Service Leavers have certain advantages over civilians
When scrolling through dozens of CV's looking for this candidate or that candidate, many civilian employers would be wise to widen their search into "the hidden" market - the armed forces leavers. Why?
Sure, you may be looking for "specific this" or "specific that" but few candidates tick all the boxes. Fewer still have the flexible skill set or desire to re skill and start again. The service leaver seeking that second career does have this drive. If you seek someone;
Disciplined and focused
Willing to review current working practices
Adaptive to changing circumstances
Understands the value of acquiring new skills quickly
Demonstrates a resourceful "can do" attitude
Positive attitude to work
Dependable and on time
...then look towards the Service Leaver. They are not hard to find.
www.ktaluk.com ktalcoach(twitter)
Facebook
LinkedIn
Twitter
YouTube
Comments
For me it should be taken on a case by case basis and look at people on their merits rather than where they came from. If they have the skills and abilities then that's all that matters.
Wayne, I agree so Service Leavers should be given the chance but alas, are not. They are not thought about as an option - which is why I aim to raise the profile somewhat.
Hi Keith, apologies for digging up an old blog, but I saw this on HBR today and wondered your thoughts.
http://blogs.hbr.org/frontline-leadership/2010/11/bleeding-talent-the-us...
It is US based but suggests that military leaders also have much to learn from business leaders. There's plenty that business leaders can learn from the military, writes Tim Kane, but the Pentagon should also take cues from the corporate world. The armed forces are great at recruiting talented leaders, but the business world is far better at rewarding and retaining successful managers. "To be blunt, what the military needs is for its friends in the civilian world to stop clapping -- for at least a while -- and lend it a hand," Kane writes.
Hi Adi
I think you have hit the nail on the head - US forces. Not the best trained forces. When you have such a disperite army structure as is the case in the US (District / State/ National) with all individual training and no uniformed strategy - then Leadership is bound to suffer.
I think the comments relating to the US is very valid in my experience of their forces. Indeed, four months ago there was a Congressional pledge to bring in Civilian Leaders (a Philip Green type) to shear up the obvious gaps. This same disclosure claimed it needed to be more focues upon European (and mentioned UK specifically) style Leadership structures and training.
I will happily email the doc to my "military friends" acoss the pond for a laugh.
Cheers, Keith