Sunday, July 27, 2008
Costs 101
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.
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
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.
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.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Sourcing - where its at
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.
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
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.
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.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Follow up on the "A" Player
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.
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.
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Motivating The "A" Player
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.
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?
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?
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?
Monday, August 21, 2006
"Passive" Jobseekers
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…
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…
Saturday, July 29, 2006
Leverage III
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?
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
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.
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.
Friday, July 21, 2006
Job Descriptions
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:
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.
"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.
