The talent you bet the house on is not worth the money!

Late last year one of my clients was recruiting for a senior level marketing manager.  They decided to use a recruiting firm with a
hefty price tag I might add.  It was down to three candidates and they selected what appeared to be a “superstar”.   The candidate promised to deliver, the company paid high dollar and expected a big return on its investment.

However, from the start it didn’t seem that this individual was doing what they committed to do.  No new ideas, no new customers, and the company did a better job of creating marketing campaigns on their own.  They couldn’t understand how all the references, background checks and conversations indicated this person was going to be a real superstar for them and yet it wasn’t working out that way.

This is where I came in.  They explained the circumstances leading up to the employment offer and the lack of performance since the start date.  After some research, I determined that although their new hire had been a superstar in the past it had been under very specific circumstances and this company’s requirements were a little more demanding.  My recommendation, make a change now before too much time passes.  They may also want to look at any guarantees the recruiting agency offered.

So, what can you do when your own star performer suddenly loses his/her luster?

Ask yourself these three questions:

What is the upside to keeping him on board? Talented performers are the spice of every organization. It is not merely that they are good at their jobs. They deliver exponentially, that is, they deliver in multiples – ideas, productivity and results. And often they do it with ease. But the upside lasts only as long as the star shines.

What is the downside to keeping him?
Just as stars perform well, when they fail, they often do so spectacularly.  Often their performance carries the team, so when star slips, the team does, too. Also, there is the issue of maintenance. The effort managers must expend coddling star talent can cause discord in a team or  organization. Less gifted, but still productive, employees resent the favoritism bestowed on the superstar.

Is this situation going to change? You need to evaluate the performer’s resiliency.   Successful leaders face hardships and emerge better for the experience. Many superstar performers have fragile egos; one setback – a failed project or a denied promotion – can set them back forever.
They may never recover. Such people are talented but they have not learned what it takes to succeed when the odds are stacked high.

Organizational Culture and Recruiting

It’s one thing to articulate organizational culture, it’s another to live and breathe it.

One of the exciting aspects of being an external business partner is the ability to peer into the inner workings of client organizations. One can almost predict the eventual success of a new employee based on his/her fit within the established culture. When a company “walks the walk” their true working culture matches the messages they send to their internal and external markets.  They will encourage engagement between candidates and many different people within the organization. The search process doesn’t just focus on the group with whom the successful candidate will be working with, but also with those with whom the candidate will need to engage, depend on, persuade, etc. If the company’s true culture is spread throughout the organization, the search process will act as a sieve to not only highlight candidates who can do the job, but those who will fit in and be cultural representatives for the organization. The search process may take a little longer, but the outcomes will likely lead to choosing the right person.

Hard To Find Skills

I was at a leadership meeting recently and we were talking about recruiting issues. Some individuals were mentioning that despite unemployment numbers, they still had a hard time finding the right people for some critical positions that were open. And it wasn’t a question of technique, or pay or anything along those lines. It’s a situation where they just couldn’t find the right skill set. On the job training was certainly an option, but who has time for that anymore.  Workers in general do more with less these days and many managers have their own jobs to do in addition to managing, mentoring and retaining their existing employees.

So let’s say you’ve got one of these positions where there are a very limited number of people qualified for the role. You’re spending millions of recruiting dollars and you’re still falling short. What’s the solution?

Some recruiters would say devote more budget and more energy into recruiting.  At some point this can turn into diminishing returns.

How about looking at the broader picture? Maybe it is time to do a lock down on your retention efforts. Every person you lose not only means another search; it means a person with institutional knowledge leaving the workplace.

We all know in tough times training and education seem to be the first to go.  I am of the philosophy that in tough times training and education are essential in keeping employees engaged and motivated.  A little time out to learn or refine a skill and share experiences with peers is an effective way for a company to demonstrate that skills are important and they want to keep their employee skills strong.

All employers have people interested in moving into new roles but they may not have the skills they need. You can make it as easy for them move up by offering training classes, and education incentives.

Maybe it’s time for those companies that can’t recruit the skill set they’re looking for to consider: external programs; working with colleges, scholarships, adult educators.  Some of the positions and jobs that existed a decade ago don’t exist today and vice versa, so why not partner with a local technical college or a university to develop skills sets need in the employees you have or those that have the ability and want to learn. 

I can think of many success stories but would love to hear how others are developing and strengthening skill sets in their organizations.

Education vs. Experience: What does the job really need!

The debate about education vs. experience has been around for years.  As I re-read this week’s earlier blog, I want to make it clear that I am not advocating not getting a degree.  My family is filled with degrees, the higher education the better and it is certainly what we have ingrained in our children.  But I can’t help seeing everywhere I go the value of experienced people who may not have a degree being overlooked, and the value they can bring to organizations.

