Finally, some headhunters are calling

Finally...some headhunters are starting to call

At long last I think the word has gotten on the street: there's a new in-house recruiter at TriMedx and he used to be on the outside...and now the phone starts to ring.
When I was in the third-party recruiting role, AKA a "headhunter" I never took pleasure or found success in calling on corporate recruiters to solicit job orders. If that corporate guy happened to be a former third-party guy, then I definitely never called him/her. The way I saw it, people in the talent-acquisition role were sort of a competitor to me and really didn't have enough in common with my desired outcome to be someone I wanted involved in how I made a living. So, I just tried to avoid the in-house guy all together unless I was directed to speak with him by a hiring manager. Even then, if I didn't have a good relationship with the hiring manager, I usually just avoided it all together. But, when a hiring manager was interested in my candidate, had done an initial phone interview, and then directed me over to the in-house recruiter, well that was a whole different story. Still, however, I made it a point to put some distance between me and the in-house guy - I made friends with them, after the fact, but not as a means to getting in to the mix.

Now that I'm an in-house guy, I see it almost as a fault if a third-party guy approaches me as a means to getting a job order. It's an indicator of the level of the player. But, this fits in with my theory that people around you are revealing all kinds of things about themselves, all the time. Mostly, people don't even know that they're communicating when they are. But, if you tune in to the right frequency, you can pick up all kinds of signals.

So, third party guys, the couple of dozen who've checked me out on Linked-In, and even read my skrinkly little blog - are you really sure I'm the right guy to be calling?

Hats, Hats, and four more hats...and some jobs

Two topics today. First, hats. When I think of "hats" the first thing that comes to mind is Minnie Pearl. This is not an article about her. But, it's a funny way to start a post for a Friday. This is about the Six Hats Thinking method, created by Edward de Bono. I just discovered it and spent about an hour reading and strangely enough, thinking about it. If you find yourself spending a lot of time thinking about things, as I clearly do, then this little meta-tool might be just the thing for you. You can apply it to a host of thigns that you do in your life to examine and consider things from a variety of angeles without worrying about getting lost in your own thoughts or having an ADHD/ADD moment.

Now the actual reason for this post is of course about TriMedx. We're still hiring - but we're being pretty selective, yet still. Now I'm working on a Sourcing Specialist, a Support Specialist, BMETs, Imaging Technicians, Clinical Engineering Manager(s), and a couple more. Most of it surrounds biomedical equipment technician stuff. But, the sourcing specialist has to be the collest job among them. It's a job for a BMET who wants to work more in a business setting than in a clinical field. Since I try to be a smart-cookie, I'm not going to mention the exact compensation range. But, I will say that within its space, I think it's pretty generous.

So, that's all I have for the day. Happy Friday and go check in to those hats.

Los Angeles - Moving the plan ahead

So TriMedx is trucking along with our integration plans in greater Los Angeles.

I posted a Clinical Engineering Manager opportunity job in Los Angeles today on Linked In. It's for someone with a biomedical equipment technician background who's evolved over to the management side of things. Take a look and see for yourself. It's on Linked-In HERE. Or, you can go straight to our career page and apply HERE.

Day three...nothing big yet

Day three on my one-man traffic expedition. I'm still at it - trying to find clinical engineering managers, BMETs, biomedical equipment technicians, imaging guys, and the such.

This is going to prove interesting to good ole' Todd Rogers, TriMedx recruiter.

I did manage to discover some interesting details over at Google.

Biomedical equipment jobs
Biomedical equipment technician
Biomedical technician

These are the hot searches. So, I best be on top of things now, right?

Californian...not so much.

I can't forget my disclaimer:
Nothing in this blog represents the official (or unofficial) opinion of TriMedx, it's owners, or leadership.

Change I better believe in

I'm now in my fourth week at TriMedx. I'm learning a whole heck of a lot. One of the things I'm learning about it (re-learning about) is how communications must be properly managed. I'm also learning about disclaimers; like this one: nothing in this blog represents the opinion of TriMedx or its management, leadership, or shareholders.

But, I am getting my head around this who SEO business, that's for sure. I'm also learning a whole bunch about clinical engineering, BMETs, CBETs, imaging technicians, field service engineers, and much much more. I guess it has a lot to do with the positions I'm trying to fill in California areas such as Los Angeles, San Bernardino, greater Inland Empire, Northridge, Long Beach, and others. I'm not totally in-the-know yet on the terminology and how a BMET evolved to incorporate "biomed" but, I'm starting to figure it out.

Our TriMedx career's page is going to start getting beefed-up a little, too. But, that too will take some time and attention to keep things on the up & up with marketing & communications authorities.

So, if you should find yourself out on the Internet looking for a clinical engineering manager position in the Los Angeles area, please take a look at the position(s) I'm working on.
I'm also looking for BMETs, imaging, and lab technicians, also in the same Southern California area.

That's it for now, folks! I'll be back with more exciting content.
Thanks for reading...and searching!

