• Important Info:

  • Pages

  • Archives

  • Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

  • Follow The Armchair HR Manager – Advice from an "HR Fan" on WordPress.com
  • Recent Posts

One in hand vs. Two in the Bush

I am sure we are all familiar with the old story/proverb of the value of having one of something vs. the potential of having two or more of the same “something.” In many countries this is known as A bird in hand is worth more than two in the bush.  Essentially, the lesson learned is that having something in your grasp or in fact, something that is “yours” is far more valuable than the potential of having more things but with the risk of having to give up what you already have.

bird-in-handI have found this proverb to be very applicable to modern day recruiting and dealing with hiring managers. You see, at the end of the day, hiring managers are always looking at the value of two in the bush. Meaning, while they may have a candidate presented to them by you as the recruiter that meets a significant portion of the job requirements, many of them are always keeping an eye out for that other potential candidate that meets all of the requirements, requires no training, is a superstar, comes from an identical industry and doesn’t mind working 40 hours of overtime a week with no extra compensation. I am being a bit facetious here, but you get the point.

This is a constant struggle for recruiters – managing hiring managers – and the acceptance of a highly qualified candidate is probably at the top of the list. I know we have all felt the frustration of a hiring manager’s indecision. You source, recruit and present a great slate of candidates. The hiring manager interviews and is impressed, especially with one in particular and indicates to you that they would be a great hire, but…they want to wait “to see what else is out there.” WTH? It is at that point in time the recruiter snaps and wants to put the hiring manager in the rear naked choke hold .

How can recruiters avoid this scenario from happening? Well, the tough answer is that generally speaking, you can’t. Hiring managers often suffer from decision-making paralysis. They have been brought up thinking that there is a “right” hiring decision to be made and all other decisions are wrong. They have been led to believe there is a perfect candidate out there and they want to wait (for you) to find that candidate, because, well you know, they EXIST (yeah right).

How can you minimize this from happening? Well, this is the good news. You can control this a bit.   A lot of this occurs at the intake meeting. Make sure you get a hiring commitment up front from the hiring manager – this works best when it is in writing (can be as simple as an email). You want the hiring manager’s commitment/agreement on:

  1. Providing you with an accurate performance profile: what a person in the job needs to be able to do (this is different form a job description). The reason this is key is because if a hiring manager gives you a job description, it will simply be a laundry list of wishes of things they want in the perfect candidate. Don’t fall for this trap.
  2. Their availability – get a commitment up front as to when they will be interviewing for the role, because well, you WILL find them good candidates. If possible, schedule some dates in advance. This way, you can progress with your screening and your hiring manager has to review potential candidates efficiently as they already have interview times set up.
  3. Agree in writing as to what constitutes a good candidate vs. a great one and get commitment on hiring any “great” candidates. This should be done before the interview and scored immediately after the interview. That way, if a hiring manager agrees that a score of 4+ overall is a “great” score, anyone that scores a 4+ will be made an offer.

Point number 3 is a key one because you are getting the buy in before you meet candidates. This will help you avoid the scenario where you have a candidate interview, they get scored a 4.5, and the manager (despite loving the candidate) still defers and wants to see more candidates. You then need to ask the manager: “So, Bob, you agreed going into the interview process that anyone that scored a 4+ would be considered a GREAT candidate based on the performance profile. Therefore, we were looking for 4+’s during the selection process. We have found you a 4.5 – which is better than the 4+ considered to be great…why would we not be hiring this person? Has the selection criteria changed? Is a 4+ not great? Have the expectations/standards changed? What have we missed here?” It is at this point in time you have to remind them of one in hand vs. two in the bush. “Bob, we can certainly continue to source for you. It may take us another 2-6 weeks to present more candidates that may or may not be as good as this one. In the interim, it is highly likely you will lose the candidate you scored a 4.5. Are you willing to take that risk? This means your job will have been open for over 2.5 months? If you are willing to take the risk, we are willing to continue to source for you.”

Above all, you need to get the manager to understand that THEY were the ones who identified what they were looking for and what GREAT looked like. They have found GREAT and now GREAT is no longer GREAT. What has changed? At the end of the day, the pre-commitment approach will work with many managers. There are still others (who shouldn’t be managing or hiring) that will want to look at other candidates regardless. My advice, if you are an agency recruiter – work closest to the money. If you are in-house, you will need to focus on other clients reqs. if you have them. If you don’t, you still have to suck up the hit to your time to fill metric and soldier on…or move into HR. As always, I welcome your feedback and comments.

