SHRMingham

Working at One of the "100 Best Companies to Work For" - Meaningless If Your Manager Doesn't Rock...

OK - the latest list of Fortune's 100 Best Companies to Work For is out, and undoubtedly, there are a lot of great companies on the list.  After all, who doesn't want to work at some of the companies listed in the top 10.  Google?  Cisco?  Goldman Sachs?  Sign me up today, because it's all good.  I can't wait to experience the culture... the rewards... the freedom...

And that's just the reaction to the companies within the list that I know.  Also included are some incredible companies we don't know, who obviously have great environments where talent can bloom.

But, hid inside the underbelly of these environments is a dirty little secret.  The dirty little secret also applies to companies not listed as well.  I'll outline it for you two ways - one for the "best companies to work for, and one for "the unwashed masses".  It goes a little something like this:

--The golden rule - "A company's culture and attractiveness as a place to work is contingent on the effectiveness, approachability and progressiveness of your manager.  That means:

1.  A company often listed as a great place to work is often mocked by those within the company with an ineffective manager, and

2. A company not listed as a great place to work will receive many of the same retention benefits among employees, who have a great manager who reinforces, supports and leads.

Before you label me as a cynic, understand what I'm saying.  The leadership of a company can create an environment where talent can flourish, and tools, resources and freedom to innovate are present, etc.  Companies should strive to create that type of environment.  It's a good thing...

However, a bad manager can make it all worthless in the eye of an employee.  Consider the recent article about Google as reported by TechCrunch:

"In 2008 Google HR set up a private Google Group to ask former employees why they left the company. We’ve been forwarded what appears to be authentic posts to the thread by a number of ex-Googlers, which we reprint below minus identifying information other than their first names.

The thread shows a brutal honesty about what it’s like to work at Google, at least from the point of view of employees who were unhappy enough to resign. Top amongst the complaints is low pay relative to what they could earn elsewhere, and disappearing fringe benefits seemed to elevate the concern. Other popular gripes - too much bureaucracy, poor management, poor mentoring, and a hiring process that took months."

I would encourage anyone who feels like they aren't at a "best employer" to read the entire article.  The result for me is an understanding that the best employers in America struggle just like you do with many management issues, and the best way to ensure your employees are engaged is to be a good manager who coaches, cares, communicates and has flexibility.

What do your exit interviews say?  Most of the same stuff heard in the rundown at TechCrunch about Google.

Goodbye 2009 Bonus - We Barely Got to Know Each Other....

So, the economic crash of 2008 is well documented at this point.  Some of you have given up hope of your company or division hitting the 2008 numbers necessary for your annual bonus, while some of you are hoping for a delayed effect - maybe the numbers will hang on long enough for the company to pay out a bonus, even if a partial one.  Just maybe...

Here's another trend that's already being documented for 2009 - the elimination of the incentive pay plan, which many of us know as "bonus".  Ann Bares of Compensation Force has a nice rundown of the trend:

"Results of a recent Towers Perrin "pulse" survey were released today.  There are a number of interesting findings here, but one in particular caught my eye.  In examining how companies are likely to respond to the economic crisis in a number of reward areas, the survey asked about plans to reduce annual incentives/bonuses.  Survey participants responded as follows:

• Very likely - 18%
• Somewhat likely - 21%
• Somewhat unlikely - 23%
• Very unlikely - 25%
• Too soon to tell - 13%

My interpretation of this - which is important here - is that it indicates plans to reduce the incentive/bonus program and its award opportunities, not merely that the participants are expecting lower payouts due to lower results.  The latter makes complete sense, the former - to me - makes very little and prompts concern.  According to the survey, 39% of respondents are likely to reduce annual incentive/bonuses and another 13% haven't yet decided.  Meaning - again, if I am interpreting this accurately - that over half have not yet determined whether they will follow through on the commitments of their existing incentive/bonus plans."

Ann goes on to voice concerns regarding the fact that companies are looking to reduce the scope of the bonus program and award opportunities, citing the fact that a down economy should have nothing to do with whether companies offer bonus programs.  She's right - just because the economy is down is no reason to eliminate the bonus program, even if the economic circumstances make attainment of the payout triggers less likely.

For companies with real bonus programs that trigger payouts based on some combination of attaining revenue and profitability goals, there's no reason to eliminate the plan.  However, the revenue and profitability goals embedded in such plans may be less realistic than normal.  Think about it - a company that is seeing revenue fall year after year may be super aggressive in setting a goal that suggests revenue will remain flat for 2009 (when projections say revenue will likely fall 10-15%). 

But, that doesn't mean they have to eliminate the plan, it just means that employees have to understand that maintaining current revenue trends will take an incredible effort.  But, your workforce still needs to know that a great year in a recession will be rewarded.

As to companies who don't tie annual bonus programs to revenue, profitability or some mix thereof, to Ann's point, those really aren't bonus or incentive programs.  They're more like a company "holiday ham" program, delivered based on the whims of the company. 

The less bonus programs are tied to revenue or profitability, the less understanding employees have regarding how the company is doing.  Also, discretionary bonus programs paid multiple years in a row without being tied to numbers are dangerous, since they can become employee entitlements that everyone takes for granted.

Kind of like the company ham during the holidays.  There's probably going to be less of those this year as well.

So, the economic crash of 2008 is well documented at this point.  Some of you have given up hope of your company or division hitting the 2008 numbers necessary for your annual bonus, while some of you are hoping for a delayed effect - maybe the numbers will hang on long enough for the company to pay out a bonus, even if a partial one.  Just maybe...

Here's another trend that's already being documented for 2009 - the elimination of the incentive pay plan, which many of us know as "bonus".  Ann Bares of Compensation Force has a nice rundown of the trend:

"Results of a recent Towers Perrin "pulse" survey were released today.  There are a number of interesting findings here, but one in particular caught my eye.  In examining how companies are likely to respond to the economic crisis in a number of reward areas, the survey asked about plans to reduce annual incentives/bonuses.  Survey participants responded as follows:

• Very likely - 18%
• Somewhat likely - 21%
• Somewhat unlikely - 23%
• Very unlikely - 25%
• Too soon to tell - 13%

My interpretation of this - which is important here - is that it indicates plans to reduce the incentive/bonus program and its award opportunities, not merely that the participants are expecting lower payouts due to lower results.  The latter makes complete sense, the former - to me - makes very little and prompts concern.  According to the survey, 39% of respondents are likely to reduce annual incentive/bonuses and another 13% haven't yet decided.  Meaning - again, if I am interpreting this accurately - that over half have not yet determined whether they will follow through on the commitments of their existing incentive/bonus plans."

Ann goes on to voice concerns regarding the fact that companies are looking to reduce the scope of the bonus program and award opportunities, citing the fact that a down economy should have nothing to do with whether companies offer bonus programs.  She's right - just because the economy is down is no reason to eliminate the bonus program, even if the economic circumstances make attainment of the payout triggers less likely.

For companies with real bonus programs that trigger payouts based on some combination of attaining revenue and profitability goals, there's no reason to eliminate the plan.  However, the revenue and profitability goals embedded in such plans may be less realistic than normal.  Think about it - a company that is seeing revenue fall year after year may be super aggressive in setting a goal that suggests revenue will remain flat for 2009 (when projections say revenue will likely fall 10-15%). 

But, that doesn't mean they have to eliminate the plan, it just means that employees have to understand that maintaining current revenue trends will take an incredible effort.  But, your workforce still needs to know that a great year in a recession will be rewarded.

As to companies who don't tie annual bonus programs to revenue, profitability or some mix thereof, to Ann's point, those really aren't bonus or incentive programs.  They're more like a company "holiday ham" program, delivered based on the whims of the company. 

The less bonus programs are tied to revenue or profitability, the less understanding employees have regarding how the company is doing.  Also, discretionary bonus programs paid multiple years in a row without being tied to numbers are dangerous, since they can become employee entitlements that everyone takes for granted.

Kind of like the company ham during the holidays.  There's probably going to be less of those this year as well.

David Lee Roth or Sammy Hagar? - The Answer Determines If You're Tough Enough to Lead...

Had a cool conversation the other day about a young manager at our company.  The main topic was whether this manager, who's technically very sound and liked by all, had the intestinal fortitude (that's guts, people) to make tough decisions, and generally be enough of a jerk to handle the tough stuff.

Nice folks are routinely the target of these types of questions when it comes to succession planning, aren't they?  Love you where you are, but can you summon the inner jerk if I promote you one or two levels?  Are you tough enough?  Are you still listening to New Kids On The Block and Smashmouth?  Do you own a Disturbed or Godsmack CD?  Did you like Van Halen with David Lee Roth or Sammy Hagar?

Sammy?  AH-HA!!!  I told them you weren't tough enough!!!  HaHaHaHaHaHa.....

But, I digress.  My counsel in these situations is pretty simple, when it comes to toughness.  Everyone's got a range in their personality.  If your toughness/confrontation/jerk component isn't as strong as someone else's, you just have to know who you are, and be able to summon what you need, when you need it.  For a tough position, you might have to run at your 95% "tough" level within your range to operate, whereas Sam Zell could summon the same tough/jerk/I'm asking to be sued quotient on demand in the McDonalds drive thru.

Different strokes for different folks, as they say in the business.

After I had that conversation, I found the following article form John Baldoni at Havard Business Blogs, who does a good job of explaining how leaders can be tough without screaming:

They defuse tension. Performing under pressure is a prerequisite for leadership, but too much pressure can be a prescription for disaster. It falls to the leader to maintain the sense of urgency and momentum but also to give people some breathing room. This is not an excuse to slack off; it is an invitation to be careful and deliberate. Also, keep in mind that tension that comes from interpersonal conflicts is seldom positive; leaders need to eradicate it by making some hard decisions about who works with whom and why.

They get up off the floor. There's no shame in getting knocked down; youth sports teaches that lesson very well. What matters is what you do next. Strategies will miss the mark; wrong skills will be applied; and projects will fail. Such is life in the organization. It's a leader's job to get back into the game and keep slogging. That requires resilience, an ability to flex with adversity as well as persevere when the going gets rough.

They let off some steam. If you are a team leader, and someone on your team makes a big mistake, one that he was obviously warned about, it's natural to become annoyed. It is also acceptable to focus some heat on the person who made a mistake. The challenge is to focus your irritation on the action, not the person. He needs to know your displeasure; it may help him pay more attention the next time.

So, don't cheat your talent out of promotions, because you don't think they're tough enough.  Just talk to them openly and honestly about the requirements of the position that involve confrontation.

Then do something most don't once you've had that conversation.  Coach them every week about what you're seeing.  Be a mentor.

Or give them a Disturbed CD and let them listen to it at work to get their mojo rolling.  Your call.

Had a cool conversation the other day about a young manager at our company.  The main topic was whether this manager, who's technically very sound and liked by all, had the intestinal fortitude (that's guts, people) to make tough decisions, and generally be enough of a jerk to handle the tough stuff.