There is a unique opportunity, with the market providing a large pool of available candidates, with and without degrees for employers to explore all qualities of candidates including education, knowledge, skill set and experience to bring a valuable and much-needed balance of talent to your organization.

Let’s examine why employers prefer college degrees. Most often, they associate the following characteristics with people who have degrees (and more specifically, four-year degrees):

• A proven ability to analyze problems, conduct research and produce solutions
• A proven ability to learn complex, difficult subject matter
• Motivation and high energy
• High Intelligence
• Credible qualifications

While it’s difficult to argue that these characteristics are consistent with people who have earned a four-year degree, it’s easy to question whether or not these characteristics are exclusive to that group. This is the root of my confusion with employers as they define job requirements. There is nothing wrong with requiring a four-year degree if that’s what the job requires. But, if that requirement is based on a “that’s how it’s always been” mentality, or a personal bias, your company is probably missing out on a large pool of candidates.

The field of Quality Assurance for example is susceptible to this pitfall. The fact is that there is no accredited engineering program that produces a “Quality Assurance Engineer”. You can get a degree in many different engineering areas. However, you can’t get one in quality assurance engineering, at least not yet. Many of the job descriptions I see for “quality assurance” don’t justify the degree. The requirement is usually there because the position is within the software, technical or engineering department or because of a preconceived notion that only someone within technical degree can perform these duties. Much of the time, I believe the position could be renamed “Quality Assurance specialist” and be filled by someone with applicable experience and associated competencies.

Let’s examine the list of characteristics of experienced business professionals that typically aren’t found in college graduates without experience or limited experience. 

• Business insight
• Customer Following
• Industry Knowledge
• Demonstrated work Ethic
• Proven skill set
• Practical knowledge
• Applicable experience

• Effective interpersonal skills

So all I am saying is, take the time to properly identify and develop the required behaviors, knowledge, skills and abilities before completing the job description. Ask yourself whether or not these required competencies can only be obtained through the process of earning a degree or if they can be acquired through experiences.  At minimum, you’ll learn more about the job requirements and better understand how you see this position fitting within your organization.

Education vs. Experience: The debate

I’ve drafted more job descriptions than I care to admit, and the majority of the time I beg the question “Is a degree required”?  Can experience make up for the lack of a college degree, or does formal education provide some value that experience does not? Is one more valuable than the other? Talk about a discussion that will have you chasing your tail! It’s truly a trap debate because the right answer is “it depends”.

When Captain Sullenberg lost both engines and had no power on his Airbus 320 airplane, he had to think fast.  Is it a valid argument that formal education alone could not have brought that plane down safely on the Hudson River?  Many would agree it was his many years of flying experience that allowed him to quickly assess the situation and react accordingly to bring the plane to a safe landing.  His success was the result of his level of experience.

Obviously, there are specific cases where the question is moot. If you’re looking for a surgeon, you’re probably seeking someone with the highest degree possible, plus A LOT of experience. However, the scope of positions that may or may not require a degree is broad and wide. This is true for most industries.

Frequently, the decision is based on company cultural or personal preferences. When preparing the position requisition, we want the ideal candidate, right?  Why would we settle for less? A candidate with a degree would fulfill this expectation, or would experience sufficiently outweigh the need for a degree, still resulting in an ideal outcome?  These are fair questions that may not be considered due to a number of factors including: Company hiring philosophies, personal biases or paradigms.  As a result, the hiring manager often justifies the decision to require a degree based on their experience.

Whether it’s a completely strategic discussion about your organization’s policies or a discussion involving a specific position and candidate, this issue continually resurfaces in organizations. And depending on what side of the fence you sit, this issue can be very personal and emotional. Regardless of your personal preference, my suggestion to you is to ponder some basic concepts to help you make a sound decision.

In my next Blog I am going to share certain characteristics employers typically associate with someone who has a college degree as well as those characteristic that employers may be missing out on, when disregarding business success and work experience.

Maintaining a Great Culture

In 2009, Honest Tea was named a “Best Place to Work” by Bethesda Magazine, and this year, it was picked as a Winning Workplace by Inc. magazine.  Miri McDonald an expert on organizational development, recently spoke with Debra Schwartz who is the director of human resources for Honest Tea, a beverage company based in Bethesda, Md.  They spoke about Debra’s role in cultivating the company’s progressive culture. An edited transcript of their conversation follows.

What factors do you feel have contributed to winning these important awards?

Culture, which starts with hiring. The only way to maintain a culture is to hire the right people. Anyone we interview, no matter what position, is asked: “Why do you want this position and why do you want to work for Honest Tea?” The answer has to be creative, passionate and real for them to make it to the next round.

You are a member of Honest Tea’s executive team. Some companies don’t include the director of HR as part of their leadership. How do you think this decision has benefited Honest Tea? What do you say to companies that don’t include HR as part of the executive team?