Photo courtesy of Pezibear/Pixabay.com

HR – Let’s fix these things!

One of my goals as an HR Professional and HR Leader is to continue to try and elevate not only the status of our profession, but also to try and guide and provide some perspective to our upcoming HR Pros. Part of the mission of The Armchair HR Manager is to dispel some of the myths and fallacy in thinking that HR Pros have about themselves and their profession. I have written many times about what it makes to be a good HR Pro and what good HR Pros should be doing and I find each time that I do, some HR Pro reaches out to thank me for the advice and information as it has typically provided them some fresh perspective on challenges they are facing. (Mission accomplished!)

Fix ItIn that context, I wanted to lay out some things that we can, and should be doing, as HR Pros that will not only help our organizations, but elevate the status of our profession – i.e. add VALUE. Some of these may be obvious, some are easy to do and some are hard. Some are quick fixes and some are longer term solutions. The degree of all of this will vary from organization to organization and HR Pro to HR Pro. My goal is help draw your attention to these items, help you feel like you are not alone in the “fight” to bring respect to HR and hopefully the list will bring some focus and clarity to your own HR role. To that extent, I present The Armchair HR Manager’s list of stuff that HR can and needs to fix:

  1. Onboarding – simply put, this is one of the greatest areas of opportunity for most companies. If you can do anything to help improve, fix and refine this process you should be doing it. Frankly, it is horrible to think that in many companies, employees still show up for their 1st day of work and managers aren’t ready for them, the new employee has no computer access or even a place to sit/work. This is typically capped off by the new employee going to lunch by themselves – uggh.
  2. Communication – another one of the big organizational pain points we can help fix. HR Pros should always be looking for ways to improve organizational communication. Use your hidden IT skills to develop an intranet or SharePoint site. Write a weekly “letter from the President” to update staff on high level organizational stuff. Anything you can do to increase and improve communication will go a long way to enhancing your company’s brand and the status of HR in general.h
  3. Forms – if you are one those companies that have paper forms for everything, than find a way to reduce, eliminate and move online anything that has to be filled out. Get your forms developed in Adobe format and have staff complete things online. No one, and I mean no one, likes to fill out hard copy forms. This may seem trivial, but it is a big improvement!
  4. Job ads – quite simply, they suck. Stop posting job descriptions. Start describing what the person in the job will do and how they will impact things. Focus on a performance profile and less about responsibilities and qualifications. Trust me; your hiring managers will thank you for it!
  5. Supervisor/employee relations – if you have a manager or managers in your company that are acting like a**holes, call them out on it. Speak to them, coach them, work with their manager but do whatever you can to keep the spotlight and heat on managers who treat their employees like crap. If they don’t change, push your organizational leaders hard to get rid of them – you don’t need these types of cancers in your company. Here is the thing, believe me when I tell your employees ALL know who the bad managers are and they are always wondering why you aren’t doing anything about it.
  6. Harassment in general – whether from managers or peers, I am still appalled by the amount of sexual harassment and harassment in general that occurs in today’s workplaces. Despite greater awareness, “mandatory” organizational training and court awards for damages, harassment is still a MAJOR workplace issue. I am disgusted by the stories I hear of how employees are being bullied (my managers and peers), are sexually harassed or harassed due to their gender, sexual orientation or for other means. I am blown away by how employees still think it is “ok” to make inappropriate comments, touch/grab or otherwise make contact with their fellow employees or simply partake in the use of sexual innuendos. Worst of all, companies still tend to turn a blind eye to these issues, or only “try” and deal with them once they become a formal complaint. Having policies is one thing, it is all about your ACTIONS. As HR Pros, we need to FIX THIS – NOW!
  7. Confidentiality – most of all, as HR Pros, you HAVE to maintain confidentiality in your dealings with staff. No one likes or trusts an HR Pro that can’t maintain confidentiality. The most valuable currency you have is trust – don’t break/lose it. If the problem is with your managers, see point #5 above – work the manager and their supervisor and make sure they understand the impact of their actions and then coach their supervisor on holding the blabber mouth manager accountable.

What about you? Are there any other fixes that HR can provide? As always, I welcome your comments and feedback.

