For young adults with long-term career aspirations in a creative industry (i.e. advertising, performing arts, design), getting to their dream job can be a challenge. For one, substantial job opportunities do not present themselves often without having prior experience. Further, securing internships to gain such experience can be equally difficult. Not only is it challenging to showcase one’s imagination and creativity through a standard résumé or online application, but some companies still believe interns are hired only to brew coffee and run errands. Why would you need a bright, imaginative candidate for that? Needless to say, it’s easy to see how talented individuals could be overlooked.

Although many organizations are sticking to conventional application methods, some have embraced processes that encourage creativity. Barkley, an advertising agency in the Midwest, uses an alternative process that leverages social media. To apply for an internship opportunity, Barkley asks candidates to submit up to 10 tweets with a designated hashtag that connects the agency to the candidate’s video application, blog entry, favorite site, and more.

Likewise, eager job applicants are challenging the traditional process and differentiating themselves with their résumé. Whether in the format of a Facebook page or an interactive web design, candidates are taking risks to get noticed. To clarify, such unconventional methods will likely have the intended effect when executed in an appropriate context. I might rethink the submission of a video application for a scientific research position.

Beyond these trends, one company has created a process that benefits both intern candidates and organizations. Fast Company released an article this week featuring Intern Sushi, a multimedia site aimed to restructure the internship application and search process within creative industries. Candidates join the site and create a “digital profile” which includes videos, art, and/or music that demonstrates their passion and talent. Additionally, organizations can view candidate profiles, schedule interviews, and track their application process.

When asked how she came up with the Intern Sushi name, CEO and Co-founder, Shara Senderoff, responded “The name says a lot about our attitude. It came from the idea that the attributes of a great intern match those of great sushi: presentation, sophistication, and innovation. Also, with sushi, everyone seems to be really picky about what they eat…Similarly, people should be picky about where they intern, and companies should be picky about who they hire.” This concept applies beyond creative industries and internships. Choose your employees wisely and be selective about where you choose to work. Don’t settle for less.

There is an important source of irrationality in organizational life that seems largely to have been overlooked, but is worth considering more carefully. Consider the following examples.

1. I-O psychologists know how to select personnel – they know how to distinguish between people with talent for certain jobs and people who are sure to fail. Hugo Munsterberg first outlined the principles of selection in studies of Boston street car conductors and ferry boat captains at Harvard before WWI. These selection principles are valid for predicting performance in every job we have studied, from janitor to CEO. Moreover, the financial consequences of good selection are both significant and well understood – these consequences are nicely described in Dave Jones’ marvelous book, Million Dollar Hire. Nonetheless, those of us in the selection business know that it is hard, even impossible, to persuade organizations to accept our recommendations regarding hiring decisions. As a friend who consults with major professional athletic teams noted, “They won’t listen to us because there is so much money and ego involved.”
2. Since WWII, the United States has built up a huge intelligence capability. The actual size, staffing, and cost of this intelligence apparatus are unknown but almost certainly beyond comprehension. Vast antennae scoop up the world’s internet traffic; satellites circle the earth, photographing secret locations in the most remote locations; real human spies prowl the major cites of the world and report their clandestine discoveries constantly. Nonetheless, to the consternation of intelligence professionals, no significant foreign policy decision or intervention has ever been made on the basis of verified intelligence. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 had nothing to do with intelligence; a former chief counter terrorism advisor to the National Security Council believes that when George Bush came into office in 2000, he had already decided to invade Iraq. His administration selectively used intelligence data to support their already formed decision. This is not an unusual example.
3. Herman Kahn invented modern, scenario-based strategic planning for the military while he was at the Rand Corporation in the 1950s. Pierre Wack, an imaginative French oil industrialist, introduced scenario planning at Royal Dutch Shell in London in the 1970s. Shell is widely regarded as having invented strategic planning for business, and believed to have had the most sophisticated strategic planning department in business for years. However, external reviewers conclude that senior management at Shell never used the input from this group to make a significant business decision. Senior managers at Shell from that period report that the planning group was “too academic.” Other business analysts suggest that the suggestions from the planning group were indeed state of the art, but the senior leadership team at Shell refused to implement them.
4. Among well regarded economists at the best universities in the world, there is virtually unanimous consensus regarding the measures needed to revive a modern industrial economy that has fallen into a recession. Economists know how to fix broken economies. Nonetheless, across North America and Europe today, we see politicians making economic policy based primarily on their needs for re-election. North American and European politicians refuse to pay attention to the hard earned lessons of serious researchers.

