Why your firm may have trouble attracting or keeping talent

There is a war on over human talent but you would not know it if you spoke to most executives. With unemployment hovering just above 7% there should be plenty of people to choose from, just happy to have a job.  Wait a minute, isn’t that what they said when unemployment was nearly 12%? So the number of people out of work and seeking jobs has dropped 40% and still it should be no problem to find good people. Just run an ad on Craig ‘s List and the resumes will pour in.

 

This may be true, but the avalanche of resumes won’t represent the quality or level of employees that you’re looking for. Oh, by the way, it gets worse. The ugly truth is that most organizations have no idea how to even identify quality personnel. Don’t believe me, keep reading.

 

To begin with, does your firm even know what a quality applicant would look like? Sure you may have a job description and you may have even put together a list of qualifications but does this information lead you to a highly qualified candidate. I doubt it. In fact, I can guarantee that your firm has done absolutely nothing to correlate and validate any of these qualifications to high potential hires. Heck, I would be shocked if the contents of your performance review assessments reflected even half of these qualifications.  Try to keep up with me. If the competencies required for the position are not reflected in your performance review criteria, then how meaningful can they be?

 

However, I will pick an easy illustration such as, good communication skills. Maybe, just maybe, this is one of the few mandated new hire capabilities that is also assessed during the employee’s annual evaluation. But how do you know if the person has good communication skills? Why does this matter for this particular job? How do you evaluate candidates for this competency and what is the relationship between your assessment of the individual when hired and now during their performance review?

 

I bet you cannot even recall how you evaluated them as a candidate. Even if you can, I suspect, their on the job communication performance is different than what you expected.  And if there is a difference between your ability to accurately evaluate a person’s basic communication skills, what other costly mistakes and misjudgments have you made about the candidates you interviewed?  

 

If the people you employ are performing less than you expected, are you beginning to wonder what happened to the people you hired?  Maybe you should wonder what you are doing wrong because you’re the one making the purchasing decisions, you are making the offer, your the one deciding who is best qualified, or are you?

 

Chances are both you and your organization are not qualified to hire or keep top talent. So you get what you deserve. Why do I say this, how presumptuous of me, what evidence do I have to offer, explain yourself you say…… That is just what I am about to do.

 

We have hinted that you cannot even describe or recognize what top talent looks like. Now, we request that you take another look at the job description, the basis for the job postings used to attract candidates. How much are the posting about the work to be done, verses what the new hire will gain from assuming the assignment. If you’re trying to attract quality people why not place a quality posting? List what makes your company the employer of choice, what is in it for them, why your organization, this assignment and the career opportunities associated with the job opening reflect the best career move for potential candidates. Evaluate the firm’s qualifications as an employer, both the good and the not so good. Make sure your job posting communicates the true competitive advantages your enterprise has to offer to top candidates.

 

Now that you have revamped your job postings and the organization is beginning to attract top talent what is it like to be an applicant for a job at your place of business? If you’re like most enterprises, you treat job seekers like homeless people lined up for a soup kitchen hand out. They wait in line for an opportunity and you feel their lucky to be considered.

 

What about the ones who make it past the initial resume screening process? Are you going to have someone in HR arranging a telephone interview? How exciting and rewarding for the outstanding applicant. They get to speak to someone who has only a glimmer of what the job entails, no idea what success in the assignment looks like, and is ignorant of the value there would be for them to join the firm.

 

Now the hard part begins. HR discovers an outstanding candidate who has taken the bait. So they contact the hiring manger to arrange an interview. The hiring manager, when they submitted the job requisition emphasized how urgent it was to fill the position. Therefore, the recruiter is excited to call and inform the hiring manager that a highly qualified prospect is ready to meet with them.

 

Unfortunately, for everyone involved, the hiring manager has suddenly become distracted by another urgent business demand and cannot meet with the applicant until possibly sometime in the future. Additionally, needs have changed and the job requirements are now altered so the recruiting profile needs to be adjusted. What do you communicate to the previously considered outstanding candidate? If they are lucky, your HR department sends them a “Dear John” post card. Something the former candidate will enjoy sharing with other outstanding performers within their professional and personal network.

 

Finally, in spite of all the difficulties, a series of face to face interviews is scheduled.  Of course there is no interview plan except maybe a schedule identifying when each person is going to speak to the candidate. Unfortunately, there has been no effort to convene the interview panel in advance to discuss the assignment, the qualifications, the questions that each will ask, or how the interviewers will compare notes on their impressions of the applicant.

