HRevolution

Costs 101

2008-07-27T13:32:00.002-05:00

The legacy of RPO may just be that recruiting managers begin to understand costs, and how to manage them. I don't mean manage as in 'limit', although that's a fine thing. I mean manage costs as in structuring them to maximize the use of resources.

The crux of this issue begins by distinguishing between fixed and variable costs. Fixed costs are infrastructure costs that are necessary to enter a business. Once incurred, they are fairly stable. They include things like office rents, recruiter salaries, hardware, and software costs. They are part of the price of entry. On the other hand, variable costs fluctuate with activity. As activity rises, so do variable costs - things like advertisements, commissions, and travel costs.

From an accounting standpoint, it is preferable to have ratio of lower fixed costs to variable costs. That is, you want to minimize your fixed overhead relative to variable costs. Why? Because your fixed costs, remain stable as activity increases, meaning they can be amortized across more hires as activities increase. Variable costs fluctuate with activity, increasing with higher production, and decreasing when activity slows. This ratio matters less during high demand, as costs will generally be the same, but becomes very important as demand recedes. For example, a company with 10 full-time recruiters will invariably have to lay some of them off in order to reduce (fixed) costs during a recession. On the other hand, an organization with the same workload but only 6 full-time recruiters who have outsourced certain components, won't likely lay off staff. The difference is that those outsourced components are likely to be variable costs, which decrease as activities decline. Therefore variable costs cut themselves, and your staff remains intact.

Managing this ratio is more important when demand cycles hasten or are unpredictable. The moral is that anything that can be removed from your fixed costs, and converted into a variable cost is a management coup.

Selective RPO

2008-07-27T13:22:00.003-05:00

With all the attention given to Recruitment Process Outsourcing (RPO), expect the next big thing to be Selective RPO. That is, instead of outsourcing the entire effort, organizations will maintain aspects they are good at, and outsource components where they're weak.

The first big round of RPO has not been a success. Not for the clients, and not for the vendors. Clients miss the in-house familiarity they expect, and providers aren't making money. Many clients feel they threw the baby out with the bathwater in order to get a better handle on their costs. And, while costs are better measured, the job isn't getting done.

The next iteration will consist of companies realizing their recruiters do some things well - like posting jobs, working with hiring managers, etc., but are not so good at others. In particular, sourcing passive candidates. In an effort to play to their strengths, they'll maintain these efforts and outsource weak areas. Overall, they'll have better control and better results.

Sourcing - where its at

2008-05-16T21:23:00.002-05:00

So, after a lot of thinking, we've gone into the sourcing business. It seems like the right time to offer this service to the recruiting world. Sourcing involves the research and screening calls to potential candidates. More to the point, we dig up names of potential candidates, then call to see if they'd be interested in applying for the job. The research is pretty straightforward, but there are lots and lots of calls. This is different from what the common recruiter does. We don't run ads. Not on job boards, and not on our website. We actively source people. We go out and find them.

This is the kind of never-ending, repetitive work that burns out recruiters. So they find ways to avoid it. It seems that when a recruiter can't fill a requisition, they either call a headhunter, a temp agency, or a contractor. This means the first reaction after failing to hire is the most expensive one.

If a headhunter charges 25-30% of first year salary, then a mid level professional hire at $75K costs between $18-22K. We think there's a big opportunity to outsource the sourcing effort to us, sparing the recruiter the worst part of his job. We send the candidates to them and they take it from there. The cost? Around $6K for most positions. That's a significant savings. And it enables the corporate recruiter to add more complex values in the hiring process (like preserving the company culture) while keeping their job...

Seems to me this should be the recruiter's first call for help.

Thoughts on Immigration

2008-05-16T21:19:00.002-05:00

I'm curious as to how we, as a nation, are against more generous immigration policies while we strive to improve diversity in the work force. These two values seem to conflict, even though they're applied at different levels.

What would our forbears think if they saw our immigration policies today? The majority of us are descendants of the beneficiaries of an open door policy. So we're acting in conflict with one of the nation's original values. Not to mention needing the labor pool.

The immigration conservatives make a good point. There is something to be said for preserving, or at least slowing change in our existing culture. Learning the language, and obeying our laws is not asking too much of immigrants. Tribes entering our country vary in their willingness to assimilate. We don't find much backlash against those who do it well. We perceive them as wanting to become Americans, as opposed to annexing our neighborhoods and cities, turning them into something foreign.

But our immigration policies need to balance these two core American values: an open door immigration policy (or at least more open than it is now), and pride in our culture. The key lies in balancing these.

Perhaps immigration policy should reflect each group's historical capacity to integrate with the existing culture. That would open the door wider for those striving to assimilate, and slow down those resisting integration. Sure, there would be all kinds of argument about measurment, but the notion balances an open door policy with the need to integrate.

Follow up on the "A" Player

2008-04-21T08:06:00.001-05:00

After several months of détente, the “A” player has worked from home and has largely duplicated last year’s performance. She tells me she only interacts with the office as needed, and dislikes the Friday morning sales talks run by “Metrics Man”. She feels it would help him tremendously to actually do the job for a week. Apparently, he thinks that if you call people in your database enough times, eventually they buy. Her own dbase is threadbare and her production is slowing. She’s wondering if he’s feeding the “B” players in order to teach her a lesson.

But last week, Metrics Man blew up at a different salesperson. He isn’t enjoying his supervisory role, doesn’t have people skills, and lapses into a defensive (conflict) mode. The bottom line is, supervising salespeople isn’t among his strengths. He’s developed record of stepping on toes, strong-arming subordinates, and being generally hard to deal with. He’s highly valuable in other areas, but not this one. So, after this conflict he was reassigned to duties more in line with his capabilities.

So, the last manager was re-assigned because he couldn’t motivate the troops to high enough performance, and this one because his people skills weren’t strong enough to manage extraverts. For the moment, the President plans to manage the sales group, presumably while they look outside the organization for a sales manager.

The fact is, that different personalities work better for different things. It’s a lesson this organization doesn’t seem to grasp at the sales or managerial level. They might get lucky and find a good manager. I hope so. If not, they will continue to struggle until they figure it out.

Motivating The "A" Player

2007-12-05T18:30:00.000-06:00

I've been consulting on the side with a small company. They want strong growth for a couple more years and plan to sell the company. Like many organizations founded by technologists, they're having trouble in the sales side of their business. About a year ago, they hired a woman in sales who produced three times the revenue of their next best producer. They are ecstatic, but, in her first annual review they were surprised at her demand for a 54% increase in base salary. (Sidebar: its easy to build the case that she's worth it; she could have asked for a 300% increase, matching the return they get on base pay for others in the position).

The woman is highly motivated, and works with great intensity. She has the highest volume of phone calls, is the most efficient at converting them to appointments, and closes the most deals. Thats pretty much the trifecta in sales. When she joined the firm they agreed they didn't care how many hours she worked, or if she worked from home, etc., as long as she produced. And she produced. She came in with enough experience to realize that sustained effort at high levels is about motivation. She understands how to get herself there, and how to avoid burnout. Her process includes mental health days and quarterly vacations. In short, her intense process requires more down time but creates incredible results.

In well-run organizations this causes paradigm shifts, and an inquiry as to why the existing standard is so low. Any self respecting entrepreneur would recalculate the value of their company if staffed by comparable talent. Then, an exploration into the difference between "A" players and the "B" squad on the sales team. In this case, however, the company failed to make this distinction. Incredibly, they demoted the sales manager (presumably for failing to motivate the "B" squad effectively) and promoted the research manager to manage the sales staff. He's the guy with all the numbers, has metrics for everything, and is expected to create "accountability" for the sales staff. Implicit in this move is the assumption that these people are largely the same, and the right manager can turn the "B" talent into "A" producers.

Among his first acts was to institute weekly meetings where he would point to the individual's numbers and point out that 'more phone calls would make you more money'. Then came an array of quotas for calls, for appointments, etc.. Although these things were meaningless to the "A" player, who blew through these thresholds all year, she had a weekly one-on-one like everyone else. Ultimately, they clashed on when she logged in (working from home) and logged out. His concern was that she wasn't putting in the same hours as everyone else. Her response was dismissive, and she pointed out that her agreement with them was that she would work her schedule as long as she produced. He didn't care for her attitude and this clash was repeated at each meeting, until the review.

The review itself could serve as a study in what to avoid in the review process. Expecting praise, the achiever was shown several pages of metrics, half a page of areas for improvement, and short, albeit glowing paragraph at the end. The ensuing conversation followed a predictable course about how many hours she worked, and that if she'd work 8 hours a day instead of 7, she could make more money. She reasoned that her process created $380K and their process created $130K per head. He felt she was being disrespectful. She implied she wasn't being disrespectful, but it was arrogant to impose his $130K process on her when her process was clearly superior. She ended with the notion that she brought her process to them, not vice versa. And if he insisted on micro-managing her that she would leave. Both left exasperated.

It is clear now, that an imbalance had existed for a year. Management felt they were making allowances, and apparently it bothered them. The salesperson was outpacing all of them and felt underappreciated. The company had stumbled on a highly motivated professional, an "A" player. The veteran sales staff exposed as "B" players became jealous and contributed to the problem in petty ways. While it seems obvious that they had two different personality types in the sales role (and that revenue would increase dramatically with more "A" players), the company instead is trying to turn the "B" squad into an "A" unit by imposing a series of quotas. While there have been some gains, they are limited.

Maturing as a Manager
If you're a manager lucky enough to witness output that is orders of magnitude higher than normal, your first task is to do no harm. Just try not to screw it up. Watch and learn. One doesn't impose control just to show who is boss. Being in charge doesn't mean you know everything, and you're not entitled to fiddle with things you don't understand. That is arrogant.

Motivating "A" Players
When you're dealing with mules, motivate with a stick. When dealing with a thoroughbred use a carrot. A thoroughbred running fast runs the risk of burnout, so rest is critical. You also need to understand that a high-strung breeds may bolt if you start waving a stick. And last, if you want to treat everyone the same because its easier to manage, then hire the same kind of people.

Why Sourcing?

2007-12-05T17:59:00.000-06:00

We've seen an interesting phenomenon in our field this year. While many companies are experiencing growth, they've held back on growing their recruiting organization. This seems the norm rather than the exception. They're willing to add revenue generating employees, but not administrative headcount. Apparently companies are none too confident in the economy. As a result, many recruiters have too many openings to be effective. And so, even with access to sourcing tools, they haven't the time to use them.

Sourcing is the first step to filling a position. Active sourcing - looking for a candidate (as opposed to running an ad), is time consuming. When recruiters don't have time to do the initial effort required to fill a position, things back up further. So they outsource searches to contract recruiters and search firms.

An alternative to this very expensive tradition is to outsource just the sourcing component of the hiring process. Why not hire a research team to dig up leads? And a telemarketing staff to screen them? Its cheaper than hiring an executive search firm, or even a contract recruiter. If corporate recruiters were fed pre-screened candidates and their sole responsibility was to complete the remainder of the hiring process, how productive could they become? At least they'd be focused on the higher value-adds in the process, focusing on qualified candidates and hiring managers instead of sifting through resume dbases.

