The Perfect Fit

Employer Alert! 3.0 Is The Future Of Recruiting! Part 2

This is the second of two parts of a blog (below) started yesterday.  You can find it here.

"The Core Philosophy of Recruitment 3.0: Everyone is a potential candidate or brand ambassador, even your consumers!

At the core of the philosophy of Recruitment 3.0 is the definition of a candidate. We typically define one as someone who has nominated themselves to be part of an election process. A voluntary act.

But at what point does someone volunteer themselves to be a candidate? When they see your advertisement? When they apply to your advertisement? When you interview them?

So if they are not a candidate until they volunteer themselves, what are they?

They are your average person sitting drinking a coffee in Starbucks, or leading a team at work, speaking at a conference, running down the road, watching TV, or having a pint of the finest ale down the local pub.

What turns a regular person into a candidate? A whole host of reasons. Not being recognized for their contribution at work, poor relationship with their manager, lack of career development, lack of challenging work, poor remuneration.

A company either waits for the moment that someone presses the button and turns themselves into a candidate and then jumps on them, or makes a proposition that is attractive and tempts them into candidacy.

Hence at the core of Recruitment 3.0 is that everyone is a candidate. And it is up to us to create candidates not wait.

The Core Philosophy of Recruitment 3.0: employment brand is pivotal to your success in talent acquisition

What is a brand? Simply a person’s gut feel to a product, service, or organization. Many companies spend millions on their corporate brand identity. But they spend little or no time on defining an employment brand. Indeed some companies are so arrogant they believe their corporate brand is enough to attract people to work for them. Amazing how many well-known corporate brands are nightmares to work for as the arrogance of senior leadership and management feel it is a career pleasure to work for them and spend no time on developing/retaining their core assets.

Employer Alert! Talent and Recruiting 3.0 . . . It's All Changing!

In catching up on some recruiting blogs and articles over the weekend, I ran across what I think is one of the best assessments of the current state of talent acquisition (recruiting) and employers' attitudes about hiring employees. This article was written by Matthew Jeffery with the help of co-Author Amy McKee, Director of Global Talent Acquisiton at Autodesk.  This is an excerpt of a much more detailed article pubished in the June issue of the Journal of Corporate Recruiting Leadership.

There is complaceny and misunderstanding in offices of hiring managers at companies both large and small.  Is it possible that complacency and misunderstanding can actually restrict a company's ability to grow and prosper?  Think about it . . . the answer is obviously yes.

"There has never been a better time to be a recruiter.

What we do can quite literally make or break a company. If we can’t attract and retain the best staff, then our company will lose ground rapidly, financials will suffer, and it will die a slow painful death.

Recruitment is undergoing a change. Not just a small scale evolution but a fundamental seismic shift. A change that will see the recruiting landscape change forever. A change that will see many traditional recruiters falling behind and being replaced by new, differently skilled recruiters, ready for the challenges of Recruitment 3.0.

Indeed, it is not only recruiters who will be found obsolete in Recruitment 3.0 but many of the current recruitment leaders in top companies today, criminally not preparing their Fortune 500 Companies for the new realities of a changing recruitment landscape. Recruitment leaders’ version 1.0 are real, out there in abundance, so obsessed in process and introverted to the point of not seeing outside the window of their office, damaging the prospects of the very company they seek to serve.

Why the need for change?

The Benefit of Urgency in a Talent Short Market

I ran across this blog posting yesterday.  I think it's excellent because it addresses many of the points that I try to make to my clients, both existing and prospective.  It was written by Tony Kubica and Sara LaForest.  You can find the original here.

"The job market has been picking up, and hiring managers are aggressively trying to increase human capital to reach their 2011 revenue goals. Having the right people in the right seats is key, and we see many companies take too much time when seeking to hire good talent. The most successful recruiters create a sense of urgency for their hiring managers, whose priority is acquiring top talent.

 It is folly to assume there is an unlimited talent pool in this market. The current 8.9% unemployment rate (based on February 2011 data) is deceiving. First, the actual unemployment level is higher than the numbers suggest because of the number of people who have stopped looking for jobs. Also it is distorted. Many of the jobs that were eliminated during the recession are never coming back. So looking at unemployment levels alone will create the one thing you cannot afford to create: complacency.

In our experience, many recruiters understand this, yet they too need to act on it. (Referenced as “the knowing:doing gap.”) And their challenge is often to help the hiring manager (and the organization) understand it.

Another challenging reality is that the best talent may already be working. This is especially the case in fields such as healthcare, science, and technology. As an example, hiring clinicians who have management experience is a challenge for many healthcare organizations. It may also be the situation for the unique job requirements in your company. While the first challenge is finding qualified candidates, the bigger challenge is closing the deal and hiring them. The reason: they have options. Time is critical!

So, when a candidate or candidates are identified, understand that they will be vetting you as carefully as you are vetting them. Delays and perceived indecision will be seen as a lack of interest in their candidacy and they will quickly move along.

There are four critical points of contact for viable candidates, and they are:

1. Their first impression of you
2. Their first impression of the hiring manager
3. Their general impression of the organization garnered from interviews with other people in your organization and their travels within your organization
4. Follow-up

In hiring highly qualified people for your organization, there are no casual moments. Just because a candidate has agreed to an interview doesn’t mean they will be excited about and stay committed to your opportunity. All it means is that they may be ready to take your job if it is the best opportunity at the time for them and their career. If the candidate is greeted by interviewers who are late, unprepared, misaligned in interview approach, appear harried and rushed, and do not get back to the candidate (in a timely manner) with information they promised, there is a very strong likelihood that only the weakest candidates (with the least amount of options) will still be interested...

 

Companies Need Culture . . . Employees Need Culture . . . Clients Want Culture

Last week's Ad Age had an article by Lorraine Lockhart entitled "Want to Retain Talent?  Time to Appoint a Chief Culture Officer". Lorraine knows a little something about agency cultures.  She has run a very well respected consulting group for the past 20 years.  That group helps clients conduct agency reviews to identify those agencies best suited to help a client grow their business through advertising and marketing.