Nice folks are routinely the target of these types of questions when it comes to succession planning, aren't they?  Love you where you are, but can you summon the inner jerk if I promote you one or two levels?  Are you tough enough?  Are you still listening to New Kids On The Block and Smashmouth?  Do you own a Disturbed or Godsmack CD?  Did you like Van Halen with David Lee Roth or Sammy Hagar?

Sammy?  AH-HA!!!  I told them you weren't tough enough!!!  HaHaHaHaHaHa.....

But, I digress.  My counsel in these situations is pretty simple, when it comes to toughness.  Everyone's got a range in their personality.  If your toughness/confrontation/jerk component isn't as strong as someone else's, you just have to know who you are, and be able to summon what you need, when you need it.  For a tough position, you might have to run at your 95% "tough" level within your range to operate, whereas Sam Zell could summon the same tough/jerk/I'm asking to be sued quotient on demand in the McDonalds drive thru.

Different strokes for different folks, as they say in the business.

After I had that conversation, I found the following article form John Baldoni at Havard Business Blogs, who does a good job of explaining how leaders can be tough without screaming:

They defuse tension. Performing under pressure is a prerequisite for leadership, but too much pressure can be a prescription for disaster. It falls to the leader to maintain the sense of urgency and momentum but also to give people some breathing room. This is not an excuse to slack off; it is an invitation to be careful and deliberate. Also, keep in mind that tension that comes from interpersonal conflicts is seldom positive; leaders need to eradicate it by making some hard decisions about who works with whom and why.

They get up off the floor. There's no shame in getting knocked down; youth sports teaches that lesson very well. What matters is what you do next. Strategies will miss the mark; wrong skills will be applied; and projects will fail. Such is life in the organization. It's a leader's job to get back into the game and keep slogging. That requires resilience, an ability to flex with adversity as well as persevere when the going gets rough.

They let off some steam. If you are a team leader, and someone on your team makes a big mistake, one that he was obviously warned about, it's natural to become annoyed. It is also acceptable to focus some heat on the person who made a mistake. The challenge is to focus your irritation on the action, not the person. He needs to know your displeasure; it may help him pay more attention the next time.

So, don't cheat your talent out of promotions, because you don't think they're tough enough.  Just talk to them openly and honestly about the requirements of the position that involve confrontation.

Then do something most don't once you've had that conversation.  Coach them every week about what you're seeing.  Be a mentor.

Or give them a Disturbed CD and let them listen to it at work to get their mojo rolling.  Your call.

4 Common Sense Ways to turn BAD Engagement into GOOD Engagement...

Fay Hansen's article in Workforce Recruiting is worth your time to read.  Who can argue with the value of engagement?  The primary issue, as Fay undoubtedly experienced in her research, is that while lots of people talk about engagement, they have a hard time defining what they do to improve engagement in their organizations.

Which begs the question - can your front line managers really drive employee engagement in your organization?

The easy answer is yes, but as with many obvious easy answers.... the question is how? or what next?

The dilemma is especially true if you have a wide range of talents and capabilities among your most entry-level supervisors, which most of us do.  Some managers naturally have the gift that comes with instincts and experience, while others struggle.  In other words, they might be in over their heads a little bit initially, which means you get that cute "deer in the headlights" look when you try and talk about "employee engagement."

That's OK - check yourself and understand that every time you say "employee engagement" to an entry level manager, you sound like a consultant who's never managed people....

HR and Beer - Good Call?

Most of us look for cutting-edge HR practices in the usual places - the tech companies like Google, Fortune's Annual List of the 100 Best Companies to Work For, etc.

Me?  I'm going to start following Beer Companies.  The greatest asset at SABMiller (Miller High Life, Miller Lite)?  Hops... and of course... uh, people.  And one other thing -   pros with business chops and even responsibility for other parts of the business. 

From the rarely cited, but always respected, Procurement Leaders:

"Brewing giant SABMiller has appointed Tony van Kralingen as the company’s new director of human resources and supply chain.

The new man, who is currently the managing director and chairman of SABMiller’s South African division, will begin his role on October 1, and will assume the position vacated by the company’s current HR director Johann Nel.

The group currently employ 70,000 staff worldwide and van Kralingen will take on an extension of the role carried out by Nel since 2002.

"Tony's career began in human resources and he has extensive experience of the discipline from his subsequent functional and line management roles" said Graham MacKay, chief executive, SABMiller.

This Bud's For You - And I'm Going to Need You to Use Both Sides When You Make Copies...

There's nothing more interesting to talk about than when two cultures come together through an acquisition.  How will the cultures mesh?  What's the fit between products/services?  And the big questions if you're an HR Pro - are there going to be fewer jobs, and who's got the better benefits?  If I'm involved in executing the transition, that's what I've got to sell, so those are the key info points for me.

But of course, there are small cultural items that ultimately will mean just as much to employees day to day.  Take the Anheuser-Busch acquisition by InBev for $52 Billion, which BusinessWeek reports may result in Budweiser employees using both sides of the paper to make copies:

"To pay for those deals, Brito (InBev CEO) cuts costs to the bone: The native of Brazil orders his executives to fly coach on most flights, is stinting with standard industry perks like company cars and free beer, and encourages employees to photocopy on both sides of each sheet of paper.

By contrast, InBev's new bride, Anheuser-Busch, comes to the marriage with expensive tastes. The company has spent lavishly on New Media ventures. There was ESPN in the 1970s and more recently the ill-fated BudTV.com. Longtime CEO August Busch III routinely made the 10-mile commute to work by helicopter and once mused whether to buy a castle in Europe for a commercial shoot. His successor and son, August Busch IV, continues the tradition: Employees enjoy free admission to the company's theme parks and get two free cases of beer each month. "I think even the Clydesdales [stabled at Anheuser-Busch headquarters] get better treatment than your average InBev employee," jokes one industry consultant. Executives at Anheuser-Busch and InBev declined comment for this story.

This InBev CEO is known more as a steely operator than motivator.  Brito recalled how he once chafed when given a promotion that included oversight of human resources and technology: "For me, sales was everything," he recalled, while a "touch-feely" concept like leadership "was for poets."

Ouch.  With that quote in mind, I bring you perhaps the biggest leading indicator to let you know how an acquisition is going to go - the profile and history of the acquiring CEO when it comes to acquisitions.  The vast majority of CEOs are going to say the right things when it comes to the culture of the company being acquired.  After all, the integration process is a long one, you have lots to learn and things change.  No reason to shake things up early.

But occasionally, you get a profile like Brito's, who is already imposing restrictions on his own culture and feels like leadership is for "poets".  That can't be good.  It feels like Al "Chainsaw" Dunlap all over again, except maybe a more stylish version.

I'm from the show-me state, so it will be interesting to see how this one plays out for my friends at Anheuser-Busch in St. Louis.  Be sure to take a look at the article from an education standpoint; it has some great stats on how InBev is walking a tightrope to pay for the deal, and how things like the average margin on a case of beer for Anheuser-Busch distributors plays into making the deal work.

Final thought - how cool would it have been to put "This Bud's For You" on your recruiting collateral?  That had to be like shooting fish in a barrel...

Square Peg, Round Hole - Can The Traditional Organization Afford to Focus on Strengths?

Is performance management upside down in Corporate America?  Here are a couple of quick observations:

1.  Jobs are structured for the company, not the employee.  I'm not saying that's wrong, just outlining the facts.

2.  90% of the time we spend talking about performance is about how to manage negative variance.

3.  We don't spend a lot of the time evaluating how we can continue to maximize a person's strengths.  We'll tell them they are doing great, give them an "exceeds", then move on to how they can improve their "areas of opportunity". 

4.  The combination of those competencies that create "jobs", are pretty inflexible in corporate America.

With that in mind, it should come as no shock that while we love to read books like "Now Discover Your Strengths" and nod accordingly when discussing, we pretty much go back to the coal mine and expect people to fit in the traditional spaces we've defined.

Scott McArthur recently talked about the power of positive, strength-based psychology in the workplace.  From the sweet rundown at McArthur's Rant:

"Positive psychology suggests that by focusing on people’s strengths rather than on their development needs we can transform wellness at work and as a consequence improve organizational performance.

The notion behind the work that is being done under the banner of Positive Psychology is to enhance our experiences of love, work and play and by doing so encourage wellbeing. This is in contrast to the traditional ways of thinking in both psychology and business where the focus is on finding what isn't working and trying to fix it.

Techniques such as Appreciative Enquiry and Strength finders (Gallup) as well as writers such as Csikszentmihalyi in Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience have been extolling the value of adopting this approach for some time. In Gallup’s case they have produced some strong statistical evidence that it works.."

Scott acknowledges in his post that while focusing on employee strengths is a powerful tool, it's problematic for the traditional organization to figure out how to do it.

Here's my take.  The power of focusing on strengths in corporate America is probably best used in a combination of performance management and engagement.  The smart managers know that they can't adjust a role to fit the employee's strengths with a 100% match.  But with the right amount of praise, coaching and organizational flexibility, they can create an environment where the employee understands that the more efficient they are in their formal job, the more they can chase what they really love to do, and maybe even innovate and create stuff on the way.

And that would be a pretty cool thing... 

Is performance management upside down in Corporate America?  Here are a couple of quick observations:

1.  Jobs are structured for the company, not the employee.  I'm not saying that's wrong, just outlining the facts.

2.  90% of the time we spend talking about performance is about how to manage negative variance.

3.  We don't spend a lot of the time evaluating how we can continue to maximize a person's strengths.  We'll tell them they are doing great, give them an "exceeds", then move on to how they can improve their "areas of opportunity". 

4.  The combination of those competencies that create "jobs", are pretty inflexible in corporate America.

With that in mind, it should come as no shock that while we love to read books like "Now Discover Your Strengths" and nod accordingly when discussing, we pretty much go back to the coal mine and expect people to fit in the traditional spaces we've defined.

Scott McArthur recently talked about the power of positive, strength-based psychology in the workplace.  From the sweet rundown at McArthur's Rant:

"Positive psychology suggests that by focusing on people’s strengths rather than on their development needs we can transform wellness at work and as a consequence improve organizational performance.

The notion behind the work that is being done under the banner of Positive Psychology is to enhance our experiences of love, work and play and by doing so encourage wellbeing. This is in contrast to the traditional ways of thinking in both psychology and business where the focus is on finding what isn't working and trying to fix it.

Techniques such as Appreciative Enquiry and Strength finders (Gallup) as well as writers such as Csikszentmihalyi in Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience have been extolling the value of adopting this approach for some time. In Gallup’s case they have produced some strong statistical evidence that it works.."

Scott acknowledges in his post that while focusing on employee strengths is a powerful tool, it's problematic for the traditional organization to figure out how to do it.

Here's my take.  The power of focusing on strengths in corporate America is probably best used in a combination of performance management and engagement.  The smart managers know that they can't adjust a role to fit the employee's strengths with a 100% match.  But with the right amount of praise, coaching and organizational flexibility, they can create an environment where the employee understands that the more efficient they are in their formal job, the more they can chase what they really love to do, and maybe even innovate and create stuff on the way.