Now, what if those researchers and telemarketers were based in India? What would that do to the economics of recruiting? Why don't search firms outsource research this way? Think what their margins would be. They're already high.

Its the kind of thing companies come up with all the time in their core business. Why not in HR?

"Passive" Jobseekers

2006-08-21T11:03:00.000-05:00

This notion of categorizing the population into “active” and “passive” jobseekers has become stale. For most corporate recruiting, only active jobseekers matter. Lacking the skills and focus that are the hallmark of executive recruiters, the corporate recruiter is limited to advertising, referrals, and resume pools.

The term ‘passive jobseeker’ implies an individual is receptive to a new job without acting on it. While many people may be receptive to a better job, the fact that they aren’t actively pursuing one means they are not a jobseeker. I’m receptive to winning the lottery but I don’t buy lottery tickets. Does this make me a ‘passive’ lottery player? No. It makes me someone who doesn’t play at all. The point is, if one is not actively seeking a job, one is not a job-seeker. The term “seeking” implies activity. The term “passive” describes a lack of activity. You can be one or the other. If you are active, you are a jobseeker. If you are passive, you are not a ‘passive’ jobseeker. You are simply not a jobseeker. As far as corporate recruiting goes, you are a non-factor. (If approached by a headhunter, it may be different).

The problem is a recruiter-centic notion dividing the world into two camps, the jobseeker, and the jobseeker-who-wants-a-new-job-but-just-doesn’t-know-it-yet. The latter being the larger group. Since the jobseeking group is small, we feel the need to appeal to the larger population. We tend to see this as an advertising opportunity (like all recruiting problems). So, we post to more job boards and get a whole lot of unqualified resumes. Then we complain. We complain because, instead of getting all those passive jobseekers, we got active ones who don’t fit the requirements. Damn. It’s really frustrating when we try to appeal to the passive population and we find out they’re not reading the want ads. News Flash: people who aren’t reading the want ads are not job hunting. They’re not job hunting because they are not jobseekers. Not active, not passive, not jobseekers.

By defining everyone as some type of jobseeker we have obscured the target population. We have failed to identify, target and attract whomever it is we want and attracted a bunch of chaff instead. This happens all the time. We’d be much better off simply accepting that, while there may be qualified people interested in our opening, they aren’t going to see our posting. Then we can begin a problem-solving approach to identifying who they are, how to reach them, and what we can offer to attract them. While we persist in the notion that people are passively seeking our jobs we’ll continue to be frustrated by our current recruiting methods.

There you have it. My rant on “passive” jobseekers. I’m tired of the word, fed up with the debate, and have no time for anyone using such language.

Now, if you were to call them “latent” jobseekers…

Leverage III

2006-07-29T12:50:00.000-05:00

Is there really a labor shortage or have we simply accepted chronic, pervasive underemployment? My point is that if we fully engaged people on the job, we would harness a lot more energy and productivity from our existing workforce. But with our current approach to job design and our assembly-line approach to work, we get only a small portion of what people have to offer. We seem unable to fully engage people in their work. Far too many people punch in physically and check out mentally. We may or may not be in a labor shortage, but we are certainly wasting human capital. You know those studies that show we only use about ten percent of our brain? If comparable studies were done on our workforce, we'd probably learn we're only using half of whats available.

The ability to fully engage a person creates leverage by taking a small amount money and focusing an entire person on a task. When we fail to engage someone, we fail to leverage them. When we succeed, we get more involvement, better decisions, and people taking ownership of tasks. We get better results for the business as a whole. We promote people who do this. We also (mistakenly) think it's a rare trait when we seek it in employees. We ignore the possibility that our job design, with inherently narrow descriptions, structures out these traits and engulfs employees in repetitive, boring work.

What does it take to wake up a generation of managers? When will they realize most of us have the capacity to do so much more than the narrow slot into which we've been fitted?

Further, as engagement is widely recognized as key to success (ask any manager), why is it not measured? It seems obvious that an engagement index for an organization would be useful in gauging the productive capacity of it's workforce.

Insofar as we believe we "manage" human capital, it seems presumptuous to do so without focusing on a worker's level of engagement as the central factor to be managed. How long can we afford to remain inefficeint (read: stupid) with our human capital in an increasingly competitive global economy?

Ownership

2006-07-29T12:49:00.000-05:00

My best hires have always been those willing to take ownership in their work. These people excel. In addition to screening for this tendency in selection processes, we also develop it in our department. I don't believe the ability to take ownership is a tendency limited to a chosen few, though it may be closer to the surface for some. We have had a lot of success with it.

So, how do we create an ownership mentality? We begin by spreading responsibility. We extend people's jobs to include results, and with those results we add rewards, including stock options - literal ownership - that are distributed as widely as I can possibly justify. We encourage people to take ownership by giving them ownership. It's that simple. I still can't see why this isn't the norm.

Speaking of ownership, in an earlier post (Salary Compression, May 8th), I mention encouraging ownership by way of spreading the wealth through bonus programs. This is feasible without dilution to shareholders when greater wealth is created. The bet is that engaged employees create more value for shareholders even when participating in a larger reward system (especially when the rewards include stock options). Oh, and ownership works really well in flat organizations. They naturally expand responsibility across people and levels in ways other structures cannot.

It's no different than the bet an entrepreneur makes when taking venture capital. They'll take a haircut on the percentage of ownership, anticipating they'll make more money owning a smaller piece of the (now larger) venture.

Job Descriptions

2006-07-21T10:41:00.000-05:00

I've just read a post where the writer advocates writing accurate job descriptions to ensure applicants aren't disappointed with their jobs. Here it is:

"I know this article is going to be controversial because businesses that rely on employer and recruiters are very reluctant to admit, that the customer isn’t always right. If employers do not put what they are looking for accurately in the job description they can’t expect to find it. It is like going on a road trip through New York State with a map of Arizona. Good luck.

In my experience as the President and Founder of several online career centers and an HR Consulting company, the vast majority of disappointed employers tend to complain about the unqualified applicants who apply to their jobs. However, the root of the problem is really the unclear job posting. The employers complain that the unqualified candidates who apply to their jobs are wasting their time but in fact it is them who are wasting the candidate’s time. All of the articles I read in the marketplace are for candidates helping them write cover letters, format their resumes and conduct a job search. Nobody does anything to help the employer with writing a clear job description.

The job description should include the following:
1) Brief Description Of The Company
2) Accurate Job Role and Task Description
3) Clear Directives Of Mandatory Requirements, Licenses, Skills or Years Of Experience
4) How, When And On What Criteria The Employer Will Follow Up With The Candidate.

Title is important as well, it should include the following:
1) Job Title
2) Level Of Job (Senior, Junior, CEO Etc)
3) Geography City & State/Province"

The author leaves his contact info in case we need to hire him. I find it odd that this advice appears on Collegerecruiter.com where I assume the emphasis is on entry level recruiting. Getting a job description right, as the author suggests is sound practice. But to those hiring entry-level people, following his prescribed format has limited utility. Job descriptions are written by insiders - people familiar with the company, the job's surrounding roles, and the industry. The reader is an outsider. The entry-level applicant is an uber-outsider. They know little about any company, and even less about yours.

Clarifying your job description for the college market means translating it from corporate speak into terms they can understand. For example, the corporate norm "the position has 5 direct reports" is very different from "responsible for the production of 5 people, and at our company supervisors act more like a resource than a boss." Its surprising how entry-level people respond when you do it right. Its worth the time testing different approaches as you hone your message for a specific audience.

While I'm at it, let's take the critique beyond entry-level. Job descriptions can do only so much to describe a job. Again, the writer is an insider and can relate the elements to a world not described in the job description. For example, some companies have lots of titles. Others have very few. I worked at a company that had only 3 or 4 titles and when you hit "manager" it meant a great deal, as there were only VPs and a president above you. When I left there, I went to a company where "manager" described the entry-level role. The job description writer takes such things for granted. The reader has no insight. In my experience, the best you can do is try to make the job description brief and accurate. You simply cannot presume you can convey your understanding of a role in a job description. Simply outline it accurately, and get on with the business of recruiting.

Remember, recruiting is a contact sport. Keep the job description simple and spend your time making contact.

Leverage II

2006-05-19T18:44:00.000-05:00

Why is it important about using the concept of leverage as it relates to employees? It sounds clinical, but has several impacts on the business. Let's look at a low level example of an employee in an ice cream parlor.

We don't expect a lot from employees in food service. What you'd expect from the average (disengaged) employee at an ice cream parlor is a few polite sentences - What flavor? One scoop or two? That will be $2.50. And, a polite "thank you." This person was hired to scoop ice cream. At least that's the perception. A job description might focus on duties like lifting ice cream buckets, being polite to customers, and making change. A skills matching engine would focus their scooping abilities. Most people in such jobs are disengaged, paying just enough attention to keep busy and glide through their shift.

An employee who is leveraged - meaning the whole person is mentally engaged- creates an entirely different experience. People are greeted as they enter. Customers are complimented on their dress or appearance ("that's a lovely blouse"). Polite inquiries are made ("what sounds good to you today?") and their choice of flavors is complimented ("excellent choice - that's my favorite"). The customer becomes engaged as well. The greetings and banter create a quasi-social exchange which adds to the experience. These customers get more than just ice cream - they get attention. They are welcomed. They are complimented. They are likely to return. Employees who behave this way with customers are also more likely to keep the shop clean, tables from leaning, and keep chairs in good repair. Leveraging an employee in this manner creates repeat business and builds a strong brand.

The bottom line is that the structure in which we work does not leverage people well. Job descriptions focus on skills, not on qualities that capture (or appropriately challenge) whole people. By focusing on such a small facet of a person we harness very little of their energy. We limit the task, the definition of success, and consequently, productivity. We all but guarantee underemployment. We might pay individuals and take up a lot of their time, but we don't engage them. We have an opportunity for leverage, but the way we structure employment works against us.

This structure - the way jobs are organized in companies - evolved during a period when human capital was cheap, and financial resources were scarce. It spread during the industrial revolution, and finance was at it's center. Understanding finance was very important and it evolved into a sophisticated discipline. Human capital was deployed in support of financial investments; and the science of utilizing human capital evolved very little.

Today we are faced with a reversal - financial capital is available while human capital is becoming scarce. This would be a good time to re-design business structures. A shift in perspective is required where value is created by focusing on leveraging human assets first, and supporting them with financial investments.

Leverage

2006-05-10T20:19:00.000-05:00

We use the concept of leverage all the time. It's big in real estate, stock options, and investment. The basic idea is that, with a small amount of your capital, you gain control of a larger asset. Making a down payment on a house, a car, or buying an option on a stock are examples of leveraging an investment to control a larger asset. It follows standard business principals of getting the most out of your dollar.

Yet we don't understand the concept as it relates to employees (unless they're executives - but I digress). Our companies are arranged in little boxes, with corresponding job descriptions, duties & tasks. Into these we stuff people and pay them for their time. We strive for internal integrity (see last post) among these boxes and spend (waste) much time administering fairness through the HR group. It is the height of irony that we create these boxes, place people in them, then ask them to "think outside the box". Like it or not, this is today's organization.

