Recruiting well is a virtue that affects company success in all aspects of the business including economic growth and employee morale.  The successful recruiting team has their ducks in a row before they start the process.  A few of the important “ducks”, according to Ross Staffing consultants:  have the interviewing team ready to go and able to focus their attention on the process; be prepared with an efficient decision process allowing for feedback and closure; and know when the search should be outsourced (the position may be difficult to fill or require more expertise to screen).  It is important that the recruiting team have a high sense of urgency so the best candidates don’t get snapped up by some other company.

The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) recently researched the ‘time to fill” metric and found that their sampling produced an average time to process of 33.28 days.  The number includes weekends and holidays.  The challenge, according to an article in the SHRM news is to keep it under 30 days.  The article offers some suggestions to facilitate this goal.

Initially, companies should always include head count and projected growth as part of the annual budget/forecast process.  This helps the recruiting department plan ahead, and keep an eye out for needed talent. 

Then – set a timeline for the process.  If you have been looking ahead, you should be able to get past the “let’s see who we can find” that traps you in a perpetual candidate identification circle.  Set a realistic deadline for receiving applications and move on.  Once the candidates have been presented, set a schedule for phone and face-to-face interviews, assessing and processing the hire. 

Review the process itself and answer some key questions – who will do the interviewing, how will they report results, and how (and who) will candidates be kept informed of the progress?  If communication and understanding isn’t there, the “time-to-fill” will be out of control.

Technology Ventures Corporation provides continuing education classes on all aspects of starting a company and one of the sessions spends significant time on preparing for and conducting interviews.  An important task is the initial screening of the applicant resumes.  A thorough review of that document can save lots of wasted time later in the recruitment process, and help reaffirm exactly what types of candidates the company is looking for.

Remember- the candidate may have other prospects, and you want to keep them interested while your team is making decisions.  The worst outcome of a hiring activity is to have your chosen candidate say “I just accepted another offer last__.”  Pick one “mentor’ to stay in touch with your best prospects.

It goes without saying that those conducting the interviews should be well trained and prepped for the task.   Good luck!

Tags: hiring process, hiring talent, recruiting

For those climbing the corporate ladder, you need to be prepared for what is ahead.  Being part of the “Executive Suite” is essentially a whole new game – not at all like you’ve experienced before.  Leaders in the organization would be ahead to spend some time with new executives, describing the lay of the land. 

For the new senior executive, the perks are great, the responsibilities critical to the success of your company, and you are making great money.  That’s the good part.  The challenge is to stay there and succeed in the new role!

An article on this topic by Jim Swanson, senior director for the American Bar Association and former CEO for USAF Legal Operations was published in the online news, December 2011, for the Society for Human Resource Management.  In it he outlines some of the differences as one assumes a leadership role.

One of the most significant differences might be obvious, but requires some thought.  The new Big Bosses are a very different group than those in middle management.  These people have a whole world of “bosses” to report to, including their board, shareholders, customers, and even Government.  Their work schedules are generally 24-7, and their time is always stretched.  Therefore a big part of your job is to communicate efficiently.  A quote from a former boss of mine – “Be brief, be bright, be gone.”  -might apply here.

Your attention and time will also be spent primarily on solutions to the overall company goals.  Your focus should be always on the results, without getting tangled in the details and processes of your internal organization.  Failing to deliver is a sure definition of failure in your boss’s eyes.  You also need to steer clear of turf wars or spending time on personal status issues.  These are NOT productive.

Don’t bring problems – bring solutions.  If you simply bump tough problems up to your boss, you are not providing value in the role.  If it is necessary to bring an issue to the Boss, be prepared with solutions and courses of action that are in line with the “big picture” as the Boss sees it.  This means that you have to be constantly aware of the current situation in the company so pay attention.

Executive suite language often requires interpretation.  The Boss doesn’t criticize in public, and speaks much like a diplomat – oblique and highly civil.  It is for you to understand underlying messages. In public settings, compliments are “diplomatic” and you shouldn’t read too much into them.  In one on one communications, compliments with a “but” in the conversation may be an expression of concern so listen carefully to the comments.  Also, any time the Big Boss makes a suggestion or mentions something more than once, take it as “Do it ASAP”. 

Finally, get used to NOT getting a lot of strokes from the CEO.  Also get used to criticism, as it is part of the territory.  There is usually not much time for coddling – the fact that you are still in the executive suite is reward enough.

For the “Big Boss” – help your new execs prepare for the role, and you will have a much more productive and stable group to support your success.  Good luck.

Tags: change management, Executive jobs, performance management

Entrepreneurs are unique individuals with (usually) visionary ideas they are trying to develop into a real business or product.  Many articles have been written about the personality that is the entrepreneur, including that they are loners and intensely focused, somewhat socially inept, stay up late…all not typical of the successful leader.  In reality, the entrepreneur had to be able to bring people together and get them to buy into the vision.  He/she has to be a great marketer, financially astute, and have well developed interpersonal communications skills.  Being a great networker is vital to success.

One of the most difficult tasks, other than actually getting a product to market, or at least funded, is pulling together the individuals (with the skills needed) to move the vision forward.  The team that comes together to work on the project needs to work collaboratively and yet the individual member needs to exert influence in their field of expertise.  These team members also have to be flexible and not afraid of risk.

A major decision for the entrepreneur is whether to add a co-founder.  An article on the blog site www.onstartups.com discusses why you want a co-founder and how to choose one.  The article “Choosing a Minimally Viable Co-founder” by Dharmesh Shaw, first outlines the reason for one.  It can be summed up in the African proverb:  “If you want to go quickly, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.”   Having someone to share the ups and downs, to bounce ideas off of, and to help get things done, is valuable in the startup world.   So, the author writes, while you are on your quest, keep a sharp eye out for the awesome candidate that can help you “go far”. 

