On the job training

Occasionally I will share a personal business experience that gives me an opportunity to think things through. This is one of those occasions.

One of my clients has a difficult vacancy to fill, from many perspectives, not the least of which is a very tight recruiting budget. However, we were fortunate and able to identify a candidate who met all the criteria, within the limited budget.

 Unfortunately, as we learned later, the interview with the hiring manager did not go well and the candidate developed a story that he did not want the job because of where it was located. Of course, this matter was vetted in the selection process so I knew it was not the reason for their objection and I told the client that the proffered reason was a red herring. Nevertheless, the client was upset because they felt the recruiter had wasted time and money bringing in a prospect that did not what to work where the business was located.

Upon further review, it became apparent that the problem was not the location of the business but, how the hiring manager had handled the interview with the candidate. However, we had only one clear example of the hiring manager’s missteps. So my challenge was to adjust the client’s position about the recruiter and convince the client that the problem lie somewhere else, without throwing the hiring manager under the bus. And to do so, with out appearing to be self-serving.

It is too early to tell if I accomplished my objectives.  However, this experience is a good illustration of how the wrong information delivered at the right time can make things much worse than they need to be. It also illustrates how important it is to be able to persuade and communicate effectively under pressure. Valuable skills that I continue to improve upon.

By Michael Salisbury www.hralliance.biz

Considerations for Evaulating the HR Function

The following piece was initially suggested by a fellow HR practitioner who was questioning the approach we take in evaluating the HR function. Some good food for thought.

 

The Wall Street Journal had an interesting article on 7/30/12 where they identified and ranked the Top Chief Financial Officers of major companies. Their ranking was reported to have been “ ...created using a combination of quantitative and qualitative analysis”.

WSJ’s initial candidate pool for finance was drawn from the S & P 500 for companies with a market cap of $5 billion or more and in their jobs for at least three years. These companies were reviewed for financial performance and interviews were conducted with financial recruiters and analysts to determine who should be in the final list.

Could we do something like this for the chief human resource officers (CHRO) of a similar group of companies? The author of the article states, "My bias is to say that we could not", for the following reasons:

The CFO operates in a field that is dominated by performance data, which may not be the sole result of the CFO”s job, but he does compile and report it, and therefore has a sense of ownership/responsibility for it. The CFO is also the focal person for reviewing a company’s financial results.

 

However, those of us in the HR field deal with what is primarily a set of intangibles that may be crucial to achieving and maintaining an effective organization, but are rarely measured or visible to the outside world, unless there is a terrific calamity.

While it is true, turnover can be measured, safety and health data is quantitative, attitude surveys can give us data on employee views, recruitment data and success rates for job placements can be measured but is this data considerd as of core importance to the organization?

Maybe, the author continues, we can take another tack and identify what functions, activities, or behaviors should be measured in order to get a handle on what is important to the business so that the effctiveness or even the contribution of the HR functon can be evaluated. For starters, the author suggest the following ideas:

1.    The level of meaningful participation in corporate planning

2.  The degree to which contributions are made to the development of new business strategies

3.    How effective is HR in responding to the board on a variety of topics related to the function such as:

     a) social and economic trends that will affect the character and qualities of human assets

     b) how well executive management team operates, achieves objectives, and is prepared for and

          resolves problems 

     c) How well does the firm's reward and recognition program foster and support the organization's

         mission, goals and objectives?

4.  Does HR help the CEO and other members of management spot new and developing talent?

5.   Are there systems and processes for capturing hard and soft data regarding the building of talent for

     management continuity and succession?

6.  Are the HR functions required by the corporation are effective and up to date?

7.   Is the HR function open to new ideas and is it creating cost effective solutions to new issues and

     competitive pressures?

8.  Is there some form of HR Philosophy to help guide managers in discharging their responsibilities to the

     employees?

9.  Does HR demonstrate the courage and the wisdom to tacfully respond where management is taking

     unethical positions, violating the rights of employees, or taking positions that are in conflict with the

     social policies or cultures of the countries within which the company operates?

10.  Does HR effectively represent the organization in various public forums where the interests of the

      enterprise directly or indirectly may be affected by official and unofficial outside bodies?