 

However, it does not matter since almost everyone likes the candidate. The lone objection appears to be based on the fact that the candidate was not able to answer some silly question about the competitive landscape and they could not remember their previous supervisor’s name. Funny, because none of the references supplied by the candidate, appear to be former bosses. No matter, it is important to fill the position soon and besides the candidate did seem to know a lot about their prospective employer and they came across as such a nice person. The kind everyone should enjoy working with. Well that wraps up the new hire assessment process. Next, the offer and acceptance.

 

Now the fun part. Unknown to the HR department, the candidate mentioned a desire to earn somewhere in the range between x and y dollars with one of the interviewers.  Despite what was said, the response the candidate heard was that that they could earn up to y dollars. Therefore, when an offer of x dollars was presented, the candidate pointed out that they were led to believe that the salary would be y dollars. And furthermore, they are being reasonable because they were expecting an increase for the good work they were doing at their current employer. So, under the circumstances, the demand for y dollars was fair. Of course the truth was they had been let go by their previous employer. However since the candidate was collecting a severance allowance they felt that they were on the former employer’s payroll, which is the same as being employed, isn’t it?

 

So you tell me, did the firm hire a high potential employee? Did the firm do a good job of investing in the recruiting process? Does this case study seem oddly familiar? If so, what should be done at your company to ensure that high quality personnel are hired, or does it really matter?

 

Wait, were not done. We have not even covered the on-barding process. However, my phone is ringing, so I have to go. It’s that pesky supervisor calling me again to help him fire someone who is not going to pass the probationary period and he wants to replace them with someone who can do the work. And the beat goes on….

 

From: Michael L. Salisbury at

www.hralliance.biz

Sequestration what is it

Today we veer off the cliff.... oh sorry that was a few weeks ago. Let's start over again. A friend of mine, his real name is Jack, who is a financial advisor, sent me the following article. I was compelled to respond and thought I would share my thoughts with you gentle reader.  

Forgive some of the formatting. Ever since sequestration has affected our lives, my ability to format correctly via this medium as been compromised. You will just have to make due and have hope that some special interest group will take pity on us all and fight for our right to obtain govenment subsidiezed formating services at no cost to you or me.