Image courtesy of Stuart Miles/FreeDigitalPhotos.net

“I’m Bringing Respect Back”

If you didn’t pick up on it initially, sing that title to the tune of Justin Timberlake’s “Sexy Back.” Now it is pretty cool isn’t it? Seriously though, when did a lack of respect for people leave our workplaces? Jay Kuhns wrote a great post on Monday that really struck a chord with me. Here is the link to it, but his point was simple. That is, he was trying to show how disconnected many of us are from our hiring and onboarding processes vs. reality. He further went on to make the point about how when we ask candidates for their feedback on how their hiring and onboarding went, we don’t really seem to listen to them.

Respect Sign PostTo me, and I think Jay was trying to make this point, was that it comes down to a matter of respect. Think of the front end (recruiting) side of things first and all the touch points we have with candidates. How many of us and/or our organizations are guilty, somewhere along the line, of doing at least one of these things to candidates:

  1. Interviewing a candidate and then never following up with them again (either way)
  2. Interviewing a candidate but sending them an email “regrets” note
  3. Experiencing delays in coordinating next step interviews but not keeping the candidate informed of the reason for the delays
  4. Not clearly spelling out the required pre-hire steps with the candidate and/or introducing surprise new steps without an explanation as to why. (i.e. 3rd, 4th, 5th interviews)
  5. Telling a candidate that you will follow up with them (perhaps with a decision) by a specific date and then you don’t follow up with them (for whatever reason).
  6. Offering a candidate a job 4 weeks after they last heard from you (similar to #3) and expecting them to still be available
  7. Inflexibility and refusing to accommodate/respect a candidate’s time when interviewing with you. i.e. “I have one time slot left for you to meet with the manager.”

The bottom line is that none of these things show respect towards a candidate and for them as a person. It gives the impression that you are doing them a favour by interviewing them and/or even considering them for your company. Similarly, I have seen equally deplorable behaviours on the onboarding side of things that show a similar lack of respect:

  1. Manager(s) not prepared for a new hires arrival
  2. Organizations inundating new hires with forms, policies and manuals to read on their first few days instead of taking the time to actually develop an onboarding plan that would integrate a new hire into the current team and culture. Nothing says “I don’t have time to deal with you” like throwing a manual at someone!
  3. Lack of computer and phone access on the 1st day
  4. The new hire is left to have lunch on their own on their first day.
  5. The manager checks in with their new employee only at the beginning of the day, most days, when they first start. Or better yet, the manager disappears for the day and the new hire is left trying to figure out where they went, if they should leave for the day, etc.

Unfortunately, this list could go on for a while. The bottom line is that we as HR Pros and all of us as leaders have to get better at this. We need to stop anything that we are doing on these lists. Let’s all vow to bring respect back to our workplaces. That starts with showing more respect for candidates and new hires. If we do that, we can start to bring respect back to all of our workplaces because we have made this part of our cultures and our brands. Now sing it with me, “I’m bringing respect back……” Come on, you know you want to. As always, I welcome your comments and feedback.

Image courtesy of Stuart Miles/FreeDigitalPhotos.net

I Want Them Now!

One of the biggest challenges that recruiters face is dealing with managers with unrealistic hiring expectations. Typically it has to deal with things like the hiring manager’s expectations that recruiting will find the “perfect” candidate, but more often than not the biggest challenge centres on how quickly the manager expects to have a candidate hired by you as the recruiter.

Temper TantrumThe irony of all this is that if you ask recruiters what their top challenges are with hiring managers, they will often cite manager (lack of) decision-making in their top three. Quite the dichotomy isn’t it? I have typically seen the first scenario as being more prevalent. That is, due to some combination of poor workforce planning, poor communication, lack of departmental integration, lack of foresight and vision, reactive management style or just overall poor planning, the common scenario we see is that of a hiring manager running to recruiting with a requisition demanding that they hire them four network security specialists “this week.” (You can insert whatever hard to find, specialized skillset you are required to hire for here!)

Sadly, I see and hear these horror stories all the time where managers think/demand that a qualified skilled professional position can be sourced and hired within a week. My advice to others, and my typical response to “requests” like these, is to take a deep breath and fight the urge to respond with why that is a completely insane request and can’t be done. I then fall back on the three legged stool of business which is: Of Fast, Cheap, & Good…you can have two of these things. So that is how I tackle things with a hiring manager who wants someone sourced and hired in a week. In other words, when I hear a request like, “I want them now,” I pull out the old three legged stool.