11. Does HR take a long but balanced view of corporate practices, plans and policies that affect company

     costs and are relevant to will being of all parties.

 

If you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it, and this old saw is the issue for HR. Therefore, it would be interesting to sharpen this list and make it as complete as possible. Then each of these criteria could be evaluated as to whether it can reflect some form of quantitative measurement. On the other hand maybe relevant scales could be developed illustrating performance targets. However, the question remains, would the results have as much stature as the evaluation of the CFOs?

Rising Cost of Health Care

Posted below are two articles on the cost of health care for employers

Bloomberg Article Warns that Health Care Coverage May Not be Affordable

Posted on November 30, 2012 by AHIP Coverage

An article in Bloomberg examines the affordability of health care coverage as the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is implemented. The article warns that the new coverage may “come at a potentially unaffordable cost.” Here are some key highlights from the Bloomberg article:

·        As the administration spells out the details, many uninsured will be surprised at how much they will have to pay. It may involve “very substantial amounts,” and “there still will be a significant number of people who can’t afford health coverage,” said Ron Pollack, head of Families USA, a consumer group that backs the law.

·        “People are often surprised at how expensive health insurance is once they have to pay for their own,” said Karen Pollitz, a senior fellow at Kaiser Family Foundation. “The subsidies will make that better, but they won’t make the cost disappear.”

·        “While we’re only dimly aware of it, we all pay,” said former Congressional Budget Office Director Robert Reischauer. “There shouldn’t be free-riders.”

·        “What’s more, there are provisions in the law capping the financial burden the requirements will impose on the uninsured. If costs exceed 8 percent of their income, they are exempt from the individual mandate to buy insurance. And people can choose to pay a penalty instead of buying insurance. The fine would be $695, or 2.5 percent of a person’s income, whichever is greater.”

·        “In 2019, some families could see their premiums climb four times as quickly as the help they receive from the government, according to CBO. That means they will have to bare a larger share of the burden of purchasing coverage.”

·        “That will be a major challenge,” said John McDonough, a public-health professor at the Harvard School of Public Health. “It makes the affordability picture far worse.”

·        “A November 2009 analysis by CBO of a draft of the program provides a rough indication of how quickly the subsidies will ramp down. It shows the government covering 77 percent of the premium costs for single persons earning about $20,600, 42 percent for those earning around $32,400 and 13 percent of the premium costs for those making about $44,200.

·        That means many with modest incomes will be responsible for covering the bulk of their premium costs. About 5 million people required to buy coverage won’t receive any help from the government because they earn too much, CBO projects.”

·        “There may not be sufficient management of expectations,” said Lynn Quincy, a health-policy analyst at Consumers Union, a Yonkers, New York-based advocacy group. Lawmakers should have been telling the public the law promises “lower-cost” — not “affordable” — coverage, she said. “Everybody interprets ‘affordable’ differently — it’s in the eye of the beholder.”

 ARTICLE FROM WORKFORCE MANAGEMENT ON SPECIALTY DRUGS: THE LATEST SYMPTOM OF POCKETBOOK PAIN

An article in December's edition of Workforce Management examines the cost implications associated with specialty drugs  Here are some key highlights from the article:

• Specialty drugs, also called "biologics" are designed to treat serious and complex conditions such as cancer, make up about 17% of employers drug costs. However, only 1% of the workforce takes these drugs.
• Total costs of these drugs are expected to grow to 40% by 2017.
• Specialty drugs are derived from living organisms and have no substitute which are produced chemically
• Many biologics are administered in a doctor's office and requires extensive monitoring which further drives up costs. Furthermore, the proper medication and treatment compliance protocols are critical when it applying biologics effectively.
• With so many players involved with these drugs, the employer, the health plan, the pharmacy benefits manager among others ; it is unclear who should be in charge of controlling the cost...
• You can have an oral oncology pill that used to be an injection, only it cost $5,000 because it is managed as a speciality drug.
• Were not going to reduce the cost of specialty drugs so employers need a good understanding of how the diseases they treat can impact productivity.