For the record, I don't like it. The system promotes a limited view of people and what they can contribute. It is the anti-leverage. We fill jobs by focusing on a few skills to exploit on a repetitive basis, not capture all that a person can do. This threatens motivation of the whole individual. This is anti-leverage.

Consider that by paying a person a little at a time, we focus their entire body (if not mind) on a task of our choosing. This is leverage; we control a larger asset with a little money. Further, consider the productivity of employing the person's whole attention to our tasks, as opposed to just one facet of that person. The differences in productivity, service, output, and the health of the business are profound. To leverage an employee is to engage them fully in the task. When engagement is missing, leverage is missing.

Salary Compression

2006-05-08T08:46:00.000-05:00

We're beginning to see market forces impact our recruiting again. New grads with technical skills are pushing the envelope and are receiving higher offers than we pay existing people with 2-3 years of experience.

When I first experienced this in the early '90s I railed against the idea of paying rookies more than experienced people. These other companies were screwing up my numbers. After awhile, you learn to pay what you need to and hope nobody compares salaries. That doesn't work well at all.

What is clear now is that pay grids are designed for "internal integrity" implying they are designed to maintain fairness within the organization. When I first asked about this, the implication was that they were once based on market costs. It seems that once applied, the market changed but the design did not. So much for internal integrity.

While I'd love to see compensation reflect the actual value produced by each job, I realize this is difficult to do. However, it isn't so hard to figure out how to include more employees in the fortunes of the organization (both ups and downs) instead of defaulting to the static pay ranges that dominate business today. The use of stock options is a good example; companies offering options to a wider range of employees have a better chance of retaining them.

But we could take it one step further, in addition to a base salary and stock options, I'd like to see more companies offer a bonus related to the team and company's performance, and the individual's contribution to it. This creates flexibility based on performance, and keeps people reaching for more, not simply expecting it. If part of the bonus relies on team production, teams are more serious about productivity. I see no reason such a program couldn't be spread across an entire organization. As a recruiter, it's a lot easier to sell a pay range than tell a prospect we simply pay less than our competitors.

What happens to bonuses during downturns? The bonus pool would shrink, reducing payouts, and the payroll burden decreases proportionally. While employees would not be happy to miss out on a bonus, they would be riding the fortunes of the company. Just as important, lower payroll burdens may render headcount reductions unnecessary. Once things improve, the company would have a stable of trained, hungry workers ready to expand. This is far more valuable than the norm where, having laid off a workforce, a company needs to hire and train a new group.

Relationships, Commodities, and Meaning

2006-04-28T23:06:00.000-05:00

Sumser has been writing on relationships and referrals this week. This morning he references a piece from Jeff Hunter paraphrasing: “The existence of relationships is replacing the meaning of relationships.”

This is a great insight. And it certainly seems true. Especially where business reasons are driving relationships - like referral networks.

So, why do I want to cringe?

First, because relationships are important. As recruiters, developing relationships is our stock in trade. And, on a fundamental level, we are social beings. Our biological and social needs for relationships precede our business needs. It is the business needs that commoditize relationships. As social beings we seek emotional support in relationships; and turning them into commodities feels unnatural. To put it another way, we lose intimacy. And replacing intimate relationships with casual ones leaves us unfulfilled.

Second, because trust (a subset of intimacy) is important. This is what breaks down within 3 degrees of separation. This limits the commoditization of relationships. Relationships are not transferrable. There is some limit to how much commoditization can occur. This is also a limitation of automated referral tools.

Last, as recruiters, we establish relationships for a living. It is this skill more than any other that we bring to the table and build upon. So when the importance of quantity outstrips quality in our relationships, we feel like we're prostituting our emotional skills for the company. And that’s not worth it.

French Talent Wars

2006-04-18T14:48:00.000-05:00

I've been reading with fascination about the labor issues in France. It appears that, despite low population growth they have a different talent war. Instead of dealing with shortages, as we are, their talent is at war with the government. I feel like I'm watching a car accident - I don't want to stare but can't look away.

Here's the deal - in response to a recent law which would make it easier to fire workers under 26, French workers are throwing a fit. The law is aimed at increasing employment among young people by lowering the obstacles to firing them if they don't work out. There is chronic unemployment among this group. But the French workforce sees this as an assault on their right to lifetime employment, characterizing any situation with the potential for job loss as precarious. (Are French workers so lame that without protection they would be fired en masse?) The protests imply such fear among workers that you have to wonder about their culture. We've become accustomed to the lack of loyalty between companies and employees. We have learned that moving from one employer to another can have an upside. Indeed, most of us seek upward mobility on some level; and we know there is always some risk. Perhaps, as a generation, we've always been aware of employment risks. Perhaps we have less fear because our economy continues to grow - or perhaps it grows due to freedom of movement among workers.

I do know this, when you stay in a job too long it becomes dull. Productivity declines (even if our capacity grows). We've all been there. We know what uninspired production creates: mediocrity. When you place widespread mediocrity in the context of an entire workforce, you doom your local economy to mediocrity. This cultural difference, opting for safety and mediocrity over risk with an upside, has Darwinian implications in the larger economy. In casting their vote, French talent has declared war on raising expectations. A victory wins the right for every citizen to live a quiet life of desperation. Meanwhile the global economy steadily pulls away, and a proud nation matters less and less in the world.

Talent Management III

2006-04-04T12:59:00.000-05:00

So, I'm differentiating between managing talent from managing people or tasks. Here's the rub. A hands-on approach to inventorying talent, individually or by groups, is the kind of thing HR should be good at - it's comparable to skills analyses. But, it would be a creative move, and HR doesn't do creative. After all, how many new ideas come out of HR? So the likelihood is low, unless the next "Great Company" (tomorrow's Google) does it, then others copy. Or a vendor builds a module into a product and the right company happens to try it...

The irony is, when executives credit their people as their greatest assets, they are serious. It's just silly that we don't try to measure the value our "greatest" assets. We do it for the lesser assets (property, plant, equipment, patents, accounts receivable, etc.).

Here's a B-school refresher:
What is measured is important.
If you can't measure it you can't manage it.

Talent Management II

2006-04-04T12:25:00.000-05:00

After Jeff's comment on the last post, it occurs to me we should differentiate between task management, people management, and talent management. Task management is MBO-stuff (management by objective) and a very useful thing. People management is about ensuring people are focused and effective (hopefully with a good attitude). Talent management would be an effort to develop and adequately deploy talent, whether it be on an individual basis, or across a group of people. This isn't touchy-feely - and not everyone should be on American Idol (though they all seem to try). I'm suggesting we make an effort to inventory people's talents and figure out how best to deploy them. This would likely increase productivity and growth. At worst, engagement levels and retention rates would improve.

Have you ever worked with someone who is really talented and knows it? The prima donna types stand out (and we despise them) but there are many talented people who are down-to-earth. We see it in the opportunities taken - or passed by. Jobs that don't utilize their skills effectively aren't acceptable. In a talent-short economy, more people will behave this way. I'm surprised more don't already. Instead, most of us rationalize our underemployment and double our efforts to focus on jobs that have become exercises in repitition. They test our self-motivating skills, not our talents. We should teach classes in college on how to motivate yourself through a boring job (a truly useful skill). For those majoring in business, perhaps a minor in Rationalizing is in order. This focus would be justification of short-changing yourself across a career of chronic under-employment.

To borrow Maslow's heirarchy for a moment, once your need for cash, benefits, vacation, and status have been met, it's the challenge that counts. The use of your time becomes the highest need, and jobs not addressing it aren't worthwhile. Why? Because it isn't an appropriate use of your talent. It doesn't stretch, nurture, or teach something new. You think the competition for talent is going to heat up? Do you think you're adequately challenging your people? Are you?

As we age, it becomes clearer that our working lives are finite. Many of us have achieved some goals by mid-life, only to wish we'd set them higher. With half the game over, we aren't interested in short-changing ourselves for the sake of a mere paycheck, or worse, an ignorant task-focused manager.

Talent Management

2006-03-27T15:09:00.000-06:00

In HR we run into situations where we feel we have to balance the needs of the organization and the individual. In fact, this is an unnecessary conflict. It is a by-product of our existing structures. Avoiding such conflicts is considered a matter of aligning individuals with organizations, and that’s a good start. But people and organizations change and when alignment is off we fire the people. In the end, we're forced to choose and organizations win.

What’s missing is the realization that people want to be used more effectively. They want to be challenged, and want to be engaged. Companies want them to be engaged too, and go to great lengths to define what it is they want us engaged in. But there is no conflict between an individual wanting to be challenged and a company’s desire to increase productivity. They are the same animal, seen from different sides.

While we see clarity in defining skills and tasks relevant to each job, we don’t attempt to quantify the totality of skills a person brings to an organization (and might like to use). We don’t examine that talent set and ask how it might be deployed beyond a narrow job description. Defining an appropriate challenge for anyone would seemingly necessitate an examination of their abilities, but we parse out the skills relevant to specific tasks only. Then we ask them to repeat their behaviours until they become disengaged, quit, or get fired. But it begins by ignoring that untapped human capital that isn’t considered relevent to the job at hand. Its very short-sighted, and not being addressed at all. Instead, we’re automating performance management systems using the very same methodology and hoping we get a different result. Good luck with that.

Diversity And Business Success

2006-03-08T12:05:00.000-06:00

A recent invitation to a seminar included the line: “Thought leaders will agree that diversity is a pillar of corporate strength - the business case for diversity is just too strong to ignore. Corporations that are supported by a diverse employee base usually find themselves at the top of their industry.”

Like so much marketing, the juxtaposition of strong diversity program and industry leadership implies diversity is the cause of success. This linkage is one of debatable significance. The language suggests causation; it is more likely that the relationship between diversity and success is correlated. This isn’t nitpicking, its important. The HR community is notorious for putting forth faulty arguments disguised as “business cases” to further an agenda.

I don’t see how a company can prove that their diversified employee base is instrumental to their success. While diversity may contribute to success, it is not necessarily key to that success - any more than any other characteristic of the firm (e.g. the firm’s product lines, patents, market position, fiscal policy, etc.). To demonstrate diversity as the cause of success would require isolating the benefits of diversity from marketing, sales, product development, etc., which is impossible. As a result, the “business case” for diversity is easy to ignore.

On the other hand, the correlation between diversity and business success is much easier to support. Companies with strong diversity initiatives often have success in other areas. In effect, excellence in diversity can imply excellence in other areas. There are many examples of companies with strengths in diversity and great management, or a range of market achievements. In these cases, a strong diversity program may be the hallmark of a good company, not the cause of it. Does diversity contribute to their strength? Undoubtedly. Is it the cause of their strength? This is much harder to verify, and therefore unlikely. The issue is whether diversity correlates with success or causes it. Knowing the difference helps form a persuasive argument instead of undermining our credibility as business-savvy professionals.

Don't argue a "business case" that diversity drives business success. You simply cannot prove it. Doing so undercuts our credibility; it shows how weak our understanding of business really is. The business case is that if a firm aspires to excellence, it needs a solid diversity program. This appeals to management’s goals and aspirations without presuming a direct impact the bottom line. While such contributions do exist, they are ancillary benefits and a by-product of diversity not the direct result. If you’re going to make a pitch for strengthening diversity point out the correlation between excellence in diversity and excellence as a company. That should grab their attention without undermining your credibility.

