I‘d like to take three disparate ideas and lay them on top of each other or side by side or think about them all at once if your thought process works that way. They have more in common then you would think at first glance.
Innovation, Job Search and Diversity
Dorie Clark says “Real innovation rarely comes from the center.” It made me think of the executive boards and committees I have been on or encountered. I’ve been searching for an executive level position for the past year and am finding to no one’s surprise the process is not in any way intuitive. I watched an interesting presentation by Dorie Clark, “Finding your breakthrough idea.” I was doing some research and stumbled on this lecture. Fascinating work. One of my personal strengths as a problem solver is my ability or willingness to use innovative ideas. To me it screams the truths we all know, it validates the diversity and inclusion initiatives and really identifies the root causes of many of the issues we face. I can only use my own experiences. This is a short clip and most of what I found interesting was in the first 5 minutes or so.
This is a bit of a delicate balancing act but I’m going to do my best. Every firm and organization has diversity and inclusion initiatives, and that is a good thing. One of the problems is not just the way it is implemented but the defined goals which run counter to the internal workings of just about every big firm. I can only address my particular sector, the capital markets space. Innovation is embraced in only one context, making money, or the other side of that coin, not losing money. Embracing new technology is the hallmark of the biggest and best, think Bloomberg. Michael Bloomberg embraced new technologies and rode the big wave. He earned the biggest jackpot of all jackpots at the end of that ride, actually he is still riding that wave. In 2016 estimated wealth 49 billion.
I’ve been job searching for about a year full time. I applied for a little over 2,000 positions, followed all the directions, only applied for roles I was very qualified for. I don’t want to dwell on this other than to point out I am not in any way innovating. I am, as my former colleagues at Merrill Lynch would say “coloring inside the lines.” Lack of innovation is the glue that holds many large organizations together. Anyone who has first hand experience with company boards or executive committees knows the concept of innovation or diversity are not really welcomed topics other than as “goals” “spin”or “talking points,” the minute real change is discussed or implemented resistance begins. I know everyone has really good intentions but lets look at results vs intentions.Their stated intentions are fantastic, the results leave much to be desired. We’ve been talking about diversity and inclusion for how many years? Lets look at how successful we have been.
Every big firm “embraces” diversity and inclusion initiatives. That is wonderful news all around, but we need to drill down a little further. The current recruitment and hiring process is dominated by the ATS (Applicant Tracking System) which reduces the applicant selection process to an algorithm. It goes a little like this, you apply for a position, the ATS gives you a score and if it is high enough you get an interview. It looks a lot like a dog chasing its tail. In the current model it is like a credit score and you are applying for a home loan. High score equals great treatment and a robust recruitment experience. Low score equals complete and total silence and what seems like an exile of almost Napoleonic proportions. That is an exaggeration. Sorry. Or if you like my Napoleon metaphor you are called back from the Isle of Elba for a second chance.
Dorie Clark’s ideas are really a great way of looking at problems and the way we solve them or the way we don’t solve them. True innovation is not from the center, it goes in tandem with the idea of “disruption” being the way to succeed. Most large organizations are not where the most original ideas or the most original minds are located. Now, most organizations realize this and are attempting to move in the right direction but that is where people come into the mix and the resistance begins. I will use my own experience as a quick example.
My firm ABN AMRO Sage Corp was purchased by Merrill Lynch because of our technology, a cutting edge risk and execution platform for professional traders. It featured “live” positions and allowed your stock and option trades to flow into your account with a live P&L. Merrill had an antiquated platform and we were brought aboard to enhance/improve their client experience. Their product had a one day delay in positions and P&L, it was static. I don’t think I need to go into great detail to explain the advantage of real time activity or the advantage of point and click transactions. Many months after our purchase it was “discovered” it would be too expensive to use this new system so the “only” solution was to abandon the new platform and merge all clients onto the old platform. Even the terms used were meant as “spin”, the program was called “sunsetting.” We terminated/abandoned the new program and merged all the clients onto the old platform. Sunsetting, it sounds like such a pretty idea. The estimates that were used to rationalize the discarding of the new platform vs the old platform were discovered to have been highly inaccurate. Those individuals were fired but the real issue was that internal resistance to change was huge, they were viewed as hero’s until the numbers were more closely examined. The lesson was that innovation was viewed as the enemy.
In order for my job search to be successful I need to adopt a more innovative approach. The problem is figuring out what that disruption or innovation will look like. Part of the innovation on the part of firms needs to be the expansion of the search process to allow more diverse candidates into the process. A very easy example is my own case. I am a single father who took time off to raise a newborn, like millions of women and men across the nation and across all industries. Now here is the problem, we have a 1950’s Eisenhower era mentality that any gaps are bad and those people, yes “those” people need to be systematically rejected. Every firm’s mission statement will tell you they support family values, they support a diverse workplace, respect for all, etc.. However every single firm routinely screens out any candidate with a “gap.” No explanation is ever necessary because none is ever sought.
Now we are back to the convergence of Innovation, Job Search and Diversity and how that can help me, help you and help our nation and the economy. We need to develop a more innovative approach to job search and recruitment. One that demonstrates that innovation is achieved by diversity. We are very focused on the idea that diversity is nice or an altruistic ideal, that we are helping the historically disadvantaged. But the real news is that diversity, by bringing in those that are not in the “center” are the path to success, better profits, shareholder return. It doesn’t matter what you call it. Instead of diversity and innovation being stand alone concepts they actually go hand in hand and yield success. Newer firms like Google realize this and act accordingly. Older firms that lack innovation and diversity in their current model stagnate and flirt with innovation and diversity without really committing. Now we are left with the task of figuring out a way to bring innovation to the job search and recruitment process.
I am attempting to prove to you that the applicants that are routinely screened out are the exact candidates the process should engage. Innovation, Job Search and Diversity will yield exceptional results if we embrace it rather than fear it.