           From Michael Salisbury at www.hralliance.biz 

 

 

 

Employee Engagement Ideas

Emily Manke, is an Outreach Coordinator for Online Human Resources, enjoy her guest blog.

Keeping employees engaged and motivated is an integral part of the HR pro’s experience. So instilling all of the elements necessary to help employees stay content and productive, is key. Here are 6 ways you can help your employees become passionate about your organization.

1. Rewards and recognition.

It’s been indicated in a number of studies, that rewards and recognition programs help keep employees engaged. Any number of programs can do the trick, as long as you research, and follow through. Avoid selecting a rewards program with few winners, because it can be discouraging to those who aren’t selected. It appears the more people are recognized and rewarded for their work, the more motivated and engaged they become.

2.  Find out what’s making them unmotivated.

Instead of focusing on ways to impassion employees, attempt to discover what’s holding them back from loving their job. Open communication between staff members is crucial for so many reasons, and this is one of them. If you can solve a problem that is causing a number of employees to be uninspired and thus unproductive, such as removing a problem manager, that alone will work wonders to make your staff more comfortable. They’ll feel heard, and this is likely to make them more loyal, and you got it, engaged.

3. Schedule time that’s just for fun with the staff.

Having personal ties with co-workers opens them up to a side they may not see at work, and leads to a better relationship all around. Setting up a time during work hours where everyone can relax and get to know each other a little better outside of work, can alleviate stress and frustration, and inspire employees to do better and achieve their goals. Whether it be a trip to the mini-golf course, or simply take-out in a conference room with some nice, not work-related discussion, these kinds of small gestures can work wonders to giving your employees that extra umph.

4. Make sure employees know what’s expected of them.

It’s hard for an employee to go for the gold if they don’t know what that means exactly. Even if you think someone’s job duties are clearly defined, give it some second thought. If you have a hard time describing or articulating exactly what’s expected of an employee, chances are they do too. Set clear cut goals for every position so they know what’s expected of them, and they can aim to do better than that.

5. Train management to lead better.

Even if someone is a natural leader, and has management experience under their belt, that doesn’t necessarily mean they know how to keep their team motivated and engaged. If you’re having a large scale problem with productivity and engagement, take a look at who’s in charge. 65% of respondents to a recent survey, said they’d rather have a new boss, than more money. Proof that management, is a powerful motivator. If a manager seems to lack the ability to praise, and lays the criticism on heavy, or even if he is just too hands-off, he may be the problem. An involved and highly capable manager is necessary to encourage maximum efficiency and engagement, that kind of leadership takes training.

6. Let your employees have lives.

The subject of work life balance has been a hot-topic in HR for years, and for good reason. Companies with flexible schedules, and who support employees in their pursuit of out of work activities and health, tend to have a more engaged, productive workforce. Seems strange, but the more research is done, the more it seems to suggest that loosening your employees reins, in turn ends up reining them in.

Conclusion: Employees are individuals and need to be treated as such. Bad management, a lack of rewards, and poor communication are all contributing factors to why employees become disengaged. By establishing good relationships through recognition programs, good communication, and general respect, we can repair relationships and build an engaged workforce.

From Michael Salisbury www.hralliance.biz

Sales Incentive Programs

Most so called incentive programs are really bonus payments for a job well done based on some standard of performance. A true incentive program needs to motive not just reward. Additionally, the program should not cause unintended consequences that will negatively impact the performance of the organization.

So before you consider implementing the following ideas, make sure the functions that support sales are prepared to deal with the attitude that nothing happens until you sell something.

First – Be sure you are adequately compensating the people who support the sales function. No matter how effective a sales person may be, they do not succeed entirely on their own merits. Therefore, if the results are superior, you may want to establish a bonus program for all contributors. If you do, there is a greater chance that a collaborative environment will emerge, as everyone is recognized and benefits from a team effort.

Secondly – Base the incentive program on receivables not sales. What good is it to reward someone for revenue that is not collected?

Third – Set a time limit when the incentive program will no longer be in place. Incentive programs can become stale and subject to clever employees who game the system. Prepare the staff in advance for an adjustment so that you manage expectations and don’t fall into a reactionary trap where you end up changing incentive plans for the wrong reasons.

