The Perfect Fit

The Creep of (Employment) Expectations

The economy has changed . . . forever.  Expectations have changed . . . forever!

As a result of that change, employers have changed their approach to hiring and their expectations of employees' performance.  Employees are caught in the middle and not everyone will suvive . . . many have already been cast aside.

When you don't survive at one place or your looking for that next career opportunity, the bar for hiring qualifications is being raised.  In this era of multi-tasking, "smart" phone ubiquity, client/customer expectations soaring, work-family life balance barely existing, hours increasing and professional "fun" decreasing . . . Employers (rightfully) want premier, stand out from the crowd employees. It's no longer sufficient to simply be "qualified" and/or experienced. 

I ran across an excellent article on this point at B-To-B Magaine,in the September 19, 2011 edition written by James Rogers, VP of Marketing at Hoover's:

"I still remember the first time it happened. I was interviewing a candidate for a marketing position, asking fairly routine questions. It was a pleasant, efficient exchange. Twenty minutes or so later, after I had mentally checked all the boxes, I was satisfied that the candidate was perfectly qualified. As I shook his hand and concluded the interview, I felt a pang of uneasiness in the pit of my stomach. In that moment, I knew I wouldn't hire him.

This wasn't a simple instance of “going with my gut.” No, it was more than that. Something was missing ... something equally, if not more, important than an impressive litany of credentials.

The candidate was competent. That's why I decided not to bring him on board.

These days, competence is good, but it's not good enough. The world of marketing is drastically different than it was five years ago. Economic pressures are shrinking discretionary marketing budgets and forcing accountability and traceability to all programs. In addition, analytics tools, digital marketing programs and the social media explosion are constantly changing the landscape. So, yes, marketing success requires core competency, but it also demands innovation and agility.

 

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?

Employees Are Like Lightbulbs, They Burn Out And Are Then Discarded!

There was a terrific copywrited article in Sunday's Post-Dispatch, writted by a Post business columnist, Jim Gallagher "Burnt-out Workers Biding Time".  The article was detailing how, as the economy improves, workers who have been waiting for the opportunity to leave their present employer will do exactly that . . . and as soon as possible.  I've talked about the need for retention and succession planning many times in this blog, most recently "Separating Executive Role 'Engagement' From Job 'Satisfaction'".  Employers simply do not take enough of a proactive role to insure their best performing employees are trained or retained.

Mr. Gallagher's thoughts are supported with a survey conducted by Dr. Ronald Leopole, VP of U.S. Business for MetLife, the conclusion of which was overwhelmingly reached, that American employees "are ticked off and hoping to bail out". The study also identified that "40% of the surveyed workers feel like they're working harder, while 25% felt less secure in their jobs".  That mix is not sustainable in the long term.

You can look around your "open" office and likely figure out which of your colleagues are among those ready to bolt.  Employers have been taking advantage of employees, asking them for increased hours and in some cases reduced wages during the recession.  Employees understood the need, and basically had to comply, or lose their job.  There were no other job options.  Employees don't forget. Now that the economy is improving, employers better get with it.  Retain the train the employees you have . . . find ways to give back to them.

The issue is not just money.  I often talk about employers needing to respect their employees, stop taking them for granted and do something for them.  A raise would be wonderful, but it's more than that.  How about some training. How about helping your employees learn more about the realities of how the world of commerce is changing around us.  Bring in a speaker for a "Lunch and Learn", or send your more senior top performers to conferences or other specialized training.  Let them know you care and you want to help them grow!  Find ways to support their professional growth . . .it doesn't have to be expensive.

With the environment as volatile as it is, and with the market opening up with more frequent "better" career opportunities, be sure your resume is current and your LinkedIn Profile is complete.  Be ready to respond quickly when you identify a position that intrigues you.  Enlist your co-workers to identify topics of mutual professional interest, and ask your manager for programs that can help you learn more about that topic.  If necessary, explain to the manager how a program will help you do your job better.  You shouldn't have to explain that professional training will contribute to making you a more engaged employee.  That will make you, your clients and your manager happy too!