And that would be a pretty cool thing... 

Should You Ditch the Second Interview and Have Candidates Work a Half Day For You?

If you've hired enough, you've felt the pain of what I call "missing".  You did everything you should have done in the hiring process, got feedback from others so you didn't make a hiring call in a bubble, ran the behavioral interview and probed.

Nice job.  So why did that new hire turn out to be a dud?

It's nothing personal.  Anyone who says they never miss has either only hired 1-4 people or is lying. Everyone misses.

So what can you do to reduce the number of times you miss?  You can make sure your interview attempts to measure what's important in the job, provide a realistic job preview, get more people involved, etc.

You could also have them do a live exercise with you to see how they react to real world conditions.  You could even have them work a full day for you in the role they'll perform before you make an offer.   

Is that possible?  Seth Godin thinks it is:

"There are no one-on-one-sit-in-my-office-and-let’s-talk interviews. Boom, you just saved 7 hours per interview. Instead, spend those seven hours actually doing the work. Put the person on a team and have a brainstorming session, or design a widget or make some espressos together. If you want to hire a copywriter, do some copywriting. Send back some edits and see how they’re received.

If the person is really great, hire them. For a weekend. Pay them to spend another 20 hours pushing their way through something. Get them involved with the people they’ll actually be working with and find out how it goes. Not just the outcomes, but the process. Does their behavior and insight change the game for the better? If they want to be in sales, go on a sales call with them. Not a trial run, but a real one. If they want to be a rabbi, have them give a sermon or visit a hospital."

Target practice with live ammo - I like it.  I've always included some type of inbox with a lot of the positions I've filled on my team.  Seth's thoughts take it to the next level.  Not role play, but live action.

To get there, you need to get yourself, your team and the candidate to understand that the work included in the process is a contracting/consulting opportunity.  For a 60K job, one day's work equates into about $250 in cost.  About the cost of a posting on Monster....

That seems cheap for what you get in return.

If you've hired enough, you've felt the pain of what I call "missing".  You did everything you should have done in the hiring process, got feedback from others so you didn't make a hiring call in a bubble, ran the behavioral interview and probed.

Nice job.  So why did that new hire turn out to be a dud?

It's nothing personal.  Anyone who says they never miss has either only hired 1-4 people or is lying. Everyone misses.

So what can you do to reduce the number of times you miss?  You can make sure your interview attempts to measure what's important in the job, provide a realistic job preview, get more people involved, etc.

You could also have them do a live exercise with you to see how they react to real world conditions.  You could even have them work a full day for you in the role they'll perform before you make an offer.   

Is that possible?  Seth Godin thinks it is:

"There are no one-on-one-sit-in-my-office-and-let’s-talk interviews. Boom, you just saved 7 hours per interview. Instead, spend those seven hours actually doing the work. Put the person on a team and have a brainstorming session, or design a widget or make some espressos together. If you want to hire a copywriter, do some copywriting. Send back some edits and see how they’re received.

If the person is really great, hire them. For a weekend. Pay them to spend another 20 hours pushing their way through something. Get them involved with the people they’ll actually be working with and find out how it goes. Not just the outcomes, but the process. Does their behavior and insight change the game for the better? If they want to be in sales, go on a sales call with them. Not a trial run, but a real one. If they want to be a rabbi, have them give a sermon or visit a hospital."

Target practice with live ammo - I like it.  I've always included some type of inbox with a lot of the positions I've filled on my team.  Seth's thoughts take it to the next level.  Not role play, but live action.

To get there, you need to get yourself, your team and the candidate to understand that the work included in the process is a contracting/consulting opportunity.  For a 60K job, one day's work equates into about $250 in cost.  About the cost of a posting on Monster....

That seems cheap for what you get in return.

Managers Who Suffocate Stars...

You've seen it before - the manager who likes to keep everything under their control.  They want to check off on all decisions and have a tendency to be the one to communicate all good news upward in the organization, which makes a lot of onlookers think they love to take credit for OPW (Other People's Work).

That might be true, but I usually think something else is at play.

I think that manager is scared.  Scared about the upward mobility of those they manage.  A little insecure about their abilities.  And most of all, unsure if they can compete in the marketplace of innovation.

Direct report showing some initiative and innovating?  For most of us, we celebrate, pushing the emails detailing the results and innovation around the organization as a means of recognition - and promotion.  It's our job to tell the world we have great people working for us who are capable of great things.

The scared manager?  No such communication happens.  Maybe it's been awhile since they viewed their business or function with a fresh set of eyes.  Maybe they're capable of innovation, but have decided to mail it in.   Maybe they're just scared that they don't have "it" anymore.

So they don't celebrate the success of their employees.  They don't promote.  They don't view themselves as a talent agent.  They're a bureaucrat.

And they're dangerous to any organization that wants to grow.   

You've seen it before - the manager who likes to keep everything under their control.  They want to check off on all decisions and have a tendency to be the one to communicate all good news upward in the organization, which makes a lot of onlookers think they love to take credit for OPW (Other People's Work).

That might be true, but I usually think something else is at play.

I think that manager is scared.  Scared about the upward mobility of those they manage.  A little insecure about their abilities.  And most of all, unsure if they can compete in the marketplace of innovation.

Direct report showing some initiative and innovating?  For most of us, we celebrate, pushing the emails detailing the results and innovation around the organization as a means of recognition - and promotion.  It's our job to tell the world we have great people working for us who are capable of great things.

The scared manager?  No such communication happens.  Maybe it's been awhile since they viewed their business or function with a fresh set of eyes.  Maybe they're capable of innovation, but have decided to mail it in.   Maybe they're just scared that they don't have "it" anymore.

So they don't celebrate the success of their employees.  They don't promote.  They don't view themselves as a talent agent.  They're a bureaucrat.

And they're dangerous to any organization that wants to grow.   

Square Peg, Round Hole - Can The Traditional Organization Afford to Focus on Strengths?

Is performance management upside down in Corporate America?  Here are a couple of quick observations:

1.  Jobs are structured for the company, not the employee.  I'm not saying that's wrong, just outlining the facts.

2.  90% of the time we spend talking about performance is about how to manage negative variance.

3.  We don't spend a lot of the time evaluating how we can continue to maximize a person's strengths.  We'll tell them they are doing great, give them an "exceeds", then move on to how they can improve their "areas of opportunity". 

4.  The combination of those competencies that create "jobs", are pretty inflexible in corporate America.

With that in mind, it should come as no shock that while we love to read books like "Now Discover Your Strengths" and nod accordingly when discussing, we pretty much go back to the coal mine and expect people to fit in the traditional spaces we've defined.

Scott McArthur recently talked about the power of positive, strength-based psychology in the workplace.  From the sweet rundown at McArthur's Rant:

"Positive psychology suggests that by focusing on people’s strengths rather than on their development needs we can transform wellness at work and as a consequence improve organizational performance.

The notion behind the work that is being done under the banner of Positive Psychology is to enhance our experiences of love, work and play and by doing so encourage wellbeing. This is in contrast to the traditional ways of thinking in both psychology and business where the focus is on finding what isn't working and trying to fix it.

Techniques such as Appreciative Enquiry and Strength finders (Gallup) as well as writers such as Csikszentmihalyi in Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience have been extolling the value of adopting this approach for some time. In Gallup’s case they have produced some strong statistical evidence that it works.."

Scott acknowledges in his post that while focusing on employee strengths is a powerful tool, it's problematic for the traditional organization to figure out how to do it.

Here's my take.  The power of focusing on strengths in corporate America is probably best used in a combination of performance management and engagement.  The smart managers know that they can't adjust a role to fit the employee's strengths with a 100% match.  But with the right amount of praise, coaching and organizational flexibility, they can create an environment where the employee understands that the more efficient they are in their formal job, the more they can chase what they really love to do, and maybe even innovate and create stuff on the way.

And that would be a pretty cool thing... 

Is performance management upside down in Corporate America?  Here are a couple of quick observations:

1.  Jobs are structured for the company, not the employee.  I'm not saying that's wrong, just outlining the facts.

2.  90% of the time we spend talking about performance is about how to manage negative variance.

3.  We don't spend a lot of the time evaluating how we can continue to maximize a person's strengths.  We'll tell them they are doing great, give them an "exceeds", then move on to how they can improve their "areas of opportunity". 

4.  The combination of those competencies that create "jobs", are pretty inflexible in corporate America.

With that in mind, it should come as no shock that while we love to read books like "Now Discover Your Strengths" and nod accordingly when discussing, we pretty much go back to the coal mine and expect people to fit in the traditional spaces we've defined.

Scott McArthur recently talked about the power of positive, strength-based psychology in the workplace.  From the sweet rundown at McArthur's Rant:

"Positive psychology suggests that by focusing on people’s strengths rather than on their development needs we can transform wellness at work and as a consequence improve organizational performance.

The notion behind the work that is being done under the banner of Positive Psychology is to enhance our experiences of love, work and play and by doing so encourage wellbeing. This is in contrast to the traditional ways of thinking in both psychology and business where the focus is on finding what isn't working and trying to fix it.

Techniques such as Appreciative Enquiry and Strength finders (Gallup) as well as writers such as Csikszentmihalyi in Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience have been extolling the value of adopting this approach for some time. In Gallup’s case they have produced some strong statistical evidence that it works.."

Scott acknowledges in his post that while focusing on employee strengths is a powerful tool, it's problematic for the traditional organization to figure out how to do it.

Here's my take.  The power of focusing on strengths in corporate America is probably best used in a combination of performance management and engagement.  The smart managers know that they can't adjust a role to fit the employee's strengths with a 100% match.  But with the right amount of praise, coaching and organizational flexibility, they can create an environment where the employee understands that the more efficient they are in their formal job, the more they can chase what they really love to do, and maybe even innovate and create stuff on the way.

And that would be a pretty cool thing... 

The Google Innovation Model - A Festivus For the Rest of Us...

Couple of questions today on Employee Engagement here at SHRMingham/BSHRM:

1.  Do you think you can engage employees in your company who are not currently engaged?  Or do you feel like I felt a while back, and believe that the best way to ensure employees are engaged is to hire engaged people?

2.  If you don't know who the engaged people are in your department, do you think you can figure it out by making them an offer they can't refuse? (if they are the type who are or can be engaged)

3.   Do you think the best way to engage employees is to offer creative time to all employees, whether they have shown a wisp of engagement or not?

What's got me thinking about engagement in this way? I was catching up on Jon Ingham's blog (UK), and he reminded me of a practice to stimulate innovation at Google by offering up 20% of the workweek to technical projects of the employee's own choosing.  From the Harvard Business Review via Jon Ingham:

"One clear reason for Google’s success at innovation is that the company does what many others do not: budgets for it in employee time. New ideas at Google are often generated by employees, from the bottom up, in a prescribed system of time allocation. Technical employees are required to spend 80% of their time on the core search and advertising businesses, and 20% on technical projects of their own choosing."

If you are like me, you've read about that practice before.  Pretty cool, but not exactly transferable, mainly due to one factor...