The idea of culture defining an organization is simple.  It's also simple to understand that a companies' long term success is directly related to the relevance and impact of that culture on the employees and clients (customers) of that company.  What's not simple is to understand why more companies, including agencies and corporations . . . large and small . . . privately and publicly held, make so little effort to create and proactively maintain a healthy culture that fosters the health and growth of their employees.  Culture is the lifeblood of any/every corporation.

Lorraine suggests a new C-level executive called a Chief Culture Officer "to develop greater organizational and cultural intelligence and work to create the safe havens where agency people can thrive."  What that means is create an environment where employees are respected and their professional and personal growth is encouraged and fostered.  That environment leads to happier employees who stay with a company longer, benefiting the clients.  Employee retention and growth is directly related to client retention and growth . . . and to the employers overall health and long term well-being.

In my experience, the most repeated reasons employees are disengaged and performing at less than their potential is the culture in which they work.  It's micro-management, or it's disorganized workflow, or lack of training that frustrates employees.  Sometimes it's simply a lack of respect.  Money is an issue, but often not at or near the top.

Creating a culture to nourish and enhance employees seems like a good idea, so why do so few accomplish it?  Likely because so few actually focus on it, or make the initial effort to improve.  Looking in the mirror can be difficult.  I honest think that most don't think they need it . . . or "everything's just fine"!

In today's world of multi-tasking, running "lean" companies (read too few workers) and longer work weeks, to most companies(it seems) devoting the time, energy and money necessary to create a maintain a healthy culture seems frivolous.  That lack of culture is why I continually receive resumes from top performers, who simply are not engaged with their employer, who they perceive as not caring.

Whether a Chief Culture Officer is hired or not, there are few companies that couldn't benefit from more focus on a healthy and sustainable culture.  Lorraine is certainly correct about lack of focus on culture.  The CCO will have little positive effect if the rest of the c-Suite does not embrace the notion. 

Let's face it, from any companies' perspective, it's employees are its most valuable asset.  They need to be supported and helped to grow professionally for tbe benefit of the employer and their client.  If that happens, the employee will grow personally as well . . . and stay with that employer longer, contributing additional institutional knowledge and stability . . . leading to happier, more loyal clients.

It seems so simple . . .

References, Job-Hoppers and Talent Shortages

My good friend and colleague of Egret Consulting and irsa has written an article for his newsletter "The Buzz" that I think resonates and deserves more exposure.  Ted and Egret specialize in the electrical manufacturing industry.  What he says about that industry applies identically to marketing and advertising.  So, with a very minor edit or two, here are Ted's thoughts.

"We’ve conducted roughly 70,000 interviews over the past 11+ years. We’ve successfully placed over 500 new employees and we’ve weathered two deep recessions, so we feel pretty good about our track record. Nationally, “WE” are facing a talent and hiring condition that has never been faced before. Despite the daily dirge of bad news about unemployment, let me give a few other statistics:
•    The average tenure of a new employee is 34 months (and that includes CEO’s)
•    The unemployment rate for college graduates is 3.8%
•    The predicted number of jobs for Gen Y employees is 8 jobs before they’re 40 years old
•    Reference recommendations correlate to performance at a value of 0.29 (which in statistic-speak means the predictability is less than 9%)
•    Over 35% of resumes are fraudulent, over 75% have mistakes or ‘little white lies’
•    The level of open job postings has hit a record high level
Most companies don’t believe there is a talent shortage. With 9.8% unemployment it’s easy to assume your next engineer, branch manager, marketing director or operations manager is sitting outside your door with his/her resume in hand and the desire to go to work on Monday at a 25% discount in compensation. If only it were true.

The talent pool is very thin right now. We only work in this industry so our view is limited to people who work and succeed in the electrical (marketing/advertising) industry and we don’t recruit people out of automotive, healthcare or paper companies. The pool is additionally thinned by the housing market; relocations are very problematic for a household to move if their house is currently at a low equity or under water. The ability to sell the house and provide cash to buy into the new market, despite the lowered values is in many cases untenable. Job security for most companies has been seriously damaged by the deep recession and companies’ reactions to that through aggressive downsizing, so we’re at a unique confluence of competing challenges; employees are more open to leaving their current company, but they’re very limited in where they can go, geographically.

We’ve seen a significant increase in companies adding talent over the past 90-120 days. All of these positions are net-adds, not replacements. So the market has already shifted, the talent pool is poised to hearing options, but the creativity of those options will have to cater to the needs of the prospective new employee.

There is never a ‘perfect’ employee, just as there isn’t a perfect employer, yet employers are still functioning as if the talent pool is unlimited and they have the ability to design the perfect employee on an assembly line; complete with a life-time guarantee. That isn’t reality, the talent market right now is considering multiple offers, expecting significant flexibility in work/life balance and not anticipating finding their ‘last job’, but gaining experience and building a resume for the next challenge.

Separating Executive Role 'Engagement' From Job 'Satisfaction'

In a recent article in the ExecuNet Newsletter ("Market intelligence and insight for maximizing executive talent management") written by Joe McCool, I was struck by how important the difference between "engagement" and "satisfaction" is.  I was also struck by how significant that difference is to every kind of organization, and for every level of employee in that organization.

Here's what Joe wrote:

"The second annual Executive Retention Report by ExecuNet and Finnegan Mackenzie found that over 90 percent of U.S. CEOs and other management leaders believe an executive can be engaged in their work and with their employer but still open to considering new career opportunities. This was reflected in their attitudes about their own sense of engagement and job satisfaction.

Exactly 93 percent of CEOs, presidents and top business executives report they're engaged in their current role, but only 75 percent say they're actually satisfied with it. Also, roughly 7-in-10 other 'C-Suite' executives and others at the vice president, director and manager levels are likewise engaged in their day-to-day work, but only 5-in-10 say they feel a sense of overall job satisfaction.

