Right now Congress is battling about how to resolve the budget deficit.  Some might argue that the most important issue to improve our economy is to get Americans back to work.  According to an article in the Society For Human Resource Management’s HR News, economists suggest that jobs should have been the focus of the Super Committee all along.

However, in areas of the country where there is job recovery, there seems to be another problem.  There is a significant gap between skills needed for these jobs and skilled workers ready to go to work. 

The SHRM article asked for responses concerning the skills deficits in job applicants for specific organizations.  A response from the Arlington, VA Workforce Investment Board said that in some cases job seekers just don’t know how to promote themselves.  When responding to the question “Why do you want this job” the applicant’s answer may be – “Because I want a job.”  Not a good way to highlight the skills a worker could bring to the company. 

Job seekers need to be aware that the current economic productivity is similar to levels reached prior to the 2007 -2009 recession, but there are millions more people out of work.  The good news is that 58% of companies that laid off workers during the recession are making direct replacement of those jobs. The bad news is that many of those jobs now require completely new skill sets.

The applicant needs to be able to separate him- or herself from the pack by highlighting the talents and skills they bring.  Recently there has been a change in the focus of the HR Recruiters from years of experience to actual skill sets available in the job seeker pool- reflecting the trend of changing skill requirements.

The really interesting issue highlighted by companies responding to the SHRM-posted question said that the most common skill deficiencies in applicants are 1) writing in English 2) math skills 3) reading comprehension and 4) speaking in English.  The cited language deficiencies could be easily addressed by applicants through local training organizations.  Students in secondary or post-secondary educational institutions need to be aware of these needs and be focused on heightening their skills going forward.

Hiring, or hunting for a job are stressful and difficult processes, and even with the right skills, or the right group of applicants the one thing we all need is persistence and a sense of humor.  Good hunting!

Tags: applications, hiring talent, Hiring Trends, job seeker attitudes, retraining

As most economic writers will tell you, it is the small business sector in our country that adds the most jobs to our economy.  As a matter of fact large businesses (over 500 employees) have reduced the number of employees significantly in the last few years.  Thus job seekers are feeling the pinch as new business startup statistics are the lowest since the 1990s. 
An article in USA Today Small Business provided a summary from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.  For the 12 months ending in March 2010 there were 505,000 new business startups – the weakest growth since the bureau started tracking this stat in the 1990s.  Other publications have tracked current trends and say the outlook is not very rosy (National Federation of Independent Business).  After steady increases through early February, the optimism index dipped for March and April of this year. 
The lack of new business is attributed by many to the lack of consumer spending.  Sales trends are down, and there is a lot of uncertainty about what is next.  Also companies are worried about what will happen in the next year in U.S. Government. 
This news impacts our unemployment issues. National unemployment statistics hover at 9%, and an article in the Financial Times said that the “basic unemployment” percent (people between jobs or permanently unemployed) may not ever get back down to the 3% level we’ve held for years.  For every “opportunity” for growth in an industry there is a balancing economic factor that may dampen that growth. One example was the optimistic view that companies might move manufacturing jobs back to the U.S. because of rising costs overseas.  The pessimistic view is that these same companies will adopt more technologies that would replace these very jobs! 
There is an interesting factor in all this news.  Technology companies (mostly small businesses) and technology jobs continue to make gains, and there are jobs going begging.  The reason – the workforce lacks the skills to fill these positions.  One article talked about the loss of jobs in the construction sector, and the need for trained workers in the healthcare industry…and these skills don’t cross over.  There are also jobs to be had in IT, and even in skilled manufacturing. 
There is no easy answer to the problem.  There is hope for the job seeker with technology or IT skills, but it will require time and patience to find the best match.  Keep hunting!

Tags: hiring process, Hiring Trends, industry news, job seeker attitudes, retraining, technical jobs

Performance reviews are not fun for either the employee or the reviewer, but in the past were viewed as a necessary evil of working in an organization.  The fact is, however, that they are not a requirement except in the case of some governmental or union employees.  The other fact is that they take an enormous amount of time and create lots of stress for everyone.  So why do them?
An article in Legal Section of the Society for Human Resource Management site brings up some interesting points.  The April article by Judith Droz Keyes discusses both the reasons for and the pitfalls of performance reviews.
The formal review system was developed predominantly as a defense against discrimination lawsuits in the 50’s and 60’s, to justify terminations and disciplinary actions.  They were also supposed to serve as an honest and accurate assessment of an employee’s job performance relative to the employer’s standards and, to the performance of the team.  They were intended to motivate the employee to achieve great things and improve the morale of the company. 
The problems with these evaluations are many.  First and foremost, most supervisors are not good at reviewing their staff, and tend to avoid confrontation.  Therefore the employee may have been reprimanded in some way during the year, and at review time will get a satisfactory rating, so as not to cause waves.  In other cases, the language used in the review is not clear – saying “I would like to see” rather than “this job requires”.  In addition, most supervisors are not held accountable for the quality of their review process, so there is no consequence, until the employee is let go and a lawsuit is file.
That brings up the second problem.  Many times the review process is designed more as a career path management tool than a disciplinary tool and so problems with employees may not be accurately documented in the process.  Then, when an employee files a “wrongful termination” suit, they cite their years of positive reviews as evidence.  Sadly this means that the supervisor must now always look at the process as a potential legal pitfall rather than a helpful tool for management.
Yet another problem with the process is the lack of timeliness of the feedback.  Management should be addressing problems or achievements as they occur, rather than waiting a prescribed amount of time to give praise or criticism.  As a supervisor I had to keep careful notes during the year to avoid the “feeling of the moment” – the employee had just done something to irritate me that might affect my attitude during the review.
Finally (though there are probably more issues I haven’t thought of) there is the legal side of employment which says you need to be careful about commenting on things such as “professional attitude”, excessive absences, or cases where there is a conflict with the supervisor.  Any comments must be weighed against the protected rights of the individual employee, which tends to lead to a very bland review.  It is very difficult to deal with an employee with serious health issues when their position is vital to the organization and slows down the whole business process.  A supervisor must be very careful to comment in language that addresses the goals of the company and how they are not being met…or some other cleaver way to discuss the problem.
So if not performance reviews, what?  As mentioned earlier, timely addressing of the issue, either positive or negative, is much more useful for both employer and employee.  Record of these discussions need to be documented just as in a review, especially when compensation is tied to performance.  In place of a review, a “career plan” showing goals for the employee to work toward would be much more useful.  The goals should be developed through mutual input and allow the employee to show how they would like to grow in the business. 
Whether you are a manager or part of the staff in an organization, it is a challenge to keep dialogue open and keep everyone on the same page.  Good luck!