I'm not Google... Neither are you.... Our mix of jobs is different.... and so's the talent in many ways...You don't, for the most part, hire PhD's who are expected to create and innovate on a daily basis.  You'd like innovation, would settle for engagement, and want to avoid folks working against you.

Seriously - if you put this practice in place today, what percentage of your employees would come to you to inquire about what the heck they were supposed to spend the flex time on?  30%?  50%? 70%?

Fortunately, there's a festivus for the rest of us - Coffee's for closers, so if you are looking to see who's really ready to innovate, tell the individuals on your team that if they can find a way to get their current workload complete in less time, you would support the use of 4 hours per week at work to pursue any work-related, professional development project that interests them.

Then see who's proactive about pursuing it.  Those are your engaged employees.  Do whatever it takes to retain them.

The good news?  You don't have to brainstorm with Billy in records management about what he should do during innovation time...

Couple of questions today on Employee Engagement here at SHRMingham/BSHRM:

1.  Do you think you can engage employees in your company who are not currently engaged?  Or do you feel like I felt a while back, and believe that the best way to ensure employees are engaged is to hire engaged people?

2.  If you don't know who the engaged people are in your department, do you think you can figure it out by making them an offer they can't refuse? (if they are the type who are or can be engaged)

3.   Do you think the best way to engage employees is to offer creative time to all employees, whether they have shown a wisp of engagement or not?

What's got me thinking about engagement in this way? I was catching up on Jon Ingham's blog (UK), and he reminded me of a practice to stimulate innovation at Google by offering up 20% of the workweek to technical projects of the employee's own choosing.  From the Harvard Business Review via Jon Ingham:

"One clear reason for Google’s success at innovation is that the company does what many others do not: budgets for it in employee time. New ideas at Google are often generated by employees, from the bottom up, in a prescribed system of time allocation. Technical employees are required to spend 80% of their time on the core search and advertising businesses, and 20% on technical projects of their own choosing."

If you are like me, you've read about that practice before.  Pretty cool, but not exactly transferable, mainly due to one factor...

I'm not Google... Neither are you.... Our mix of jobs is different.... and so's the talent in many ways...You don't, for the most part, hire PhD's who are expected to create and innovate on a daily basis.  You'd like innovation, would settle for engagement, and want to avoid folks working against you.

Seriously - if you put this practice in place today, what percentage of your employees would come to you to inquire about what the heck they were supposed to spend the flex time on?  30%?  50%? 70%?

Fortunately, there's a festivus for the rest of us - Coffee's for closers, so if you are looking to see who's really ready to innovate, tell the individuals on your team that if they can find a way to get their current workload complete in less time, you would support the use of 4 hours per week at work to pursue any work-related, professional development project that interests them.

Then see who's proactive about pursuing it.  Those are your engaged employees.  Do whatever it takes to retain them.

The good news?  You don't have to brainstorm with Billy in records management about what he should do during innovation time...

Is Your Strategy Entry Level Talent or Superstar?

Baseball season's here, and it reminds me of the talent/economics lesson that occurs each season in Major League Baseball.  This year's compensation lesson?  A-Rod is making more in 2008 than the entire roster for the Florida Marlins. 

From Yahoo Sports:

"Alex Rodriguez makes more this year than his hometown Florida Marlins. Boosted by his new deal with the New York Yankees, A-Rod tops the major league baseball salary list at $28 million, according to a study of contract terms by The Associated Press. The 33 players on the Marlins' opening-day roster and disabled list total $21.8 million.

For the first time in baseball history, the average salary topped the $3 million mark. The 855 players on opening-day rosters and the DL averaged $3.15 million, up 7.1 percent from last year's starting average of $2.94 million.

Florida's highest earner doesn't even make the average. Pitcher Kevin Gregg tops the Marlins at $2.5 million."

Always interesting to see the battle of haves and have nots in MLB. 

Meanwhile, teams with low payrolls always pop up (more randomly, of course) as huge successes in a given season.  Last year's examples?  The two teams playing in the National League Championship - the Rockies and the Diamondbacks.  With payrolls of $54 and $52 Million respectively, these franchises took the Moneyball approach, seeking to use less proven talent to deliver wins via on-base percentage, base hits and defense.   The result for those teams?  A greater degree of success than the Yankees last year, which drives an owner like Steinbrenner crazy.  Thus the Joe Torre firing...

Who will be this year's Rockies, doing more with less?  As a Missouri guy, I can only hope the Kansas City Royals...

(Hat Tip to Capitalist reader, Heather, for the link)

Baseball season's here, and it reminds me of the talent/economics lesson that occurs each season in Major League Baseball.  This year's compensation lesson?  A-Rod is making more in 2008 than the entire roster for the Florida Marlins. 

From Yahoo Sports:

"Alex Rodriguez makes more this year than his hometown Florida Marlins. Boosted by his new deal with the New York Yankees, A-Rod tops the major league baseball salary list at $28 million, according to a study of contract terms by The Associated Press. The 33 players on the Marlins' opening-day roster and disabled list total $21.8 million.

For the first time in baseball history, the average salary topped the $3 million mark. The 855 players on opening-day rosters and the DL averaged $3.15 million, up 7.1 percent from last year's starting average of $2.94 million.

Florida's highest earner doesn't even make the average. Pitcher Kevin Gregg tops the Marlins at $2.5 million."

Always interesting to see the battle of haves and have nots in MLB. 

Meanwhile, teams with low payrolls always pop up (more randomly, of course) as huge successes in a given season.  Last year's examples?  The two teams playing in the National League Championship - the Rockies and the Diamondbacks.  With payrolls of $54 and $52 Million respectively, these franchises took the Moneyball approach, seeking to use less proven talent to deliver wins via on-base percentage, base hits and defense.   The result for those teams?  A greater degree of success than the Yankees last year, which drives an owner like Steinbrenner crazy.  Thus the Joe Torre firing...

Who will be this year's Rockies, doing more with less?  As a Missouri guy, I can only hope the Kansas City Royals...

(Hat Tip to Capitalist reader, Heather, for the link)

Should HR or Hiring Managers Handle the Offer Process?

Recruiting is selling, simple as that.  Especially when you are seeking candidates who don't have to take your offer...

When the talent you are pursuing has options, the whole recruiting process is Marketing 101.  The employment brand on your website, first contact with the prospect, follow-up, selling the advantages of the position and your company, etc.

And when it's time to make the offer?  That's closing time, baby!  Time to wrap all the advantages up in a package and make the candidate feel like they can't afford not to take the offer.

Or, you could just take the offer package professionally prepared by your friendly HR team, email it to the candidate without calling, and hope they accept.  Preferably without them calling you to accept.

But I digress....

My team works with hiring managers throughout the recruiting process.  When it's time to make the offer, we do a professional package, forward it to the hiring manager, and ask them to call the candidate to make a verbal offer.  The documents are to be forwarded to the candidate after the verbal offer is made.  All designed to put our best foot forward - and to increase the probability of an accepted offer.

So imagine my surprise when I got the following email from a manager once we gave him an offer packet for a tasty new hire:

"Offer forwarded to candidate's email address, will let you know the response".....

I wish I could say this has only happened once.  No mention of the verbal offer via phone call that's supposed to happen before.  You know why?  Because the manager in question put the "I" in introvert.  He didn't make the call to make the verbal offer because he didn't want the interaction.  It's not something he's good at, so he skipped it.

And that's OK.  Not everyone has "closer" in their DNA.  Those who don't are skilled in other areas...

I've always been a little stubborn in this area.  My theory is that HR doesn't need to be all "command and control".  If an employee is going to work for a manager, I suspect they'd like to see the offer coming from the manager.  If I was the manager, I'd want them to know the decision to hire was mine - thus setting up all the good things that can happen in the employee/manager relationship.

But then I get an email like the one above from a manager, and I again realize that a lot of people don't want the responsibility.

So maybe I'll compromise and encourage managers to make the verbal, but step in do it on behalf of those who want nothing to do with it.

I'm getting full of compromise in my old age....

Recruiting is selling, simple as that.  Especially when you are seeking candidates who don't have to take your offer...

When the talent you are pursuing has options, the whole recruiting process is Marketing 101.  The employment brand on your website, first contact with the prospect, follow-up, selling the advantages of the position and your company, etc.

And when it's time to make the offer?  That's closing time, baby!  Time to wrap all the advantages up in a package and make the candidate feel like they can't afford not to take the offer.

Or, you could just take the offer package professionally prepared by your friendly HR team, email it to the candidate without calling, and hope they accept.  Preferably without them calling you to accept.

But I digress....

My team works with hiring managers throughout the recruiting process.  When it's time to make the offer, we do a professional package, forward it to the hiring manager, and ask them to call the candidate to make a verbal offer.  The documents are to be forwarded to the candidate after the verbal offer is made.  All designed to put our best foot forward - and to increase the probability of an accepted offer.

So imagine my surprise when I got the following email from a manager once we gave him an offer packet for a tasty new hire:

"Offer forwarded to candidate's email address, will let you know the response".....

I wish I could say this has only happened once.  No mention of the verbal offer via phone call that's supposed to happen before.  You know why?  Because the manager in question put the "I" in introvert.  He didn't make the call to make the verbal offer because he didn't want the interaction.  It's not something he's good at, so he skipped it.

And that's OK.  Not everyone has "closer" in their DNA.  Those who don't are skilled in other areas...

I've always been a little stubborn in this area.  My theory is that HR doesn't need to be all "command and control".  If an employee is going to work for a manager, I suspect they'd like to see the offer coming from the manager.  If I was the manager, I'd want them to know the decision to hire was mine - thus setting up all the good things that can happen in the employee/manager relationship.

But then I get an email like the one above from a manager, and I again realize that a lot of people don't want the responsibility.

So maybe I'll compromise and encourage managers to make the verbal, but step in do it on behalf of those who want nothing to do with it.

I'm getting full of compromise in my old age....

Does Your Company Sponsor Employee Clubs? Not Even a Wine Club?

Kristina Shevory has a cool article up at the New York Times about employee clubs.  From her article at the NYT:

"Fat paychecks, pensions and health insurance are not enough to recruit and keep employees these days. Companies are again finding that adding a bit of social context to work is crucial to keeping employees happy and productive. That is where employee clubs come in. Workplace specialists say clubs are a way to build camaraderie and help people get to know fellow employees away from work. Companies benefit, too. Clubs help create loyal employees, reduce turnover and improve morale while costing very little."

Interesting stuff.  I should know because she called me last year (found me from the HR Capitalist) and we talked about the challenges for employers who aren't Boeing or Google.  It was good conversation, and we talked about things that cash-challenged companies can do.

We talked for about 30 minutes.  What she quoted me on serves as a cautionary tale.  Here's my quote from the story.  Get ready to channel the Grinch:

"Still, perks can be impermanent. During the technology boom in the 1990s, companies piled on the benefits to attract talent and then promptly got rid of them when the economy soured. Many companies, whether they are battling bankruptcy or are flush with cash, have rolled back benefits, eliminated pensions and increased health care premiums to reduce expenses. Any nonessential perk, like an employee club, is also fair game.