GoodFastCheap_Pick2In the cast of the example for this blog post, obviously the manager has already picked “Fast” – so if they want someone good, it isn’t going to be cheap. In other words, we will have to throw copious amounts of money at a candidate to get someone committed in that short a time period (perhaps a specialized subcontractor.) We will also need to spend a lot of additional resources to source, pre-screen, interview, test, reference check, etc. within a week. Staying with this theme of already having selected “Fast”, if they also want to minimize costs, (and won’t/can’t commit to the resources required to do this) then quite frankly, you just aren’t going to be able to provide them someone good.

Here is the thing, whether you are in recruiting and/or HR, the worst thing you can tell your business partners, from a credibility perspective, is “no” or why you “can’t” do something. It takes discipline to respond and think differently and respond with the mindset that you can do something and provide options. Likewise, there is no rule that says you have to respond with a “yes” and blindly try to meet the manager’s request – you aren’t in the military!

Provide your manager’s with options and leverage the three legged stool – it can be a very eye opening experience when they truly see what needs to “give” in order for them to “get” what they want. It has been my experience that most rational managers will understand that they can’t, in fact, have it all – that is, a fantastic candidate, hired quickly and at a cheap salary and/or without spending additional monies on the resources required to execute. Clearly spell out what it will take to meet the hiring manager’s demands and then ask them how they would like you to proceed with the campaign.

Here is the other important element to consider – you will also need to clearly identify with the manager what you need from them to make this “Fast” hire happen. That is, they will need to block out most of their own calendar that week for interviews and commit to making a hiring decision as soon as the interviews are done and a candidate is found (from the current pool). More often than not, the “Fast” element will change for you and perhaps you can, in fact, take some more time to hire someone and the request to have someone now will move out a bit.

Better yet, with some basic analytics and reporting, you can show the hiring manager the turnover rate and cost to replace staff that have been hired on short timelines/quick recruiting campaigns – I can pretty much bet the success rate of these campaigns is pretty low. Once the manager sees that they will be going through this same exercise again, or hiring staff, in a month due to the likelihood of attrition, they may change their thinking. Over time, the more you revert to this approach, the better and more reasonable expectations hiring managers will have of you as a recruiter. As always, I welcome your comments and feedback.

Photo courtesy of David Castillo Dominici/FreeDigitalPhotos.net

I, Robot (Recruiting Edition)

Let’s face it, many of us as Talent Acquisition Pros, (Recruiters) fall in love with shiny new things. Whether it is the latest and greatest ATS, (Applicant Tracking System) the newest “free” feature on LinkedIn, or the latest social media tool, we LOVE shiny new things. So much so, that I find it can cause us, as a profession, to focus too much on our processes, systems and technology (i.e. ways to do things FASTER), to the point that we completely fall in love with them and ignore the basics. We want to automate everything and have our ATS do all the upfront work for us. We continue to feed the technology monster, believing that it is helping us do our jobs better, when in fact it may be having the opposite effect.

Movie_poster_i_robotYou see, as recruiters, we can’t let our environment take over. That is, the technology that we have at our disposal should complement what we do, not BE what we do. We need to make sure that the technology works us and that we don’t work for the technology. Case in point, how many people reading this post absolutely love their ATS? I mean really LOVE it. Hands up. That’s what I thought. How many of you would rather have no ATS than the one you have? Right, so we need to make sure our ATS works for us. None of them are perfect but most are workable – read this great post by Tim Sackett for more on ATS love.

For example, I recently blogged about the hidden nuggets of recruiting that we fail to capitalize on, such as referrals. But here is the thing, how many of us have taken the time to make sure that our ATS actually screens in the right candidates vs. screens them out?   How many of our ATS’s create roadblock or hard stop screen out questions that push candidates out of our system vs. drawing them in?

Here is an example to drive home my point and to show why we need to do a better job of making our tools work for us. Let’s say you have an opening for a Sales Director. Your HR team, in partnership with the hiring manager, has developed a comprehensive job description/performance profile for the role. It is determined that while a university degree would be nice to have, it is not a requirement for this role. The successful candidate needs to be able to demonstrate their proposal writing and presentation abilities by drawing upon their current experience.

This job description/profile is then given to the recruiting team to use in order to make an effective hire. The information is entered into the ATS and the recruiter who has this requisition then begins to communicate the opening internally, looking for referrals, as well as advertising and recruiting externally. Because this recruiter does a good job networking internally, she actually receives several referrals for the role. The candidates are immediately directed to “apply on online” by completing an online application. Of course, no one bothered to check the standard pre-screening questions that the ATS will ask.