"Companies should take the time now to consider how their potential failure to retain their best management executives will weigh on corporate productivity, financial results and succession plans in the coming year," says ExecuNet's Mark Anderson. "Even before this recovery takes full effect, it's clear that surprisingly high numbers of executives are restless and eager to explore what a more growth-oriented economy has in store for them."

Further, Anderson commented, "If companies can't retain their executive leaders and don't have the right teams in place, they simply won't reach their business objectives for the coming year. For that reason, retention risk should be on the corporate agenda now."

To stave off key executive defections, says Richard Finnegan, principal of Finnegan Mackenzie - The Retention Firm, and author of Rethinking Retention In Good Times And Bad, companies should consider conducting 'stay interviews' to rebuild trust with key business leaders, get them re-engaged and explore what the company could do to increase their job satisfaction, and get them focused on the potential upside of staying."

Having 50% of your organizations' leadership satisfied with their job obviously means that 50% are not satisfied.  That will affect productivity, morale and the company culture in a negative way.  It's easy to understand how improving  satisfaction on the job (at every level) will increase productivity, morale and culture.  It will also make the employee happier and much more likely to stay for the longer term.

The idea of "stay interviews" is so simple . . . and so powerful.  Why are employers so afraid of actually spending some time intereacting and getting to know their employees?  The result o that interview doesn't necessarily have to mean additional 'expense' for the employer.  My bet is that employees would be thrilled to have a "real" conversation about their professional goals with their boss.  I think the idea behind having the conversation would have significant value in itself.

I've previously written about the "restlessness" of employees at the moment (resulting from their feelings of overwork and undervalue).  I've written about how important succession planning is, at every level of the organization.  The ExecuNet article is just more evidence of how consistently proactive organizations must be to maintain (or create) a healthy culture.

Are you engaged or satisfied?  If you had the opportunity to sit down with your boss for some personal career planning, would you know what you'd like to ask for (beyond more money and/or time off)?

Ten Things Your Employees Wish You Knew About Them . . .

I'm re-posting a blog from Fast Company, written by Roberta Matuson.  I just love how simple, straightforward and true this advice is.  It's especially relevant in these days of employee resentment at increased pressure and hours, "the boss" needs to be strong, yet empathetic . . . sometimes a difficult balance to strike while trying to continually get more done with less (employees).

"If you think it's tough being a manager these days, try being an employee. Most are in the position of having to go with the flow because of the current economic conditions. But that doesn't necessarily mean they do so with a smile on their face. Here are ten things your employees wish you knew about them:

1. They are happy to have a job. But that doesn't necessarily mean they are happy in their job. Big difference. People who are happy in their jobs act a lot different than those grateful to have a job. They are highly engaged and will do whatever it takes to delight the customer. The other group simply floats along praying for the day they can tell you really what they are thinking. Most likely they will do this as they hand in their notice. That is if they even give notice.

2. You're not the boss of me. My five year old used to say this to me all the time. That is until I corrected her by telling her that actually I was the boss of her and that what I said goes. You may be the boss, but you don't own your people. The minute you start playing the, "Because I said so" card, you've lost the game.

3. Your girls don't like being called girls. I remember how shocked I was when my first client started speaking to me about the girls in the office, as he pointed to a sea of silver haired women. That should have been a sign that the problem was right in front of me. It is disrespectful to call females over the age of 18 girls. They are women. Keep this in mind when referring to female employees or you'll soon find yourself managing a team consisting of yourself. Then you'll be free to reference yourself in the manner that best suits you.

4. We are no longer going to take one for the team. That is after the senior team has just awarded the departing CEO an exit package that certainly could have been used to restore salary cuts.

5. We are tired of picking up the slack from the non-performers. We know who is not pulling their weight and so do you. Do something about it before we throw ourselves on top of the dead weight pile.

6. That was our idea you just shared with the CEO. We understand that tough times call for tough measures, but that doesn't give you the right to take credit for something that is not yours. Now go back in there and give us the credit we are due.

7. Measure us on results, not face time. Stop penalizing us for our ability to get work done quickly or we will give you what you want. More face time, and that's about it.

8. Stop wasting our time with surveys. You already know what's wrong. Now start fixing things before we find a work place that is willing to take action.

9. Stop micromanaging us. Micromanagement is a sign of mistrust. You've hired us for a reason. If you don't trust we'll get the job done then by all means, either find people who you think will, or leave us alone to do our jobs.

10. We are never going to act like business owners. Stop complaining that we don't act like business owners. We are not business owners nor are we compensated the same as the owner. And by the way, if we really wanted to act like owners we would have started our own businesses.

I'm sure there is a lot more your employees wish you knew about them. Perhaps they'll be brave enough to add their comments to this list."

 

It's remarkable to me how often I hear many of these issues as the compelling reasons an employee wants to leave their existing employer.  I keep harping about retaining those employees you care about and helping them (training and educating) to succeed.  It seems like simple behavior to adopt.  Why don't more bosses do it?

There's been a bit of a hiring flurry regionally over the past two months.  I believe that flurry is still be tempered (if not strangled) by the economic uncertainly that continues to pervade the U.S..  I hope that Managers, Directors, VPs and the C-Suite all take these suggestions to heart.  Those "bosses" who haven't been respecting those who report to them or who have been blindly asking for more and more, are going to get a rude awakening as soon as job options become available for those employees.  The employees are going to bolt, and do it fast . . .

Leadership, empathy and respect will directly affect how employees perform, and whether they have any interest in continuing to work for you.

"What Are Your Salary Expectations"?

I received a LinkedIn message this morning asking a question that frequently comes up . . .