 

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 . . .

The Workplace Is Changing . . . Fast

Last week, I attended a seminar presented by Amy Bingham of Bingham Consulting Professionals and sponsored by the local Missouri Association of Personnel and Staffing Services (MAPSS) Chapter.  Amy is an expert in the staffing an contract placement side of the recruiting business.  I thought her overview of the current employment situation, and the projection of employment in the next two years was pretty interesting . . . the environment is indeed changing.   While the outlook is improving for employees, employers are going to have a very bumpy road, on many fronts.

America’s Gross Domestic Product is growing and unemployment is declining  as a result of more jobs being added, now on a monthly basis.   Yet, there remains a talent shortage for skilled positions requiring college degrees, where the unemployment rate remains close to 3.5% (which some consider “full” employment).

Successful companies will be investing in re-training for current skill set needs.  Rather than trying to find “new” employees with a more appropriate skill set for doing business now, employers will have to invest in training current employees.  They’ll do that because they have to.  It’s less expensive to train an existing employee, than to try to find a new one.

Older workers postponing retirement will temporarily postpone the retirement exodus.  That hiring exodus will be  more pronounced when it starts.  This is going to dramatically reduce overall workforce experience as well as leadership and mentoring roles, as boomers retire.

Prior to the “boomer retirement exodus” younger workers will continue to find the job market challenging with the glut of older workers willing to be underemployed.  Generational trends in the workforce will create disruption, driving a greater need for organizational effectiveness (through consulting?).  The older hiring authority likely does not understand what the younger “new” employee truly values, and will not be able recruit that candidate effectively, or integrate them into an “older” culture, for those who are hired.

Labor costs are increasing.  Unemployment insurance (FUTA) will have to be re-funded by employers as a result of the recession and previous long term, sky-high unemployment.  Healthcare costs are rising as is the cost and complexity of compliance.  Federal regulations regarding immigration compliance are increasing and becoming more expensive as well.  There will soon be upward pressure on wages.  Most employees have had wages frozen for at least two years.  The cost of everything from gasoline to food is increasing to the point wages will have to increase soon.

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 the 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 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.

I've previously written about the "restlessness" of employees at the moment (resulting from their feelings of overwork and undervalue)

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)?

Prohibited Employment Policies/Practices

According to the EEOC (The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission): "Under the laws enforced by EEOC, it is illegal to discriminate against someone (applicant or employee) because of that person's race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. It is also illegal to retaliate against a person because he or she complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit."  We all know that perspective, and think we understand it.  To read a summary of those employment practices that are specifically prohibited by the various appropriate Federal laws, go here.

As I mentioned in my previous post, one of the practical results of equal employment practices is the applicable Federal law relating to using photographs on your resume, or by inference, using photographs at any time through the employment application process (e.g. photos on resumes).

I've received a number of resumes over the years with photographs on them.  It's sort of ironic that the photographs are usually of attractive young women.  It's obvious that a photograph at the very least identifies the applicant's gender and race/color and/or ethnicity.  Each of those characteristics is protected under Federal law.  The employer (every time I use the word "employer" in this article, it also refers to recruiters) is not allowed to use any of those characteristics as a part of the application process.  The only certain way to insure that an employer won't  (can't) use them, is to not give employers that information.

The EEOC specifically states: " . . . employers should not ask for a photograph of an applicant. If needed for identification purposes, a photograph may be obtained after an offer of employment is made and accepted."  Employers should not ask for a photograph . . . that's clear.  It's also clear from EEOC rulings and case law, that a photograph should simply not be apart of the application process.

In this world of websites, social media, LinkedIn and Facebook, much of the content might have been created in support of the employment (job search) process, what's one to do?

Here are my suggestions to utilize social and new media, without compromising employers and getting the attention of the EEOC.

You should not:

• Include a photograph on your resume or any support materials created by you and used as a component of the application process.