Manpower Predicts: End of World As We Know It

2006-02-21T08:38:00.000-06:00

In the last post, the CEO of Manpower predicted that businesses will fail for lack of planning ahead for the talent shortage. It’s his job to create a market for his services. Spreading fear about how rough it will be is a ploy. While he may be adept at running a staffing firm, his approach belies a lack of understanding of how businesses behave. Instead of taking his ‘sky is falling’ to heart, what do we think will happen in the talent shortage?

First of all, we know businesses adapt to changing conditions. To think that managers assume the same models that are effective today will work as well tomorrow is folly. Companies have adapted quickly and effectively to changes in financial models, disruptive technologies, logistical improvements and customer preferences. Businesses adjust all the time. That said, they don’t have all the answers to how to deal with a long term labor shortage – nor do they claim to. Business, at it’s core, is opportunistic, and can’t stand being reliant on dwindling resources. It will seek alternative methods, models, and resources. The one thing we can be sure of is that companies will adapt.

What does adaptation look like? Automation of every possible piece, outsourcing pieces that are labor intensive. Taking the company elsewhere (where the shortage is less severe), expanding immigration to ease shortages. These are things that can be done that we already know. In business, historically the mother of invention is necessity. Business hasn't felt the necessity yet, and so we haven’t seen much invention.

From a Manpower survey we’ve learned that “employers are not just looking for bodies to fill sales jobs, they want experienced sales people who know their respective industries and can drive revenues.” Sure, we all want people who can show up and make us money. We want lots of things. The survey says so. It doesn’t say we’re entitled to them. It doesn’t say what we’ll do when we can’t have them. It doesn’t say the economy will fail if we don’t get them. Here’s a thought, today’s just-in-time hiring approach presumes an endless supply of trained, experienced people. If you can’t just buy those folks, where do they come from? Hmm. Maybe companies will have to train their own people. Maybe an employment relationship lacking in commitment or investment in human capital won’t work in the future.

Mr. Joerres' prediction that businesses will fail for lack of the right talent also states the obvious. It happens all the time. Many companies succeed or fail today based on the behavior of managers or executives. Failure to get the right people at that level often results in the demise of a company. While failures are often cloaked in mergers or acquisitions, they are failures. What’s new in Joerres’ report is that failure to get the right people won’t be limited to executive ranks, but widespread among line workers. And, yes, that will be new. Services depending on people will slow, and quality will slip. We will require new and creative methods to approaching human capital. And, given the lack of ingenuity applied to this precious resource, the labor shortage should produce some long overdue creativity.

Interestingly, the article points out that staffing firms show increased profits in this labor shortage (like oil companies during gas shortages). In response, Manpower has “refreshed it’s brand and streamlined it’s activities” focusing on higher margin markets. Manpower can wail doom and gloom all the way to the bank. But who cares? The sky isn’t falling. It’s just another round of change. My money is on business, and it's capacity to change.

The Sky Is Falling...

2006-02-21T08:10:00.000-06:00

Another article proclaiming doom:

The talent shortage is becoming a reality for a larger number of employers around the world," Manpower's CEO and Chairman Jeffrey Joerres said in a statement. Joerres said that in 10 years' time, many businesses would fail because they had not planned ahead for the talent shortage and would be unable to find the people they need to run their businesses. "This is not a cyclical trend, as we have seen in the past, this time the talent crunch is for real, and it's going to last for decades," he added.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060220/bs_nm/services_manpower_dc

Even with the facts, it seems we are unable to see beyond existing models of doing business. Sure, if I'm running Manpower, and all these businesses are calling me and ordering a scarce resource, I'm going to stress out. Most of us recruiters have borne this experience for years with little recourse. Changing our business model was not one of our options. But worse, it seems Mr. Joerres can only view business 10 years from now being conducted in the exact same way. That's unlikely.

'Tis The Season

2005-12-12T09:14:00.000-06:00

When work goes flat. Everyone in the office still comes in as early but with the appearance of Christmas cookies in the lounge and holiday invitations things start to tail off. Not for everyone, mind you, but the place slows down.

In recruiting, you have insiders and outsiders. The insiders - recruiters & hiring managers - tend to behave as though nothing changes during the holidays. Business as usual, no stopping this train. Outsiders, however, feel the slowdown in a big way. It's hard to jobhunt during the holidays - scheduling an interview can be tricky when the interviewers are trying to use up their remaining vacation days. And if you think scheduling an interview is tough, try getting to a hiring decision. For whatever reason, hiring decisions are avoided during the holidays. Jobseekers pick up on this. Nothing much is going to happen during the holidays, so unless you're in retail, why work hard? Just keep coming in at the same time.

It's all just jive if you don't get to thrive

2005-11-23T19:52:00.000-06:00

So, what do the problems in France tell us about people?
Anyone? Hello? Well, one good thing about not publicizing your blog, you don't have to deal with other people's thoughts and opinions. Good thing too. That way I can go on believing only my thoughts matter.

What do these problems in France suggest about what it is to be human? Well, the desire to succeed is part of the human condition. We all want to thrive. Those living in a free society but unable to participate in opportunities to succeed will rebel. The rebellious activities in France have nothing to do with religion or ethnicity. Although both make the protesters easy to identify, their grievances do not stem from either issue. They are angry about their inability to thrive. They are angry about being left out of the mainstream economy. They cannot find work, so they cannot thrive. Many were born in France and consider themselves French, but perhaps the French people who have lived there for generations don't see them as French. The ethnic ebb and flow over centuries is engulfing Europe and the Europeans don't like it. Too bad for them. It will be interesting to see how they approach balancing the cultural and ethnic changes. To a large extent, this is what Europe is facing in this millenium.

Cultural Democracy?

2005-11-22T19:50:00.000-06:00

So, if management by appeasement is the way France is going, what do the riots tell us about democracy?

For starters, surviving is not the same as thriving. It is part of the human condition that people want to thrive. It is part of the democratic ideal that all citizens have the right to pursue happiness. A democracy assures the right to thrive, if not the opportunity. This is the government’s job.

If the government's appeasement ensures survival, and democracy supports an opportunity to thrive, then government needs to enforce an equal opportunity to pursue happiness. When the divide falls along racial, or ethnic lines, the government has failed. To be fair, this is a tough nut to crack. We've tried it for generations in the US and still have room for improvement. I must admit, I don't mind seeing Europeans struggle with these issues given how harshly they've criticized us in the past.

What remains to be seen is whether the French can redefine what it means to be French. It’s easy to assimilate a few minorities and brag about your success. But, as Europe is finding, it is much harder to assimilate large groups with different religions, ethnicities, and cultures in numbers so large that they will reshape your culture. The challenge posed by riots has become a cultural one. Can the French people be culturally democratic? We’ll see. So far, mainstream French citizens can’t see themselves wearing bhurkas. With all the baggage Islam carries from its radical sect, who can blame them? But, even without baggage such change is difficult. To watch your society move from it’s traditional center is mind-bending. Instead of re-examining one’s identity, culture and values, it makes one want to defend them.

Again, this is a good time to not be a French politician.

Appeasement - good intentions gone wild

2005-11-22T19:48:00.000-06:00

So, no answers? Anyone? Anyone?...Buehler? I guess I'll answer that first question myself.

So, how is management handling it? Using their favorite appeasement strategy – give more government assistance until there's enough to keep ‘em quiet. That's what high taxes are for, right? This same strategy used is by the Saudi royal family (and other arabic kingdoms) to keep the masses from getting uppity. Basic needs are met, not more. This gem of a system is what spawned Al Qaeda. Meet the basic needs - higher needs aren't our problem.

The trouble is, once basic needs are met, we automatically desire the next level (whether we’ve earned it or not). This is part of being human, and most of us will be happy to earn it, we just need the chance. Being held out of that next level will bring all kinds of unpleasantness. As a management strategy, appeasement is a short term play. Eventually, they'll want the next level. How much can you give away? It's best for all to include this population and let them earn it.

While the French government may have good intentions, the appeasement approach is flawed from the outset. They've been caught short with a growing segment of their populace. This is a good time to not be a French politician.

Blog-ue, as the French might say

2005-11-21T19:36:00.000-06:00

The Nouvea Beaujolais has just come out. Let's talk about human capital in France for awhile, shall we? Magnifique.

What a lovely maelstrom of indignation! Cultural issues, labor issues, democracy, burning cars - all part of a charming imbroglio. It seems a significant part of the populace feels left out of the economy. It is a group with seemingly no opportunity to “do what one wants to do” in the workplace. I'll just throw a couple of questions out there for anyone reading to respond to.

First, how is 'management' handling it?
Second, what does this say about democracy in general? And France, specifically.
Third, what does this suggest about human capital?

They're going to need more than wine and cheese to make things work.

Outsourcing the Presidency

2005-11-09T08:09:00.000-06:00

Got this in an email today. Looks like something from The Onion.

Congress today announced that the office of President of the United States of America would be outsourced to overseas interests as of January 1, 2006. The move will save not only a significant portion of the President's $400,000 yearly salary, but also a record $521 billion in deficit expenditures and related overhead.

"We believe this is a wise move financially. The cost savings should be significant," stated Congressman Thomas Reynolds (R-Wash.). Reynolds, with the aid of the Government Accountability Office, has studied outsourcing of American jobs extensively. "We cannot expect to remain competitive on the world stage with the current level of cash outlay," Reynolds noted.

Mr. Bush received his termination via e-mail this morning. Preparations for the job move have been underway for some time. Gurvinder Singh of Indus Teleservices, Mumbai, India will assume the office of President as of January 1, 2006. Mr. Singh was born in the United States while his Indian parents were vacationing at Niagara Falls, thus making him eligible for the position. He will receive a salary of $320 (USD) a month, but with no health coverage or other benefits.

It is believed that Mr. Singh will be able to handle his job responsibilities without support staff. Due to the time difference between the US and India, he will be working primarily at night, when few offices of the US Government will be open. "Working nights will allow me to keep my day job at the American Express call center," stated Mr. Singh in an exclusive interview. "I am excited about this position. I always hoped I would be President someday."

A Congressional Spokesperson noted that while Mr. Singh may not be fully aware of all the issues involved in the Office of President, this should not be a problem. Mr. Singh will rely upon a script tree that will enable him to respond effectively to most topics of concern. Using this tree, he can address common concerns without having to understand anything about the underlying issues at all. "We know these scripting tools work," stated the Spokesperson. "Mr. Bush has used them successfully for years."

Mr. Bush will receive health coverage, expenses, and salary until his final day of employment. Following a two week waiting period, he will be eligible for $240 dollars a week unemployment for 13 weeks. Unfortunately, he will not be eligible for Medicaid, as his unemployment benefits will exceed the allowed limit. Mr. Bush has been provided the outplacement services of Manpower, Inc. to help him write a resume and prepare for his upcoming job transition. According to Manpower, Mr. Bush may have difficulties in securing a new position due to limited practical work experience. One possibility is re-enlistment in the Air National Guard.