"My position was recently terminated and now I'm going online to apply for positions and all of the positions ask what salary I''m looking for or what did I make before? How can they ask those questions before they've even met me? And it seems if i don't answer those questions NOW I can't even get a meeting. Is there anything to do to avoid doing that as I feel like it prices me out of the job before I've even been in the running."

I don't like it when companies ask that question, but I do understand it.  Employers have to have some idea of previous compensation, because it can frame your expectations (and need) for future employment.  We all realize that "it's not all about money", but if there's a significant discrepancy between your past income and the value of a particular position, you're going to be screened out.

The general perception is that if you're not making as much as you did previously, you're not going to be content, and you're going to jump to another job that pays more as soon as you find it.  That concern will limit an employer's interest and willingness to invest in your training for the future.

I tell my clients not to ask the question about salary expectations, and my candidates not to answer it.  The real question is what's the position worth, given the amount of responsibility and the level of experience needed.  The skill set required also will influence the positions value and resulting compensation.  At the same time, I think it's fair for a company to know what you've made in the past . . . just not what you want to make in the future.

Frankly, one solution to this issue is to spend less time with online "job boards".  They are not very efficient for senior level people, whose time would be better spent networking, and making more of an effort to target specific companies and "communities".  The big job boards (as opposed to more niche sites) are not perceived to have the best candidates, because those candidates are not "passive" . . . they're looking for a job.  The resulting perception can be that they're "never happy" where that are (the grass is always greener . . . ), or that they "aren't loyal".  LinkedIn is different . . . and valuable.

Interviewing Should Be A Two Way Street

When an employer is trying to recruit/hire a candidate, there are obviously interviews scheduled so the employer can learn more about the candidate.  Those interviews are generally with the people most closely related to the position that's open.  The position's supervisor, someone from HR, someone from the executive suite (or owner) and perhaps a peer or two are the typical picks.

The candidate, especially a top performer or one who wants to control their career growth and direction, often wants to meet others in the organization (by title).  I encourage this.  It's one thing to "get the pitch" from those closest to the position, and maybe feeling the most pain with the position being open.  The story might be completely different when talking to someone from another department, or others related to the department in question, but not "hand picked" by management.

Employers invariably have their most articulate and enthusiastic employees participate in the interviewing process.  Employers want people who seem happy and can tell the story (and maybe who walk the line) to meet potential new hires.  These same folks could also be the "favorites" of the boss, or maybe haven't been at the company long enough to have a real sense of the environment, culture, management style, etc..

I think it's a good idea to give candidates the option to meet a couple of people of their choice, especially for higher level and executive positions.  Letting the candidate choose who to meet in the company more fully involves them in the process, makes the process more effective and transparent and makes the candidate feel more personally involved.  All of those results are good.  I don't know why candidates don't ask to interview others in the organization, and I don't know why employers don't offer the option more frequently.

What's the worst that could happen?  The candidate might find out some information that wasn't intended for them to find out.  Perhaps they can "feel" more realistically what the employer culture is really like, as opposed to what's being presented.  The result might be that the candidate decides not to pursue the job for personal reasons.

Isn't it better to find out in advance that the position wasn't really right . . . for whatever reason?  Hiring always involves risk.  It would seem that the more information gathered by both the employer and the candidate, the better.  The candidate deserves the chance for ample due diligence, just as the employer does. 

In 2009, Internal Hires Dominated. Will It Continue In 2010?

Im finally climbing back in the saddle after missing almost a full week due to some very nasty chest cold!   In catching up on some professional reading, I can across a blog posting from John Zappe called, "Internal Hires Dominate Job Filling in 2009".  That sounded interesting so I read further.  You can see the blog posting here. Here's what I found:

"The ninth Source of Hire report from CareerXroads is out and it shows the CareerXroads impact of the U.S. recession on hiring patterns over the last few years while offering some encouraging news about hiring in 2010.

The white paper’s top-line findings show that, on average, 41 of the nation’s larger companies filled just over half their vacancies in 2009 by internal transfers and promotions. This is the largest percentage since CareerXroads first reported the data in 2002.

For 2010, however, 48 percent of the participating companies expect to hire and hire robustly. The prediction is for 29 percent growth in hiring. Only 10.8 percent of the surveyed participants expect to higher fewer workers this year. Compare those percentages to the Source of Hire report issued last year at this time. Then, 100 percent of the companies predicted they would hire fewer workers.

Recession boost internal hiring SOH 2009 (Source of Hire) “The spike in internal movement is a strong artifact of the recession and suppressed many other sources of hire,” says the report, authored by Gerry Crispin and Mark Mehler, founders and principals in the recruitment-oriented CareerXroads consultancy. “Expect internal movement to fall to more normal levels in 2010.”"

The free white paper is posted to the CareerXroads site, you can download it here.

I didn't realize that more companies don't hire from within more consistently.  I have to wonder why.  You'd think that it's a perfect way to reward employees for doing excellent work.  It's exactly the kind of opportunity premier employees expect.  It's one of the best ways to retain those top performers.  In addition to whatever their function skill set is, they have the added benefit of "institutional knowledge" and expertise in whatever their vertical category is.  I would think all that would combine to make internal hiring much more of a "best practice"!

In the discovery process of every search we conduct, one of the first questions is "Are there potential internal candidates who should be considered for this position?"  If there are, we put them through the same interviewing process as the external candidates we also identify. 

As I discussed in my recent post "The Same Company For An Entire Career?" there is value in longevity with the same employer.  While I certainly understand that in some cases there are not appropriate internal candidates, and in other instances, there's a need for "new blood" or thinking, management too often doesn't "take a chance" with a promotion.  The thinking is "Well, that employee's never done that before," and so they're passed over.  My experience is the premier performers raise their game to the necessary level . . . it's how they grow and feel that professional satisfaction of an upward career trajectory.

It seems the recession caused what I consider to be an obvious benefit . . . It's strange most employers don't agree and won't continue the process.

I wonder how many times you've either been the victim of an external hire, or you saw a colleague passed over for someone from the outside, who isn't at strong an employee as your colleague? 