• Include a photograph on a blog or website (created by you or soemone you hire) that you use as a part of the application process.

What about LinkedIn and the profile photograph?  Many professinoals use LinkedIn in support of the employment application process.  So far, there is no case law that suggests that the profile photograph on LinkedIn cannot be utilized.  That's not to say what rulings will happen in the future.  Relative to the speed of the EEOC and Federal Courts, LinkedIn is a relatively "new" phenomenon and may very well be dealt with in a larger context than it "contains a photograph".  (I consider Facebook to be personal, and LinkedIn professional . . . so I'm not dealing with Facebook now).

You can include your LinkedIn Profile link on your resume.  I cannot send your LinkedIn profile to my client as part of my introduction process.  I cannot send a website with your picture as part of my introduction process.  It is permissable (so far) to include your LinkedIn Profile link on your resume (even with the profile picture).

This is important, because once employers see your picture as a result of how you apply, or introduce yourself, they have to disregard you as a candidate.  They may or may not inform you of that decision.  Don't put them in the position of having to make that decision.  Become a candidate based on your experience, passion and goals . . . not your looks!

Four Ways To Retain Your Best Employees

As you know, I continually encourage our clients to think about the best ways to retain their existing premier employees.  It's not always about the money (but of course, money does matter!)!  There are other, sometimes simple (and free) things employers and/or executives can do to support their employees.  Why hire a recruiter to find the very best personnel, when you discourage them and don't provide a path to career growth?  I thought this following article by Amanda Stillwagon of the "Small Business CEO" blog was succinct and helpful.  Some of this seems so obvious . . . believe me when I tell you it isn't.  So, here's a little reminder!

"There are two main problems concerning human resources today. The first one is the unemployment rate which causes grossly underqualified people to apply to your company and the second is employee retention. For business owners, retaining your best employees may pose a challenge.

Entrepreneurs know how competitive hiring is in the business sector and the fear of employees jumping the fence to join a competitor is more palpable now more than ever. It is hard to find good employees but it is even harder to promote company loyalty. Once you find top quality people to work for you, you have to ensure that you can keep them because retaining quality employees is one of the keys to ensure the growth of your business.

Here are some tips on what you can do to keep the best employees under your wing:

1. Give compensation where it is due. Not all employees are all about the money. You have to be fair in giving out compensation but you also need to ensure that you are within your budget. If your employee deserves a raise because of their performance and you can see that you are well within budget even after you’ve given the raise, then do so. Giving your employees fair pay makes them feel that their contributions to the company are being appreciated which in turn would make them more committed to the company.

2. Enforce an open desk policy. You need to make your employees feel that what they have to say is important because it really is. Whether they need to air a grudge or would offer you some suggestions for the betterment of the company, you need to hear them out. Some of the best ideas come from employees themselves since they are already familiar with the ropes of the business.

3. Provide growth opportunities. The most common reason for employees leaving jobs they have had for the longest time is because of dissatisfaction when it comes to growth opportunities. Do not impede the growth of your employees just because they’re already doing a great job where they are. You need to implement seminars and conferences which would promote self-development. You also need to constantly give challenges to your employees by way of giving them new responsibilities every now and then. This would help your employees acquire new skill sets, make them feel good about themselves and eliminate boredom and monotony in the workplace.

4. Be a flexible and transparent employer. You have to realize the importance of having a work-life balance. You might be a workaholic who needs to work 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for you to be productive, leaving little time for your personal life. While that might work for you, you cannot expect the same from your employees. If needed, you have to let them take some time off for a well-deserved vacation or other situations which needs a little understanding on your part. Do not begrudge your best employees of the time they need for themselves. This would help solve unease and stress in the workplace.

These tips are only meant to be a guide of what you can do to help foster loyalty. Whichever method or tactic you may take you need to remember one very important aspect: always lead with your heart."

Do the right thing . . . respect your employees.  Mutual respect creates a happy and productive workforce!

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.

