim view on ads like the one I linked if a former employee pressed the issue!

[Dennis H]

I'd argue the risks are lower when you create an advert that has a human 'voice.' For me, the key is to reduce the content to what you really want to convey about the firm, its intent and its requirements. If it does that in an attractive manner, then it has served its purpose. IMO.

[Philip Woodgate]

Hi Malcolm and Dennis

You both put forward good arguments for managing the risk. Here's hoping we see more of these genuinely distinctive ads in future.

[Heather]

Hi Philip

what happened to the fish?

I'm not actually convinced of the superiority of the Dennis style advert to be honest.

An ad such as Dennis described could be a bit misleading - I for example don't think it fits with most accountancy practices image of either themselves or their clients (whether that is good or bad - I'm not judging here). Also I think it suggests a 'grab em by the balls' approach that Dennis himself may admire - but would you be able to uphold that in the interview, and would you feel comfortable with this personality in a junior? Or would you revert back to the individual that wrote the first ad - in which case you might just faze the candidate, and perhaps even end up with more than you wanted to handle.

Also, what about authenticity - yours? This is not just about capturing likely candidates, it advertises your company too. Stick to who you are and what you say about your company and recruit a person that suits you rather than trawling out the candidate that somone else would like.

Sorry Den.

Heather

[Philip Woodgate]

Hi Heather

The fish are getting a well deserved break and a change of scenery, but they'll be back at different points.

Dennis has managed to convey what the role requires and I don’t think it’s misleading. He has actually painted a more complete picture of the role. Its true Dennis has his own distinct voice and that is different to the firms, but the principle of using a more informal style is a good one. The “human voice” is more attractive than the corporate one. Malcolm’s students would seem to agree and I think it’s also a reason why blogs are becoming more and more popular.

[Malcolm McLelland]

Heather's comments are certainly reasonable in the sense that stuffy, overly-traditional accounting firms should certainly not try to misrepresent themselves as something they aren't. The preliminary experimental success of Dennis' version of the ad should, however, suggest something quite important to such firms ...

Most importantly, Dennis' ad implicitly follows the basic idea of a number of notable authorities on writing (e.g., Rudolph Flesch, Deirdre McCloskey): Readable writing more closely follows common oral communication styles; unreadable writing results from verbosity, hyperbole, sweeping generalizations and other things militating against clarity and conciseness.

As a prospective employee *or client*, I'd take Balls-to-the-Wall clarity and conciseness (e.g., Dennis' ad) over disingenuous verbosity and hyperbole (e.g., the link I referenced in my previous comment) in a heartbeat!

A number of my closest friends are attorneys and I'd be willing to bet their views are precisely the same. No one ever increased their litigation risk by a clear, concise ad unless they were trying to hide some aspect of the job or firm to begin with. As Dennis suggests, litigation risk is lowered by clarity and conciseness.

[alastair harris]

I caught the Dennis version of your ad, and admit that I was impressed. To my mindset the traditional approach is stuffy and does not engage. Not a description you could apply to Dennis!

The comments to this thread raise some interesting questions, and highlight some of the costs of red tape, which are endemic in this area.

But I am curious - did you fill your post, and if so did the successful applicant arise from the Dennis ad?

[Philip Woodgate]

Hi Alastair

It was great of Dennis to go out of his way on this and post it on his site. We filled the post, but with the traditional ad method. We did use the web to test candidates using our online accounting system which worked well.

[Helen]

Very interesting to see the difference between the first version and the modified version of the ad.