Understanding "Sequestration" If you like political drama, you're in luck. It seems like just yesterday the news was filled with references to the fiscal cliff. Now, coming to theaters everywhere, is "sequestration." Look for more political confrontation to unfold as sequestration gets under way. What exactly is sequestration? "Sequestration" refers to a series of automatic, across-the-board spending cuts to federal government agencies that are scheduled to take place in fiscal years 2013 through 2021. The cuts, totaling $1.2 trillion, will be split evenly between defense and domestic discretionary spending. The cuts are effective March 1. (The cuts were originally scheduled to take effect January 1 but were postponed to March 1 as part of the last-minute fiscal cliff deal reached on New Year's Day.) How did sequestration come into being? Sequestration was created from the August 2011 standoff over the U.S. debt ceiling. In conjunction with agreeing to raise the debt ceiling (which allowed the U.S. Treasury to pay its monetary obligations and avoid a default), Congress imposed approximately $2 trillion worth of spending cuts--$1 trillion that was spelled out in the debt ceiling bill (the Budget Control Act of 2011) and another approximately $1 trillion that would be implemented through sequestration--a broad, across-the-board series of default spending cuts that would take effect beginning in 2013. The idea was that sequestration would be a measure of last resort, and that Congress could act to replace the sequestration cuts with an equal amount of alternate spending reductions. Indeed, the Budget Control Act of 2011 created a deficit reduction "supercommittee" that was charged with reaching consensus on additional budget cuts that would avoid sequestration. The supercommittee failed, paving the way for sequestration to take effect. What's going to be cut? The automatic cuts are effective March 1, 2013. From 2013 through 2021, sequestration is scheduled to cut $1.2 trillion from government agencies, split evenly between defense and domestic programs. More than $500 billion is scheduled to be cut from the Defense Department and other national security agencies. The remaining cuts will affect a variety of domestic programs, including education, public safety, energy, national parks, food inspections, housing aid, transportation, and law enforcement. Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare benefits are exempt from sequestration. Although cuts to Medicare provider payments are on the table, they can't exceed 2% of current payments. In 2013, the cuts will total $85 billion (sequestration originally called for approximately $109 billion in cuts this year, but the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 reduced the required cuts by $24 billion). The Congressional Budget Office estimates that in 2013, funds for defense spending (other than spending for military personnel) will be cut by about 8%, and nondefense spending subject to automatic reductions will be cut by between 5% and 6%. (Source: Congressional Budget Office, The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2013 to 2023, February 2013) You may have heard a great deal about what's going to happen as a result of the sequester, and much of it has likely been alarming. It's important to understand, though, that the government will not be shutting down. In fact, while it's hard to know exactly how things will play out as the cuts are implemented, most individuals are probably not going to notice a significant, immediate effect. Federal agencies will notify employees of possible furloughs, and the Defense Department will do the same with civilian employees, but those furloughs likely won't take effect for at least a month. In addition to potential layoffs and furloughs, individual agencies will begin announcing and implementing other cost-saving measures. Wait, there's more ... While it hasn't received the same level of attention as sequestration, there's another problem rapidly approaching--the government is running out of money again. Federal funding for the current fiscal year expires on March 27, 2013. Unless Congress authorizes additional funding, a partial government shutdown would result. In addition, a few months later, expect another debt ceiling debate. The federal government reached its $16.394 trillion debt ceiling limit at the end of 2012. Congress subsequently suspended the debt ceiling limit until May 19, 2013, and although the U.S. Treasury has some ability to continue operations beyond that date, at some point the debt ceiling debate will need to be addressed. Thus, it's conceivable that any short-term agreement on sequestration would include provisions that address these deadlines as well. Whether Congress addresses some or all of these issues over the coming weeks or months is anyone's guess. So stay tuned. And pass the popcorn. So Jack in response to your article here is what I see:  1. Add up all the people who directly and immediately benefit from the government’s largess (e.g. no budget, expanding debt, printing money, legislative pork riders, expanding debit ceiling, artificially low interest rates, expanded social programs, corporate welfare, oil subsidies, misc. special interests, equity investors, a strong military, etc. 2. Add up all the people who directly and immediately benefit from government austerity (increased unemployment, lower profits, less military preparedness, social costs associated with fewer government programs, transfer of legislated activities from the feds to the states, sale of GM stock at a significant loss to gain income, massive housing foreclosures, higher taxes,…) Oh sorry! I could not identify any segment of society that benefits directly and immediately from government austerity so all I could do was outline some of the impacts. If I have not made the point here are some more impacts you mentioned, “cuts will affect a variety of domestic programs, including education, public safety, energy, national parks, food inspections, housing aid, transportation, and law enforcement”. 3. Although I think it would be good if it did occur, I think your right, “the government will not be shutting down.” 4. And as you say, “as the cuts are implemented, most individuals are probably not going to notice a significant, immediate effect.” 5. I disagree that, “Whether Congress addresses some or all of these issues over the coming weeks or months is anyone's guess.  In fact, …. it's hard to know exactly how things will play out” 6. When you compare 1 vs. 2 above, unfortunately, there is no compelling reason not to have the government continue to operate out of control. It has been going on in California for decades. Furthermore, look at the city of Detroit. Do you see anyone being held accountable for the mess that city got itself into. Sadly no. 7. As long as our leaders are not held personally accountable, people continue to believe in a free lunch. The question then is, when is this bubble going to burst . If you think 2008 was bad, wait until 20XX. Just ask the Spanish or the Greeks. Can you believe that I am an optimist? From Mike Salisbury at www.hralliance.biz

How To Achieve Success in HR

First of all let’s define success.

In my opinion, success is achieving what you set out to achieve. The question now is, how do you achieve what you want? There is any number of answers to this question and many books have been written on the subject.

However, I think the answer, at least most of the time is, “Sponsorship”. In other words you need someone who has the power to grant you access to your desires. This does not mean that they are a Genie and simply grant your wish. Rather, they open doors, provide support, grant access, etc. that assist you in gaining your objective.

I know in my case I cannot make it alone. Among other things, I need the support of my clients, a favorable reaction from my prospects, a referral from a colleague, support from my mentors, and helpful feedback from those who want me to succeed. Granted, I often need to earn that support but regardless of my capabilities, someone who has more support than I will most likely be more successful.