“If they ever existed, the first thing that goes is the frilly, frilly stuff,” said Kris Dunn, vice president for human resources at SourceMedical, a Birmingham, Ala., software company, and author of the blog The HR Capitalist."

Bah Humbug... So my quote is true, but Mercer and the consultants get the fun quotes.  I get the fiscal hawk quote.... The HR person's trying to take all the fun out of the workplace...

Check out the article, it's a good read.  Finding out that Boeing funds over 100 employee clubs at seven locations nationwide is kind of like finding out that a Massage Therapist from Google is now a millionaire from her stock options.

It's hard to relate to from the trenches.... Boeing has a VP of Wine....

Kristina Shevory has a cool article up at the New York Times about employee clubs.  From her article at the NYT:

"Fat paychecks, pensions and health insurance are not enough to recruit and keep employees these days. Companies are again finding that adding a bit of social context to work is crucial to keeping employees happy and productive. That is where employee clubs come in. Workplace specialists say clubs are a way to build camaraderie and help people get to know fellow employees away from work. Companies benefit, too. Clubs help create loyal employees, reduce turnover and improve morale while costing very little."

Interesting stuff.  I should know because she called me last year (found me from the HR Capitalist) and we talked about the challenges for employers who aren't Boeing or Google.  It was good conversation, and we talked about things that cash-challenged companies can do.

We talked for about 30 minutes.  What she quoted me on serves as a cautionary tale.  Here's my quote from the story.  Get ready to channel the Grinch:

"Still, perks can be impermanent. During the technology boom in the 1990s, companies piled on the benefits to attract talent and then promptly got rid of them when the economy soured. Many companies, whether they are battling bankruptcy or are flush with cash, have rolled back benefits, eliminated pensions and increased health care premiums to reduce expenses. Any nonessential perk, like an employee club, is also fair game.

“If they ever existed, the first thing that goes is the frilly, frilly stuff,” said Kris Dunn, vice president for human resources at SourceMedical, a Birmingham, Ala., software company, and author of the blog The HR Capitalist."

Bah Humbug... So my quote is true, but Mercer and the consultants get the fun quotes.  I get the fiscal hawk quote.... The HR person's trying to take all the fun out of the workplace...

Check out the article, it's a good read.  Finding out that Boeing funds over 100 employee clubs at seven locations nationwide is kind of like finding out that a Massage Therapist from Google is now a millionaire from her stock options.

It's hard to relate to from the trenches.... Boeing has a VP of Wine....

Candidate Attractiveness - So Important That You'll Outsource Interviews?

One thing we all talk about from time to time on the recruiting side is the presentation of the candidate.  If you have recruited for a living, you've been there.  Sourcing for the position in question is tough, but you work through the bumps and hit the phones.  After aggressive phone work, you locate a candidate that has all the knowledge, skills and abilities to do the job.   Nice work, but the hard part's still to come...

Your time to fill is creeping up and your candidate pool is a little thin, so you make your move - on to live interviews.  Brave soul that you are, you arrange for the candidate to come in to interview with yourself and the hiring manager in back-to-back sessions.  The candidate shows up...and....

Let's just say they have some presentation issues... Could be a coffee stain, could be cosmetic abnormalities.  Regardless of the issue, you are immediately fearful - the candidate may be discounted and dismissed in the process due to the physical drawbacks...

Welcome to the real world - make sure you snap the chinstrap to your helmet.

What got me thinking about this?  I got a solicitation from a recruiting firm last week attempting to differentiate themselves by pitching video interviews they conduct and make available to clients - BEFORE the client has to spend even a minute on the phone with the prospect.

Here's the email from the headhunting firm.

"Greetings, and I hope your 2008 is off to a great start!

For over four years, <Firm Name Removed> search process (honed for the healthcare software vendor industry) has included a Video Conference (VC) interview between our Principals and “seemingly” strong candidates.  For those candidates that are deemed to be “above the hiring line”, <Firm Name Removed> digitizes the video of the VC, uploads it to a secure web site and then sends the web link to our client’s hiring executives.

Our clients have been delighted with this first interview “outsourcing approach”.  No longer is it necessary to conduct relatively unsuccessful telephone interviews to screen candidates sourced by job boards, internal recruiters or outside search firms.  Since <Firm Name Removed> uses these VC interviews to screen out candidates, we only send our clients the best few!

Thus, the net results are fewer but better candidates, much less executive time wasted in the early-to-mid-stages of the interview process, and a vastly improved “time to hire”.  Plus, our VC’d candidates are impressed with our clients’ “state-of the-art” interviewing process which helps in the allure of joining our clients’ team.

If you are interested in learning more, here are two suggestions:  1) view the VC Interview Web demo link at the very bottom of this email for a two minute experience with this great approach; 2) let’s schedule a quick call to discuss your 2008 goals, objectives and related hiring needs to see if partnering with <Firm Name Removed>  would make a big difference in achieving your critical staffing needs!"

In the imperfect world where attractiveness and physical presentation matter, this marketing angle is a pretty good one.  Rather than spending an hour with the candidate out of courtesy, the "selective" hiring manager can now just stop the tape 30 seconds in...  With no worries about the candidate's feelings...

Of course, the downside is that when hiring managers spend time with candidates, what they hear often gets them past their initial objections on the physical presentation side.  Not always, but often enough that it's worth their time to do it.

And that's one of the downsides to living in this digital world...

One thing we all talk about from time to time on the recruiting side is the presentation of the candidate.  If you have recruited for a living, you've been there.  Sourcing for the position in question is tough, but you work through the bumps and hit the phones.  After aggressive phone work, you locate a candidate that has all the knowledge, skills and abilities to do the job.   Nice work, but the hard part's still to come...

Your time to fill is creeping up and your candidate pool is a little thin, so you make your move - on to live interviews.  Brave soul that you are, you arrange for the candidate to come in to interview with yourself and the hiring manager in back-to-back sessions.  The candidate shows up...and....

Let's just say they have some presentation issues... Could be a coffee stain, could be cosmetic abnormalities.  Regardless of the issue, you are immediately fearful - the candidate may be discounted and dismissed in the process due to the physical drawbacks...

Welcome to the real world - make sure you snap the chinstrap to your helmet.

What got me thinking about this?  I got a solicitation from a recruiting firm last week attempting to differentiate themselves by pitching video interviews they conduct and make available to clients - BEFORE the client has to spend even a minute on the phone with the prospect.

Here's the email from the headhunting firm.

"Greetings, and I hope your 2008 is off to a great start!

For over four years, <Firm Name Removed> search process (honed for the healthcare software vendor industry) has included a Video Conference (VC) interview between our Principals and “seemingly” strong candidates.  For those candidates that are deemed to be “above the hiring line”, <Firm Name Removed> digitizes the video of the VC, uploads it to a secure web site and then sends the web link to our client’s hiring executives.

Our clients have been delighted with this first interview “outsourcing approach”.  No longer is it necessary to conduct relatively unsuccessful telephone interviews to screen candidates sourced by job boards, internal recruiters or outside search firms.  Since <Firm Name Removed> uses these VC interviews to screen out candidates, we only send our clients the best few!

Thus, the net results are fewer but better candidates, much less executive time wasted in the early-to-mid-stages of the interview process, and a vastly improved “time to hire”.  Plus, our VC’d candidates are impressed with our clients’ “state-of the-art” interviewing process which helps in the allure of joining our clients’ team.

If you are interested in learning more, here are two suggestions:  1) view the VC Interview Web demo link at the very bottom of this email for a two minute experience with this great approach; 2) let’s schedule a quick call to discuss your 2008 goals, objectives and related hiring needs to see if partnering with <Firm Name Removed>  would make a big difference in achieving your critical staffing needs!"

In the imperfect world where attractiveness and physical presentation matter, this marketing angle is a pretty good one.  Rather than spending an hour with the candidate out of courtesy, the "selective" hiring manager can now just stop the tape 30 seconds in...  With no worries about the candidate's feelings...

Of course, the downside is that when hiring managers spend time with candidates, what they hear often gets them past their initial objections on the physical presentation side.  Not always, but often enough that it's worth their time to do it.

And that's one of the downsides to living in this digital world...

Confused About Who's Engaged? Try This Handy Engagement Test to Sort It All Out...

My posts last week regarding the concept of engagement and subsequent research on the topic clarified a couple of things to me. 

-First, trying to get everyone to agree on a definition of engagment is harder than trying to get Britney Spears to settle down and work it all out with K-Fed.   

-Second, my take on the best way to have an engaged workforce is to a) ensure you hire talent that is already predisposed to be engaged, and b) figure out the best way to create an environment where "engagement fence straddlers" (those who might be engaged if placed in the right type of environment) elect to become engaged...

Of course, being the scientific, progressive manager you are, you want a way to baseline the current engagement level of your team before you start tinkering with the environment.   WOW - you are an achiever, and if I might add, an engaged one at that...

At the risk of being savagely attacked by the engagement community, here's my back of the napkin, "let's wing it" test to determine the engagment level of your current team:

1.  Tell your team that if they can find a way to get their current workload complete in less time, you would like to support the use of 4 hours per week at work to pursue any work-related, professional development project that interests them.  The only rules are that the project has to be work-related and potentially have a payoff to the business - but if the process leads to them developing new skills that adds value to them as professionals, so be it.

2.  Answer your team's questions about what is appropriate related to the project.  You might also get questions about how you will measure whether their current workload is being maintained.  Answer all questions to the best of your ability, without telling them how to do it.

3.  Once you've answered all the questions, don't do anything for 3 weeks.

4.  At the 3 week mark, check back in with everyone on your team in brief 1-on-1 sessions.  Have they started the project time?  What are they working on?

Here's how to score your findings:

-Associates who have taken advantage of your offer and are aggresively moving forward with a project - ENGAGED

-Associates who have developed some thoughts about what they might do, but have not taken action yet - NOT ENGAGED, BUT POSSIBLY COULD BECOME ENGAGED WITH THE RIGHT ENVIRONMENTAL TWEAKS FROM YOU

-Associates who have done nothing, or have excuses for why they didn't take advantage of the offer - NOT ENGAGED AND NOT PROBABLE TO BECOME ENGAGED, regardless of your efforts.

Remember, this is only a test, and an informal one at that.  You might actually have to start being engaged yourself to create the environment where your direct reports are engaged.  One of the things I learned from the engagement community is that according to Gallup, on average, 29% of employees are engaged and 71% are either unengaged (neutral) or disengaged (opposed).

PS - my take on this as a nice informal test of engagement is based on the engagement traits listed in this post...

How many members of your team would you expect to take the offer and run with it? 

Just as important - Would you? 

My posts last week regarding the concept of engagement and subsequent research on the topic clarified a couple of things to me. 

-First, trying to get everyone to agree on a definition of engagment is harder than trying to get Britney Spears to settle down and work it all out with K-Fed.   