Companies Should Send Candidates Thank-You Notes, Too

That's the headline in a recent Ad Age article.  Sub-Head, "It's a Great PR Move for Prospective Employers".  I completely agree with Paul Gumbinner, the author of the Ad Age article. Paul writes,

"After an interview, it's surprising that only about 60% of candidates send a thank-you note (an even smaller percentage sends them after visiting with a recruiter). Aside from being an expression of good manners, a short note expressing interest can go a long way toward promoting a person's candidacy.

Of course, much has been written about thank-you notes in terms of job seekers. But I wanted to tackle something that, to my knowledge, has not been suggested before: Interviewers should send them to candidates, as well.

I would like to propose that this should be the policy at every advertising agency."

It should be a policy at every single employer, period . . . not just agencies.  I know most job seekers would say, "Hey, how about a simple acknowledgment of my interest in your company?"  It's extremely annoying to me that the vast majority of employers (75%+ ?), don't even bother to acknowledge receipt of a resume or inquiry.  Most employers are a black hole for resume submissions and as such, are committing PR suicide.  I've written about this previously with "Screw You, Candidate!"

In the near future, skilled employees are going to be at a premium.  Once you factor in their experience, career goals and fit with an employer's culture, they will be even more limited.  Yet, companies don't take the opportunity even acknowledge an interested candidates' resume.  They should thank every single applicant and treat each one with respect.  Respect is the foundation for retention and for hiring.  If respect exists in a corporate culture, so does employee retention.  You can't recruit someone with disrespect!

Respect (obviously) even goes beyond retention and recruiting.  It shouldn't exist for self-serving reasons.  It should exist because it's the right way to do things . . . everything.

Yesterday, I tweeted the article "Respect: A Key Ingredient for innovation".  The Innovation Tools blog goes on to state:

"Respect is a key ingredient for successfully bringing a new creation to market. In other words, innovation. At the highest level, senior managers should have respect for both the future of the organization and for the people they are responsible for guiding.

The senior management team needs to be seen by the troops as having their best interests in mind, and not just pumping up the stock price. If the senior managers are viewed within the company as being self-serving and unconcerned about the long-term success of the firm, the creativity and focus needed across the company will not flourish."

Why is a lack of common sense, civility and respect so much the norm?  Is it laziness, selfishness or (heaven forbid) expense?  Do employers consider themselves to be "too busy"?   How many of you will ever work for a company who never bothered acknowledging your interest or failed to treat you with respect?

Are You Being Taken Care Of, Or Taken Advantage Of?

There was unexpected good news lately with the nation's unemployment rate dropping from 10.2% to 10% . . . doesn't seem like a lot, but it's a start.  The forecasts for spending in marketing and advertising are trending up for next year.  There's already more hiring activity in the 4th quarter than many would have expected.  I'm betting that lots of employees are just biding their time, before they move to a new opportunity.

A survey by benefits consultant Watson Wyatt found that the "engagement" or loyalty, of top performing employees has dropped by 25% over the past year, largely because people who kept their jobs have been soured by layoffs, bonus and benefit cuts, and a stoppage in promotions.  Many employees are keeping their eyes open for their next opportunity.

Employers seem oblivious to making the necessary effort to retain those top performing employees.  While compensation and benefits are obviously very important, they're not the only drivers of employee satisfaction.  Employers could be creating better work cultures.  They could be more aware of what their employees are thinking, by engaging with them . . . yes, actually having a conversation with them in an effort to find out what's important to each one.  I'm not talking about those conversations that happen during "reviews", either!

They'll find that something as mutually valuable as training, or ongoing education is high on most employees lists of things they want more of.  Smarter employees add more value to their employers . . . seems so simple.  Many employees would also like the opportunity to diversify what they do everyday.  They'd like to work in other departments.  Many would enjoy a lateral move to another position in the same company . . . just doing something different can be refreshing and fun.  The result for the employer is employees who are cross-trained, and know more about how the company works, creating a beneficial redundancy . . . all while making the employee happy too.

I've stopped being shocked by hearing the things that consistently drive employees crazy.  At the top of that list is "micro-management" by the boss, or the lack of anyone listening to what are in some cases outstanding ideas to help efficiency or profitability or client retention.  Simple "communication" is a the top of many lists as well. 

My point is that I believe employees are getting ready to move as soon as they can.  It's similar to 2001 and early 2002, when there were huge layoffs, and very few real marketing "career" opportunities.  Employers had employees working additional hours, while being understaffed ("lean" as employers call it).  There was nothing an employee could do, other than simply be happy they're employed.

I know most who are employed today are thankful.  We're getting through the worst economic climate in any of our lives.  Being employed, even unhappily, is an ok thing.  Employers had better start paying attention, and working harder for their employees, or they're going to be very unhappy when the exodus begins.

What do you think?  Do you think your employer is taking advantage of you, or taking care of you?

Five Ways to Really Tick Off Your Employees

A recent blog by Fast Company expert blogger Roberta Matuson points out that a recent survey from Adecco Group North America, highlights the increased dissatisfaction workers in America have with their employers. According to the survey:

• 54% of employees plan to look for a new job as soon as the economy turns around.

• Sentiment is even stronger among younger workers. Of those ages 18-29, 71% say they are likely to    look for new jobs once the economy turns around.

Further, the blog goes on to say:

These numbers should not be shocking, as most of us know at least one person who will be jumping ship as soon as they can. Employees appear to be getting angrier everyday and their employers keep throwing more wood into the fire. If you really want to heat things up, then be sure to do the following:

1. Daily reminders - Remind employees how lucky they are to have a job. Do this on a daily basis. Tell them how fortunate they are to be receiving a paycheck. Never mind their check is 10% less than what they originally signed up for. Remember to include this reminder at your weekly meetings, when you take them out to lunch to thank them for their efforts, and at this year’s office party.