HR belongs at the table for many reasons. HR brings an internal perspective and represents the employee’s view.  If you leave us out we cannot be the business’ advocate to the employees, we cannot explain all points of view.

What do you think are the top five trends for human resources over the next few years?

• Use creative models to add value. That means being creative with salaries, bonuses, and benefits without taking anything away from the employee. At the end of the day if we are not making money, then HR doesn’t exist.

• Position HR as customer service and internal marketing. HR is here to make the lives of employees easier and better.

• Make smart use of fringe benefits. This term has long been associated with company cars, lavish expense accounts and the like. The new trend is wellness-related benefits.

• Be limber. Don’t box yourself. As long as you’re not doing anything illegal or unethical, it’s OK to break the rules and bend with the business to make employees happy. Happy employees lead to even more loyal customers.

• Remember the personal follow-up. Employees like to know that their company cares about them. Whether someone is new or has been there a long time, a personal touch such as a call, e-mail, or short interaction to ask how they are, and what is going on in their lives goes a long way in building relationships.

I am proud to say that Honest Tea is ahead of the pack and already making strides in these areas.

What other advice do you have for human resource professionals that strive to make their companies a better place to work?

It is HR’s job to take care of the employees, their needs and their families’ needs so that the employee can take care of the business and customer. Listen, really listen to their needs and wants, and adjust accordingly.

Potential candidates may have the experience, education and skill set to do the job, but what do you include in your hiring practices to ensure your next hire will be a representation of your organizational culture?

Guidelines for resolving intergenerational conflict

I’ve heard from many employers and employees lately about the conflict diversity places in the work force today.  However, they are not talking about gender or race, they are speaking of different generations working side by side in todays workforce.

For the first time in history, there are five generations working side by side: the Traditional Generation (born pre-1945), Baby Boomers (born 1946-1964), Generation X (born 1965-1980), Generation Y (1981-1995), and the Linkster Generation (born after 1995). Since conflicts often arise in a multigenerational environment, it’s helpful to have some understanding of the differences between employees of distinct generations.

Each has been influenced by the major historical events, social trends, and cultural phenomena of their time, shaping their ideas about expectations and perceptions about what the working environment will provide, as well as company loyalty and work ethic.  All generations bring different values to an organization and those leaders who cultivate those differences will place themselves ahead of the crowd when it comes to recruiting and retention in the coming years.

Here are some guidelines for resolving intergenerational conflict:

• Look at the generational factor. Is this conflict generational, or is there something else going on? For example, Traditionals and Baby Boomers don’t like to be micromanaged, while Gen Yers and Linksters crave specific, detailed instructions about how to do things and are used to hovering authorities. There is almost always a generational component to conflict; recognizing this offers new ways to resolve it.

• Consider the generational values at stake. Each generation is protecting a distinct set of values, and conflict may threaten these values. For example, Baby Boomers value teamwork, cooperation, and buy-in, while Gen Xers prefer to make a unilateral decision and move on — preferably solo.

• Air different generations’ perceptions. When employees of two or more generations are involved in a workplace conflict, they can learn a great deal by sharing their perceptions. For instance, a Traditional may find a Gen Yer’s lack of formality and manners offensive, while a Gen Yer may feel dissed when this older employee fails to respect her opinions and input. Have each party use “I” statements to avoid potentially negative confrontations.

• Find a generationally appropriate fix. You can’t change people’s life experience. But you can work with the set of workplace attitudes and expectations that come from it. So, for instance, if you have a knowledgeable Boomer who is frustrated by a Gen Yer’s lack of experience coupled with his sense of entitlement, turn the Boomer into a mentor. Or you may have a Gen Xer who is slacking off and phoning it in. Instead of punishing him, give him a challenging assignment, the fulfillment of which is linked to a tangible reward.

• Find commonality and complements. When we study generations, some common and complementary characteristics emerge — and these can be exploited when dealing with conflict between them. For instance, Traditionals and Generation Y employees both tend to value security and stability. Traditionals and Boomers tend to resist change–but both crave training and development. Gen X and Gen Y employees place a high value on workplace flexibility and work-life balance. Boomers and Linksters are most comfortable with diversity and alternative lifestyles. Gen Y and Linksters are technologically adept and committed to socially responsible policies.

• Learn from each other. Each generation has valuable lessons to teach the next. For example, Traditionals and Boomers have a wealth of knowledge and tricks of the trade that younger workers need. Generation X employees are widely known for their fairness and mediation abilities. Generation Y workers are technology wizards. And Linksters hold clues to future workplace, marketing, and business trends.

How do you manage generational differences in the workplace?

This was posted in Smart Briefs by Mary Ellen Slayter.   Larry and Meagan Johnson, the father-daughter team behind John Training Group, co-authored “Generations, Inc.: From Boomers to Linksters — Managing the Friction Between Generations at Work.”