The article provides some key guidelines to help you in this search.  They are ideas such as: you have to be able to trust them, they have to be brilliant at building or selling, they commit to the company and not just the current idea, they are likeable, and they do stuff (not just think about it).  Also important as characteristics are whether they crank and grind (as hard as you do) and they are reasonable and rational. 

The purpose of the list, and the caution of the article, is to not waste time looking for “perfect” but recognize someone with great skills that line up with your goals.  One issue that comes up with co-founders is the same issue that comes up when entrepreneurs go looking for funding -  that you have to give up some control.  The end result is the key in both cases, having a successful startup that creates wealth, and that you get your share.

Tags: candidates, entrepreneurs, Executive jobs, hiring talent

Because employers are at an advantage in the current job market, some leaders develop a superior attitude, implying that the employee is lucky to have a job (somewhat true but not nice to say).  Others recognize that even with lots of job seekers out there, keeping their star employees is even more important because of the hiring and training costs involved in adding staff.

Those employers that appreciate happy productive employees are more likely to say things like “thanks, good job” or let me know if you need help” or even “why don’t you take the rest of the day off – you’ve worked hard to complete this project”.  Their employees are also more productive overall (See my previous blog on paying for performance).

A column in Bloomberg Businessweek, by Liz Ryan (10/4/2011) gives some great examples of what “bad bosses” say and how it negatively affects the company.  One I’ve already alluded to- “If you don’t want this job, I’ll find someone who does”.  These bosses love to remind employees that it’s all about the money, and that “You work for me”.  In actual fact money is not as important in a professional relationship as feeling like the employee makes an important contribution. 

Another (and we’ve all heard it) is “I don’t pay you to think”.  In my experience, those bosses felt threatened by anyone with a good idea, or they were stuck in old ways and didn’t want to make an effort to change.  Any employee with a brain is going to look for a new job asap.

How about “I’ll take it under advisement”?  Much like Mom or Dad saying “We’ll see”, and not a very positive response.  It usually means the boss doesn’t value your input enough to make an effort.

“Bring me solutions – not problems” can be perceived in two ways.  During the “re-engineering” craze in the ‘80s this was a catchphrase for the movement.  It should be empowering to the employees , as those closest to the problem usually can find better solutions.  It has also been misinterpreted as “don’t complain – just deal with it”, not nearly as positive an attitude.  It is also possible, that in the complicated business environment we live in now, the solution is a much more complicated one, and needs a manager’s involvement. 

“Who gave you permission” is such an antiquated attitude, but does still prevail.  Any organization has rules and guidelines for the workplace and the business, but when employees want to stick their collective necks out and try new ideas, there should be support and advice available from management – rather than roadblocks.  Companies that can respond quickly to new opportunities or crises don’t use that phrase.

Others – “sounds like a personal problem to me”, “drop everything and do this NOW”, and “everyone here feels the same way” can be belittling and create a negative work environment to those having to hear these comments.  So, whether you are just leading a meeting, or leading a department, think before opening your mouth “how would this sound if a boss said it to me”?  Thinking before speaking is always a good idea!

Tags: change management, employee morale, employment issues

Most large or well-recognized companies that are hiring are being inundated with resumes, and are trying to find ways to sort through the pile. The Internet has created a whole new market for job postings, and has resulted in a much larger audience.  To deal with the volume, increasingly applicants are being asked to take a personality test before they ever have any contact with the company. 
There are pros and cons to this practice, and in some cases complaints have been filed with the local commission for human rights that the tests are discriminatory.  One case was cited in an article by Eve Tahminciogle on the MSNBC Careers site.  In this Rhode Island case, CVS Caremark included questions that sent up legal red flags for the local ACLU.  The test asked applicants to agree or disagree with statements such as “People do a lot of things that make you angry”, “There’s no use having close friends; they always let you down”, “Many people cannot be trusted”, and “You are unsure of what to say when you meet someone”.   Several applicants had complained, and the local Commission found “probably cause” that the test was in fact discriminatory.  The company agreed to remove the problematic questions.

This could be the tip of an iceberg, as the growing use of these tests early in the hiring process is a relatively new area.  The perception is that some of these questions could hurt people with mental disorders, and is likened to a “medical exam”. 

Apparently the employment assessment market overall is worth $2 billion and growing.  It was estimated by one research firm that  one-third of employers are using testing for hiring and promotions.

There is strong disagreement between the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the ACLU on the use of these tests.  Jeanne Goldberg, advisor for the EEOC had no problem with applicants answering non-job related questions to see if the person’s personality will do well in a particular job. 

The article on MSNBC quoted some sample questions from a McDonald’s survey.  They included “I am sometimes unkind to others”, “I often lose my patience with other”, and “I dislike having several things to do on the same day”.  Ms Goldberg from the EEOC saw no issue with this survey.

The ACLU on the other had said that a lot of these standardized tests are weeding devices, and ones without real meaning.  The spokesperson said that employers were always looking for the magic test, but they didn’t accomplish much.  The applicant’s recourse was to decide not to work for the organization.

The question remains, how do you find the best candidates for your company – not only with appropriate skills, but with a work ethic that fits with the organization?  It doesn’t seem we’ve found the perfect tool just yet.  Good luck!

Tags: applications, Employment Testing, hiring process, hiring talent, Hiring Trends, recruiting