CareerCurve™

More than ever companies are concerned with how to keep their top talent.  Among the reasons employees leave are lack of career progress, poor work/life balance, not feeling valued by the company, and bad bosses. 

One retention strategy is to promote from within.  This is a great idea as it addresses a number of retention goals in one shot.  Promoting from within shows loyalty to your employees.  It demonstrates the value an employee has to your organization.  It also provides a path for career progress and creates great bosses. 

Or does it?  Are you actually setting your employees up for failure?

Anyone who has done any research on retention is familiar with the adage “Employees don’t leave bad jobs, they leave bad bosses.”  So if your company promotes from within, how could you have bad bosses?  After all, you are careful in your promotion process.  You evaluate and assess and only advance your highest performers.  

But what do you do after that?  How do you develop and train your managers once they get that promotion?  What are you doing that could be preventing your promoted managers from being successful?

Just because an employee was a high performer in his/her area doesn’t automatically mean he/she will make a great manager.  The abilities required to be an effective leader often differ greatly from those needed in the role the employee just left.  Yes, knowing the previous role inside and out and having excelled there is important, but often, soft skills that haven’t been required before are integral to doing a good job as a manager.  Some of these new necessary skills include:

Objectivity – the new manager is now in a role where being objective is mandatory.

Diplomacy – managers often have to deliver difficult messages. 

Delegation – high performers tend to take on a lot of responsibility.  This is usually why they are high performers.  Delegating means relinquishing control and this can prove to be a difficult adjustment.

Managing Conflict – conflicts will arise and the manager is now responsible for resolving them.  This is probably not something the manager did on a regular basis.  He/she may have even been part of the conflict in the past as opposed to being the one who fixes it.

Business Acumen – managers have to understand the company’s long term goals and realize how the short term objectives fit into these goals.  Then they have to get their team to understand this.

Understanding of Corporate Culture – As an employee, the manager probably didn’t spend a lot of time analyzing the culture but rather adapted to it.  As a manager, the responsibility shifts to understanding it in order to get the team to buy into it and perform accordingly.

Communication – Not only does the manager need to understand the corporate culture and goals but he/she needs to effectively relay them to the team in order to achieve not only the objectives, but alignment with corporate philosophy.

Consider that previously the manager was responsible for his/her part in a project and although most of these skills were undoubtedly required on occasion, the actual work produced was the most important focus.  Even if there were stumbles with these soft skills, the work produced trumped these issues.  Now consider the change for the manager when the work he/she needs to produce IS these soft skills.

If your organization doesn’t pay attention to the magnitude of this promotion, everyone loses.  The company no longer has the high performer in the previous role, the new manager may feel lost and unsure, the team could feel as if they have no leader, and ultimately, everyone is disengaged and starts seeking greener pastures.  Your “Promote from Within” retention strategy just became an anti-retention strategy.

What does your company do after promoting high performers?  Is enough emphasis placed on the difference in skills required to do the job well?  What could the organization do differently?

In memory of many and in honor of all, THANK YOU!

In a previous post I listed a few of the challenges for both hiring managers and ex-military when it comes to transitioning to civilian work life.  I also very lightly touched on whether or not there is any responsibility on corporations to make extra efforts to bridge the language barrier that exists between the two so that it is easier for veterans to get hired.  Rather than get bogged down in a debate about corporate responsibility, I thought I’d just list some of the personality traits of those formerly in the military. Then you can decide for yourselves whether or not it’s worth it to make some extra effort at learning how to communicate with and understand what these candidates have to offer.

Understands Leadership.  Those in the military have witnessed the dynamics of leadership and understand how to manage people in order to achieve results, even in the worst of circumstances.  A lot of their training was lead by example which means that whether  they did the leading themselves or followed their leaders, there is a healthy respect and understanding for leadership in general.

Team Players.  Although there is a huge difference in the command and control culture of the military versus the collaborative culture of corporate America, military personnel are still ingrained with a huge sense of responsibility toward their colleagues.  This means these candidates can be natural team players.

Quick Learners.  Those in the military are often forced to learn things very quickly and under high pressure.  This can result in the development of an accelerated learning curve.  A faster learning curve means less time training.

Efficiency.  Similar to the way these candidates have learned, they have also had to perform effectively under high pressure.  This translates into efficiency.  Military personnel have had no choice but to get the job done not only correctly, but also quickly.