Twenty seconds flat

I'm surprised at how few candidates (especially active ones) who don't fully grasp the importance of delivering a good answer in an interview, AND delivering it WELL(!!!). Consider the following analogies: A surgeon who uses dull or under-maintained instruments; a chef who uses dull knives; an actor with laryngitis; a musician with a poorly tuned instrument. All of these people depend on their tools to do their job. If any one tool (instrument, etc...) isn't working properly, they will have to compensate in some other way in order to be successful - or they can expect to be unsuccessful. As an interviewer, whether you need a new job or want a new job, one of your primary tools is your - perhaps your most important tool, is your ability to communicate (convey) your value. How vague is that? What if you spoke only German and the person interviewing you only spoke English? That interview wouldn't go very far. You wouldn't have very much at your disposal to convey your value. Sure, you could draw pictures on a piece of paper, or do some gesturing. But, pretty soon, that interview would end and if you're lucky you might find a ding-letter in your mailbox. But, the good news is, you're probably going to have a common language in an interview and by God, you have better take full advantage of it.
Here's where this post meets the post's title: you had better be able to deliver your answer to any of their questions in twenty seconds or less. But that's not all. You had better have some kind of relevant anecdote that demonstrates your proficiency and be able to build it in to your answer...in only twenty seconds. I'll give you five seconds to think about it, so you've actually got about twenty five seconds, total. But, it's a tight rope. You've got very little room for error.

Here's a formula:
They ask a question, you answer the question (directly) and then you say, "Let me give you an example..." Then, you're down to fifteen seconds, and that's when you say, "When I was working at XYZ, Inc. we did a project in July of 2005 (specific date is critical). The challenge was (fill in with challenge) and if we didn't succeed, we might have (consequence of failure). So, I (did the following) and low-an-behold, we figured it out." See how easy that was? It's a variation of the STAR Method. And, you don't need to do very much to get it right. And, you can do it in about twenty seconds. Try it and see for yourself. Don't wait until the next interview. Wait until someone asks you a qualifying question about past experience - it happens all the time.

The best ones go fishing

I've been working on this recruitment methodology for nearly two years, now. I call it "The Angler Sequence" after the art of fishing. Anglers go fishing for the love of fishing, not usually because they look at the water and think that there may just be a fish somewhere down there. Likewise, some of the best candidates aren't necessarily interested in hearing about a job the first time you call them. Hence my method, which has a lot in common (theoretically) with Peter Lefkowitz's Morgan Method, doesn't place initial emphasis on pitching a job at a stranger, as it goes. If you spend all of your time doing that you're likely to be just another pop-up on some one's radar and they're unlikely to really give you the time of day.

Here's something I noticed: the moment someone picks up the telephone and says hello, you begin competing with other things that are currently occupying their time at the time of the call - the status quo. Unless they happen to be looking at the telephone hoping that some recruiter might call them, it's a pretty sure bet that the person who answers your cold call is immediately searching for a polite (or rude) way to get off of the telephone with you as quickly as possible. Intuitively, that person will identify you as a recruiter, determine if they have any reason to speak with you, and then start reviewing their menu of reasons why they can't (or won't) spend more than about sixty seconds with you on the phone. Then, something very predictable happens. The person you called goes in one of about five possible directions in the context of the discussion. Undoubtedly, he/she may have any of a hundred reasons that come out of his/her mouth. But, each one of those response phrases is an indicator of one, or possibly two distinct groups. Basically, they tell you "I don't know anyone who's looking" or "tell me about the job" or "sorry, I'm not interested" or "let me get your name & number so I can call you back." There is an enormous list of actual responses that someone may give you that appears (key term) to give them a way out of the call. But, the fact is, all of those responses can be neatly packaged in to one of five little boxes. Those five boxes are attached in some way to two different forms of motivation: situational motivation, and dispositional motivation. I'll cover those two groups in another post (someday...maybe) but for now, let's just talk about the five groups.
Situational Constraints - this is someone who'll probably talk to you, but just not right then or there. This person asks for your number and says he'll call you back. But that doesn't mean he actually will call you back. A lot of the time, people use this as an excuse but in reality, they are actually part of the next group.
Pav-NO-vian - named after Pavlov, these are people who say "no" to just about everything. Ring a bell, the dog salivates. Call this person, he says "no thanks." These people typically suffer from system-justification bias. They just don't like change and have committed themselves to stay put even if it means working at a lousy job.
Genuinely satisfied - These people really like their job and have an overall positive sentiment about their work life. As far as indicators, I think these people tend to speak slightly slightly slower and have a subtle amount of confidence in their delivery. I also think they happen to be the best people when it comes to getting referrals.
F.U.D. - Those who suffer from perpetual fear, uncertainty, and doubt - these are the ones who don't trust you. They are also sometimes Pav-NO-vians. In about two seconds, you're able to separate them, however. Pav-NO-vians will do just about anything to get off the phone. FUDs, however, will answer questions and at least talk to you. If you're genuine with them, they'll eventually become a member of my last group.
LMCMD - (huh?) That stands for "let me close my door." These are usually the anglers I'm looking for.

Ok, that's all I have to share for right now. I know it seems like I'm stopping in mid-sentence. But, I promise, I'll pick this up another time.