Should he choose this option, he would likely be stationed in Iraq, a country he has visited. "I've been there, I know all about Iraq," stated Mr. Bush, who gained invaluable knowledge of the country in a visit to the Baghdad Airport's gift shop. Sources in Baghdad and Falluja say Mr. Bush would receive a warm reception from local Iraqis. They have asked for details of his arrival so that they might arrange a series of appropriate welcomes.

It's simple, really

2005-11-08T17:24:00.000-06:00

So, when it becomes clear that the today's hiring processes emphasize skills first and explore motivations second, we realize that asking someone why they want the job after they've applied for it we will get a political answer. Therefore, the motivations are not clear and the likelihood that they will engage in the job is unpredictable.

Our assumption that people won't apply for a role they don't want is thoroughly flawed. People regularly apply for jobs for other reasons - like a compensation package, a company's reputation, location, etc.. To believe otherwise is to put your head in the sand.

We need to build a jobseeker's aspirations into the hiring process. We need to put it at the front of our process. What would we get by doing so? Primarily, you begin to explore the likelihood a candidate will engage in the job. How hard would it be to do this? Not hard at all. All we have to do is structure in some way for a jobseeker to clarify their wants regarding a job or careerpath. Then have them apply for positions in that direction. It doesn't mean we have to abandon our existing processes. But we would need to give some structure and weight to the jobseeker's aspirations before they apply. Unfortunately, we assume this happens before the recruiting process begins. Our process begins with a focus on skills and experience, then investigates motivations. We need to put motivations first, then skills. That will improve the quality of hire in a big way.

Who Has More To Gain (Or Lose)?

2005-10-24T19:18:00.000-05:00

Is there a reason one party determines the timing, structure, and process of the hiring decision? Of course – they’re doing the hiring. But is the one-sided control working in their favor, or could they do better with a little less control? Nobody likes control more than a bureaucrat, and HR is a bureaucracy. Ceding control would be difficult choice. So, why might a company make this choice? Let’s look at it from another point of view.

As recruiters, we hire many people in a year. Candidates do a lot less interviewing than we do hiring. We have the advantage. We control the process because it’s the most likely way of getting the outcomes we want. However, good managers often place the onus on the party with the most to gain (or lose). This is a good way to focus energy on a desirable outcome. Whom, do you suppose has the most to gain by getting the right fit, the candidate or the company? Generally, employees don't have multiple streams of income, but companies have many employees. An employee is dependent on their income, but a company can weather some turnover without much difficulty. Clearly, the candidate is impacted far more than a company where employment is concerned. But you wouldn't know it by the way we behave. Yes, companies do invest in training, and yes, they are impacted by a bad selection. But in a speedbump sort of way. For the employee, a job has far greater implications, both financially and personally.

The fact is, if you give control to the party with the most to gain, you stand a good chance of improving results. A person who has done the hard work of self-exploration and understands what they want is more likely to recognize the right role and is far more likely to become engaged that role. I’m not suggesting we sit back and allow candidates to pick their jobs without regard to our needs, but we need to structure more of their capabilities into the framework. The E-factor is not structured in today. It is structured out. Selection tools focus on skills and titles. Inserting the E-factor into the initial matching process would facilitate improvements across the board.

So, why wouldn't a job board have every candidate just complete an aspirational profile and conduct searches based on their desires? Not a search for a job title, but a series of more insightful questions involving career path, meaningful interaction, or larger mission? Aspiration-based search instead of a job search. This is what the market needs. Find me some angel funding and I’ll show you how it’s done.

That's How It Is

2005-10-22T18:01:00.000-05:00

Some might object to the characterization that we've structured the candidate out of selection process. While they are the object of the process, we do control their entry, exit, and nearly every step in between. Yes, they are willing participants, but we direct the game. Sadly, most candidates are treated as supplicants rather than applicants.

What we have today is a process with companies running ads (initiating the search) and candidates responding to them (reacting). Nothing wrong with that, but imagine yourself as a candidate for a moment. If you do a search on Monster and start poring through the jobs, how many interest you and how much? Most of us get numb very quickly. What's missing? The part about what they want to do (and decent search technology).

This stimulus and response pattern is initiated by the hiring entity. They define the position and write the ads. From the job description, to the skills desired, the salary, and culture, everything is described by what one party wants. What the other party desires isn't structured into the initial call. It is assumed, and the assumption is flawed. Job hunters respond to that call. The leading ATS vendors actually give applicants fields to complete so they can glean skills. Applicants try to use the same verbiage and style and we all wind up talking biz-speak and doing a dance designed by compliance geeks. It is a lopsided game with the company choosing the field, the jersey colors, and whether they want to kick or receive. It is designed for the company to cast a net, and sort out the losers. One party hunts, the other party (ironically called jobhunters) is fairly passive.

What's interesting, is that candidates who are actively hunting, that is truly engaged in the hunt, are more desirable. Particularly if we have what they're hunting for. But the current framework isn't conducive to such a hunt. Go on one of the major job boards and try a search based on your aspirations. It can't be done easily. The best one can do is a keyword search. Even the best matching engines (which haven't penetrated the job board market) bias toward skills, not aspirations. Once again, the language (the playing field) has been determined by one party.

Our Problem

2005-10-19T10:46:00.000-05:00

So, we're attracted to hunters because of their capacity to engage in their search. They know what they want and are determined to get it. This is engagement. Before we determine how to select for this trait, let's examine why its so hard to find it now.

First of all, self-analysis is hard work. Not everyone does it willingly. It's easier to take a job (or stay in one) than ponder what you really want. Self examination may force you to admit dissatisfaction. Nobody likes to do this, so we avoid it as long as we can. It's easier to "look on the bright side" than dig into one's own quiet life of desperation. This is human nature. Unfortunately, we avoid this task until we need a job. By then we're in no state of mind to do it adequately and we need money. Instead, we just get a job. Again, this is human nature and we can't change it. We might be able, however, to structure some good know-thyself tools into our processes. So far, we have structured them out.

The current rage in recruiting is to focus on skill first, then design behavioral interviews focusing on the E-factor. Assessments might also help. The problem is once they've applied for a job, you have to expect them to tell you it's what they've always wanted to do. That's what you want to hear (but shouldn't always believe). Such an expression prior to the application would be more reliable. Further, if a candidate's job search were predicated foremost on what they want, they would target jobs based on those interests and aspirations. This sounds simple, but is actually the reverse of what exists today. When we conduct a search, we are defining our needs as clearly as possible and starting the hunt. We've structure around our needs adequately but our candidate counterparts are dealing in a something of a vacuum. The job market, and our recruiting processes have largely structured out candidate desires.

We could complain that it's the candidate's responsibility to define their needs and act accordingly. And it is. But that won't solve our problem. If we want to staff effectively, we need to address it.

Candidates As Hunters

2005-10-18T17:44:00.000-05:00

So how would we select for the capacity to engage on the job? One way is to simply recognize it. (Another way - testing for it - will be covered in the future).

Over the years I've been intrigued by a small number of candidates who demonstrate the same trait; they know what they're looking for. On first contact I would go into the pitch, only to learn the candidate isn’t interested. Despite my perception that there may be a match, they have a few specific questions, the answers to which determine whether we move forward or not. They aren't interested in a sales pitch. What they are focused on is specific and related to their needs. It may be relationship selling versus new business sales, or a position that leads to an international role. In every case, these candidates are quite clear on where they are going. They may be flattered by my interest, but they are screening me and pursuing their goals. Ironically, we use the term 'jobhunter' for our prey, but we all know who is hunting whom. When we meet one who has turned the tables they are always more interesting than the rest of the sheep. Certainly there are control issues here, but it is the clarity of purpose and focused pursuit that makes these people attractive candidates.

So, what if all candidates were like this? What if all candidates did some self analysis, defined their aspirations, and sought employment based on them? We assume they do, but we're wrong. Most people look for employment based on income needs and what their skills might qualify them to do. Add geographic restrictions, a couple of company names and a title or two and you have the average job search. But candidates who really think about what they want and go look for it are few and far between. These people have truly engaged in their job hunt at a more personal level. And to recruiters, they really stand out. We might admit that we always want what we can’t have, but the truth is we are drawn to these candidates because of their focus. What makes these hunters attractive is the level of engagement in their job search. It is important enough to think about and really work toward specific goals. This is precisely what we seek in employees – the ability to get really involved in the task at hand. The trouble is once candidates have done so it's hard to tempt them with (our) positions that don't fit their objectives. The candidate who actually hunting is demonstrating their capacity for engagement. This is what we want most. Once the trait (and its desirability) is recognized, we need to consider ways to select for it.

The E-factor

2005-10-14T15:15:00.000-05:00

Why is engagement important? Actually, I just threw it out to illustrate how selection could be improved from a school-of-thought approach. Now that I think about it, the E-factor is important. There must be a subconscious component at work here.

Managers tell us:
• Engaged employees are more productive
• Engagement creates retention
• Engagement stems from some interest and a desire to act on it
• Engagement is not static, but changes over time
• Its easier to manage people who share interest in the work than selling them on something they're not innately drawn to

When all is said and done, engagement is a higher form of motivation. Although not recognized as such, it is the holy grail for hiring managers. For an engaged employee, compensation, job descriptions, and political boundaries are secondary. They still need attention, but they aren't the reason we go to work in the morning. With strong engagement there is some latitude with secondary issues.

If we apply something akin to Maslow’s hierarchy to employment, a candidate’s economic needs would be at the bottom, geographic issues and social needs directly above, and engagement factors at the top. As with the Maslow model, a high E-factor would need alignment among the lower factors for a match. But, given the potential for fantastic gains, how is it that we're not selecting for engagement? Or, at the very least, testing the model? A ‘school of thought’ approach would require study and support for hypotheses supporting a "theory of engagement" that suggests engaged employees create better business results. It would make a nice PhD thesis.

Selecting For Engagement

2005-10-13T14:39:00.000-05:00

So, I've decried Skill Based Hiring (SBH) and called for a 'school of thought'. Too much emphasis on skills brings mediocrity to the workforce in exchange for lower onboarding costs. Skills do not correlate with inspiration. And short term costs savings are less important in long term roles. A 'school of thought' is needed because there isn't one. Our hiring processes are little more than a collection of habits (reactions to labor laws designed to protect the disadvantaged) that aren't terribly effective for companies or candidates. Even recruiting teams demonstrating 'best practices' all day long will end up with one winner and a collection of unhappy losers. The fact that this is generally accepted doesn't make it a good practice. And labelling it a 'best practice' shouldn't excuse anyone from looking for a better method.

What would a better approach look like? Let's suppose our theory is that engaged employees are better employees. This is our school of thought . We want to select employees who have this capacity. We’ll call it the E-factor. How might we approach selection?

First, we would define engaged as a combination of motivation and interest in the position (or the product, service, the industry, the mission, or something else). We would then assess candidates' general capacity for engagement and their likelihood of engaging in our particular role. This would be a critical focus of the selection process. Today the selection focuses on skills and experience. A few rote questions about why a candidate wants the job doesn't address the E-factor. (And everybody knows how to answer them anyway.)