What do you think?

by Michael Salisbury from the Human Resource Alliance (HRA) www.hralliance.biz

Does Recruiting Belong In HR?

What you say!!! Recruiting obviously belongs to the Human Resource function. Maybe, maybe not.

There may be benefits to moving the staffing function from HR to Marketing. Although this idea may not be appropriate for all organizations, it might be beneficial for a consumer based business that recruits from people who are potential customers.

If the business wants to expand its brand and become more integrated with its clientele, why not integrate the marketing of the product together with the marketing of the firm? Anyone who has recruited will tell you that it is a sales activity. Not only is a recruiter trying to sell the prospect on the opportunity but the company is being sold to the candidate.

Imagine the benefits and the value proposition that could be gained by this approach. Now, if I could only find a buyer who I can sell this idea to. Oh, I forgot! I am in HR not sales, pity...

What do you think?

By Michael L. Salisbury www.hralliance.biz

 

California Sales Agreement Requirements

Effective January 1, 2013 employers in California are required to satisfy new regulations associated with Sales Commission Agreements. To be in compliance, employers need to issue agreements with their commission sales representatives that meet the following provisions.

 

Sales Commission Provisions Due to California Law AB 1836

•        Employee must be given a signed copy.

•         Employer must obtain a signed receipt from employee.

•        Clear description of manner of calculating commissions.

•         If based on revenue, is it amount invoiced or amount collected?

•         If based on “profit” on a sale, how is the amount of profit determined; i.e., what charges will be applied against revenue to determine profit?

•        Agreement should define when commission is earned:

ü  Upon “booking” of sale

ü  Upon delivery of product

ü  Upon receipt of payment

•         Agreement should state that only those commissions that have been earned by date of termination will be paid

•        Chargebacks must be in contract if they will be taken.

•         Chargebacks may only be for returns or cancellations relating to sales made by the employee.

•        Agreement should explain how draws will be applied to commissions:

ü   Will draws be forgiven if not met?

ü   Will draws be carried forward?

 

•        Meal and rest break requirements, where applicable (inside salespeople are not exempt from meal and rest break law).

•         Employment at will language.

•         Reference to employee handbook or employer policies.

 Submitted by Michael Salisbury from HRA www.hralliance.biz

 

If You Must Interview, Use The Most Important Question

During my career in HR I was responsible for many interviews and even taught supervisors how to interview. However, I have learned that most people cannot predict very well how one is going to perform, based on an interview. However, I do have one piece of advice, which unfortunately is not fool proof. However, it is what I consider to be the most important interview question of all time.

The question is, “If hired, what are you going to contribute to the company and how are you going to do it?

One drawback with this question is that few positions within an organization allow an employee to make a contribution. In my experience, most jobs are designed to conduct a series of tasks, which are determined by an established process that is not readily subject to change. However, if your firm is willing to think out of the box or the position is intended to make things faster, better, and cheaper, then this is the most important question you can ask.

Furthermore, to gain the most from this question, you should prepare the candidate for this question.  In fact, as part of scheduling the interview, the candidate can be told that this question will be discussed.

Unless you gain satisfaction from trying to surprise candidates and seeing how well they respond under pressure, you may prefer to give the interviewee the opportunity time to develop a legitimate reason for hiring them. Who knows, you might learn that someone has an idea and an approach that is highly beneficial for the company plus they are willing to work to make it happen. Isn’t that the kind of person you’re organization is looking for? If not, then I don’t think any question you ask will make a difference.

From Michael Salisbury with the HRA at www.hralliance.biz  Follow myblog: http://hralliance.blogspot.com/

Why Interviews Don't Work

The author (Brad Hall) decimates the theory behind interviews (which I support by the way) and a solution is offered.

 

NEW YORK (TheStreet) -- The data are overwhelming -- job interviews are a terrible predictor of success. Yet virtually every person reading this article will insist, "That may be true for others, but it's not true for me." You're wrong. You don't know how to interview job candidates either.

Myth 1: We Know Whether We Are Good at Interviewing

A person's belief that he can accurately assess another person is not at all correlated to his actual ability to do so. It seems that we don't let our competence affect our confidence.