Make New Employees Feel Welcome To Succeed!

God Bless These Internets!  There a great snippets of information all over.  Without the webs, we'd never find most of them.  This is from an article by Michael Crom, EVP of Dale Carnegie Training (Yes, the Dale Carnegie approach is still around, and just as valid as ever!).  This article was in the Fort Myers (FL) News-Press!

Question: I'm a small-business owner and I have been looking to hire a couple of new employees. My company has been quite successful in the past year, and I am looking to expand. I want to make sure that the culture of the company remains the same even after adding several people. How I can make sure my new employees fit in? As your company expands, don't forget what has led you to this success.

Make sure you embrace your company's history and that your new employees do as well. Your employees will see the success that you have previously attained and will look to fit in and add to that success.

Include these five elements in new-employee orientations:

1. Introduction: Give a brief opening to your new employee, providing that person with any meeting times for that day. Introduce him or her to all other team members. Make sure the new employee understands the role that each worker plays so they can receive any necessary support.

2. Logistics. Show your new employee the location of the company's other departments, as well as the lunchroom and the bathrooms. Make sure that he or she has any phone numbers, extensions or maps they might need.

3. Company basics. Provide a history of the company and include an organizational chart. Give the person time to go over the company's vision, mission and value statements. Your past success is why they have chosen to join your team. They are looking to embrace it.

4. Procedures. Go over the company's e-mail and communications guidelines. Also, if it hasn't already been discussed, go over all human resources' policies, including holidays, attendance, sick leave, personal time, standard of conduct, performance appraisals and insurance.

5. Inspiration. Give your new worker some customer testimonials, company videos and advertisements to become more familiar with the company. You also could relate a personal story on the effect of your work on the organization.

It's surprising to me that employers assume that new employees will "figure it out".  It's essential to take the time to provide some training and background for new employees.  Help them succeed and they'll help you succeed.  It's really simple!

Succession Planning Is Serious Business

As I mentioned in a previous post "Succession Planning Is Essential For Growth And Stability", succession planning is not just for the owners and principals of an organization.  It should apply to every position in a company that has direct reports . . . why?  Succession planning is additionally beneficial because it addresses most companies' other major concern, employee retention.

When asking employees what they like most about their jobs, it's surprising how often the answer isn't "money".  In fact, we've all heard it and most of us agree with the statement "it's not all about money".  Well then, what is it about?  It's about professional growth (through mentoring, education and training), being treated with respect, being allowed to contribute and being recognized for that contribution.  Succession planning can (and should) support every one of those activities.

As Guido M.J. de Kong says hin his article "Building Your Bench Strength":

"Selecting and developing future managers is a crucial task -- and a big concern for many companies, particularly for leadership roles. In a study by the Corporate Leadership Council, 72% of companies predict they'll have an increasing number of leadership vacancies over the next three to five years. At the same time, 76% are "less than confident" in their abilities to adequately staff these positions.

Requirements for success:

Companies that create an effective succession management process:

• Quickly anticipate and fill succession gaps

• Identify employees with high management potential and actively plan their careers and development to build "bench strength"

• Align their "people strategy" with their "business strategy." As a company grows and its strategy evolves, its leadership needs can change significantly. To meet needs like these, companies must regularly discuss their talent recruitment and development practices.

• When organizations meet these requirements, they create the kind of leadership and management capacity that delivers sustainable business results. They also reduce the range in performance in key roles, minimize attrition among top performers, and promote a high internal hiring rate."

When a company aligns "business strategy" with "people strategy", both the people and the business win.  It seems like such a simple notion, one has to wonder why companies don't spend more time thinking about succession planning and implementing it in their culture. 

There are many other terms for succession planning, all of which indicate the obvious common sense benefits to the practice.  Phrases like "workforce planning", "leadership development", "leadership training" and "talent management" are all excellent action phrases. 