Of course, weighting the E-factor against skills & abilities would need to be decided upon. And training costs might rise for those with higher engagement scores and lesser skills. Follow-up actions would test for and benchmark the success (or lack thereof) of the selection process and success would be defined in terms of how productive employees are and how well they have attached themselves to their work. These are all manageble. The real key to assessing engagement capacity is to do it before the candidate has applied for the job. Indicating interests prior to applying for specific roles makes those interests more reliable and avoids political statements of interest. This can be done on a large scale and will be discussed in future posts.

While selection processes would still need to comply with the law, this 'school of thought' approach is not driven by compliance. It is about trying to understand human behavior - what makes people tick - so we can recruit and retain them. Retaining talented people is a by-product of understanding them. We must understand people in order to manage them well. This is what's missing in the human capital arena; we're structuring our initial management task - selection - on constructs like skill-based hiring and legal compliance rather than an understanding of human capital.

Skill-Based Hiring

2005-10-11T11:14:00.000-05:00

It's overdone. This is the practice of selecting people based on their skills and abilities to do the job. In truth, all selection systems do this, but skill-based hiring is a little more detailed, and has been sold to corporations by ATS vendors.

Skill based hiring (SBH) inherently biases to skills at the expense of attitudes. With some good reason perhaps; it is cheaper to hire people who can get up to speed quickly, and minimize training costs. But this savings decreases in importance as the employment relationship lengthens. Further, SBH is likely to bias toward mediocrity since the focus is biased to the short term. The best people move on while the mediocre ones hang around forever. By biasing your selection on skills, you ensure a mediocre workforce in the long run. Remember, interview processes are finite. They are designed to declare a winner at some predetermined point. There is a zero sum component in that time dedicated to measuring one factor reduces time spent measuring others.

The counter argument, of course, is that skill-based selection merely sets a threshold, leaving the remaining interview time to test other factors. In practice, however, skills are assessed, then the manager picks the one s/he likes best. The bottom line here is that, for long term positions, skills should be downplayed. SBH makes them the primary focus of the selection process.

Here's one way it plays out. At the core, the best candidate is someone whose skills are a 100% match the job description. Usually such a person is experienced at the job. SBH assumes they will want to repeat that same job. Why would they? Whether they lack ambition, like the role, or want to slack off for a while isn't covered in SBH. Only that they're the best candidate. The problem is that the candidate's capacity to engage in the job is given short shrift. In my experience, this is the best predictor of success.

If we have the conceit that we're recruiting people for careers, skills based hiring doesn't work for me. There are exceptions, but not as many as the market would have us believe.

Many Are Called, Few Are Chosen

2005-10-09T16:26:00.000-05:00

Hearing this in church this morning reminded me of the recruiting experience. In this biblical tale a king invites the masses to a royal wedding. But he decides he doesn't like the look of one and has him tied up and thrown out. That's when he utters the famous words "many are called, few are chosen". As recruiters, we know what it's like to be the king. We run ads and screen out the bad ones - often treating them rudely with little feedback or response (things we wouldn't dream of doing to candidates we're interested in).

For most openings, we're seeking just one person. Since this is the norm, I wonder what it might be like to target a single individual, or a single qualified candidate. While many interviewers have learned to make selections with fewer applicants, we're part way there. What would a targeted selection effort need to do order to target people in ones and twos?

Given the labor shortage, this is a practical question. In some areas, this is how it will be. What would have to be done to source only the right candidates? And how would you know they were the right candidates?

I'll give you some idea in future posts.

Seek First To Understand

2005-10-04T14:03:00.000-05:00

So, what are the hallmarks of a "school of thought" or a human capital discipline? First off, an HC discipline would need to have some intellectual rigor applied to it. The need is more scientific in nature, as opposed to the bureaucratic reaction to case law we have today.

The principles of objective reasoning need to be applied to a 'school of thought' instead of reacting to legal precedents - like companies changing their employment applications to comply with ADA regulations. Reactive compliance is the driving force. While HR often is not more than a compliance organization, it does aspire to be more. The existing approach is wholly unenlightened and the results show it. Managing our workforce in this reactionary way - devoid of a 'school of thought' - has produced an uninspired, disengaged workforce in America that leads me to believe the majority of people are underemployed.

An HC discipline seeks first to understand human capital. Understanding HC creates a 'school of thought' which allows us to develop more productive situations. Because we seek to understand first then create situations based on knowledge, we can create an enlightened approach to managing people.

Pre-Scientific Phase

2005-10-01T12:03:00.000-05:00

While mulling over the Scientific Revolution idea it occurred to me that we aren't really in a situation where a dominant theory exists. What we really have is a collection of practices - responses to labor laws, recruiting needs, administrative responsibilities, and insulation from line employment. We are in what Kuhn called a "pre-scientific phase". The good news is that a proposed theory could take root much faster than if it had to overcome an existing one. We don't even have to wait for everyone to die. Woo-hoo!

On the down side, we need someone to propose a theory.

Structure of a Scientific Revolution

2005-09-29T23:32:00.000-05:00

In The Structure Of Scientific Revolutions Thomas Kuhn wrote about how theories and paradigms change. His point was that science doesn't gradually evolve toward truth, but that it undergoes periodic revolutions - paradigm shifts. Revolutions occur when the predominant theory is replaced by a one which explains things better. Interestingly, the change isn't smooth. The old theory doesn't retire - it gets shredded - then its replaced by a new one. The point is, there's an active component. Sometimes the old theory is retired through the inevitable death of it's proponents. They may never be convinced to of the veracity of the new one, but they do eventually die.

Applying this model to HR, there has been plenty of evolution, whether it be evolving new practices to conform to new laws or buying new software to deal with labor shortages, but everything is incremental. There hasn't been a revolution since the industrial age. I'm not convinced we have a prevailing theory today, but the incremental change isn't accomplishing much. We need a "school of thought". I don't care where it comes from - academia would be fine - but I hope it comes soon. In the meantime we need to tear up the existing structure. I'll do my part. Generations X and Y probably won't require much convincing when a new theory is proposed. They'll just hold out a little longer till the old guard dies off.

Human Capital Science

2005-09-27T15:45:00.000-05:00

When a company states that human capital is their top priority perhaps we should take them at their word. I know that sounds silly when the cynical view prevails but its naive for us to think it as their only priority and, they probably have all kinds of short term issues as well. It's completely possible that the combination of putting out fires and not knowing what to do about HC simply crowds out the issue.

So, if addressing human capital is not the top priority on any given day, then what's lacking is an appropriate long term effort to redesign our approach it. It's a topic, to be sure. But when you examine who is trying to solve it you see a myriad of entrepreneurial wizards offering products from the fringes. These same innovators try to sell their creations upstream to a mainstream audience of slow (that's S-L-O-W) adopters who seem aware of the problems they face but not how to treat them. This is the state of human capital redesign today. For a top 5 issue in companies today, it is not enough.

Within the world of HR who do we look to? SHRM? Get serious. If ever there was an organization built for inbreeding this is it. SHRM is designed for networking and chatting up 'Best Practices'. It's a club for people with common interests. It makes money, has good membership and strong brand identity but lends no discernible contribution to the human capital paradigm. It is pro-industry, but doesn't move it. There are limitations on enterprises that aren't institutions - they need to make money - and there are no established Human Capital institutions. (Apologies to the Human Capital Institute - the right idea, but much smaller than needed and not an HR institution today).

Its not about having an institution, but a school of thought. We need a point of view - a philosophy of, or a paradigm of how best to employ human capital. What we have today is an aggregation of rules and habits that get mucked up with every new labor law. We seek out best practices just to figure out how to comply with laws instead of making real progress. Other lines of business have schools of thought - finance and accounting, sales and marketing - we just have 'human resources'. Its a collection of stuff, not a discipline, not a point of view. We have no school of thought. This is what the field needs. Business isn't coming up with anything (not today's top priority) and the lack of HC institutions hasn't helped. Perhaps we'll see the birth of a new academic area - human capital science?

Reactions Are Not Solutions

2005-09-20T09:02:00.000-05:00

Much of what happens in human capital today is a response to external pressures. Many best practices are little more than an efficient way to respond to some change in labor law. We don't come up with these ahead of the time, but react to the change. Overall, the human capital arena wouldn't have as much attention if labor were plentiful. So, since the early '90s when it became hard to find good people, the economic pressures brought on by labor shortage has been a hot topic. With the onset of ASP technology, automated tools have sprung up. We have been reacting to technological advances since then. [On a side note, it's a shame the tool of choice became the ATS. An ATS is an automated filing cabinet. You can't solve material shortages with filing cabinets. You need more material. For those who would argue, next time you're hungry go buy a refrigerator. Tell me how it satisfies your appetite.]

Increased attention to the labor shortage is a straightforward economic response. More attention is paid to the shortage. Substitutes in the form of outsourcing and automation are increasing. But the economic reaction is just that, a reaction. The urge to redesign human capital energy is not there because it's worth doing but because it needs doing. If it can be deferred or delayed in any way it will be. And that's where we are. Since there are problems with greater short term urgency they get solved first. For those companies who believe their number one issue is human capital, I wonder what they're doing to solve it? Not treat it, but solve it. Our reactions to external pressures tends to result in adjustments, not solutions. While we approach our work this way we are unlikely to solve anything long term. We're just corporate ants following the bread crumbs wherever they may be. I don't know about you, but I aspire to more.

A Little Less Talk

2005-09-16T10:28:00.000-05:00

As much as I enjoy reading blogs I can't say I enjoy writing as much. Still, the idea that we have an outlet which allows us to express ourselves is just too grand to pass up.

Much of what's posted here is about the shortcomings of HR. I believe the profession has incredible potential but lacks the ability or desire to take advantage of the opportunities before us. For example, the focus on 'Best Practices' as an end instead of the means to an end. Or the new emphasis on metrics - which still isn't getting to the effectiveness of work. While I believe there is great potential my experience is that progress is slow. I see a schism between the rhetoric and the action. On one hand we hear of people suggesting HR should make the key difference in how human capital performs. On the other hand I see hardworking professionals mired in a bureaucratic practice, but no connection to the bottom line.

This is a problem. Everyone says so - yet it must not be a very urgent one. If it were, we might see some efforts to solve it. We might hear of ground breaking work connecting employee efforts to compensation, or some other creative initiatives. Instead, we hear about it in the abstract sense. It's not a real dilemma. Perhaps it's the second or third largest issue in organizations with more pressing matters - slow sales, problems with quality, or political dramas played out between shareholders and executives. Maybe it's a long-term problem so we have plenty of time to figure it out. Or, perhaps we're waiting for leadership to have a brainstorm and solve it for us.

Whatever the case may be, there is plenty of discussion but little attention given to the energizing of human capital on a large scale. It's all just talk. We need a little more action.

Pastafarian World

2005-08-18T22:05:00.000-05:00

After years of searching, wrestling with my food addiction, and wondering why I slump over my desk after lunch. I've found religion. Clarity at last.

http://www.venganza.org/

Intelligent design? Dumb people.

2005-08-14T19:27:00.000-05:00

OK. New topic. By now everyone is aware of the effort to bring intelligent design into the science classrooms in schools. There are a couple of points worth making.