2. Freeze raises and bonuses – Jump on the bandwagon. Everyone else is doing it, so why shouldn’t you? Doesn’t matter if your profits are soaring or if your employees know you’ve had your best year ever. This is a great time to reign in costs, even if your costs are already in line.

3. Renege on your promises – You told people their reduction in pay would be temporary. However, you now view these changes as permanent. Of course you’ve decided not to tell anyone, until they ask.

4. Put a moratorium on promotions – Ask people to do the work of those who have been let go, and insist on holding back a title change and pay increase. Call this “self-development,” since you are giving people a wonderful opportunity to increase their skills. Something few employers seem to be doing.

5. Send out mixed messages – Tell your employees they are your most valuable asset. Then remind them that everyone is replaceable. Just to prove your point, be sure to replace a highly respected member of your team, with someone who is less experienced and less expensive.

There are several other common reasons for employee discontent.  I hear these on a daily basis from candidates at every level in an organization, whether in an agency, or from executives on the client side.  Those include:

6.  Budget for staff development, professional growth and industry training . . . personal growth doesn't happen without professional growth.  Both are essential.

7.  "Don't micro-manage me!"  You hired me, I know what I'm doing and I'm good at it, let me do it! 

8.  Consistent, open and honest communication between management and staff.  "Tell us the truth and we'll respond like adults who want to contribute and help!"

9.  There is no "goal setting" and consequently, no consistent reward (or even acknowledgment of a job well done) system.  "Performance based" bonus programs are arbitrary and inconsistently distributed.

I could go on . . . you get the drift.  I also bet that you've experienced several of these situations in your career, if they don't exist right now.  The thing is most of these issues are an easy "fix".  It doesn't necessarily need to be expensive.  It comes down to a common sense approach to treating employees with respect and then doing what you say you're going to do.  It's really pretty simple.  It's also pretty inexpensive compared to having to replace the exodus of workers who will leave, as soon as they possibly can!

Are Employers "Paralyzed by Perfection" in their hiring?

This week I've started wondering if employers are literally unable to hire because of a need for "perfection" in candidates.  Some of the interviewing processes seem so complex with so many interviews, sometimes stretching out over weeks and including multiple senior executives, I don't see how they actually can get anyone hired.  It's like approval by committee, it never works!  There's such a fear of hiring the wrong person, that the company is completely paralyzed by the search for (their perception of) perfection.  They end up not hiring anybody . . . imagine what that costs!

As an example, a candidate I'm working with sent me the following email.

"Wanted to also let you know that I've made it to the fourth round of the interview process with a private company in St. Louis... a Director of Marketing position. After my resume made the cut, I've had three different telephone interviews (HR Director, interim Marketing Director and VP of Marketing). Got the call yesterday for a personal interview. As far as I can tell, they're down to 4-6 candidates so I've got
my fingers crossed. If I can pass this phase, I think there's one more round of interviews with the President for the last 2-3." 

It was about three days later, I received this note from the same candidate,  "So I made it through seven face-to-face interviews and five phone interviews in five different 'phases' with the same company, only to learn last week that they have renewed their search and still haven't found "the right candidate."  Said they'd received over 300 resumes.  Hard to believe they couldn't find ONE candidate they believed could do the job. Oh well, live and learn."  A total of 12 interviews before this company decided this isn't the right candidate?  Wow!  How could it possibly have taken that long to make a "No" decision?  What was everyone talking about for all that time?   Imagine the time and expense in that many interviews with "4-6" candidates?  Does that company have any idea what they're looking for? I think not. 

The same thought of "paralysis through perfection" comes to mind when I hear horror stories about putting candidates through "Personality Profile or Assessment Testing".  You know, the kind of test that's generally taken online (pr sometimes in person) by the candidate?  There are loads of them out there . . . Caliper, Wonderlick, DISC, Kolbe, Myers-Briggs.  Some companies have the candidate complete more than one!  In many cases the current employees of the hiring company haven't even taken the tests, so there's no benchmark for performance in their own culture.  It's a very good idea for those involved in the hiring process to take the same test they're asking candidates to take . . . or why bother?

Testing seems like just one more level of "CYA" on the part of the hiring authorities . . . one more hurdle in the search for candidate/employee perfection.  I understand how some in occupations, testing is a good idea . . . airline pilots jump to mind, but I'm skeptical about it's value in many, many other functional roles.

Thoughts?  Have an interview or job search horror story to share?

Empowering Employees

After my most recent post on team and organizational leadership, I started thinking about employees' most popular complaints about their employers.  There's an eerie similarity to most employees issues with their existing employer.  Yesterday I was going to write a blog on those almost universal issues employees have.  These are the issues most important to employee retention.

Before I had a chance to compose that blog posting, I received an email from a candidate I've worked with over the past couple of years.  His admitted "rant" and obvious passion do a wonderful job of saying many of the things I'm going to write about.  This gentleman is a new media Creative Director and Producer, with expertise in online communication and story telling by utilizing a myriad of various media.  Any employee can substitute their professional function(s) for some of these specifics and I bet they can wholeheartedly empathize.

The candidate wrote to me:

"I want an executive level producer position that will allow me to work on fun, high level, CREATIVE projects that include audio, video, web, stage events, etc.  Anything entertainment related! Projects that mean something!

I want to work for a company that RESPECTS their employees and APPRECIATES their talent and years of experience.

I want a position that will allow me to grow professionally, as well as help grow and build the company, with the possibility of ownership or stock.

I DO NOT want to write code any more!  I am more than happy to work with developers at laying out how something should function, but I do not want to be the guy to code it.

I DO NOT want to work for a company or clients that EXPECT you to find freelancers and talent that will work for FREE!  I respect the time and talents of people I work with and I want the company I work for to do the same.

I want a position that pays at least $75k per year plus benefits.  I would consider taking less for the right position, but there would have to be a potential up side down the road.