Tolerance.  Those in the service have a familiarity with diversity.  They’ve had no choice but to work with and for whoever happens to be serving next to them.  This experience makes these candidates sensitive to cooperating with different individuals.

Tenacity.  Veterans have the experience of performing their duties in less-than-perfect circumstances.  This means they have most likely overcome and experienced success even under the worst of conditions.  Having experienced triumph over adversity can make them great employees when things are difficult because they are less likely to give up or give in.

Appreciate Receiving Feedback.  Former military personnel are used to receiving direct feedback.  They have learned to absorb what they are told regarding their performance without taking it personally.  Because of this, they not only handle the feedback well, but appreciate being told how their performance aligns with expectations.

Give Honest Feedback.  Because of the experience explained above, you may also be more likely to receive honest feedback from veterans.  The culture in which they’ve been taught means they won’t have qualms about telling it like it is.

Yes, it can be challenging to interview former military and understand both what they’ve done before and why it is relevant to the current role.  Often, the difficulty in understanding is only matched by their ability to explain it in non-military terms.  But before you even get into detail on background, consider what personality traits you will see from a former service person that match what you look for in a future employee.

When you sit down and think about the characteristics you’re searching for when looking to hire top talent, how many of these fit the bill?  Are these traits valuable enough to make it worthwhile to do a little extra work when it comes to interviewing ex-military personnel?  Are there other positive attributes you’ve seen when hiring Veterans?

The number of retired military entering the workforce continues to rise.  This presents challenges for both those coming out of the service as well as those doing the interviewing, and for many different reasons.  It seems to me that there is a lot of pressure on veterans to adapt to civilian life but is there any responsibility on HR or hiring managers to bridge the gap?  I don’t know if there is a responsibility per se, but former military have a lot to offer in the workforce and aren’t companies missing the boat if they don’t invest a little effort into learning how to interview ex-military?  I’m not trying to suggest that these folks should get special treatment; I do think it makes sense to keep some things in mind so that companies can reap the rewards of their experience and veterans can have a better chance at employment. 

Here are just a few of the challenges presented when former military personnel interview for new roles.

•  Identifying skills.  Because the interviewees may have little or no experience with civilian jobs it may be difficult for them to see how what they’ve done is relevant to the role they are pursuing.  Asking the right questions or phrasing questions the right way can go a long way in making this experience visible.

• Translating skills.  The interviewee may know that what he/she has done is a good match but lack the vocabulary to explain it.  This is something you can work through together through the course of the interview.

• Assumptions about experiences.  Interviewing someone from the military may make you want to assume certain things, such as the fact that this person has been in combat and may be affected by that.  Fight the urge to interview differently because of these assumptions.  It is generally believed that only about 10% of troops have seen combat.

• Not team players.  Due to the hierarchal structure of the military it is commonly thought that veterans don’t make good team players.  While the structure IS different than in business, there is a lot of teamwork in the military.  From the time they enter basic training, these interviewees do things in groups. 

• They lack technological savvy.  This is not necessarily true.  Think about it this way:  our military spends a lot more money on training and development than corporations do.  In addition, veterans may have global knowledge of technical trends that could be very useful in the corporate world.

Veterans transitioning to corporate America face a unique set of challenges, but so do those doing the hiring.  What have you found challenging when interviewing former military personnel?  What have you found helpful?  Being aware of just a few of these can make it easier to bridge this gap and in a future post I’ll discuss why this is so important.

A while back, I wrote a couple posts about managing Gen Y.  The first post was around the idea of understanding this generation before you attempt to manage them.  The second was about how you could adapt your business to incorporate some of things that are important to these so called “trophy kids” and how doing so may turn out to be a win-win for everyone. 

We are at a unique place in history when you consider the wide range of generations who need to work together and “play nicely in the sandbox”.  While each generation has its own unique requirements and desires, as I mention in this post about the mature workforce, the best place to start is by getting an understanding of the individuals that comprise each group of employees.  Knowledge is power and this knowledge can certainly make you a better manager.

On that note, my posts about Gen Y prompted some reaction and are generating conversation.  I was approached by a Gen Y blogger who wanted to share some insight about his generation.  Below you will see his thoughts on Gen Y and performance reviews. 