First, we need to point out that logic and empiricism are the essential building blocks of thought in science. That's where the "science" comes from in science class. Second, the divine intervention referred to in intelligent design is a faith-based approach to explaining why we are here.

Now, I have no bones with teaching religion. Let me say that again - teaching religion is OK. But I object to teaching it in a science curriculum. Injecing faith into science is evangelism and supporting it is verification of our society's capacity for ignorance. Note to self: NEVER underestimate the stupidity of a group.

At issue is how we come to believe things. Scientific disciplines seek to support ideas (nothing can be proven) based on what can be demonstrated and verified. Religious beliefs, on the other hand, come down to faith. One chooses to believe this and that. This choice-based belief has no place in scientific thought. It does have a place in other classes.

As a child, evolution explained just so much, the idea that God-touched-the-monkey and-Adam-was-born allowed me to reconcile what we were being taught in school and in catechism. It was all fine and dandy. Then I grew up.

Today I can hold both paradigms in my head and have no concerns over the conflicting notions. I also recognize the powerful ignorance of those seeking to force the conflicting ideas together based on their desire for faith-based theories to dominate our society. While these people argue for faith in the classroom, I don't hear them begging for scientific doctrine to enter their Sunday schools. Yes, Pastor Johnson, where is your proof that angels exist? That Christ rose from the dead and that there is only one God? I have a few other questions, but we can start with these.

The intelligent design movement doesn't refer to aliens designing the world. It is a fundamentalist christian movement. These christians (a different brand than mine) want to tell us who invented everything because they're sure they know. Not because they actually do know anything, the basis for their wisdom is that they have chosen to believe it.

So, the folks who want intelligent design taught in science class really want to teach our children what to believe in, based on a religious text of their own choosing. Never mind diluting empirical thought and scientific exploration. I mean, who needs a scientific approach when you get to choose what you want to believe? You know, we've seen this before. Education based on what the body politic has chosen to believe rather than free thought. They have lots of it in the Middle East. Religious-based education. Great. We could have that too. It's working out really well over there, isn't it? The religious wing sure has a lot of influence. Gosh. What are we waiting for?

Finkel - One seminar worth taking

2005-08-13T18:00:00.000-05:00

Continuing the topic of influencing hiring managers, Steve Finkel has a lovely approach. In his seminar for executive recruiters, he says it is important for hiring managers to treat your time with the utmost respect. If they don't return your calls promptly, he says, "make them bleed". Here's what you say when you answer a late returned call.

“Yes, Mike, glad you called. The reason I called was that after we spoke, I went out, did the search, and called you to present an exceptional candidate. This individual was top of his class in -----, had cutting edge experience in----, and was the top ---- at his firm for the last 3 years. He was earning only $---.” (Great! When can we see him?) “Well, as I’ve indicated, I conducted the search, called you to present him, and you never got back to me. I assumed the position was filled, so I sent the candidate to another firm. I don’t mind saying, a fairly large competitor of yours, and it looks like an offer will be extended. By the way, how are you doing at filling that position?” Make him hurt for the candidate. Do not present candidate. Do not reward poor behavior or it will continue.

Now, nobody is going to confuse me for Finkel, but he knows how to get things done. Clearly, this isn't in the HR manual. My feeling is the HR influence is one of the biggest obstacles in things done. While we need to treat candidates fairly, we need not extend the same even handedness to internal managers acting as obstacles to a recruiter's productivity. Unless we can get things done, we don't deserve a seat at the table.

Own The Bottleneck

2005-08-09T17:01:00.000-05:00

I get a kick out of questions like 'How to influence hiring managers?'. Jeff Bloch offers a reasonable treatment . The problem is that we don't always have time for a nice, neat program. To me, these limitations to my productivity are career-limiters. As such, being nice takes a backseat to being effective.

We solved this problem a long time ago. I had to, because without a solution, my career would have stalled (and I couldn't afford that). Once you have established a reputation for quality recruiting, it's easy to influence hiring managers. Here's how: the experienced managers realize their business depends on having good people. You merely need to establish that the talent they need runs through you. And if they can't reel it in, you can't afford to focus on their needs. You'll continue to troll on their behalf, of course, but a full-blown effort is not a good use of your time; you are a corporate resource, not their personal lackey. Inexperienced managers learn through the pain of understaffed offices. They learn fast, and they learn on their dime, not yours.

Clearly, you can't just blurt this out to your customer or you may be fired. The message is sent in subtler ways - like sharing the misadventures of some clod hiring manager who lost a recruit in some a colorful manner. Of course, you point out, you can't afford to send grade 'A' talent to the clod. Ha ha ha. They'll get the point. You should also ensure your clients understand that you work for the company - not hiring managers. Your primary responsibility to staff the organization. This is what you do to improve the stock price (it helps if you speak business). You have learned that hiring managers who fail to land the talent you bring to them are, in fact, hurting your productivity - wasting the company's resources invested in recruiting.

This is the leverage you have by owning the bottleneck. When talent is scarce, your power increases. Remember, you need to be doing good work in the first place. If you've established a reputation for laziness, it won't work. The caveat is you must only use your powers for good. But, you need to use them. In fact, you owe it to your employer to maximize your contribution. Too many HR professionals minimize their input by avoiding things like leverage. But when it comes to your livelihood, a pragmatic (and effective) approach is best.

Cover Your Assets

2005-08-04T12:26:00.000-05:00

After a long vacation and time away from the business, I feel refreshed. Refreshed enough to complain anyway. Today's subject is Monster Diversity, and the question is, why is there a market for this?

I recognize there are diversity boards out there and that part of the game is to allocate (waste) money to postings on them to show you're 'trying' to recruit minorities. We all know these postings serve no other purpose - its not like we get hires from these sources. This is all part of the landscape. So why does the market need this offering from Monster? I can see why Monster would sell it - it's a new revenue source from their existing inventory. Its also easy to upsell existing clients. New profits are a nice by-product. But why would anyone want it?

I'm trying to understand the mindset of the buyer. Does Monster have a good track record with niche products? No. MonsterTrak, their executive offering, and a host of other products flounder. So they're always trying to add the loser products into your purchase. They don't have a great business model, they don't field the best technology, and they're not innovative. Their primary board and resume dbase are good products. Generic Monster postings can be a good buy. Their niche products are not.

So, why does one buy the diversity product? I can only think that HR is so thoroughly afflicted by CYA disease that they can spend even more money on bad products because they come from the #1 brand. And nobody gets fired for buying the best. This is the kind of reasoning that keeps people employed - people who really should be fired. Hmmm... There's another by-product Monster can sell, the list of all the HR people who bought Monster Diversity. It's a 'don't hire' list. I might even pay for that.

One Eyed Fiona

2005-07-08T15:35:00.000-05:00

As partial as I am to good recruiters, I have to point out a major shortcoming. They don’t know what they’re doing, and many don’t seem interested in learning…

During our midyear reviews one of our recruiters told me she is ready for responsibility at a regional level. She is a solid contributor - productivity is good, but she’s not ready to manage a region. The gap analysis applies to most of the recruiters I know.

The problem? While she’s a good individual contributor, she's oblivious to the business of recruiting. When asked about her own recruiting “business”. She knows how many people she’s hired, has relationships with hiring managers, and can tell which sources she prefers. She has many entertaining stories, opinions about the ATS, and ideas about how to get more out of our technology. But, she can’t tell me how much she spends on ads each month. She tells me about half her ads work.
“Which ads? For which positions? In what cities?” I ask.
“Don’t know. Haven’t checked. Good question.” Says she.

Aargh. She has this information. Everyone with the discretion to run ads gets the report. Yet she doesn’t grasp why. We feel this stuff is so important that we work around the ATS in order to know it. We measure what works and what doesn’t in order to spend effectively. It’s a business thing.

Running a regional unit does entail supervising contributors and dividing the workload, but it’s imperative to keep one eye on the operational costs. She seems to have this eye closed. I need to trust the regional manager to make good business decisions. Despite her recruiting skills, she is oblivious to the business operation.

For you to lead a recruiting outfit I need to know:
• Can you put bodies in chairs?
• Can you be trusted to make business decisions?

Open the other eye.

Administrivia

2005-06-07T12:20:00.000-05:00

The problem is that HR sees itself as an administrative body. HR thinking is that if all the forms are filled out correctly, that policy is followed, reports are on time, and guidelines are met, HR is doing what it's supposed to do.

It's a problem because administration, while necessary, isn't a big value-adding activity. It's a smaller one. HR is charged with taking care of the workforce. In fact, they are in a position to make a big difference in the quality of the workforce (through recruiting) as well as the welfare of the employee base. Unfortunately, the administrative status quo reigns supreme and the same old administrative emphasis continues as the primary value HR tries to add. Given their position in an organization, HR could make a company spectacular. But they satisfy themselves with filling out forms and making sure everyone's ass is covered.

Yes, it's important to have payroll on time, benefits in shape, and everyone treated fairly. But those are baseline behaviors. They are not amazing feats and the department is in position to accomplish great things. It's time they reared up on their hind legs and tried. While they continue to focus on administrivia they are doomed to be eunuchs in the corporate harem - in position to make a difference, but inadequate to the task.

When The Revolution Comes, You'll Be The First...

2005-04-26T18:35:00.000-05:00

I have a brother in higher education. He's a professor at a state university and shared a tale of an ongoing encounter with HR. He is on the review committee conducting a national search for another professor. Their institution has open positions for which there is competition from other universities. The review committee recognizes the need to evaluate and extend offers efficiently. Given the highly technical nature of these positions, the academics need to review resumes themselves in order to determine the best candidates. In accordance with University policy, they contacted HR to run a series of ads. This is where the fun began.

The review committee wanted to ascertain whether an adequate pool had responded or if more ads were needed. So, they called HR to request the resumes be forwarded to the committee. But HR would only tell them how many applications had been submitted. The committee chair explained that quantity wasn't the issue, quality was. The committee needed to review the resumes in order to determine whether enough qualified applicants had responded. The HR response was that their policy didn't allow them to forward resumes for review. Instead, HR would review and forward 'qualified applicants' to the committee. Frustrated, the chairman replied that, lacking a PhD in mollecular genetics, HR was not qualified to make such recommendations. This was the reason a review committee had been formed. HR stood fast - they would not forward the resume pool. Since the review committee was meeting the next day, the chairman offered to stop by the HR office, go over the resumes himself, then on to the meeting. Grudgingly, HR obliged.

While this real-life saga continues, I'm stunned at how the university's core mission can be harpooned by bureaucratic morons. Supported by my tax dollars, no less. Apparently this is the norm. It hadn't occured to me that working in HR at government institution could double the uselessness, but maybe it can.

Next time we need cut the education budget, why don't we minimize the bad investments (instead of teachers) starting with the HR staff...

Intellectual Inbreeding

2005-04-22T10:46:00.000-05:00

Borrowing from the biological sciences, I’d like to point out inbreeding is not a great way of evolving. Last week, I received a flyer from IQPC with the following excerpt from one of the presentations:

HR IQ Tip
Don't recreate the wheel; look at the competition, take their wheel and put a white wall on it.