I do not care if the position is in St. Louis or out of state.  I am open to the possibility of relocating for the right position and the right salary and benefits.

I know that was a rant, but that is what I am looking for.  It may not be out there, but at this stage of the game, that is what I need.

I am attaching my promo kit as a refresher.  I look forward to your feedback be it positive or a smack in the head.

Thanks my friend."

I smiled when I read this, in appreciation of his honesty, energy and frustration.  It seems so simple to give an experienced, competent professional the support they need to do their job . . . then let them do it! It's remarkable how infrequently that happens.

So tell me, how many of you can empathize with his frustration?  Care to share some frustrations of your own?

Succession Planning or Getting Out Alive?

St. Louis is blessed to have a myriad of small to medium sized firms, many of which are doing absolutely outstanding work.  Some of them are creating "properties" beyond normal marketing communications, which will turn into "assets" and reap absolutely sensational sales and profit.  There's an exciting diversity of work being delivered by a wildly diverse group of organizations.  Some of those are more organized, than others.

Many of the principals and owners in this group of agencies (for lack of a better term) are in their 50s, some staring at 60 or more. (I should point out that the same thing is happening with privately held companies, and the phenomenon is not limited to St. Louis).  Some of those principals have done an admirable job of planning for the succession of leadership in their shops, many more have not.  It's surprising to me. 

The benefits of succession planning include the ability to plan for stability and growth into the future . . . beyond the working years of the existing leadership.  That is of course to say that properly executed means the existing principal can continue their income beyond their working years.  The additional benefit of succession planning is the retention of existing employees and the ongoing ability to recruit new ones.

Employees worry when there's no clear plan for succession.  They're not stupid . . . they "get it".  From the employee perspective, lack of succession means lack of stability which inevitably leads to a lack of long term security for them.  The obvious and logical next step for those employees is to actively be keeping their eyes open for new opportunities as they become available.

I know of cases where the only thing keeping existing employees (and I mean productive and successful employees) where they are is the lack of alternative opportunities.  Even though I make a living recruiting premier performers to other career opportunities, I'm continually preaching to my clients that they need to focus on retention.  If they have great employees, they need to keep them, period!

There are loads of reasons owners don't focus more time on retention, they're "too busy", it's too soon, they believe their value to be such that it can't be replaced, they can't "let go", or even worse they don't care, or believe that they're the ones who're actually going to get out of this alive!

There are probably others, but none of them work.  They're all excuses.  If an owner has a viable business and is not focusing how how they can keep that business stable in the longer term, one has to wonder why.

“RESUMES WITHOUT SALARY REQUIREMENTS . . .

 . . . WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED.”

I received an email from a loyal reader of this blog who brought up this hiring issue after reading my thoughts about Anonymous Job Postings:

“I hate when employers ask the salary question. There are so many
factors. And just because I might have made more in the past should
not keep one from being considered. Maybe there will be fewer
responsibilities, or more days of or other perks that one would be
fine with getting less money. Not to mention that agencies pay scales
are all over the board.

At a place like Acme, each title level has at least a 20k range
that people could fall into. So you could be looking at 2 people who
do the same job and are equally talented, but have a big pay
difference, because one negotiated better or had a more generous boss.

It seems the problem lies, in the employer wants to get the right
person as cheap as they can, and the employee wants as much as they
can get. but in early talks when salary is talked about without
details of everything else, one can either be out of the running or
screw themselves over and not get what the place might have been
willing to pay.”

I have to admit this is another “pet peeve” of mine.  I think it’s completely inappropriate for an employer to ask this question at this stage of the process.  How can a candidate give a salary requirement when they don’t know anything specific about the job.  Some posted job description does not suffice for that purpose.

My reader is right when they point out the employer is concerned about salary.  Salary is obviously a concern, and an integral part of the hiring process, but not at this stage.  Appropriate salary is based on market value, the company’s particular culture and pay scale and most importantly, the responsibilities of the position.  In some cases, prior salary history is part of the formula.  My reader is also correct when he mentions other elements of the compensation package like, vacation, benefits, other perks and bonus based on performance can all affect the “salary”.

My experience is that very few candidates are interested in a new job just because of salary.  As they say, “Salary isn’t everything” . . . and it rarely is.  People are interested in the contribution they can make to a new employer, the working environment, perhaps the clients or co-workers, opportunity for training and career advancement . . . a myriad of things that don’t include a starting salary.

Employers cheat themselves when they ask this question, because inevitably highly skilled and motivated employees will not be considered.  If employers would consider candidates based on their potential for contribution and growth, rather than a starting salary, they would certainly have a bigger and better pool of candidates to choose from.  Too many employers don’t care to expend the time necessary to really determine who the best candidate is through conversations and the interview process.  The hiring process is a complex and difficult task . . . it takes time to do it right.

In my opinion, candidates can tell employers what their salary history has been, in an interview.  They should also explain to the hiring authority those specific reasons why they are interested in the new position, and how they think they will contribute to the new employer.  The result should be an open and honest communication and negotiation resulting in the mutual satisfaction of both parties.

If you have any other questions related to the hiring process, please feel free and encouraged to email me . . . I’ll be happy to answer them in upcoming posts.  I’m also interested in hearing about any personal experiences regarding today’s topic.

Anonymous Job Postings . . .

Don't you have to wonder why?  Why on earth, would a company who is trying to recruit premier candidates at any level, not say who they are?  Wouldn't it seem like a good idea to leverage whatever brand equity or reputation a company has for the benefit of their recruitment efforts?  Doesn't it seem to make sense for the candidate know who the employer is, so they don't waste time applying to companies they don't want to work for?  I can only think of two reasons . . . the company is lazy, or embarrassed by it's own reputation.