Here is the problem, because this company has traditionally required people to have a university degree for all its roles (began as a start up), ALL positions ask the applicant if they have a degree or not. So, what happens? The excited referrals then are either automatically screened out and/or there is no opportunity for them to describe or demonstrate their equivalent or related experience. (Thanks to one of my readers, Christine N. for this great example which I am sure is purely fictitious!).

So, what should we as recruiters be doing? We need to analyze our processes, procedures and technology and make sure they are working for us. Applying some Lean thinking principles here would go a long way to potentially reducing costs and wasted time. Secondly, and probably most importantly, we need to stop working like robots and simply “processing” everything. I have advocated time and time again that the recruiting business is a people business (seems obvious but it isn’t based on the hundreds of horror stories I hear every year.)

As recruiters, we need to find ways to humanize the candidate experience and how we interact with our candidates. In the example above, instead of automatically directing referrals to “apply online,” why isn’t the recruiter making it a point to have a personal discussion with each referral first and THEN have them apply online (as a formality at that point). Candidate referrals should not be handled the same as all other applicants; however, this is another case where we fall into the trap of acting like robots due to the technology at our disposal.

We need to make sure our technology and tools at our disposal are doing for us what they are supposed to be doing. Listen to your candidates and employees. What are they telling you? This two (free) resources are a great place to start when it comes to process improvement. Better yet, have you tried applying for a job at your company recently? How did that work out for you? Did you find you were able to portray an accurate picture of yourself in the online application process?

Finally, and above all else, as recruiters, let’s get back to using the phone more. It helps humanize the entire candidate experience. Not a lot of talent acquisition departments do this anymore, so here is a chance to stand out. If you need any help, just read any of the great articles that Maureen Sharib has written – you won’t be disappointed. As always, I welcome your comments and feedback.

Movie poster i robot” by Source. Licensed under Fair use via Wikipedia

The Little Golden Nuggets of Recruiting

As Talent Acquisition Specialists/Recruiters, we have many tools at our disposal to help us find the right candidate(s) for our client(s). Setting aside technology/social media, the greatest “tool” at our disposal is our ability to build relationships. That’s right, news flash, if you are in recruiting you are in the relationship building business. Great recruiters actively grow and cultivate their networks and actively work to maintain these relationships within those networks. Candidates want to work with recruiters that they know and trust. The only way you get there is by building relationships.

Golden NuggetNow at this stage, I know I am not telling you anything that you don’t know. In terms of tools and sourcing tactics, there are far more qualified folks out there that you can follow and read about that will provide you with a TON of great information. Folks like Glen Cathey, Will Staney, Lars SchmidtMatthew Jeffery, Stacy Zapar and Jeremy Roberts. These folks are recruiting rock stars. What I can tell you though, is what has worked for me. I have probably conducted hundreds, maybe thousands of recruiting campaigns in my career. By far, the single most effective tool at my disposal has always been employee referrals. Depending on what/where you read, referrals seem to be often either overhyped or undersold. In my opinion, there is no such thing as overhyping the effectiveness of referrals. Most people know that (your) talented employees know other talented employees. It has been my experience that talented people don’t just refer someone because they want to receive some sort of monetary referral bonus. No, they refer because talented people want to work with other talented people. If your employees are engaged in what they do and they believe in your talent brand, they will refer others.

The beauty of referrals is that it is like having 50, 100 or even 1000+ recruiters working for you. My first stop on any campaign is to leverage my internal networks. I make it a point to constantly be speaking with employees about current and upcoming hiring needs. That way, we can manage the (passive) referrals proactively and then the (active) referrals during an immediate campaign. You need to make it a point to get the word out to your employees about EXACTLY what it is you are looking for. You should be doing this for all levels of positions; however, typically the more difficult the skillset is to find, the more effective a focused referral campaign probably will be.

Case in point, we recently ran a campaign out on the west coast of Canada for a very unique skill set. We knew that typical sourcing and recruiting tactics would not give us enough reach and access to the types of candidates we needed to be speaking with. Our first step was to get out in front of staff. We spent days spreading the word across our offices about the type of person (knowledge, skills, ability, performance profile) that we were looking for. We also honed in on our employees whose backgrounds were most similar to the type of individual we were looking for. (Thank you HRIS!) By knowing our employees’ backgrounds as well as being able to identify our best performers, we were able to leverage this referral/recruiting campaign with a great deal of success. The end result was that we were able to hire the majority of the individuals through referrals – no other recruiting costs involved. This couldn’t have been done just using LinkedIn ads/searches, internet searching, etc.