-Second, my take on the best way to have an engaged workforce is to a) ensure you hire talent that is already predisposed to be engaged, and b) figure out the best way to create an environment where "engagement fence straddlers" (those who might be engaged if placed in the right type of environment) elect to become engaged...

Of course, being the scientific, progressive manager you are, you want a way to baseline the current engagement level of your team before you start tinkering with the environment.   WOW - you are an achiever, and if I might add, an engaged one at that...

At the risk of being savagely attacked by the engagement community, here's my back of the napkin, "let's wing it" test to determine the engagment level of your current team:

1.  Tell your team that if they can find a way to get their current workload complete in less time, you would like to support the use of 4 hours per week at work to pursue any work-related, professional development project that interests them.  The only rules are that the project has to be work-related and potentially have a payoff to the business - but if the process leads to them developing new skills that adds value to them as professionals, so be it.

2.  Answer your team's questions about what is appropriate related to the project.  You might also get questions about how you will measure whether their current workload is being maintained.  Answer all questions to the best of your ability, without telling them how to do it.

3.  Once you've answered all the questions, don't do anything for 3 weeks.

4.  At the 3 week mark, check back in with everyone on your team in brief 1-on-1 sessions.  Have they started the project time?  What are they working on?

Here's how to score your findings:

-Associates who have taken advantage of your offer and are aggresively moving forward with a project - ENGAGED

-Associates who have developed some thoughts about what they might do, but have not taken action yet - NOT ENGAGED, BUT POSSIBLY COULD BECOME ENGAGED WITH THE RIGHT ENVIRONMENTAL TWEAKS FROM YOU

-Associates who have done nothing, or have excuses for why they didn't take advantage of the offer - NOT ENGAGED AND NOT PROBABLE TO BECOME ENGAGED, regardless of your efforts.

Remember, this is only a test, and an informal one at that.  You might actually have to start being engaged yourself to create the environment where your direct reports are engaged.  One of the things I learned from the engagement community is that according to Gallup, on average, 29% of employees are engaged and 71% are either unengaged (neutral) or disengaged (opposed).

PS - my take on this as a nice informal test of engagement is based on the engagement traits listed in this post...

How many members of your team would you expect to take the offer and run with it? 

Just as important - Would you? 

I Just Tried to Define Employee Engagement - Now I Need a Nap...

I thought a follow-up post was needed regarding "The Key to Employee Engagement - Don't Hire Clock Watchers". 

Point #1 - I obviously stirred up a hornet's nest by talking about engagement without trying to define it for the syndicated audience (note - you can have one reader on feedburner and call it syndicated - cool!); 

Point #2 - I browsed around looking to define employee engagement, and as a result;

Point #3 - I now need a nap. 

WOW!  Was that some painful reading.  Not since a Fortune 500 corporate team I was on in the 90's came together to deal with the OFCCP required, "Definition of an Applicant", have so many said so much, yet so little.

zzzzzzz....zzzzzzzz.....zzzzzzz

OK, I'm back.   Lucky for me, one of the emails I received was from a guy who actually understands the different definitions.  His name is Tim Wright, of Wright Results (aptly named).  Tim's spent enough time thinking about engagement that he can actually compare and contrast engagement theories.   Spend 10 minutes googling "employee engagement" and you'll understand why that's significant.

For a great rundown of employee engagement theories, hit Tim's blog here.

I had two favorite definitions from Tim's post.  The Gallup G12, and Tim's own definition of engagement. 

Here's the Gallup G12, which lists traits of engaged employees:

• Consistent levels of high performance.
• Natural innovation and drive for efficiency.
• Intentional building of supportive relationships.
• Clear about the desired outcomes of their role.
• Emotionally committed to what they do.
• Challenge purpose to achieve goals.
• High energy and enthusiasm.
• Never run out of things to do, create positive things to act on.
• Broaden what they do and build on it.
• Commitment to company, work group, and role.

Here's Tim Wright's definition:

The individual’s investment of energy, skill, ability, and eagerness in the work performed. Engagement includes “involvement” and “commitment” yet goes beyond to include observable behaviors such as:

• Attention to task detail
• Commitment to assignment completion
• Involvement in special projects
• Communication willingly, effectively with others
• Demonstration of personal/professional improvement
• Initiation of problem-solving and/or conflict resolution
• Innovation regarding processes and procedures

I bolded the characteristics that closely matched my (cough) unscientific definition.  In any event, these two trait-based definitions were, by far, better than anything else I found.

Hit Tim's web site to learn more.  He's apparently pursuing a practice revolving around employee engagement, which makes him a) brilliant, b) a masochist, or c) both.

Check it out and answer that question for yourself....

I thought a follow-up post was needed regarding "The Key to Employee Engagement - Don't Hire Clock Watchers". 

Point #1 - I obviously stirred up a hornet's nest by talking about engagement without trying to define it for the syndicated audience (note - you can have one reader on feedburner and call it syndicated - cool!); 

Point #2 - I browsed around looking to define employee engagement, and as a result;

Point #3 - I now need a nap. 

WOW!  Was that some painful reading.  Not since a Fortune 500 corporate team I was on in the 90's came together to deal with the OFCCP required, "Definition of an Applicant", have so many said so much, yet so little.

zzzzzzz....zzzzzzzz.....zzzzzzz

OK, I'm back.   Lucky for me, one of the emails I received was from a guy who actually understands the different definitions.  His name is Tim Wright, of Wright Results (aptly named).  Tim's spent enough time thinking about engagement that he can actually compare and contrast engagement theories.   Spend 10 minutes googling "employee engagement" and you'll understand why that's significant.

For a great rundown of employee engagement theories, hit Tim's blog here.

I had two favorite definitions from Tim's post.  The Gallup G12, and Tim's own definition of engagement. 

Here's the Gallup G12, which lists traits of engaged employees:

• Consistent levels of high performance.
• Natural innovation and drive for efficiency.
• Intentional building of supportive relationships.
• Clear about the desired outcomes of their role.
• Emotionally committed to what they do.
• Challenge purpose to achieve goals.
• High energy and enthusiasm.
• Never run out of things to do, create positive things to act on.
• Broaden what they do and build on it.
• Commitment to company, work group, and role.

Here's Tim Wright's definition:

The individual’s investment of energy, skill, ability, and eagerness in the work performed. Engagement includes “involvement” and “commitment” yet goes beyond to include observable behaviors such as:

• Attention to task detail
• Commitment to assignment completion
• Involvement in special projects
• Communication willingly, effectively with others
• Demonstration of personal/professional improvement
• Initiation of problem-solving and/or conflict resolution
• Innovation regarding processes and procedures

I bolded the characteristics that closely matched my (cough) unscientific definition.  In any event, these two trait-based definitions were, by far, better than anything else I found.

Hit Tim's web site to learn more.  He's apparently pursuing a practice revolving around employee engagement, which makes him a) brilliant, b) a masochist, or c) both.

Check it out and answer that question for yourself....

Comparison of 100K Jobs in Organizations.....

Budget season is pretty much past us at this point, which means headcount budgets are set for 2008.  Of course, that doesn't mean the need for staffing justification is final.  Some organizations cut new headcount to zero as part of the budget process, and some organizations allow business units to layer in additional headcount, then vigorously track revenue to determine if the new headcount will be hired in the upcoming year.

Make your revenue early in the year, and maybe you'll get to hire the additional headcount.  Struggle and chances are the new talent isn't going to be joining the organization.

One additional exercise used, when needed in headcount discussions, is the creation of staffing metrics.  Customers per Customer Service Rep, Revenue per FTE - you name it, there's a staffing metric that can be created.  Some are useful, some aren't - it's all in the context.

Here one you may or may have not seen - comparison of the raw number of 100K jobs in your organization compared to similar organizations.  Organizations routinely take a look at this simple metric to determine if they're top heavy or not.   Of course, the number itself really doesn't tell you a lot - you've got to have some type of comparison with other organizations (or divisions in the same company) to make it mean anything.

Here's an example.  In my hometown, a new mayor is comparing the Birmingham School Systems to other school systems regarding this metric.  From a Birmingham news editorial on the results of the analysis:

"Look around the area, and it's plain to see that Birmingham taxpayers pay a premium for the top administrators in their school system.

That's especially true when you have an assistant principal making more than the principal at the same school. Also, when the school system has 22 employees, most of those in the central office, making more than $100,000 a year while at Jefferson County, which has 8,000 more students, only half that many administrators make $100,000-plus. Mobile County, the state's largest school system with 65,000 students (almost 2X as many as the Birmingham City District), has just 12 administrators making more than $100,000 a year."

When you see this type of analysis, it's clear which side you want to be on - the lean side. 

Just like analysis of CEO pay, the raw number of highly compensated individuals in an organization is an emotional topic.  More importantly, since it deals with multiple positions, it's a barometer of how efficient an organization is compared to its peers.

Of course, the time to control what the Birmingham school system is experiencing is before the additonal group of highly compensated indviduals is hired.  At that point, it's voluntary.   Later, it usually becomes involuntary.

Budget season is pretty much past us at this point, which means headcount budgets are set for 2008.  Of course, that doesn't mean the need for staffing justification is final.  Some organizations cut new headcount to zero as part of the budget process, and some organizations allow business units to layer in additional headcount, then vigorously track revenue to determine if the new headcount will be hired in the upcoming year.

Make your revenue early in the year, and maybe you'll get to hire the additional headcount.  Struggle and chances are the new talent isn't going to be joining the organization.

One additional exercise used, when needed in headcount discussions, is the creation of staffing metrics.  Customers per Customer Service Rep, Revenue per FTE - you name it, there's a staffing metric that can be created.  Some are useful, some aren't - it's all in the context.

Here one you may or may have not seen - comparison of the raw number of 100K jobs in your organization compared to similar organizations.  Organizations routinely take a look at this simple metric to determine if they're top heavy or not.   Of course, the number itself really doesn't tell you a lot - you've got to have some type of comparison with other organizations (or divisions in the same company) to make it mean anything.

Here's an example.  In my hometown, a new mayor is comparing the Birmingham School Systems to other school systems regarding this metric.  From a Birmingham news editorial on the results of the analysis:

"Look around the area, and it's plain to see that Birmingham taxpayers pay a premium for the top administrators in their school system.

That's especially true when you have an assistant principal making more than the principal at the same school. Also, when the school system has 22 employees, most of those in the central office, making more than $100,000 a year while at Jefferson County, which has 8,000 more students, only half that many administrators make $100,000-plus. Mobile County, the state's largest school system with 65,000 students (almost 2X as many as the Birmingham City District), has just 12 administrators making more than $100,000 a year."

When you see this type of analysis, it's clear which side you want to be on - the lean side. 

Just like analysis of CEO pay, the raw number of highly compensated individuals in an organization is an emotional topic.  More importantly, since it deals with multiple positions, it's a barometer of how efficient an organization is compared to its peers.

Of course, the time to control what the Birmingham school system is experiencing is before the additonal group of highly compensated indviduals is hired.  At that point, it's voluntary.   Later, it usually becomes involuntary.