When I say lazy, I mean that the hiring authority doesn't want to bother having to respond to the scores (or hundreds) of responses.  One of the reasons the huge job boards (Monster.com,  Careerbuilder.com, etc.) have lost some luster, is that it's almost impossible to deal with the volume of (unqualified) responses.  If the candidate/applicant doesn't know who they're applying to, they obviously can't expect a response.  The posting company feels absolutely no responsibility whatever to those people who show the interest and expend the time to respond/apply.

It's interesting to me that anyone would respond to an anonymous or blind posting.  I certainly understand that anyone out of work will apply to any and all opportunities in an effort to make ends meet and/or feed their families.  But how can that company who posts an anonymous job really expect to attract the best workers?  If a company has a strong reputation internally with their employees and externally with the public and their customers or clients, they should leverage that reputation for their recruiting efforts . . . and most do.  It's annoying to me that the company disrespects the candidates' time enough to tease them with the opportunity, but not bother responding.

There's a whole other rant I'll probably write shortly regarding the lack of any response to applicants from companies trying to recruit new employees.  I speak to candidates on a weekly basis who are frustrated and angered by the lack of response (respect) they receive, even from companies who put their names on job postings!

I'll admit to once posting a job on Craig's List anonymously.  I never did it again . . . I felt guilty.  I now will sometimes try to strike a balance by saying at the end of the posting: "With respect and our apologies in advance, we can only respond to candidates of interest to our clients."  I'm very interested in hearing feedback on what you think about that approach. 

Interviewing Exhaustion

I was interviewing a prospective Director of Marketing candidate last week and was amazed at how a company he had recently interviewed with botched the recruiting process.  Look, I know as well as you do that hiring is a very complex, expensive and essential part of every business. It’s never easy, it’s never perfect and it’s never without risk. Every company wants to try to minimize that risk and that’s understandable.  It’s the ways they do it that’s often self-defeating.

My candidate said to me “Hiring managers are unwilling to take any sort of risk with hiring”.  He said he understands how they need to closely match previous experience with the existing opening. His belief is that companies sometimes try to insure the “right” decision by having incessant interviews with “the team”.

There are too many people interviewing, in an effort to make sure that no one person is at fault. His first round of interviews with one company was with eight people.  There are instances when interviewing across departments has value.  That wasn’t the situation in this case.  The candidate decided he didn’t want to work for that company, everyone’s passing the buck and nobody seemed responsible for the actual decision.  None of the people he met with was prepped in advance of the meeting.  Most hadn’t even read his resume beforehand or had any idea why he was there.

I had a client who wanted to “make sure” that “everyone” liked the new candidate.  The candidate was employed, and I was attempting to recruit him to my client.  It was difficult for the candidate to get away from work very often without arousing suspicion.  I explained that to the client and they said they understood.

Nonetheless, they insisted on four rounds of interviews, conducted over four weeks and lasting over nine total hours with  (are you ready for this?) a total of 13 employees.  There were just over 30 in the entire company!  What’s the point?  Is everyone supposed to love this person?  Does one of these people actually have the power to veto the candidate (no!). 

The interview process wore out my candidate.  He couldn’t help but think that the company was unwilling to make a decision or, the process wasn’t important enough for them to make the time to complete it more promptly.  It became a committee decision . . . we know how those generally go.  The candidate wasn’t impressed.

The point is hiring companies need to be organized, efficient and careful in the hiring process.  They need to understand if the candidate will fit into their culture and most importantly, will they contribute.  It doesn’t take hours and hours of interviews with loads of employees to come to that conclusion. Conduct those interviews with respect, discretion, diligence and expediency!

Have you had a nasty experience interviewing or a phenomenally positive one?  We’d love to hear about it.

"Screw You!", Candidate

Client companies who don’t bother to respond to candidate inquiries and online submissions should be ashamed of themselves.  Not one week goes by where I don’t hear candidates skewer companies that haven’t had the decency to respond to their online job applications.  Who can blame them!  We all know how simple auto-responders are.  Companies simply don’t care enough to fix the issue.  I realize I’m painting with a broad brush here.  It’s unfortunate that the number of companies who conduct themselves in a caring way are such a small percentage of the whole.

I don’t understand how companies of every size, from the largest to the smallest can’t be bothered to thank someone for their time, whether there is ongoing interest in that person as a candidate or not.  This is a PR nightmare for those companies.  About 60 days ago, when we had a market where candidates were extremely difficult to find, you’d think that companies would appreciate the interest shown by someone contacting them, or applying for a position online . . . but they don’t.

Some companies are starting to get it, as evidenced in the CareerXroads 2008 Mystery Job Seeker Survey.  We can only hope the trend continues!  It’s safe to say that our regional companies are not doing as well as the companies in this survey!

I have to routinely tell candidates not to have an expectation of a response.  It’s the only way to keep their ego from being devastated, especially for those candidates who have lost a job and desperately need a new one . . .Now!  It’s no less important for a candidate expressing interest in wanting to work for a company, even if they are presently happily and successfully employed.  Maybe that target company can’t use the candidate now, but what about in the future?  Why not make that person’s experience a positive one?

It would be so simple for any company to deliver a prompt and respectful note to anyone contacting them either for employment or an information inquiry.  That company could generate positive feelings with those responses.  Candidates aren’t stupid.  They realize that they might not be right for a particular position, but they apply “just to make sure” or “you never know”.  It’s not impossible to turn a negative into a positive.  Frankly, it’s simple.  Companies should just respect everyone who shows an interest in them.

A lack of empathy for the candidate was one of the first things Kristen Weirick changed, when the director of talent acquisition for Whirlpool launched an initiative focused on improving the candidate’s experience.

“Every candidate who comes into contact with your organization is a prospective customer,” says Weirick. “There’s an old paradigm out there among some HR folks and managers that this is an employer’s market, so applicants have to conform to our process. In reality, the application process is really an extension of your employment brand. You should never underestimate the impact of negative chatter in the marketplace.” (Thanks to ERE.net for that example)

I’d be interested in hearing about your experience when contacting a prospective employer . . . whether positive or negative.