Here we have four examples of an important theme in organizational life. It concerns the fact that the people who run organizations refuse to attend to the knowledge of competent researchers. I can think of many more examples of this trend, but the point should be clear. The next question concerns how to interpret the trend. In principle, this topic belongs to organizational researchers. Organizational theory is largely derived from structural sociology, where the most important causal or explanatory variables exist “out there” in the environment – variables like culture, climate, social class, etc. – and these unseen forces somehow determine the behavior of organizational actors.

I have long proposed a reductionist view which maintains that every important generalization one can make about organizational life – for example, silos are inevitable – can be reduced to, or explained in terms of, personality psychology or “human nature.” And the trends I described above are another example.

John Holland developed a theory of vocational types – the so-called RIASEC model – which he used to study vocational choice. It is a theory of personality types, and it maintains that there are a finite number of types of people (6 really) who think about and solve problems in characteristic and distinctive ways. They also have characteristic interests and values, such that opposite types don’t understand or much like one another. And therein lays the explanation for the theme described above. Enterprising (E) types are politicians – aggressive, action oriented, extraverted, impulsive, risk-seeking, and blame avoiding. These are the people found at the tops of organizations. Investigative (I) types are researchers – reflective, ruminative, risk averse, slow acting, and analytical. These are the people who are attracted to careers in research. E types need I types for ideas; I types need E types for funding. Successful organizations need E types for political leadership, they need I types for leadership in matters of innovation and intellectual property leadership. 

The two types don’t like one another, don’t understand one another, and communicate poorly. The result is that I types are usually unable to sell their research to the E types, and E types prefer to make intuitive rather than data-based decisions. Unless organizations recognize this problem and self-consciously try to deal with it, anti-intellectual decision making will continue to dominate public and business life. Organizations that recognize the problem are usually organizations founded by scientists and engineers (Google) and it becomes a source of competitive advantage.

I recently celebrated my 31st birthday, which, in today’s world, qualifies me to begin sentences with the phrase “back in my day.” I admit this begrudgingly; back in my day, it seemed that statement was reserved for an individual well out of his or her 30s. Still, from time to time, I do find myself sounding a bit curmudgeonly. No, I never claim to walk uphill both ways, barefoot in the snow to school, but I do sometimes struggle to grasp the rate at which technology has changed life since I was in school.

Over the past decade, technology exploded, and although the changes affected countless areas of our lives, they all had the same common thread: the sharing of information. We are a society saturated with data; individuals are in constant connection with one another, and details on virtually any topic can be obtained in a matter of seconds.

Why does that have to do with business? These connections have evolved from innocuous social interaction to business-relevant posting capable of promoting or destroying an organization’s reputation in a matter of minutes. The trend is the wave of the future. In the informed, well-connected prosumer, it has created what can either be a strong ally or an unstoppable adversary. Fortunately, as technology increases, so does its usability. Gone are the days when “I don’t know how” was a viable excuse; the response now will be “well, you’d better Google it.”

There are some steps we old folks can take to keep current, and they are steps that will build a foundation on which your organization can effectively evolve:

1. Blog – Hey, I’m doing it, how bad can it be? Blogging about your company lets the world know that you are there, that you are thinking, and that you are a human being.
2. Use social networking sites – And not just those aimed at the professional population. Facebook may still be banned by your IT department, but it is likely the best medium on the planet through which to reach young adults. Set up a page for your organization and regularly post relevant material and links to new product information.
3. E-mail – You’re probably thinking “E-mail? I do use e-mail.” I’m sure you do, but probably not to the capacity at which younger professionals wish you would. The technology boom resulted in youth with little desire to physically interact with anyone else. Even at 31, my first reaction to most events is to try to get someone on the phone; I would just rather talk to them. That is not a sentiment shared by those a bit younger than me; more often than not, I receive an e-mail in lieu of a call back when I have left someone a voicemail.
4. Update your website weekly, if not daily.

Heraclitus coined that “change is the only constant,” and while this has proven true, there has perhaps never been a period marked by such rapid change as the present. As humans we must now continually adapt, as what is new today will not just be old tomorrow, it will be archaic. Stay current my friends.