Noting that you seem to like my transition blogs, here is one more. I'll try to answer three questions I hear a lot. What should I put on my CV? Will this be fair? Will it work?
What should go on the CV? There is a lot of decent advice out there on this one, so I haven't got a lot to add. First thing I would say though is to include as little as possible - now is not the time for long speeches, there simply won't be time for these to be processed and you'll just make yourself unpopular.
So really focus on recent years, and focus on things that are relevant to the job you are applying for and things that are asked for. Read the job description carefully and include things which demonstrate you are competent in what is required, using their words if you can. Without lying, use verbs like achieved, earned (money always sells!), led, implemented, closed, and leave out stuff where you can only say participated or contributed. False modesty is not appropriate just now! Refer where you can to things everyone will understand - like IPF's and sales and standard job titles. Put the best bits first. Be ready to tailor per job where that is allowed (and if not, tailor it to your number one priority job).
A couple more things. First, it is worth emphasising what makes you different. D&I will be a criteria, and don't just think along standard dimensions. One such is experience prior to Shell, which in my opinion is shamefully under-valued generally here. Make sure you pay this due weight - even if only as a D&I play.
Lastly, do help the assessors by sharing your own feelings (obviously not all feelings...saying you don't really want the job or think the boss is an idiot might not be helpful). But if there are terms and conditions that are critical to you, say so. Include development needs. If you are applying for multiple jobs, either refer to them or make sure one of the panel knows your preference order and good trade offs. Even though it may not be decisive, that way you are more likely to get what you want. Think about it, if no-one knows what you want you can't complain if you don't get it!
So that is CV's. Short, tailored, front-loaded, honest, active verbs, D&I (including outside Shell).
Next question. Is it fair? I'm going to give this a resounding Yes. (And even if it isn't, what good is it going to do you, so don't waste your time on this question!) Even so, I really do think it will be.
It will be more hurried than usual. It is a bit awkward having these multiple rounds, where you don't know whether to go for an average job in round 1 or a good one in round 3. There will be less time to pore over CV's and have interviews and consider all angles. There will be underserving winners and unlucky losers. But, by and large, it will be fair. Why? Mainly because OR is quite mature as a system now, the clearing part is well tested, and because Shell will put big effort into having balanced and qualified panels, made up of decent Shell people who will look for good solutions for Shell, themselves and the applicants.
I'm an optimist on this, messy but fair.
Will it work? I go back to what I wrote in May after Berlin. It is certainly necessary, and the desire for speed is good. When the history of corporations of this era is written, it will be noted that the only way companies in mature markets could stay slim was to take a crash diet every so often. Everyone seems to follow the four-five year diet approach to staying in shape. I could go on about why (human motivations, tenures of CEO's, boom and bust, etc etc). But it is the way of the world, at least for now. Shell has been over-eating like everyone else, the scales make uncomfortable reading, and we need a good diet. It is worse, because we have skipped a diet cycle. The last one should have been at reserves crisis time but Jeroen (rightly in my view) worked out that we couldn't face a diet while we were on all that other medication at that time. So we need the diet. A big ugly one. Let's do it as fast as we can.
So it may not work, but the alternative of not doing it certainly would not have worked.
If we can get it over with, that will help. I support the staff council in taking their role seriously, yet I hope for Shell's sake that we don't have delays now. Morale is already too fragile, and external and customer focus too absent.
Back in May I said I would be looking at who took the jobs. Would there be enough surprises, enough skipping of generations? So far, while there are some good signs, I have my concerns. We have to radically change our culture. Agreed. So, how come that, as far as I'm aware, so far not a single appointment has gone to anyone outside Shell? Actually, it is worse, as it does seem that a disproportionate share of people exiting are the ones with shorter Shell tenures. It would be much more credible to listen to the messages of how bad we have been and how we need to change, if those messages came from people who aren't at least slightly tainted as part of the problem.
I'm not saying this is easy, and it is certainly too early to judge. Every company on a diet has to focus inwards before looking back outwards, and this is not an obvious time to introduce new foods to the body. If things go fast enough, the new lean Shell will be well placed to introduce new talent quickly. But I wonder if we have already lost some opportunities? Look out for surprises and newcomers in the next rounds and through 2010-11 - in my opinion Shell needs some.
As I always finish, please remember the poor old customer! That gets harder the longer this goes on doesn't it?
No comments:
Post a Comment