The workforce is changing, and just as a company would adjust its business model to a changing market, organizations must rise to meet the challenges of managing freshest batch of workers: Generation Y.  A big question posed to human resources professionals of late has been, “Can Gen Y handle performance reviews without the sugar coating?” Kyle Lagunas from Software Advice says the answer is yes.

Some analysts have dubbed Gen Y “trophy kids,” and believe we grew up being rewarded for our endeavors regardless of scale or success. Many assert that we cannot handle life in a less-than-adoring work environment. However, contrary to popular belief, we don’t need our hands held or our egos stroked regularly. Though there is some truth to the “trophy kid” complex, leaders and managers need to understand things from a Gen Y perspective before they can get the most out of our performance reviews.  

Here’s how we see it:

1. We don’t get it. Performance reviews are important, but are executed so poorly. Dust off your thinking caps, modernize your reviews, and capitalize on your most valuable asset (your people).

2. Lose the sugar coating. You weren’t the only ones suffering through the recession. Our idealism, though strong, has been tempered. If our performance can improve, give us strong, actionable feedback with measurable goals.

3. Connect with us. Regular feedback doesn’t have to be complicated. If you don’t have an instant messaging client in your office, get one. They’re a great tool for maintaining informal lines of communication (which we love).

4. Positive reinforcement isn’t a bad thing. Whoever demonized trophies should think again. Rewarding good performance can be as simple as an “Atta boy!” or “You go girl!” sent via email–and they go a long way in giving Gen Yers a sense of accomplishment.

To read this article in its entirety, check it out on Software Advice blog: http://www.softwareadvice.com/articles/hr/performance-reviews-gen-y-perspective-1062011/

____________________________
Kyle Lagunas
HR Analyst

So what do you think?  Can Gen Y handle performance reviews?  Have you changed your style to adapt to this generation?  Does Kyle have it right?  Keep the conversation going in the comments.

As we all know, attracting and retaining top talent is a big concern for HR.  This is a guest post on the topic that I hope you will find helpful. 

There are many elements to talent optimization. Two of the chief ones are ensuring you’re making the most of your current staffing resources, and hiring the right skills when necessary.

Your talent management processes can help you achieve your talent optimization goals in a variety of ways. Talent management encompasses everything from recruiting, hiring and onboarding, to performance management, employee development, succession planning, compensation and offboarding. When done well, these processes can help you:

Set Clear Expectations for Work

There are a variety of ways you can and should do this.

The primary way most organizations set work expectations is through employee performance appraisals. Performance appraisals generally outline core and job specific competencies and the goals the employee is expected to achieve. Employee goals are important because they lay out “what” you expect the employee to accomplish over the review period. Competencies are used to define “how” you want work to be performed, and to communicate corporate culture and values. Ideally, each employee goal should be linked to and aligned with a high level organizational goal it supports. This gives the employee a clear context for their work, helps them understand their value to the organization, and aligns your entire workforce.

In addition to performance appraisals, it’s a good idea to have a clear, detailed job description for every role that outlines: the job duties and responsibilities, education and experience requirements, competencies important to the role and the organization, scope of decision-making and reporting, etc. In fact, job descriptions should actually be used to guide both performance appraisals for the role and any job requisitions/postings.

Laying out clear performance expectations has been shown to contribute to employee engagement, and is the best way to align your workforce and encourage high performance – all keys to talent optimization.

Give Employee the Feedback and Coaching They Need to Improve and Succeed

Employee performance management should be an ongoing activity and dialogue between managers and employees, not a once-a-year event conducted as a performance appraisal. To be their best, meet expectations, continually learn, and adapt to changing work priorities and challenges, employees need ongoing feedback and coaching. To help support this, some companies implement quarterly performance appraisals, or periodic goal setting/review sessions and development reviews. These processes are simply ways to formalize and encourage what should be an ongoing activity. By giving their employees ongoing feedback and coaching, managers can address performance problems when they are small, and better manage their employees’ work and performance.

