The Perfect Fit

Corporate HR is Uncomfortable with Modern (Digital) Marketing Recruiting!

Three of our most recent Clients have all said to me, “Our HR recruiters don’t know what to look for with digital media candidates”! That’s not at all surprising, considering how overworked most HR folks are and considering how much digital media changes . . . often weekly! Hiring for digital media professionals is not easy. Companies of every size, all over the US are moving their marketing and media buying in-house. Many are creating or seriously upgrading their internal marketing capabilities and capacity. Most are at the least, trying to get some digital media expertise in-house.

Even marketing/advertising agencies struggle to recruit sufficient marketing and media professionals, to meet their clients’ needs.

There is rapidly increasing demand for digital expertise. Those experienced marketers who have expertise with digital media strategies and tactics, earn great incomes. They know they’re in demand, so if they’re not happy where they are, it’s not difficult to move to a better employer . . . especially with remote workers being more acceptable. Most expert and experienced digital marketers are very happy with their current employers. Posting a job and “praying” for an adequate response, is the norm, and it’s a doomed strategy, especially if there’s any urgency to the hire.

One solution is to hire a recruiter with digital marketing/media understanding, experience and consistent success. Today, digital strategy affects every word (literally) of online communications, from Facebook, Instagram and Twitter to paid media advertising or PPC.

With over 20 years of experience and expertise in digital media, Bishop Partners is extremely well positioned to help. We understand the terminology of the strategies and tactics, we can identify the experts from the ‘wannabes’. Most importantly, we can recruit those personalities with the vision, values and career goals that combine with the employer, to create that “Perfect Fit”.

This “Time of Covid” Demands Empathy, Communication and Respect

This is a time of banding together, understanding others’ circumstances and treating everyone with respect. Looking for a job and applying for a job are anxiety provoking issues . . . especially if someone finds themselves in the position of currently being without work and any source of income. There’s no more insecure feeling . . .

Imagine how that anxiety is being compounded every hour of every day right now, as we hear more and more uncertainty about COVID-19. Social media is amplifying this pandemic and making wildly irresponsible predictions and projections about what could happen. Broadcast news is more measured, but endless . . . More anxiety provoking . . . Job seekers are understandably freaking out!

I currently have candidates in front of several Clients for new career opportunities. All of the candidates have received positive feedback on their initial conversations with those Clients. Now, after two weeks, we’re still waiting to hear what might be next.

I understand that nobody really knows what’s next or how to plan for that uncertainty. Nonetheless, I’d like employers to step up and do a much better job of communicating with their pending candidates. Yes, their candidates, they’re not someone else’s!

In most cases those candidates have spent multiple hours preparing for that initial interview, research everything they could find, on what they hope will be their new Employer. Employers have a nasty track record of communicating with job seekers. In some (most) cases, there’s (still) zero Employer response. With today’s technology, there’s just no excuse for no response!

A Talent Acquisition and Retention Strategy is Critical

When writing a story about the values that Curt Hecht inspired in a recent issues of Advertising Age, Allison Arden wrote “With so much pressure on quarterly earnings and the ever-increasing pace of our always-on, tech-fueled, data-focused world, we are in danger of losing perspective on what matters most: taking care of our people”.  Have truer words ever been spoken?

There’s a practice out there (maybe it’s a discipline) called “Talent Acquisition”.     Here’s my definition of it.  “Talent acquisition is the process of identifying, attracting and acquiring skilled human talent for organizational stability and growth.”    When used in the context of the recruiting and HR profession, talent acquisition usually refers to the talent acquisition department or team within the Human Resources department.  Why is it limited to HR and Recruiting why only one department or team?  Why is the whole notion of having a work culture that attracts premier talent not more recognized, let alone utilized?

In my opinion, true Talent Acquisition is a foundation for company culture and employee engagement. It should really be called “Talent Acquisition and Retention”, or TAR.  It should be practiced by everyone in the organization, from the most senior leaders to the youngest and newest employee.  Everyone can and should contribute to the effort.  The well worn phrase is “our people are our most important asset”.  Then why aren’t they being treated as such?  That’s a whole other thought process and will be addressed another time.

The goal should be to create a environment and culture that supports and nurtures it’s participants.  I’m sure you agree with me that it’s obvious that happy employees mean productive employees.  Productive employees mean giddy employers!

Employers Should Treat Candidates With Respect!

I've come to the conclusion recently that employers rarely treat candidates with the same level of respect with which they themeselves expect to be treated.