Myth 2: Smart People Are Great at Interviewing

Medical school professors are some of the smartest people in society. Yet a study found no correlation between medical school interview scores and success in medical school. The relationship was actually negative, but nonsignificant. One wonders what the professors' reaction was to these data; they are scientists after all. Did they blame themselves?

Myth 3: A Structured Approach Will Improve Selection Accuracy

On my first job at a consulting firm, I was assigned to coordinate the new consultant hiring process. We decided to organize a Saturday session where 10 candidates were each assessed in five competency areas (e.g., quantitative, analytical) by five interviewers, round-robin style.

At the end of the day, we held an interviewer's roundtable to select candidates. As we reviewed the first candidate, the "quantitative skills" interviewer said, "She has no quantitative skills at all!" Another said, "She has a master's degree in math from MIT!" The interviewer replied, "She does? Well ... she has no quantitative skills at all!" And so it went.

Myth 4: Experience Creates Great Interviewers

Being an interview skeptic, I recently advised two sales executives to conduct an outsourced assessment for a new sales director candidate. Both were highly offended. Each said that he had interviewed hundreds of candidates in his career and could accurately differentiate good and poor candidates.

We went ahead as usual. I screened several candidates and recommended a man named Harris. The first executive interviewed Harris and said that he would definitely succeed in the role. The second said Harris would definitely fail. I met with the executives together and said, "There is a truth here. Harris will either fail or not fail. That means one of you is wrong." Both insisted it was not him.

 

 

In 2002, Daniel Kahneman, a psychologist, won a Nobel Prize in economics for his work on judgments and decision-making.

As a young soldier, Kahneman participated in a high potential assessment exercise where a team of assessors observed and rated a group of soldiers in a physical exercise to determine leadership potential. The assessment process was rigorous.

Every few months the assessment team received a new round of performance ratings that made it possible to correlate simulation ratings with actual performance. Kahneman writes, "The story was always the same. Our ability to predict performance was negligible. Our forecasts were better than blind guesses, but not by much."

Their evidence made it clear that their leadership assessment did not work. It should have been scrapped, but it was not. It should have reduced the confidence of the assessors to make accurate decisions, but it did not. They just kept using it.

It is possible to greatly improve the success of new hires by focusing on three areas: 1. technical/professional skill assessment; 2. leadership behavior; and 3. on-boarding.

Technical/professional skills. Technical interviewing skills can be learned, and interviews should be conducted by an in-house panel interview. Panels provide a quality check on the assessment. Use a structured interview where questions are determined up front. For example, "Tell me how you would design a wireless network with the following parameters ..."

Make the technical interview your first step. If the candidate does not have the basic skills for the job, eliminate him or her immediately.

Leadership behavior. Behavior is more difficult to accurately assess than technical skills. But leadership behaviors can be effectively assessed by an expert through a 3- to 4-hour interview.

Some might say that cultural fit must be assessed by an internal manager. But if internal managers can do that so well, then why do several managers come up with different fit assessments? It's because culture is not operationalized. An external firm will help you operationalize your culture and then assess for fit.

For front-line and middle-manager assessments consider Development Dimensions International, Personnel Decisions, Inc. or SHL. For executive selection try ghSmart, Hay Group or Korn Ferry International(KFY_). The experts will assess: leadership style, teamwork, political saavy, influence skills, etc.

Kohlberg Kravis Roberts(KKR_) is the private equity industry pioneer, and its executives are some of the smartest people on Wall Street. Certainly they should know how to assess managers. But KKR knows its limitations and uses ghSmart to assess its new executives. The ghSmart process is a four-hour behavioral interview plus rigorous reference checks. The company provides a 50-page summary report with verbatim quotes.

It is critical to note that the external firm provides relevant data for the manager to make an informed decision. Hiring decisions must never be outsourced. This is similar to strategy consulting. Information collection may be outsourced, but the choice of a strategy is not.

On-boarding. Too often the right person was selected, but fails because of an inability to be integrated into the system of the organization. The "system" is how things get done.  A key part of on-boarding is pre-hire stakeholder interviews. On-boarding begins before the hiring decision. To prepare each stakeholder, present the technical and leadership behavior data before their interview. It is possible that the interviewer may find new data to reject the candidate, but the purpose of these interviews is buy-in more than assessment.

Typical employment interviews are not effective predictors of future job performance. Let's lower our pride and admit that we are the problem. We can do better.

Presented by Michael Salisbury www.hralliance.biz