Remember, this is a workshop where you go to learn how to do your job better. I’m all for taking shortcuts and learning from others’ mistakes, but I’m concerned that our industry lacks any original thought. I see a lot of recycled bad ideas.

Working in HR has become one grand avoidance of thinking. Take the concept of ‘best practices.’ The idea is you can accomplish more by copying someone else’s effort. This is a good idea run amok. That makes it a bad idea. The message is “Don’t think, copy someone else!” Somehow this makes you smart. This emphasis on best practices implies we’re too lazy (or too stupid) to give any thought to our situation. We’d rather copy someone else (preferably a name brand organization, if you please). It has reached the point of inbreeding. And, as biological scientists might predict, we’re getting dumber.

The ‘don’t think’ approach is a big reason HR is in such a sorry state. And any bureaucratic organization that has trouble quantifying it’s value is in a SORRY STATE. This “let’s look at what they do” has been taken to such extremes that our entire paradigm is inbred. Everyone buys into the same not-very-well-thought-out ideas (so-called “best practices”). Look guys, there’s no substitute for thinking.

Why would a company consider putting non-HR people in charge of HR? Because they might start thinking. How can you trust your human capital to people who don’t think about it?

the dot-job

2005-04-15T12:22:00.000-05:00

Yes, I know this is supposed to shake everything up, but I think John Sumser is correct (www.interbiznet.com). With more job destinations out there the better-known ones will become even more valuable. Most job hunters don't need even more destinations to search. It's a huge waste of time.

Statistically speaking, job hunters get better results from networking. For them, the best thing to come from the .jobs domain would be to Google a ‘job title, zip code, and .jobs’ to find local jobs. But without a better matching engine they’d still have to sort through lots of crap – as with current job boards. A company like Google could refine the search technology.

So, more garbage to sift through while job hunting. Great. That’s just what a body needs while struggling through a transition period. The addition of the .jobs domain reinforces the one-sided design of systems, processes, and tools in the industry. They are made for the recruiter and the vendor community. They tend to assume candidates are on an even keel instead of off balance - or forget them entirely.

HR & Mr. Jackson's Umbrella

2005-04-04T04:28:00.000-05:00

I was speaking with former coworker this morning. Like me, he's a veteran recruiter and somewhat disenchanted with his ATS. He's a talented, caring professional who is frustrated by the inflexibility of the tool set he's been given (read: that's been imposed on him). One constant frustration is his inability to cut to the chase. The system forces him to jump through hoops regardless of his assessment. He claims he respects the need for consistency and the integrity of EEO reports (he's a better man than I). But, he believes his experience should count for something. Apparently, with his system, it does not. He seems to feel he's lost stature while his boss feels they've been given a blessed gift.

I got on my soapbox about how his ATS - and ATS's in general - are designed to create reports instead of get people hired. They try to protect the company from liabilities (EEOC, lawsuits, etc.) but they're the wrong liabilities. The bigger risk lies in staffing badly.

He said it better: HR is like the guy holding Michael Jackson's umbrella - protecting him from the sun and rain while the courts are crucifying him.

2005-03-22T18:59:00.000-06:00

Do you know me?

Job Boards Suck

2005-03-18T11:06:00.000-06:00

I had an email chiding me about my criticism of job boards. (From a job board employee, perhaps?). Whether replying to her email or on this forum, my response is the same:

What’s wrong with job boards? Are you kidding? Have you ever used one? Not as an advertiser, but as a job hunter. It’s a totally different experience from that angle. It’s just awful. Searches either turn up too much, or nothing. So you end up setting wide search parameters and have to sort through a bunch of chaff (the search technology stinks).

So the user spends all kinds of time reading through garbage that has nothing to do with what they want. They do it on board after board. Nice use of time - especially when you’re unemployed and stressed out. Most job hunters spend a lot of time online because it feels like they’re doing something. Reaching out to companies online feels like an efficient use of time. Sadly, more jobs are found through referrals – making networking a better use of time. But they’re unemployed and running scared. They don’t seem to know this.

Why does the job board experience suck – especially when technology is available that would solve this problem? Because it’s not about the technology. It’s about the business model. Job boards are newspaper classifieds online. Ads are sold based on how much traffic frequents the site. More traffic equals more valuable space. And if you can get those users to stay a long time, you make more money. More time spent on the site ‘proves’ the sites value. Basically, if you can get people to come to your board, then drag them through a lot of muck, you make more money. In this business model, giving the job hunter efficient tools erodes ‘value’ (using the term loosely).

That’s why I said they treat users poorly. They do.
What a waste of interactive media.

the Next Big Thing - R-E-S-P-E-C-T

2005-03-16T20:00:00.001-06:00

Spoke with a colleague about technologies in the ATS/job board space. We were trying to figure out what the next big technology would be. We arrived at the conclusion that the evolution needed most wasn't a technology, but an applicant-centered approach.

ATSs are built on outdated recruiting processes. Basically, the employer controls the process from start to finish and the candidate's experience is not considered at all. This is how it's always been; now it's automated. Same deal with the job boards - they waste a lot of candidate time with crappy search technology. There it is - two industries in our sphere that built systems in order to attract candidates, yet treat them poorly.

The big opportunity is to deploy technologies that take the candidate into account instead of treating them like meat. A company doing that (and measuring the right things) will have a much better chance of getting the talent they want.

In-ertia We Trust

2005-03-10T18:41:00.000-06:00

At a glance, the last entry is silly. Beyond the first impression though, there are interesting implications. Loyalty is a rare commodity. Quietly leaving a company and telling your employer where to get off are the same thing - just different levels of courtesy.

With the Internet came predictions of people moving about as though human capital were a liquid commodity. Didn’t happen. Despite the proliferation of job board/auction houses, liquidity didn’t happen in human capital markets for very human reasons. It takes more than a technical advancement for this to happen. It takes a socio-cultural adjustment. A modicum of human insight tells us that people don’t like change. Changing a job is a big change. People seek regularity - in habit and paychecks. This is why disengaged employees stay. Initiating a job search is the last resort because we simply don’t like change. A known evil is better than uncertainty. And when that evil is your job, you find all kinds of rationalizations to keep doing the same dance. You need the paycheck, you like your coworkers, you’re doing good, the commute isn’t bad, the benefits are okay, etc.. It’s a lot easier to build a household with a steady job. Looking for a job is hard - it is uncertain. It takes you out of your comfort zone and brings all kinds of questions about what should be done with your life. Those are hard questions and most want to avoid them. Most people won’t look for a job until their back is against the wall - despite knowing the best time to jobhunt is when you are employed. A steady job is what we aspire to.

Despite this desire to stay in one place, employee attrition will be a concern again - not based on technological advancements, but on cultural shifts. Remember when having too many jobs on your resume was stigmatized? It isn’t anymore - shift. Leaving companies, voluntarily or not, politely or not, is an ongoing cultural shift with employees increasingly independent of companies. Baby boomers have been shocked into shifting. Generations X and Y are inoculated against corporate loyalty. So, people stay in jobs because they fear change. Put another way, inertia keeps people in place. Inertia: your organization’s primary retention tool. The present cultural shift will change this.

What are the implications? Loyalty is out of fashion. Attrition will be a bigger problem going forward as it gets easier to tell your employer where to get off. Inertia is the big retention tool. Retention techniques used in the ‘90s pale in comparison. The opportunity for HR to add value is a tremendous. However, the challenge is just as big. Located in the heart of an organization, HR is positioned to make an impact. But being there doesn’t make them effective. To put it bluntly, HR, is involved because they’re there, not because they’re good.

Historical mediocrity notwithstanding, opportunities keep coming. Continued underperformance makes outsourcing an attractive alternative. The choice is to get good or get out(sourced).

Caution

2005-03-09T23:57:00.000-06:00

Telling your employer to F*#^ OFF! can be habit forming.

Don't Go Changin'...

2005-02-19T11:57:00.000-06:00

A lengthy debate over evolution vs. revolution isn’t really important. Because if you remove time from the equation you get the same thing: change. What does matter is whether change is initiated from within, or imposed on you.

In HR, we change you. We have lots of rules for you to learn. We can teach you how to avoid sexual harassment and treat everyone equally. We can tell you how to conduct interviews, performance reviews, or how to put in for a transfer. And we have forms – lots of forms – for you to fill out. We are ‘forms’ people. Basically, we’re good at imposing change on other departments. You don’t change us; we change you. Oh, and we don’t change ourselves either. That’s the neat part. We can get by with a little ‘process re-engineering’ - automate something, or conduct another seminar and throw around some buzzwords. That makes it seem like we’re doing something - and it works! The secret is that we’re not really accountable. We seem to be, because we always look really busy. You can’t be a bureaucrat if you don’t know how to look busy. See, its hard to hold someone accountable when you can’t measure their performance. (We talk about this in our performance management seminars). But, we’re good at looking busy, and we can always hint that we’re meeting with someone important in a few minutes. Of course, its confidential. But, a combination of looking busy and hobnobbing with the big execs is hard to argue with. Clearly, we’re doing something here.

OK. So, process re-engineering isn’t so bad, is it? That depends. For the most part, our re-engineering movement has become synonymous with our automation movement. Take the same processes, add automation, and stir. The results are more automation but few changes in process. Sadly, many of these processes were created under different circumstances (like an abundant labor supply) and a bad process – automated or not – is still a bad process.

Change is directional, active, and can be a stimulus or a response. HR pushes change outward, but merely reacts to outside forces. There seems little appetite for changing from within. The entire field responds to some change in law, a new technology, or some demand for measurement. But there is no ongoing renewal originating from within the profession. This lack of self-examination is pervasive, and, coming from a group espousing proactivity, it is an extreme hypocrisy. It is the most damning characteristic of HR today. The drive for change continues to come from outside HR, from the courts, from new technologies, from executives, and from shareholders.

What is needed is a fundamental questioning of why we are here, and what values we can add - by virtue of positioning or ability – and re-prioritize our goals. Only then can we ‘re-engineer’ processes that fit our new realities.

It's Time

2005-02-10T23:53:00.000-06:00

HR-evolution or revolution? It’s time. Evolution takes a long time. Revolution? Not so much.

We work in interesting times. With changes in labor supply, automation, and outsourcing coming, there are many crossroads ahead. As HR professionals, we’re facing new pressures and are uniquely unequipped to comply with normal business practices - like measurement. Funny, since compliance is supposed to be a big deal to us. Change is happening, but is it happening to us, or are we doing it?

I want to speak to the importance of HR. I want to speak of the folly of HR. As HR professionals, we’re in the ‘employee’ business. We are also employees. We should be able to bridge the gap between employer and employee – we live it. We need to manage ourselves like a line business, not a bureaucracy. We need to marry the ‘human’ to the ‘resources’. We’re doing a lousy job with both.

Automating a recruiting process is evolution. Outsourcing HR is revolution. Questioning the assumptions underlying a process before automating (so we don’t automate bad processes) is proactive revolution. We have lots of little choices every day - the mental equivalent of busywork. We have one big choice: evolve or be overthrown revolution-style. HR, change thyself.

HR-evolution or revolution? You decide.