People often say to me “Sean, love the blog. But perhaps lay off the political stuff? It might be a bit polarising”. I certainly agree with the second point. Given most of you read this on LinkedIn, and LinkedIn is supposedly for “business people”, there is likely a centre-right majority who read this. These people might have a little giggle at the thought of David Seymour pumping his little Palmolive-covered-fist in the shower, but have always gone two ticks blue. These people might feel uncomfortable when I highlight, without fail, that Luxon thinks rape victims should keep the baby. There’s a couple of things I’d say to this however. Firstly, I’m committed to writing a blog every working Friday. And to do this, I have to write about things that interest me. Self-indulgent perhaps, but if you’ve ever tried writing a blog with any consistency, you’ve probably given up. The only way to do it is to write about what stirs you. For me, one of those things is politics. The second reason is that I actually don’t care.
Bearing this in mind, it would be remiss of me not to blog about the election. Next week sees me, like a true champagne socialist, in Fiji. This means that on Wednesday, I shuffled 50 metres from my office to cast my vote. Voting is a wonderful experience, and for me, to not like politics is to not like the study of human behaviour. And if you don’t study humans, you won’t be a good recruiter.
In New Zealand, much is made about opinion polls. Each has a different method of collecting data, and each is favoured by the various political parties. This favouritism switches however depending on what a poll says at any given time. This election we’ve seen Labour, National, ACT, and NZ First criticise polls and simultaneously praise them depending on who they’re picking. Assuming the electorate is mentally retarded, they don’t consider that they might look a bit stupid when they say the 1News Verian poll is crap but The Post/Freshwater poll is excellent. Given there are 8 polls running in Aotearoa, at least one is likely to say you’re doing well. They care for this in the same way a recruiter at the SARAs will tell all their competitors that they’re “smashing it”. Human nature dictates that to do well, we first have to look like we’re doing well. A failing salesman has to self-manifest success by buying the fake Rolex and leasing the flash car. Toxic male influencers have to rent their mansion from a rapper to sell their crypto scheme to 24-year-old virgins. A boxer who lost on points has to raise their hands aloft in a last gasp effort to say “Forget what you saw. Look at me celebrating! I must have won!”. If you’ve ever been to South East Asia, you will notice that everyone supports whichever English football team just won the Premier League. When you ask them why they support them, they say “Because they win Mr Sean. You want Chang?”. Us recruiters are compelled to smell like victory, even when we’re in the gutter. We’re in front if only we just believe.
Studies by clever Scandinavians have also shown that polls matter when it comes to actual election results, especially in our MMP system. Specifically, research suggests that voters are attracted to parties on the perceived ascendancy (like TOP), and are turned off by those slipping down (like NZ First). For parties who bounce around the 5% mark, this MMP system makes polls hugely important. In NZ, if you are polling below 5%, you are well and truly f*cked my son. Many carry this absolutely ridiculous idea that voting for this party, which may be totally aligned with your moral compass, is a wasted vote. So instead, these people do what they think is “strategic voting”. And strategic voting sits in my Room 101 alongside the British Royal Family, “full-coverage” knickers, and Jerry Seinfeld. For me, strategic voting goes against the ethos of democracy. We’re not playing Monopoly, the goal isn’t for our team to win, and we shouldn’t be gaming the system. We want a government which fairly represents our collective heartfelt beliefs. Or at least I do. Believing that one person can’t make a difference has been disproven by both Gandhi and Steven Seagal.
This idea that we “have to get clever about this” is perpetuated by websites like SplitYourVote.co.nz, set up by millionaire legally-distinct-plastic-toy dad Harry Mowbray. This site was created to inform voters how to exploit a loophole in our electoral system to increase the number of seats in Parliament, known as an “overhang”. In this instance, the collective plan was to vote in a way that maintained the current centre-right coalition government. You will notice that Mowbray has since pulled the site following an ongoing investigation by the Electoral Commission. Manipulating politics, it would seem, is somewhat harder than making legally-distinct foam dart guns. Mowbray isn’t the only person doing this of course. If you scroll through LinkedIn, you’ll see others encouraging this strategic voting. Maybe I’m naive, but are you really wanting to vote for someone you don’t believe in because it’s better than the other lot getting in? Is your life really that governed by fear?
I was reminded of this idea of collective collaboration during a chat with Claudia yesterday. Apparently there’s an RFP (probably with a bank) currently doing the rounds with some ridiculously low rates. The only thing less surprising than this is all the recruitment GMs saying “This is outrageous!! I’m going to form a group with all the other recruitment GMs and tell them ‘we’re not doing that!!’“. I bore myself even writing such twaddle. Every time it’s the same. And every time, it’s the same outcome. You’ll all meet up. Complain about it. And then tender anyway, usually at the rate (or close to) that the client is demanding. Solidarity my arse. Don’t tell me – is someone going to write a letter to the RCSA next? In the same way that we can’t control who anyone else votes for, or where they anonymously tick the ballot paper on the day, we can’t control what our competitors write on the RFP, no matter what they say. There are always some who will say one thing and do another. There’ll always be a strike-breaker.
So here’s a unique idea we can apply to both recruitment “best practice” and voting: stop giving a f*ck about whatever anyone else is doing. Stop thinking you can be strategic with those you have no control over. Stop saying one thing and doing the other. If the rates don’t suit you, just say “thanks bank, but it’s not for us”. Because if we all did that, we’d all be OK. Gandhi emancipated a country this way, and Seagal made 1994’s best eco-action-thriller “On Deadly Ground”.
Working collectively with people who you both can’t control, and have no idea of what they’ll actually do on the day is kinda ridiculous. You can second and triple guess all day long. Or you could just go with your convictions. The best recruitment firms value what they do and walk away from bad business. And if you’ve ever been rejected this way, you’ll know there’s something pretty f*cking sexy about it. Let the bank wonder why a top firm wouldn’t come to the party. And when it comes to politics, you might think your daughter should keep an unwanted pregnancy. You might think those “mow-reez” have had it too easy for too long. You might even think sushi is woke. And as much as it pains me to say it, just put an orange tick next to who you agree with most. Just be sure to vote for someone.
^SW