Tags: change management, employee feedback, employee morale, job seeker attitudes, performance management, team building

I find it very interesting that articles on how to retain your employees and how to hire successfully are intimately intertwined.  The overall assumption is that if you interview carefully, you and the candidate will have a long and happy life together. 
As a job applicant, the same rules apply.  For every “suggested question” the interviewer/recruiter asks, you need to ask others to find out what you need to know about the job.  
Some suggested reasons for why employees might not stay, gathered from resource Profiles International, are as follows:
* Inadequate capability
* Poor job fit
* Fuzzy goals and accountabilities
* Poor relationship with manager
* Poor relationship with co-workers
* Health and wellness issues
* Physical and environmental factors
On the other hand, Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) has an article on its site listing the three main goals of a good interview:
* Find out as much as possible about what the candidate knows.
* Learn how their work skills have been applied and tested in work situations.
* Determine where their aptitudes lie, defining the path of future growth and development.

If you glance between the two, it appears that the interview list covers most of the “why they leave” list.  Health and wellness and environmental factors may be harder to control for, but the rest seems to fit. 
The SHRM article gives some great advice – check your interview questions (and expected answers) against the interview goals and make sure they mesh.  Also ask the questions to get the best personal insight from the interviewee. 
One sample question, asked two ways, illustrates the management part of the interview.  The general question “where do you see yourself in five years” is fairly open-ended (they might have a terminal illness!) and won’t get the best response.  Instead “Where does this position fall along your career path” provides the opportunity for a more specific response.
Again, as a job seeker, give real thought to these questions, as you want to make sure this opportunity is a fit for you.  You need to give the prospective employer a chance to know you, to avoid the “misfit” thing.
Of course the one event no one can protect against is a major change in leadership, or even in business focus.  Therefore the employer should always be looking for people who are flexible and willing to learn who can make the sudden leaps that sometime happen in the current business environment.
As usual, good luck!

Tags: candidates, employee morale, hiring process, job seeker attitudes, recruiting

As we all have heard, corporate profits dropped significantly (some sources say by 1/3) in the latest economic downturn, and companies were cutting and slashing wherever they could, including eliminating some product or service lines.  Because  of the belt tightening companies have become very efficient at delivering their product or services with fewer resources.  As a result, second-quarter 2010 profits for industrial companies in the S&P 500 stock index were $189 billion, up 38% from a year ago.  The outcome in many cases was as much a result of cost savings as revenue growth.
But..how does that affect the staff that got to keep their jobs?  And what are the long-term effects of this new way of working?
An article in the Society for Human Resource Management news (1/7/2011) highlights some of the problems in doing more with less.  Companies know they cannot continue cost-cutting to success, but for the last two years that was the major tool in the toolbox. 
Among the problems mentioned in the article are:  Diminished capacity, capability and agility, misaligned organizational structure, broken business processes and declining workforce engagement.  These issues can greatly affect future success.
Diminished capacity refers to not having enough staff, which can directly affect the company’s cost structure and ability to deliver the goods.  In well-staffed organizations there is the ability to shift people rapidly to respond to shifting business needs.  In a reduced-staff organization the employees have to focus on their immediate responsibilities, leaving little time to help in other areas.  Obviously the inability to respond will affect the company’s ability to compete.
Misaligned Org Structure can, as a result of rapid reorganization, leave an organizational chart that no longer is aligned to support the business. There are resulting gaps in roles, work process, accountabilities and information flow.  Structural gaps also occur when companies eliminate middle management positions without eliminating the work, forcing employees to take on added responsibilities.  Employees unprepared for management issues often end up “winging it” to the detriment of the company.
There are also broken business processes, partly as a result of prior reliance on long-term employees for “tribal knowledge” of the operation.  By failing to document or address the broken processes the companies can lose core efficiencies – and have to re-invent the wheel.
Eventually the workforce becomes disengaged.  In the short term everyone was glad for the job, and willing to pitch in.  It has become obvious, however, that this  situation is going to continue for quite awhile.  Not only that, but these loyal employees aren’t seeing monetary rewards for their efforts.  These employees are hunkered down until new opportunities arise, and then some organizations may lose a lot of valuable talent.
Unless companies address the problems created by the downsizing, they will start to lose the advantages gained by the initial cuts.  They need to be able to manage the new structure and reevaluate skills needed to stay competitive – and be ready for the next wave of new business!

Tags: change management, employee morale, Hiring Trends, industry news, job seeker attitudes, performance management