Fourth – Communicate, communicate, and communicate some more, in advance and ongoing. If you’re going to keep score make sure everyone knows the rules, what the penalties are for breaking the rules, who is going to keep score, and who is going to referee. Sales incentives should be viewed as a game and you want the winners of the game to benefit the company

Fifth – Make it simple and keep it simple. Everyone should know at any time how they are doing, what they need to do to improve and what they have to gain if they do so.

Sixth - Coach people to be winners. It is foolish to just let people do the best they can. If your company is smart, they will invest in the sales force and do all that is reasonable to train, educate, and coach the sales team to be successful.

Seventh – Avoid compensation envy. As long as the company is making a good profit, don’t strangle the incentive program so that the more one sells the less they can make.

Eighth - Celebrate success. Focus on personal best performance not just the top performer. That way everyone is encouraged to do better without feeling that they let themselves down.

From Michael Salisbury with the Human Resource Alliance (HRA) at www.hralliance.biz

Recruiters and Staffing 1 of 2

Jeff Snyder, the author of this blog is the President of SecurityRecruiter.com; an executive search firm specialized in the recruitment of cyber security, corporate security, risk management, global compliance and global privacy professionals.  Jeff is a Certified MasterMind Executive Coach through Executive Coaching University and he holds a Stakeholder Centered Coaching certification from the Marshall Goldsmith Group.

The Weekly Staffing Meeting Begins

Okay team, we have a highly strategic Chief Information Security Officer Job to fill.  If we don’t fill this one correctly, the mistake could cost the company its brand and reputation not to mention millions of dollars and customer loyalty.  Who has ideas as to how we should go about filling this position?

The Staffing Team Contemplates

Everyone at the table brings up a name of a different local recruiter or search firm.  The group is excited because they’ve come up with the names of a dozen search firms in the local market.  These dozen firms have anywhere from 1 to 10 recruiters so the team is ecstatic when they figure out that there could be 40 or more recruiters working on this mission critical search.

With 40 or more recruiters, their search will be posted to every job board in the known universe.  They’re sure to see lots of candidates and by bringing a representative from each firm to a conference call with the hiring authority, there is no doubt in the staffing team’s mind that they’ll create healthy competition from all the hungry recruiters on the call.

Wait There’s More

The staffing team continues their discussion.  With all the coverage these recruiters will have on LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, etc. and with their accounts on Monster, Dice, CareerBuilder and all the other social media outlets they have, the team is sure that the group of recruiters they’ve compiled will surely find top of the Bell Curve candidates for the company to interview.

This plan has success written all over it!

 

Where the Staffing Team Went Wrong

The first thing to not do when attempting to fill a highly specialized security job is to call every IT recruiter in town.  Information Security Jobs or Cyber Security Jobs are not traditional IT jobs.  It takes a recruiter who specializes in Security Recruiting to fill these types of positions.

A Paradigm Shift for the Staffing Team

When the staffing team thought they would be increasing competition and thereby increasing their chances of seeing outstanding talent by bringing multiple search firms in on their CISO search, they were wrong.  They should have found a CISO Recruiter.  When filling security jobs, it most definitely is not a discussion about quantity.  This is definitely a discussion where quality rules.

How Highly Specialized Recruiters Operate

Highly specialized recruiters have invested many years of time to become experts in their skill domains.  They not only have networks of people to tap into when they’re asked to recruit highly specialized talent, they know how to ask stakeholder decision makers questions that generalized recruiters don’t know how to ask.  They know when they’ve heard the right answers or the wrong answers to their highly specialized questions and they know how to probe deeply to determine exactly what a hiring decision maker really needs in a new hire.  They understand how to probe to uncover the business problems and/or opportunities a prospective candidate needs to understand.

Highly specialized recruiters generally don’t use their client’s job descriptions to attract talent.  They rewrite their client’s job descriptions in order to appeal to talent that sits at the top of the Bell Curve. 

Highly specialized recruiters shy away from crowds.  If other recruiters are working on their searches, they will give these searches very low priority on their desks.  These recruiters typically don’t care about being on vendor lists.  They are relationship builders and problem solvers and they are thought provoking professionals who frequently lead their clients to a different paradigm of thought that the client has never before considered. 