Circuit City - We Fired You, Please Present This Coupon to Get Your Old Job Back for Less Pay...

OK, I realize I have beat this Circuit City thing to death, but the hits just keep on coming... To recap for you newbies, here's the HR/Talent related news of note on Circuit City, reported by this site and others in the last 10 months:

-March 2007 - Circuit City announces layoffs of thousands of employees along with plans to backfill the positions with lower-paid talent. 

-November 2007 - Circuit City reported by the Wall Street Journal to have mailed letters to the ex-employees inviting them back to their old redesigned jobs, at a lower rate of pay.

Most of the commentary I have seen (as well as what I have written) has focused on all the drawbacks of  this plan.  They're pretty obvious, since it's a bad idea for ex-employees and Circuit City alike.  Returning employees would be going back into an environment that seemingly didn't value them, and Circuit City would be putting employees, who are likely disgruntled with the company, back on the floor.  How does that work for the employees or customers, and subsequently, Circuit City?

Over the last week, I started getting notes from ex-Circuit City employees, many of whom have received the letter from Circuit City.  Read the comments to the last post here, which include the feelings of a couple of the ex-employees impacted by the layoff and who are now in receipt of said letter. 

A couple of the ex-employees were nice enough to share the letter with me.  The letters matched, so I am sharing the text of the letter below with the names changed to protect the innocent.  Here's what it looks like the letter to all laid-off employees said:

Dear [redacted],

This letter is a special invitation to rejoin the Circuit City team. We're a new Circuit City with a lot to offer our customers...and you. If you're interested - and I hope you are - we have a position waiting for you at any Circuit City superstore.

Over the past eight months, we have improved our customer service model, created new positions, and defined career paths for every store role. This means that at each stage of your career, you'll know the steps that can get you to the next level. The new Circuit City delivers a superior experience for customers and associates, and that's why we're reaching out to former associates like you. You have the skills, talent, and experience required for this level of service, and we want you back.

Be a part of the new Circuit City, and join us just in time for the holidays - the most exciting time of the year. Because of your skills and experience, we're excited to offer you a position comparable to your previous role at the most competitive rate possible. Simply present this letter to any manager at any Circuit City superstore. We will quickly complete the process and establish you as a regular - that is, not seasonal - associate.

Thank you and we hope to see you soon.

Sincerely, [signature] [redacted]- RVP

Is this the letter that went out to all employees?  While I can't be sure, the two letters matched and also matched another report on the Consumerist, so it looks probable that this is the letter.

Now for the analysis.  I think the whole idea of bringing employees back, at a lower rate of pay is a bad idea, so I'm not sure there is a good way to do this.  With that said, I would have included some type of acknowledgment about the economic/business conditions that lead them to make the decision they did.  After all, if things are so great, why was I gone in early 2007?  Did you improve your customer service model by walking me out the door?

Above and beyond all else, I'm blown away by the text that I bolded in the letter above.  "Simply present this letter to any manager at any Circuit City superstore..."?   That sounds like a coupon I can present for 10% off any iPod Zune (Apple doesn't discount their stuff), not the concierge treatment I would expect as a candidate from a company that really wanted me to be an associate in one of their stores...

What can I say besides....wow...

OK, I realize I have beat this Circuit City thing to death, but the hits just keep on coming... To recap for you newbies, here's the HR/Talent related news of note on Circuit City, reported by this site and others in the last 10 months:

-March 2007 - Circuit City announces layoffs of thousands of employees along with plans to backfill the positions with lower-paid talent. 

-November 2007 - Circuit City reported by the Wall Street Journal to have mailed letters to the ex-employees inviting them back to their old redesigned jobs, at a lower rate of pay.

Most of the commentary I have seen (as well as what I have written) has focused on all the drawbacks of  this plan.  They're pretty obvious, since it's a bad idea for ex-employees and Circuit City alike.  Returning employees would be going back into an environment that seemingly didn't value them, and Circuit City would be putting employees, who are likely disgruntled with the company, back on the floor.  How does that work for the employees or customers, and subsequently, Circuit City?

Over the last week, I started getting notes from ex-Circuit City employees, many of whom have received the letter from Circuit City.  Read the comments to the last post here, which include the feelings of a couple of the ex-employees impacted by the layoff and who are now in receipt of said letter. 

A couple of the ex-employees were nice enough to share the letter with me.  The letters matched, so I am sharing the text of the letter below with the names changed to protect the innocent.  Here's what it looks like the letter to all laid-off employees said:

Dear [redacted],

This letter is a special invitation to rejoin the Circuit City team. We're a new Circuit City with a lot to offer our customers...and you. If you're interested - and I hope you are - we have a position waiting for you at any Circuit City superstore.

Over the past eight months, we have improved our customer service model, created new positions, and defined career paths for every store role. This means that at each stage of your career, you'll know the steps that can get you to the next level. The new Circuit City delivers a superior experience for customers and associates, and that's why we're reaching out to former associates like you. You have the skills, talent, and experience required for this level of service, and we want you back.

Be a part of the new Circuit City, and join us just in time for the holidays - the most exciting time of the year. Because of your skills and experience, we're excited to offer you a position comparable to your previous role at the most competitive rate possible. Simply present this letter to any manager at any Circuit City superstore. We will quickly complete the process and establish you as a regular - that is, not seasonal - associate.

Thank you and we hope to see you soon.

Sincerely, [signature] [redacted]- RVP

Is this the letter that went out to all employees?  While I can't be sure, the two letters matched and also matched another report on the Consumerist, so it looks probable that this is the letter.

Now for the analysis.  I think the whole idea of bringing employees back, at a lower rate of pay is a bad idea, so I'm not sure there is a good way to do this.  With that said, I would have included some type of acknowledgment about the economic/business conditions that lead them to make the decision they did.  After all, if things are so great, why was I gone in early 2007?  Did you improve your customer service model by walking me out the door?

Above and beyond all else, I'm blown away by the text that I bolded in the letter above.  "Simply present this letter to any manager at any Circuit City superstore..."?   That sounds like a coupon I can present for 10% off any iPod Zune (Apple doesn't discount their stuff), not the concierge treatment I would expect as a candidate from a company that really wanted me to be an associate in one of their stores...

What can I say besides....wow...

Approve My Headcount Budget Or Everyone Is Fired...

You think your budget process is tough?  Really?  Does it involve you posting layoff notices to large numbers of employees unless your budget is approved?

No?  Then your budget hardball is nothing compared to what goes on this time of year in Washington.   

From the Washington Post:

"200,000 Federal employees who work for the Army may get layoff notices before Christmas if Congress and the White House do not reach an accord on funding for the Iraq war, the Pentagon said yesterday.

The warning, posted near the top of the Defense Department's Web site, was the latest in a series from Pentagon officials in recent weeks.

The warning came a day after Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.) released a letter, signed by seven other Washington area House members, calling on the Pentagon to shift money around in the department's many budget accounts to stave off furloughs.

"This is an old budget showdown tactic -- and they're using federal employees' livelihoods as leverage in a turf battle with Congress," Moran said."

Maybe that 21-inch monitor that got denied in my budget isn't such a big deal. 

You think your budget process is tough?  Really?  Does it involve you posting layoff notices to large numbers of employees unless your budget is approved?

No?  Then your budget hardball is nothing compared to what goes on this time of year in Washington.   

From the Washington Post:

"200,000 Federal employees who work for the Army may get layoff notices before Christmas if Congress and the White House do not reach an accord on funding for the Iraq war, the Pentagon said yesterday.

The warning, posted near the top of the Defense Department's Web site, was the latest in a series from Pentagon officials in recent weeks.

The warning came a day after Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.) released a letter, signed by seven other Washington area House members, calling on the Pentagon to shift money around in the department's many budget accounts to stave off furloughs.

"This is an old budget showdown tactic -- and they're using federal employees' livelihoods as leverage in a turf battle with Congress," Moran said."

Maybe that 21-inch monitor that got denied in my budget isn't such a big deal. 

How to Tell If A Recruiter Can Be Your Next HR Manager...

One strong opinion I have is this - if you aren't recruiting as a HR Generalist, you're an administrator, subject to being outsourced at your employer's whim in the future.  I believe HR people need to be heavily involved in the Talent acquisition process in their companies.  I know recruiting can and is outsourced, but if you are good on the recruiting front as a HR Manager, you'll always have a job.

So, it stands to reason that Recruiters are great candidates to be HR Managers.  Jim Stroud recently agreed with that, and wondered aloud "why not HR" to his recruiting brethren. 

Of course, not all Recruiters would make solid HR Managers.  But many would.  Here's my list of the top three reasons why recruiters would potentially make great HR Managers, then my top three barriers that have to be validated before you would ever put a recruiter in the HR Manager role.

Why I love Recruiters as potential HR people:

1.  Energy - Most recruiters have better energy than your average HR Manager.  Energy is good, and our profession can stand some spicing up...

2.  A..B..C.. - (Always Be Closing) - Recruiters are salespeople, used to working a funnel and closing business.  There's usually a scoreboard involved, be it the number of vacancies, time to fill or cost to fill.  That means most recruiters worth a promotion to HR Manager know how to compete.  Another good attribute to have.

3. Employer Brand Awareness - As part of the ABC equation, recruiters are always aware of your brand proposition.  That experience bodes well as they make the transition to retaining as well as recruiting employees.  Who better to tell your employees why this is a cool place?

Before you hire that recruiter as a HR Manager, check under the hood for the following:

1.  Patience - HR Managers have to have patience daily.  Workplace politics and human nature conspire to make HR Managers take 4 steps where 1 would have been OK in order to keep everyone happy.  If your recruiter doesn't have that, don't put them in the job.

2.  Judgment - What's the reputation for integrity and good decision making with the recruiter in question?  Viewed as a business partner by the departments they recruit for, or the jester that wears the lampshade after knocking a couple back at the Christmas party?  This question isn't limited to recruiters, it would be there for any transfer from another area into HR.  The recruiter has to have a good reputation, or it won't work...

3.  Tolerance for Administrivia - Recruiters will see more administration in this role than they are used to.  If they seem overly frustrated by the administrative burdens of your ATS or EEOC process, they probably won't be a great fit.

Recruiters are a great candidate source for HR managers openings.  Follow these guidelines to determine if they have the chops, and you'll end up with a great selection without getting burned....

One strong opinion I have is this - if you aren't recruiting as a HR Generalist, you're an administrator, subject to being outsourced at your employer's whim in the future.  I believe HR people need to be heavily involved in the Talent acquisition process in their companies.  I know recruiting can and is outsourced, but if you are good on the recruiting front as a HR Manager, you'll always have a job.

So, it stands to reason that Recruiters are great candidates to be HR Managers.  Jim Stroud recently agreed with that, and wondered aloud "why not HR" to his recruiting brethren. 

Of course, not all Recruiters would make solid HR Managers.  But many would.  Here's my list of the top three reasons why recruiters would potentially make great HR Managers, then my top three barriers that have to be validated before you would ever put a recruiter in the HR Manager role.

