Tech Execs: Wondering Where the Next Technology Hub Will Be?

A recent article in eWeek discussed the lively debate going on in the corporate world and in major business, technology, and local government publications regarding where the nation's next major technology hub will emerge. Google and Microsoft have both bought massive properties in the Midwest, but there are a number of cities that show strong potential to be the place where you technology execs may next hang your hat.

Silicon Valley has a long way to go before it fades from prominence, but it has unfortunately become a victim of its own success, driving the cost of living to almost unimaginable levels in the region and the cost base for companies located there through the roof. With the employment market shifting more in favor of the candidate, employee retention and quality of life are becoming primary factors in locating technology enterprises.

So where will the next hub be? No one can say for sure, but eWeek analyzed the information out there to come up with a top ten list:

1. Seattle
2. Atlanta
3. Boston
4. Washington, D.C.
5. Dallas
6. Philadelphia
7. Chicago
8. Orlando
9. Los Angeles
10. Charlotte

Some areas in Florida, Central New Jersey, the Maryland suburbs, and even Las Vegas and Reno show potential. But the bottom line as the article points out is that "In the end, the skills are going to be where the people want to relocate because there's a good quality of life."

Angling Around HR - Good or Bad Tactic?

Nick Corcodilos, author of the popular (and free) Ask the Headhunter newsletter/ezine, routinely advises readers who write in to his column to go directly to hiring decision makers and either bypass HR completely or go around them after an initial rejection. His advice to that effect in a recent column entitled "Should I accept HR’s rejection letter?" certainly raised the hackles on a number of HR professionals. His answer began, "The company didn’t turn you down; the screener did. When a human resources person rejects you, it's like having the gardener tell you not to bother coming around a girl's house. What does that tell you about whether the girl wants to date you? Nothing."

Among the outraged responses were the following comments from an HR worker: "Wow, Nick! If I looked at your response to the reader as though it were your resume, I would have determined that you have little to no integrity, demonstrate poor judgment, are disrespectful, and are unable to follow the rules. Hopefully, the reader you advised won’t heed your advice because you have more than likely destroyed their chance to ever get into the organization now or in the future."

Nick respectfully disagreed, and his opinion was supported by responses from other headhunters. These included observations such as, "In my 16 years of headhunting, not once has an HR rep ever been the ultimate decision maker for any hiring outside of the HR department."

The bottom line in my view is the following: Where is the benefit to anyone on either side of the hiring equation—especially management and executive-level candidates—in meekly accepting the verdict of HR and quietly slinking away? There would appear to be only an upside and no downside to taking your case directly to the hiring decision maker. As headhunter Tony Pannagl, Managing Partner of IS&T puts it, "Candidates should work the referral and introduction angles and only give up when the hiring manager rejects them. I'm sorry if your HR friends find this offensive, but it's true."

Of course, the best answer to this issue is to leave HR out of the loop in the first place: Do your homework, find out who the decision maker is, and take your knock-'em-dead executive resume and well-prepared business case presentation directly to them.

New Federal Regulations Affect Your Online Job Hunt

Federal regulations regarding diversity that went into effect this Spring will have an effect on your job search when using a job board or other online channel such as corporate websites. The regulations are designed to standardize tracking of diversity in the candidate pool. They currently apply to federal contractors but later this year will kick in to cover all employers with more than 50 employees.

The trick is in the new definition of "applicant." You must directly express interest in the job while showing that you have ALL of the requirements listed in the job description (using the exact words they use), must not remove yourself from consideration by specifying a particular location (other than the location of the job currently advertised), and must follow the company's instructions for submitting your resume or application to the letter - whether that be via their website, email, etc. (The day is looming when it may actually be necessary to create a new resume for each application.)

The new rules allow a company to search the job boards for recent qualified applicants, which in many cases means they will not look at your resume if it has not been updated in the past 2 or 3 weeks!

The net result of all of this is that employers will want to limit as much as possible the number of resumes gathered so they can maintain a relatively small, random pool of applicants to help ensure the diversity the regulations require. As often is the case, it is likely that all these regulations will do is make more work for everyone, without actually impacting diversity. But in any case, these new regulations are something executive candidates cannot afford to ignore.

Dangers of Posting on Big Job Boards

The World Privacy Forum acknowledges that while it is important to circulate your executive resume when looking for work, in the information economy, "your resume has 'street value.'" They recommend taking measures to protect your privacy while using online resources in your employment search.

A key recommendation is posting your resume anonymously or privately, an action which conventional wisdom and job seekers' experiences seem to indicate does somewhat degrade the response rate, as employers have to take an extra step to make that first contact. Yet they are unequivocal in their opinion: "Unfortunately, few job seekers take advantage of this option. Most job seekers are concerned that they are hurting their chances with legitimate employers by making them take an extra step. But at this point, it is simply not a good idea to post your resume openly -- there are known risks at this point. If you are going to post a resume online, private posting should be the only way you post it." If you still want to post openly, they suggest that you at least use a P.O. Box instead of your street address and a disposable email address.

Other traps to be aware of are that often jobs offered are just scams. It is also true that while most sites do restrict access and try to limit it to legitimate recruiters, they cannot possibly police this adequately. And once your resume has been downloaded, all control of that resume is lost.