Support Employee Development

You and your organization can also optimize your workforce and foster high performance by supporting employee development. Employee development can take a variety of forms, including: formal training, conferences, webinars, e-learning, mentoring, job shadowing, reading, work assignments, participation in cross-functional teams, volunteer work, continuing education, etc. Managers should work with their employees to identify performance gaps, career aspirations and organization needs. Then, they should put development plans in place to help the employee broaden or deepen their knowledge/skills/experience, achieve their goals and improve their performance. This is typically done as part of the employee’s performance appraisal, but can be run as a separate process.

Being given the opportunity to develop is also a contributor to employee engagement and retention. But it also helps you develop the staffing resources you have today to meet your organization’s changing needs, and develop a more highly skilled workforce.

Reward and Encourage High Performance

Another way you foster high performance is by rewarding it. While your compensation and rewards programs should take education, experience and market data into consideration, they also need to be rooted in employee performance. Your program should include a wide variety of means to reward, recognize and encourage high performance – money isn’t always the answer. In fact, employee engagement surveys tell us that simple recognition and praise are strong performance motivators.

Attract High Performers

If you have good talent management processes in place, let candidates know about them during the hiring process. It may help weed out candidates who aren’t committed to their personal performance and development, and make your organization more attractive to those who are. When recruiting, you can also use your job descriptions and even your performance appraisal forms and process results to identify the qualities/skills/experience/attitudes that lead to high performance and success in a role. Then make sure you onboard your new hires, start them off with goals, support them with development and monitor their progress. Hiring the right people, right from the start, and setting them up for success are the best ways to ensure high performance and an optimized workforce.

Conclusion

Talent management best practices are all designed to drive employee high performance. They can be some of your most powerful talent optimization tools. Why not use them to help you attract and retain a world class workforce and drive organizational success.

Sean Conrad is a Certified Human Capital Strategist and Senior Product Analyst at Halogen Software, one of the leading providers of talent management software. For more of his insights on talent management, read his posts on the Halogen Software blog.

Recently, I was discussing HR positions and the different duties that go with that title and it occurred to me how many areas of the business this department manages.  This led to the following train of thought and many questions.  I would love to know your thoughts on this topic and any feedback or answers you could provide in the comments.

I’m sure I’m missing some, but a list of objectives of human resources off the top of my head are benefits, recruiting, interviewing, hiring, employee concerns and complaints, downsizing, retention, talent management, on-boarding, policy, law, employee paperwork, and possibly payroll.  Then within some of these areas, whole departments can exist.  For example, within the benefits department there could be a need for an HR Generalist to manage health & wellness, 401k, disability, FMLA, workers compensation and a host of other areas.

How in the world does a business determine how many employees it needs in Human Resources?  It seems like it would make sense that a set ratio exists, kind of like when my kids started school and we were looking into student/teacher ratios.  But what would that ratio be and how is it determined when there are things like applicant tracking systems and human resource management software that would affect that number?  And then we all know the age-old argument about having a seat at the table and being strategic – how does that tie in?  Does all this depend on what role the owners, board or executives expect HR to play within the organization?

When someone decides to pursue a career in human resources, what does that mean?  Does everyone have their own definition?  Did you know what you wanted to specialize in when you started or did you end up in a certain area because of experience?  I posted previously about HR using a lot of buzzwords and the confusion that results, but the term human resources sure seems awfully broad.

As I was researching the different areas and seeking a flow chart that would explain all this (I didn’t find one), I came across this article about the responsibility of HR employees.  This made me think even more about the challenge of working in HR.  If you read this article, you can see an example of how the author, an HR Director, was held accountable for things she had little to no control over.  Doesn’t operating in this manner ultimately hurt the business?  

How does a company figure out not only that it has the right number of HR professionals, but that they are responsible for the things they should be?

Please share thoughts and experiences in the comments.

I was following a discussion recently on LinkedIn regarding whether or not a hiring manager can and/or should disclose to an interviewee why he/she wasn’t hired, if asked.  Initially, I was surprised that there would be so much discussion around this.  When I understood why, it quickly became evident that there are two main groups of participants – those that are most concerned about risk and potential discrimination suits and those that are more focused on transparency and doing the right thing.  This is not to say that those who strongly consider risk are unconcerned about doing the right thing or that those who want to be transparent don’t care about lawsuits.  But those participating in the conversation are passionate about one of these two positions and this weighs in heavily when  choosing whether or not it is a good idea to explain to candidates why they didn’t get the job.