Companies should be hiring candidates for leadership roles that have the capability and desire to grow, take on additional responsibilities and support the company's growth and success.  Assuming that most employers understand that, why don't they make more of an effort to train and retain star performers?  "It's too expensive" is the most frequent response.

When you compare the cost of conferences, or seminars or graduate level coursework with the cost of hiring new employees, training and education become extremely cost effective.  Existing employees understand their clients' expectations along with their companies.  There is value in cultural knowledge.  There is value in stability and steady growth.  Training leads to retention.

As an executive in your organization, are you doing everything you can to deliver (or at lead be an advocate for) ongoing training and education?  Why not?

Clever Introductions Still Win Employment

In case any of you missed this in AdFreak last week, I thought it was worth sharing.  It's a historic fact that those who approach an agency or creative entity with a clever, innovative or unusual approach, get attention.  Here's a recent example:

Vanity Googling helps copywriter land a job

Alec Brownstein was another copywriter/director in need of a job when he decided to take advantage of human nature—or at least, the nature of people who like to Google themselves. Brownstein bought up Google keywords like David Droga, Tony Granger, Gerry Graf, Ian Reichenthal and Scott Vitrone, and when those folks Googled themselves, a message from Brownstein popped up asking for a job. The price was 10 cents a click. For a grand total of $6, Brownstein got four interviews, landed a job at Y&R, won a Clio and got some press. Another great example of knowing your audience.

—Posted by Rebecca Cullers

Succession Planning Is Essential For Growth And Stability

Over the years, many of my searches have revolved around "succession planning".  Generally, this meant helping privately held businesses define the requirements of a successor to lead the company to continued success and growth.  After the role was defined, I was engaged to identify and help hire the ideal candidate for that role.

Succession planning is absolutely essential for the growth and stability of every company, not just large, publicly held firms with a huge number of employees, but also small to medium sized privately held firms.  Succession planning is not only essential for the orderly transition of a retiring owner or CEO, but for every role in a firm that has direct reports.

Susann Heathfield defines succession planning like this:

"Succession planning is a process whereby an organization ensures that employees are recruited and developed to fill each key role within the company. Through your succession planning process, you recruit superior employees, develop their knowledge, skills, and abilities, and prepare them for advancement or promotion into ever more challenging roles.
Through your succession planning process, you also retain superior employees because they appreciate the time, attention, and development that you are investing in them. To effectively do succession planning in your organization, you must identify the organization’s long term goals. You must hire superior staff.
You need to identify and understand the developmental needs of your employees. You must ensure that all key employees understand their career paths and the roles they are being developed to fill. You need to focus resources on key employee retention. You need to be aware of employment trends in your area to know the roles you will have a difficult time filling externally."

I'm going to start with succession planning for principals or owners, then follow up with another blog regarding the other positions in every company.  To make a broad generalization, privately held companies don't start succession planning early enough.  Take a look at a previous post, "Succession Planning or Getting Out Alive?"

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? 

The Same Company For An Entire Career?

I attended a seminar this morning presented by the St. Louis Business Journal, "The New Economy".  Michael Forster, Managing Partner of Sandberg, Phoenix & Von Gontard and Doug Mueller of Mueller Prost PC were the presenters.  The discussion centered around what businesses can/should be doing as we move (slowly) out of the recession.

While much of the discussion dealt with business operating methods and protocols, there were times when issues affecting employees were discussed.  Actually, it was more like how employees affect businesses.  I was struck that there was no mention of the need for programs to support (if not assure) employee retention. 

I've written previously in this blog about how employees have a responsibility to themselves to find appropriate training and grow professionally (The Workplace Has Changed . . . Have You?).  Hopefully, employers are supporting (and paying for) that effort.   I've also talked about the need for the retention of premier employees (Are you Being Taken Care Of . . . Or Taken Advantage Of?)  Employees need to grow in their careers, and employers should want to keep those employees who consistently do that.