Why I love Recruiters as potential HR people:

1.  Energy - Most recruiters have better energy than your average HR Manager.  Energy is good, and our profession can stand some spicing up...

2.  A..B..C.. - (Always Be Closing) - Recruiters are salespeople, used to working a funnel and closing business.  There's usually a scoreboard involved, be it the number of vacancies, time to fill or cost to fill.  That means most recruiters worth a promotion to HR Manager know how to compete.  Another good attribute to have.

3. Employer Brand Awareness - As part of the ABC equation, recruiters are always aware of your brand proposition.  That experience bodes well as they make the transition to retaining as well as recruiting employees.  Who better to tell your employees why this is a cool place?

Before you hire that recruiter as a HR Manager, check under the hood for the following:

1.  Patience - HR Managers have to have patience daily.  Workplace politics and human nature conspire to make HR Managers take 4 steps where 1 would have been OK in order to keep everyone happy.  If your recruiter doesn't have that, don't put them in the job.

2.  Judgment - What's the reputation for integrity and good decision making with the recruiter in question?  Viewed as a business partner by the departments they recruit for, or the jester that wears the lampshade after knocking a couple back at the Christmas party?  This question isn't limited to recruiters, it would be there for any transfer from another area into HR.  The recruiter has to have a good reputation, or it won't work...

3.  Tolerance for Administrivia - Recruiters will see more administration in this role than they are used to.  If they seem overly frustrated by the administrative burdens of your ATS or EEOC process, they probably won't be a great fit.

Recruiters are a great candidate source for HR managers openings.  Follow these guidelines to determine if they have the chops, and you'll end up with a great selection without getting burned....

How to Get Recruiters To Sign a Contract NOT To Poach Your Employees...

If I was a recruiter, I'd be like Jerry McGuire.  One candidate/customer, special attention galore... Here's the voice mail I would leave to my candidate - "I will not rest until I have you holding a Coke, wearing your own shoe, playing a Sega game *featuring you*, while singing your own song in a new commercial, *starring you*, broadcast during the Superbowl, in a game that you are winning, and I will not *sleep* until that happens. I'll give you fifteen minutes to call me back."

On second thought, I'd probably be like the rest of the biological world, moving to where the most food  opportunity is... Maybe even use that voice mail on my 50 candidate calls for the day...

One thing that has always amazed me about the recruiting business is this - most recruiters and employers alike work without an agreement.  The drama goes like this - employer needs help on one or more positions, and requests help from a couple of contingency recruiters, who go out and try to line up talent to present to the employer to fill the role in question. 

If anything gets hammered out, it's the fee (usually a % of the first year's salary).  Other issues abound - quality guarantees, parameters for how long the referred candidate is the search firm's property in the Applicant Tracking System (which means how long they'll be due a fee if the candidate isn't hired now, but hired later) and the issue of referrals of search firms' candidates to other firms, etc.  Most of the secondary issues are never hammered out before a search firm begins work on a vacancy.

The smart employers define the secondary issues and have their own agreement template ready to hand to search firms they're working with for the first time.  That firms up the issues and ensures the search firm knows the expectations of the employer.

One unwritten rule from the employer's perspective is this - if I pay you a fee, please don't poach any of my talent for an unspecified time period, or there's a high likelihood I won't use you again.   While that's the standard unwritten rule, I've never seen that in an employer-side agreement.  Until now...

Wachovia is including a non-poach clause in its employer-side search agreements.  On the plus side for recruiters, they're increasing placement fees for those that play ball.  Here's the rundown from Workforce:

"For certain recruiters, Richmond, Virginia-based Wachovia wants to increase the commission it pays to 10 percent of brokers’ previous years’ fees and commissions, almost doubling the industry norm of a 6 percent commission.

The agreement is surprising and almost unheard of, recruiters and brokerage executives say.

Of course, there’s a catch to get that extra commission. Recruiters have to sign a contract that prohibits them from moving St. Louis-based A.G. Edwards’ reps to other firms. The 10 percent commission would be for future recruiter business with Wachovia and would max out at $75,000.

Wachovia began offering recruiters the deal last month, and one recruiter who turned it down says he sees the offer as having two potential meanings.

“The increase in fees for recruiters confirms the war for talent,” says Danny Sarch, a recruiter in White Plains, New York. “It makes sense that firms have to pay more to get recruiters to pay attention to them.”

But the offer could also “speak to an element of fear that A.G. Edwards guys are at risk.”

OK, I'm an employer.  But I would have to be doing a LOT of business with Wachovia as a recruiter or want to get some Wachovia business pretty bad as a small recruiting shop to sign that agreement.  First up, if you sign the agreement, you're locked out from representing and placing candidates from Wachovia.  They've got a big rep base, so that's fertile recruiting ground that's national in scope.

Just because you haven't signed the agreement doesn't mean you can't make a placement.  Ever tried to tell a manager they can't use the headhunter that has the candidate they want because they aren't on the preferred vendor list?   Kind of a rough conversation, if you know what I mean.

More importantly, what's 10% of 0?   Just because you sign the deal doesn't mean you are going to do business with them.   Better to keep the universe open and recruit from all sources.  Just my take as an HR person.   Doubling placement fees seems like a drastic move, one that might signal reps are vulnerable over the coming years, especially if the cultures of Wachovia and AG Edwards, as reported, are dramatically different.

Smoking Discrimination - Truth or Fiction for HR Departments?

If you're like me, one of the things that keeps you up at night is the cost of healthcare.  So much so, I've followed the recent news that companies have begun to penalize smokers and employees with other risk factors (high cholesterol, high blood pressure, etc.) with great interest.  It seems like an eventual fact that those who display voluntary risk factors will pay via higher employee contributions/premiums than employees who don't engage in the same risky behavior.

Of course, smoking's the easy one, since it's safely classified as voluntary.  The other health metrics (blood  pressure, etc) are more problematic, since heredity and other factors are at play.

So, Open Enrollment season is upon us.  I didn't take the leap and consider raising employee contributions for those that smoke, and certainly didn't raise them for poor scores in the health metrics.

The biggest issue for me?  I'm at a startup, and I know all the people who work at our company.  It's one thing to mandate increased premiums for smokers when you are sitting in the Death Star of a Fortune 500, it's another thing all together when you see those that smoke every day.  Much tougher to make the business decision that probably will ultimately be necessary or routine as an early adapter when you are at a place where everybody knows your name...

So, it's no to increased premiums for smokers this year, and yes to finding a toehold for a cessation program sometime soon. 

Then I see the following information - Health Populi puts the true cost of smoking at $222 per pack over a lifetime...

Maybe I'm doing no one a favor by waiting another year to be more aggressive.....

If you're like me, one of the things that keeps you up at night is the cost of healthcare.  So much so, I've followed the recent news that companies have begun to penalize smokers and employees with other risk factors (high cholesterol, high blood pressure, etc.) with great interest.  It seems like an eventual fact that those who display voluntary risk factors will pay via higher employee contributions/premiums than employees who don't engage in the same risky behavior.

Of course, smoking's the easy one, since it's safely classified as voluntary.  The other health metrics (blood  pressure, etc) are more problematic, since heredity and other factors are at play.

So, Open Enrollment season is upon us.  I didn't take the leap and consider raising employee contributions for those that smoke, and certainly didn't raise them for poor scores in the health metrics.

The biggest issue for me?  I'm at a startup, and I know all the people who work at our company.  It's one thing to mandate increased premiums for smokers when you are sitting in the Death Star of a Fortune 500, it's another thing all together when you see those that smoke every day.  Much tougher to make the business decision that probably will ultimately be necessary or routine as an early adapter when you are at a place where everybody knows your name...

So, it's no to increased premiums for smokers this year, and yes to finding a toehold for a cessation program sometime soon. 

Then I see the following information - Health Populi puts the true cost of smoking at $222 per pack over a lifetime...

Maybe I'm doing no one a favor by waiting another year to be more aggressive.....

Performance Management at Microsoft - Moving from 5-point to 3-point Rating Scale

It's been awhile since I waxed about the limitations of the performance management systems most of us use in our companies.  Probably my biggest pet peeve is the 5 point rating scale, where managers invariably use a combination of 3's and 4's to bail themselves out of tough conversations with average employees (click through on the link to get my take). 

I like the 3-point scale better.  With that in mind, it was good to see Microsoft featured in the most recent print edition of Workforce Managment as having ripped out their 5-point rating scale and installed a 3-point scale.  From the article:

"Under that old system, Microsoft managers assigned current performance ratings of 0 to 5 in half-point increments based on a forced distribution.  Because current performance ratings not only determine annual salary increases but also come in to play when employees apply for another position with the company, the forced distribution approach was a sore spot.

"We also discovered the old system was not fully effective", Ritchie (Microsoft GM for Performance Management) notes.  Consequently, Microsoft trashed its 0 to 5 rating scale and adopted a three point "commitment" scale of "exceeded", "achieved" and "underperformed" with no forced distribution.

"Distribution under the new system is about what we expected," Richie reports.  In the last full cycle, 37 percent of employees received a rating of "exceeded", 58% received a rating of "achieved" and 5 percent were rated "underperformed".  The general rule is that the top group receives a merit increase that is 50% higher than average performers."

Of course, your problems don't end just because you move from a 5-point to 3-point scale.  You still have to have managers that can communicate the difference between a "meets" and an "exceeds", and the distribution of overall ratings can still be an issue. 

But you are taking the "Sometimes Exceeds" crutch away by moving to a 3-point scale, and that's worth the effort alone.

It's been awhile since I waxed about the limitations of the performance management systems most of us use in our companies.  Probably my biggest pet peeve is the 5 point rating scale, where managers invariably use a combination of 3's and 4's to bail themselves out of tough conversations with average employees (click through on the link to get my take). 

I like the 3-point scale better.  With that in mind, it was good to see Microsoft featured in the most recent print edition of Workforce Managment as having ripped out their 5-point rating scale and installed a 3-point scale.  From the article:

"Under that old system, Microsoft managers assigned current performance ratings of 0 to 5 in half-point increments based on a forced distribution.  Because current performance ratings not only determine annual salary increases but also come in to play when employees apply for another position with the company, the forced distribution approach was a sore spot.

"We also discovered the old system was not fully effective", Ritchie (Microsoft GM for Performance Management) notes.  Consequently, Microsoft trashed its 0 to 5 rating scale and adopted a three point "commitment" scale of "exceeded", "achieved" and "underperformed" with no forced distribution.

"Distribution under the new system is about what we expected," Richie reports.  In the last full cycle, 37 percent of employees received a rating of "exceeded", 58% received a rating of "achieved" and 5 percent were rated "underperformed".  The general rule is that the top group receives a merit increase that is 50% higher than average performers."

Of course, your problems don't end just because you move from a 5-point to 3-point scale.  You still have to have managers that can communicate the difference between a "meets" and an "exceeds", and the distribution of overall ratings can still be an issue. 

But you are taking the "Sometimes Exceeds" crutch away by moving to a 3-point scale, and that's worth the effort alone.