If specialized recruiters can’t get to key stakeholder decision makers when asked to work on a search, they tend to walk away.

Highly Specialized Recruiters are Sales Professionals

Highly specialized recruiters who have recruited for 10, 15, 20+ years understand they are sales professionals.  They understand that regardless of the industry specialization they possess, they are working with people and people come with psychological puzzles to solve.  These successful recruiters live to close deals and they seldom miss a close when they’re sure that the candidate they’ve recruited for their client is making the right decision by going to work for their client. 

Highly Specialized Recruiters Don’t Live on Job Boards

Highly specialized recruiters have many strategies for reaching the most talented candidates in their domain of specialization.  Generally, these recruiting experts don’t rely exclusively on job boards.  In order to get to the most talented security professionals who are generally gainfully employed, they engage in direct recruiting.  Because of their level of domain recruiting expertise, highly specialized recruiters are generally very talented at generating referrals.  These referrals are often directed to talented individuals who are not actively looking for a job.

Highly Specialized Recruiters Don’t Work for Free

Most highly specialized recruiters don’t work for free.  In other words, because they’re bringing a unique level of expertise to the table, they’ll end up doing a significant amount of consulting with their clients.  Therefore, their time is worthy of an engagement fee.   An engagement fee causes the employer to put skin into the recruiter’s game.  

It is a method of sharing risk.  These highly specialized and highly talented recruiters shy away from contingency searches where they’ll be taking on 100% of the risk available in the business transaction.   Not only do they shy away because they’re being asked to take on too much of the risk, specialized recruiters need to know that they’re working on searches that are mission critical to their clients and therefore, their clients are serious about acquiring the industry’s top talent.

From Michael Salisbury with the Human Resource Alliance (HRA) at www.hralliance.biz

Rethinking Human Resources

Today, gentle reader I have the pleasure of introducing Emily Manke as a guest contributor to the HRAlliance blog. Emily is an Outreach Coordinator and contributor for Online Human Resources. You can read her regular blog here. I think you will find the some of the conclusions that she publicizes are consistent with this blog.

KPMG recently released an informative, must-read report on HR titled, Rethinking Human Resources in a Changing World. You can download the full report for free at KPMG’s site, here. The report has some pretty telling data regarding what the executive-level thinks about HR. Over 400 C-suite executives participated in this global survey, and their thoughts on HR, are surprising, not to mention disappointing.

A shockingly low 17% of participants thought their HR department was successful at “Measurably proving the value of HR to the business,” and only 15% percent saw HR “Providing insightful and predictive workforce analytics that provide understanding of the people agenda in businesses.” With all the research and white papers out there regarding HR functions, one would think HR departments would be able to demonstrate their worth. Interestingly enough, 39% thought HR was effective at keeping costs manageable. It seems to me that if the department is saving money, it’s inherently proving it’s worth, but obviously there’s a disconnect. So maybe it’s time HR developed a standard for measurement for it’s work.

"Data analytics is quickly evolving and can provide the next quantum leap for HR," said global lead and managing director for KPMG 's HR Transformation Center of Excellence for the Americas, Paulette Welsing. "Applying data analytics will allow HR to deliver empirical evidence to reinforce their recommendations and gain much-needed credibility at the highest levels of the business."

SHRM recently released a working draft for their standard workforce metrics they are in the process of creating with ANSI (American National Standards Institute.) There’s been some debate over the creation of these standards. Some HR groups, such as HR Policy Association (HRPA), a group of powerful HR managers that serve as lobbyists for the HR community, are opposed to these standards. HRPA are worried that transparencies in employee compensation would end up being more valuable for competitors than potential investors.

From what I can see of the draft, it’s usefulness will hopefully end up outweighing any risk of exposing confidential information to competition. If complete transparency is what it takes to convince senior executives that HR is a useful industry, then perhaps standard metrics need to be implemented. HR pros, it’s time to embrace these standards instead of fear them. 

From Michael L, Salisbury Principal, Human Resource Alliance (HRA)    
www.hralliance.biz