There was what I considered to be an interesting observation made by Mr. Forster.  He suggested that in the "new economy", we had to behave more like in the "old economy".  He talked about the need for dedicated hard work for everyone, no matter what you do.  Hard work like in the "old days".  Hard work like our parents and grandparents talk about.  Interesting . . . that seems to fly in the face of theories of accommodating the newest generations X & Y. 

Further, it was suggested that the development of "real expertise" is being eroded by automated systems, and the reality that employees no longer stay with one company long enough to develop or enhance that company's specific expertise.  Another interesting point.  Think about how few people in the workforce now rise through the ranks from the bottom to the top of the same enterprise.  Can you think of any?

Obviously, innovation in any business creates advantage.  Innovation will be essential to fuel the "real" growth of the US economy.  I'm not talking about getting back to where we were, I'm talking about significant, job creating, lifestyle enhancing, growth.  Innovation is the result of happy, experienced employees. 

It seems like the way things are going, we are not on a track to have many of those!

Think about how your existing job and career might change if you decided you were going to become the CEO of your company.  You wouldn't let those little "issues of the day" bother you.  You'd find better ways of doing things.  You wouldn't take "no" for an answer.  You'd become Indispensable to your employer . . . and in so doing, become immeasurably more valuable ("Are You Indispensable Or Vulnerable?").  If all that happened in the longer term, you'd get promotion after promotion. You'd rise through the ranks, until you reached the top.  Interesting . . .

Do you really have a career strategy to reach career goals, or are you just looking for what you perceive to be a "better job" . . . ?  Are you expert enough to innovate?

Just curious . . .!

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?

The Workplace Has Changed . . . Have You?

The recession has caused fundamental changes in the way Employers look at their employees, and how employees are responding.  Employers have had to make difficult staffing decisions at every level of their organizations.  The reality in many cases what that expenses had to be cut, or the business would be in jeopardy.  It's no surprise that the expense of labor is significant and laying an employee off has immediate cost cutting benefits.

Furloughs, cutbacks in hours/days per week and pay (also benefit) reductions became methods with which employers were able to keep some employees, but at lower take home pay for the employee.  While this is understandable, and for some preferable to losing their job altogether, the result is the same . . . employees no longer relying on one employer.  Employees have to find supplemental income to maintain their income levels.  Trimming the pay might keep the employers' doors open, but the cost to employees is high.

Many employees are looking for "second job" options.  The ability to work remotely has helped move that trend forward and it's not going to stop.  Employees will work second "retail" jobs, freelance, or start a company, in order to make ends meet . . . at least in the short term.  They don't want to be in a position of being vulnerable to one employer's decision about their employment.  Those with more experience, might very well decide to start a business of their own.

Entrepreneurship has never been stronger.  According to BusinessWeek quoting the Kaufmann Foundation:

"A crop of potentially groundbreaking companies is emerging from the wreckage of the Great Recession. No question, some will blow up, and others will fail to reach their potential. But the downturn has done little to dampen the entrepreneurial spirit. During the first half of this year (2009), angel investors financed 24,500 new ventures, 6% more than during the same period last year, according to the Center for Venture Research. The overall amount of money going into startups has declined, but the figures suggest that this year will see the birth of roughly 50,000 companies with enough promise that someone is betting money on them. "It may be that this is the best time to start a company," says Carl Schramm, president of the Kauffman Foundation, an organization that promotes entrepreneurship."

There's another study conducted by the Small Business Administration (SBA) “Nonemployer Startup Puzzle” that came out in December 2009.  It concludes there is "a correlation between job losses and startups of single-person businesses (called “nonemployer businesses”).  “Nonemployer start-ups follow and are heavily affected by a state’s unemployment rate.”  In other words, there are more startups when unemployment is high."

My point is the workplace has changed, and will continue to change.  Employees who are not continuously working to improve their skills will become obsolete.  The onslaught of information and the way it's being delivered has never been more overwhelming.  It's essential for employees to stay alert to new thinking, new technologies and better ways of doing things.  They need to work to be top performers and indispensable to their employers. (See Are You Indispensable Or Vulnerable)