Candidates, whether in the interview process or responding to a job posting, should be handled in a thankful and respectful way . . . not as an inconvenience to be put up with.   Thankful, in that the employer should be happy (thankful) that the candidate is interested in working for them.  I'm continually amazed by how many candidates tell me that they have received no response whatever. (Disrespect)

Candidates in the interview process spend hours researching the employer, trying to find out as much as possible so they can conduct intelligent due process and ask smart questions.  Wouldn't you find out everything you can about a prospective future employer?  Talk to everyone you know, read everything you can find?  Premier candidates do . . .(Respect)

Conversely, I've been in interviews where a member of the employer team has obviously not taken the time to even read the candidate's resume.  They certainly haven't read any of the supporting materials that (in this case) we present to our client (the employer).  They haven't devoted enough time to prepping for the candidate to be able to conduct an insightful interview.  (Disrespect)

Beware! The "Surplus of Talent" Strategy in our "Shortage of Talent" World

I’ve been noticing and talking with recruiter colleagues about the fact that our clients continue to believe in talent acquisition based on a “Surplus of Talent” strategy, when in fact we’re now, more than ever in a “Shortage of Talent” world!  Then, my colleague from irsa (International Retained Search Associates) writes this piece.  I think it’s worth sharing.

The employment market has changed dramatically over the past 6 months. The number of open positions has risen and the number of available candidates has dropped. The combination of supply/demand has moved markedly towards the 'supply side'. (President Reagan would be proud).
 
In this first half of this year, we have seen a dramatic rise in fall-offs. A Fall-off in recruiter-speak is an offer that is rejected by the candidate. Over 50% of those fall-offs have been due to poor offers from our clients and the balance are due to candidates either taking counter-offers from their current employer or accepting offers from another company. As our history has been remarkably 'clean' from fall-offs, this represents a new dynamic for us. We have always ensured that our presented candidates are fully interested and qualified to join the company. We reliably review the reasons for making a move; inquire about any other potential activities or interviews on the horizon, etc. But this year has produced a rash of poor offers and last minute surprises by our candidates. And apparently, we're not alone.
 
In an informal canvassing of our clients, we've found that their HR departments have been besieged with turned down offers, coupled with a business slowdown in the first quarter (weather, West coast port closures, economic concerns, etc.). I don't see offers getting any easier.

Recruiting Belongs Under The CEO

In this open letter to CEO's, Maureen Sharib points out the realities of the impending crisis of talent shortage . . . across the board for skilled responsibilities.  This was originally published on the blog Employer Recruiter Exchange.

Dear Mr. CEO,

It’s come to my attention that many of you now believe recruiting key talent is the No. 1 priority nowadays.

If you really believe this — and those of you with the sense God gave mules should — then you’re probably wondering how in the world are you going to do that. 

Here’s a wonderful article by a colleague of mine in an organization I belong to — ERE — and if you’ve never heard of it it’s because you’re really only just coming lately to this management epiphany we’re about to talk about and you’re to be forgiven because — after all – recruiters?

Nobody really took them too seriously ever before.

All that’s about to change and this is your opportunity to be in the beginning of one of the most revolutionary and powerful movements that will change the competitive landscapes of companies today.

Jacque Vilet offers a solution in her provocative article that suggests moving Recruiting out from under HR and placing it in the Marketing department.

We all (more and less) loved her for her point of view, but some of us came up with an alternative proposition — why not move Recruiting under you?

Yes, you!

How to Eliminate 50% of All Hiring Mistakes

The following are the thoughts of Lou Adler, aka "The Original Headhunter" as written for LinkedIn last week.  I thought they were interesting and worth sharing.

"Hiring is too important to leave to chance. Here’s the problem: if you like someone when you first meet, you maximize their positives and minimize their negatives. If you don’t like someone,  you maximize their weaknesses, and minimize their positives. If you can get past the first 30 minutes you can actually make an objective assessment. This is harder than it sounds, but here are some ideas that might help you: 

How to Minimize Perception-driven Hiring Mistakes 

1)   Wait 30 minutes. Hear all of the evidence, pro and con, before making any decision. In the case of interviewing, wait for at least 30 minutes after the interview starts before concluding if the person is a possible hire or not. 

2)   Divide and conquer. Don’t give anyone on the hiring team a full yes or no vote. I use a talent scorecard (a copy is in my new book) listing all of the competencies and factors driving on the job success to make the assessment. I suggest that each interviewer be given only a few of these to “own.” During a formal debriefing session each interviewer is then required to substantiate his/her ranking on just these factors with evidence. This way the whole team makes the assessment, neutralizing the impact of biased assessments. 

Is Your Colleague A Superstar, or A Slacker?

I received this article from another blogger Online College Courses.  I received this the same day I received the last article on my blog, which talks about your colleagues taking more responsibility.  I thought this is a very interesting juxtaposition of employee behavior. 

Do either of these look familiar to you, as an employee?  If you watched yourself perform at your employer, which would you be, Superstar or Slacker?

For all my employer/client readers, did you have any idea of how many ways employees can waste time?  Did you have any idea how much time they really waste?  I didn't!

Thanks to Rosa at OCC for sharing this infographic!  I think it's fascinating!

Click on the image to enlarge it!  I just love infographics!

Then, get back to work!

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?