As I read through the many comments, it became fairly obvious that there are far fewer reasons NOT to give specifics than there are reasons to provide honest feedback.  The main reasons not to include:

• The fear of legal ramifications.  This is by far the most commonly cited reason for not giving specific explanations on why someone didn’t get the job.

• There are just so many candidates for each position it is unrealistic to think that detail can be provided to them all.

• Arguing or further “selling” of qualifications to the interviewer delivering feedback that results in time wasted for both parties.

• In many cases, particularly for high level positions, there are multiple candidates that are equally qualified and the decision comes down to chemistry.  It is not possible to relay that to a candidate in a way that mitigates risk.

Now let me list some reasons to give feedback to an interviewee:

• The candidate receives useful information that can help them with the job search and in future interviews.

• It is good manners and common courtesy and HR is supposed to be about people.  Also, it is about respect.  The candidate has spent time completing applications and preparing for interviews and this should be acknowledged with feedback.

• The company improves its reputation by being honest.  Candidates learn that there is a transparent culture and will spread the word.  Current employees will learn about this behavior as well and these facts results in an employer brand and corporate culture based around trust.  Trust increases engagement and retention, which boosts productivity.  It also helps attract high quality candidates.

• Giving specific feedback shows your organization has nothing to hide.  And those that feel discriminated against and intend to take legal action are going to move forward no matter what you say them.

• Well-trained hiring managers can effectively word these points in a way that mitigates risk of lawsuits.  It is possible to provide feedback specific to the interview that is based on fact and supported by documentation, but your employees need to be trained to do it properly.

• No feedback on why a candidate was not hired allows the candidate to presume it was based on some discriminatory reason such as age, race, gender, etc.  If you provide specific examples of what went wrong, a candidate can no longer assume discrimination is responsible for he/she not getting the job.

• In the future, the interviewee may be highly qualified for a different role within your company.  The way you treat the candidate now has everything to do with how a conversation will go later.

My take on all this is that the rewards for giving specific explanations to an interviewee far outweigh the risks.  Maybe I am too idealistic, but are there really that many people out there interviewing who are looking to position themselves to win a lawsuit?  Is it really that time-consuming if you are only providing detailed information to those who not only interviewed, but also asked for it?  Can’t the hiring manager control the conversation to ensure this doesn’t turn into another interview when the candidate tries to resell his/her qualifications?  Aren’t there ways to explain chemistry without discriminating, such as letting the candidate know he/she lacked excitement or energy in the interview or that another candidate was more proactive in offering solutions during the interview?  Doesn’t this just come down to properly training your managers?

What are your thoughts as HR professionals?  Do you mitigate risk at all costs or do you lean toward openness and honestly?  Is this working or can you name a time when it turned out to be the wrong move?

Who would have thought that commuting costs would figure into a person’s decision to stay or leave a company?  Unfortunately, this is a fact now.  In my area of the country, I’ve seen gas prices of $4.35/gallon.  Most of the country has hit $4.00 and prices are expected to go up higher still.    Workplace studies show that the average commute for an employee is about 30 miles. Depending on the car the employee owns, this will really add up for some of your employees.  It reminds me of the question stay at home moms consider when deciding whether or not to reenter the workforce – does the cost of child care outweigh the salary and benefits?  Is it worth it?  HR departments need to explore ways to assist employees with these costs in an effort to retain and attract top talent. 

If you have employees who travel a significant distance to come to work, you can bet they will be considering a position closer to home.  They almost have to.  However, there are things your company can do to try to help your employees.

Change the schedule.– One example of this would be to lengthen each day and take Fridays or Mondays off the schedule.  Many employees would jump at the chance to work four, 10 hour days and have a three day weekend.  This also removes a roundtrip, saving a whole day’s worth of gas. 

Coordinate car-pooling. – You can do this yourself internally with carpool boards or on your intranet, or you can recommend employees go to a site that will do it for them, such as erideshare.com.  Encouraging your employees to get involved shows you are aware that gas prices are affecting them.  If differing schedules are an issue, be open to considering assisting multiple employees to get on the same schedule in order to make it work.