So, to come full circle, as I mentioned earlier, recruiting is about building relationships. However, these relationships are not always externally facing. You must look inside your organization at your current employees. Build these relationships and continue to nurture and foster them. Better internal relationships mean better referrals for you the recruiter! As always, I welcome your comments and feedback.

Photo courtesy of Les Haines/Flickr.com

Free Agent Frenzy – HR Version

For the sports fans/football fans out there, you all know that today at 4pm EST the NFL’s free agent period kicks off. This is essentially the NFL’s version of a talent free for all. Hundreds of NFL players will become unrestricted free agents today, which means that they are all free to sign with whatever team they want to for however much money they can get. As free agents, the very best players (best talent) command top dollar for longer contractual periods. The funny thing is, every year, in the chase to make more money and to win championships, both players and owners alike, make critical mistakes during this time period. Players leave simply for money and owners overspend/over value the free agents and make hasty decisions as they try and buy a championship.

The same comparator can be drawn when it comes to top talent within organizations looking to move on to perceived greener pastures. That is, unless you are under some sort of fixed term contract, as an employee, you are always in free agent mode. That is, you are free to change employers as you see fit and are able, provided you give proper notice to your current employer. In my years in the recruiting and HR business, I have seen a lot of people chase the dollars only to have it come back to haunt them – much like the NFL players do. Similarly, organizations NFL-FAtry and buy talent (overpay) as a way to compensate for their inability to attract, develop and retain the right core group of employees.

The biggest mistake that NFL players make is that they leave a team (company) and system (culture) that they are familiar and comfortable with which has also allowed them to have great success on the field. When these players become free agents, they jump to teams that offer them the highest dollars possible without considering how they will be able to perform in these new systems. Just like in business, the NFL has teams with such poor cultures, usually due to poor ownership, (the Oakland Raiders or Miami Dolphins) that it is hard for players to be successful, especially if they have come from an organization with strong culture focused on performance and winning (think the New England Patriots). In fact, rarely have players that have left teams with these type of “winning “ cultures gone on to realize the same or similar success with other teams. If you don’t believe, Google any big named free agent that has left New England or Baltimore (despite the Ray Rice issues) in the last 10 years and see if they have gone on to similar or greater success. Trust me, you will come up empty. The reasons are simple – leadership, culture and organizational stability at the top trumps dollars when it comes to setting people up for success. Meaning, just because you pay someone a ton of money, doesn’t mean they can and will perform for you.

So, if you are looking to make the leap from your current company to another for more money (as your main driver), you need to consider if you can have the same level of success and maintain the credibility of your personal brand if you do so. Now, I am not begrudging NFL players or you, my readers, for trying to make more money. Heck, we all have bills to pay! I simply mean you have to look at the big picture. NFL players will turn down $5 million a year on a 5 year deal with their current team to take $6 million a year for 4 years with another team. Yes, I know that is a total difference of $3 million in overall value however, the player is realizing approx. a 20% increase a year with one less year of employment. What happens in the NFL, because a lot of deals don’t contain guaranteed money, meaning, the player can be cut without penalty, is that after the first year or two, if the player’s performance isn’t at peak value or producing, they are out of a job. So how much additional money did they truly realize?

The same logic applies to us as employees. You may be able to increase your salary by 20% (who wouldn’t want to) but if you aren’t going to be set up for success, is it worth the damage to your professional brand? Do you really want to go through the misery of being part of a horrible organizational culture with poor leadership for the next 4-5 years of your career so you can realize a 20% bump in pay?

So, when considering a move purely based on money, you have to ask yourself, “Would I rather be playing for the New England Patriots and have a chance at winning the championship every year?” or; “Do I want to go purely for the money and play for the Jacksonville Jaguars where I have no chance at winning or success for the next 5 years, but I will take home more money?” Typically the average NFL free agent doesn’t consider this…perhaps you, as top talent, should? As always, I welcome your comments and feedback.

PS – Darrelle Revis: Please heed my advice!

Image courtesy of The Revelation

%d bloggers like this: