photo by dbking
Hiring is a headache.
Dr. John Sullivan’s latest post at ERE pulls together a ton of shocking numbers that should convince you we need to find a better way.
50% new executive turnover — nearly half of new executive hires quit or are fired within the first 18 months at a new employer (Source: Corporate Leadership Council).
50% of the processes users (both managers and new hires) later regret their “buying” decision (Source: The Recruiting Roundtable). In addition, 25% of new hires later regret taking their new job within one year (Source: Challenger, Gray)
66% regret hiring decisions — Nearly two-thirds of hiring managers come to regret their interview-based hiring decisions (Source: DDI)
Hiring and retaining below or even average performers have real opportunity costs because top performers can increase productivity, revenue, and profit by between 40% and 67% over average performers (Source: McKinsey & Co.)
Only a 19% success rate — only one out of five of the process output can be classified as unequivocal successes (Source: Leadership IQ).
Basically, we’re not good at hiring, we regret most of the decisions we make, there’s a big difference in contribution between average and good people and the people we hire are often unhappy we choose them. That’s pretty damning.
A good hire requires finding someone with the skills to do the job AND the right person who can thrive in your company’s work environment. Our guts don’t adequately assess the latter because inevitably we revert to deciding whether the candidate is one we can imagine having a beer with after work.
Again, why we created RoundPegg. RoundPegg will objectively and rigorously identify which candidates will function best with your company’s culture, with the work team and the hiring manager. We just released the first version of the application. If you’d like to learn more please drop us a line at employers [at] roundpegg [dot] com.
photo by antkriz
Dueling philosophies on hiring and employee retention at the latest Web2.0 conference (via WSJ Blog).
Mark Zuckerberg touted the Facebook culture of hiring entrepreneurially inclined people who burn brilliantly and then fade away (presumably of their own volition). Tony Hsieh of Zappos provided the counter philosophy of finding the folks who fit the culture and aspire to stick with the company for 10 years or more.
Who is right?
Both. The key that makes both of them right is that everyone is aware of the culture. Each CEO knows exactly what they’re looking for and how to identify it. Success is achieved by aligning the culture/working philosophy and getting everyone pulling in the same direction.
Corporate success comes from recognizing what you want to achieve and defining the culture accordingly.
Facebook is about changing our relationship with each other and the Internet. Thus, they need people who can conceptualize a radically different world and execute to get everyone there.
Meanwhile, Zappos is about customer service. So it makes sense that Zappos creates a very cultivative company. How employees are treated is how they’ll in turn treat customers.
There aren’t necessarily good or bad cultures. But there are good or bad cultures for you.
The ability to explicitly describe what each company is looking for enables people to opt-in or out of the application process. And that same explicitness enables everyone hiring at the company to hold all applicants up to the same light and identify the ones who will be successful by honoring the company’s philosophy.
Unfortunately, most companies can’t state their cultural philosophy as passionately or clearly as Zuckerberg and Hsieh. And, it’s not much of a surprise there aren’t many companies doing as well as these two either.
photo by photomish dan
A sobering article from the Economist illustrates how unhappy people currently are with their jobs. When the economy turns expect to see a massive surge in voluntary turnover. The article included some alarming numbers from the US-based Center for Work-Life Policy:
Between June 2007 and December 2008 the proportion of employees who professed loyalty to their employers slumped from 95% to 39%; the number voicing trust in them fell from 79% to 22%.
Employers have the upper hand these days, but what good is that if nobody is willing to bring their best? Quality work doesn’t flow from mistrust.
The employment process is a two-way street. Employers need to get quality ideas and execution. The employees, however, are trickier. They all need something different. Each is motivated differently, has different goals and needs to be communicated with in a certain manner.
There is no magic bullet to engaging people except by taking the time to know what makes them tick. Clearly, these economic times are tough. And companies are taking the opportunity to pare back and let loose the dead wood.
This requires doubling down on the efforts to learn about the others in order to make sure they don’t all check out as well.
Better yet, build this into your process. Don’t wait for dire economic times to trim the workforce. Frankly, people who aren’t engaged and aren’t fitting in with the culture are a drag on your time and bring others down with them.
Start with who you hire and remember it.
Times are dire. Not just for the unemployed, but for the employers as well.
The job market is far more fluid these days and once companies start hiring again we’re guaranteed to see that fluidity in action. Protect your most valuable assets and get the most out of them as you can.
photo by laffy4k
After reading another comment by a seasoned HR professional on a LinkedIn group that blindly valued ‘diversity,’ I felt the need to explore the topic.
Too often our discussions on diversity in the workplace are rooted in the obvious. Our analysis is literally skin deep and from there we draw conclusions that because one is [select a color] and/or [select a gender] they must have different life experiences and think about things differently. Our teams would, therefore, be better if they were a part of them.
Stereotyping isn’t the best way to improve team performance.
While I’m a big believer in bringing together people with different expertise, I also believe you need to have a foundation upon which everyone implicitly agrees to build. People must have enough in common so that they’re willing to explore their differences.
Being able to productively dissent requires one to a) listen, b) be able to communicate in a way that gets considered and c) have the trust of the majority that you’re still working toward the greater goal.
It’s imperative then that we assemble people who have similar values and who communicate in a similar fashion.
What to accomplish and how to accomplish it are grounded in values. If we don’t share similar values then we’ll fail to agree on these fundamental starting point for any team. Likewise, you and I aren’t suddenly going to have a “you got chocolate in my peanut butter” moment if what you’re saying has no chance of getting heard because of the way it’s being said.
Evolving an idea requires both sides to be willing to move off their original position (this is different than compromising). You have to be willing to consider that you’re not 100% right. But if you don’t trust the person with the alternative approach then you’re likelihood to move from your position is slim. Sharing some common values makes it easier for us to trust one another because we can relate to what motivates the thinking. We disassociate ourselves from the conversation and begin implicitly agreeing that the ‘best answer’ revolves around satisfying the values we share.
America’s current health care debate is an unfortunate illustration of this. For the most part, both sides are a bunch of entitled white guys. About as homogeneous a group as you’ll ever find. Surely, they’d be highly susceptible to group think, right? Instead they’re guilty of not thinking. There is no willingness to move the ball down the field because their value systems are so incredibly divergent and the way they talk past each other fails to find the ears of those on the ‘opposing’ side.
I’m not advocating that we hire and assemble homogeneous teams by any means. But I am pushing for us to consider each person individually in terms of how they think and how they communicate to establish whether they have enough in common with our existing team to make a difference.
We have a long way to go to establish equality in the workplace, but valuing diversity simply by trying to assemble the 64-pack of Crayolas isn’t going to do anyone any favors.
—
This is a can of worms. Please feel free to disagree in the comments, but do so respectfully (that’s one of my values).
photo by mrpattersonsir
Work is draining. For many, rare are the days when we leave the office feeling energized.
As a manager you have to recognize that people are going through this. Chances are you are too. But change has to start somewhere.
Sure, technically your job is to make sure the ball is being advanced down the field. But if your team is too exhausted (or detached) to run the plays how far is the ball going to move?
Your real job is to make deposits into the emotional bank so that when the inevitable time comes when the team needs to hunker down and everything has gone sideways that people are present, engaged and have the persistence to get through the rough patches.
From the employees perspective, they have gone out of their way to make the relationship work. They started in their role excited and ready to roll up their sleeves and make a real difference. But every slight along the way has made a withdrawal on their emotional involvement with you, the team and with the company.
It all adds up and you may be responsible for making many of those emotional withdrawals. If you expect them to dig in then you need to exert the energy to refill that account.
Focus on your people. Feed them the projects that keep them energized. Recognize they’re all different and build those relationships accordingly. People do want to be treated differently. They’re not all the same and not universally motivated by the same things.
Start today. Hold one on ones that don’t focus on tasks but rather the individual. The work will still get done.
Copyright ©2008-2009 RoundPegg Inc.