Offer on-site lunches.– Explore ways to feed your staff and keep them at work during lunch.  You may be able to negotiate special pricing with restaurants and catering businesses to make it more cost effective for employees to remain on-site.  This is also a great engagement tool, especially if once a month or so the company springs for the lunch.  Your employees get to socialize with other people in the company.  As with many of the other suggestions, this doesn’t have to be an every day event.  Offering the ability o order and buy lunch once or twice a week still helps.

Consider telecommuting where possible.- How many of your employees could work from home?  If you don’t want to make it permanent, be non-committal about the timeframe and relay to them that this is a program you will try temporarily, in order to help them get through this.  It doesn’t have to be all or nothing either.  Maybe some employees could work from home 1 or 2 days a week and be in the office the others.

Look into subsidizing public transportation.-  Are you familiar with public transportation in your city?  Can you offer incentives for employees to use it?  Or can you offer to pay for it?  This may prove to be a minimal cost compared to the cost of turnover and hiring and on-boarding.  Many times there are incentives offered by the public transportation authorities themselves such as group discounts or pre-tax savings for those who purchase passes through your company.  If your company is large, your organization may actually be able to negotiate an incentive program with the public transportation authority.

Work these solutions into your “green” program, too. – Many employees, particularly Gen Y, are interested in working for companies who care for the environment.  Going green is where it’s at, so you can use some of these solutions to demonstrate how you not only want to help your employees, but do your part to improve the environment as well.  You could roll the programs out as something you want to try to help with gas prices and want to keep in an effort to cut down on pollution. 

My best recommendation on all of these suggestions would be to take a vote.  If you’re not sure which program might be effective, ASK.  This situation provides your company with the ability to be transparent, which builds trust.  You can let them know you’re not sure what will work but you’d like their input and will explain any reservations.   The simple act of asking your employees what would help them demonstrates that you are aware of the impact that gas prices may be having on them and shows them that you want to do what you can to ease the burden.  Proving to them that you care will do wonders for your employer brand, engaging your employees, increasing retention, and attracting top talent.  Happy employees are productive employees, so putting in the effort means a win for everyone.  

Is your company currently offering any programs to help your employees deal with rising gas prices?  Do you plan to?  Please share any other examples in the comments.

I wrote a post back in November that listed 5 Smart Reasons To Hire The Unemployed.  This was prompted by the increasingly common practice by employers of stating in their job descriptions that they would not consider those who are currently unemployed.  This practice, of course, led to discussions of whether or not this is discriminatory. 

Apparently, as of Monday, it is.  At least in New Jersey, where a new law was passed and will take effect in a month.  I took a look at the law, especially because everything I’m reading is claiming that New Jersey is the first state to put a law in place that forbids businesses to discriminate against unemployed job candidates.   What I read made me wonder.  According to this law an employer may not run ads that contain any of the following three items:

1. Any provision stating that the qualifications for a job include current employment;
2. Any provision stating that the employer or employer’s agent, representative, or designee will not consider or review an application for employment submitted by any job applicant currently unemployed; or
3. Any provision stating that the employer or employer’s agent, representative, or designee will only consider or review applications for employment submitted by job applicants who are currently employed.

The law is short, sweet and to the point.  (You can check it out for yourself here.)  It repeatedly references that employers cannot “knowingly or purposefully publish, in print or on the Internet” any ads, or other documents that state any of the 3 items listed above.

Maybe I am missing something here but I see nothing in this law that forbids discrimination against the unemployed.  Yes, if you blatantly state in an ad that you will not accept applications from the unemployed you’ll get smacked with a fine, but I see nothing in this law that says it is discrimination not to consider them for a job.  I’m no lawyer, but the way I read this law, an employer can tell a candidate over the phone that the company will not consider anyone unemployed and even THAT is not illegal!  To summarize, it reads to me that employers can discriminate all they want when it comes to the unemployed, as long as they don’t say they are doing it, in print or on the internet or in any ad, anywhere.

Maybe the law in New Jersey is a victory that will soon be irrelevant.  On April 4,  H.R. 1113 The Fair Employment Act of 2011 was introduced to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.  This would amend Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to add the unemployed to the list of applicants already protected against discrimination due to race, color, religion, etc. This would provide real protection for the unemployed, although as in all discrimination cases it would be tough to prove – and the burden of proof will fall on the plaintiffs to show they were discriminated against. 

If this makes it through and is enacted, then I would agree that a law was passed forbidding companies to discriminate against the unemployed.