Every service company I speak with is concerned about their ability to find good, quality workers. In an environment where the competition for talent is fierce, which companies are going to be most successful? What's the recipe for winning?
Let's start with the basic myth. When I'm training foremen and supervisors, I'll often ask them if today's young people have a poorer work ethic than their generation had. Almost unanimously they say "yes!"
They're shocked when I tell them every generation believes this and every generation is wrong. I heard the "young people today don't want to work" thing when I was a helper on construction sites in the 1970s. Engineers building the Taj Mahal in the 1640s were saying it, as were stone masons building the pyramids 4,000 years ago.
What is true is that some individuals have a stronger work ethic than others (in every generation). In periods of relatively low unemployment, we run across more candidates with lower motivation and weaker work-ethic than periods of higher unemployment rates.
What is also true is that work ethic and motivation is not all genetic. Work ethic can be learned and motivation can be tapped. Which leads us back to the question, which companies are going to win in this economy?
The service companies that are going to win are not the companies that invest in finding that secret supply of excellent workers that no one else can find. The companies that win are going to be the ones that find ways to be successful with less than ideal candidates.
The service companies that are going to win aren't simply complaining about the current talent pool, they're building systems that help a candidate who isn't an exact fit to have a reasonable chance at becoming successful. They're building on-boarding, training and feedback systems as well as mentoring programs and career paths to keep people who aren't natural-born stars to build a skill set, become engaged and remain on-track.
The service companies that are going to win aren't going to simply outspend everyone else on talent. If your culture sucks (read: your supervisors and foremen treat people like they're disposable), it doesn't matter how much money you throw at compensation, you'll eventually lose to the company that knows how to build a culture that workers embrace. If you can get $16 of value out of a $13 employee, you're going to handily outperform the company that's having to spend $23 to get that same $16 of value.
The service companies that are going to win will say "thanks" and "well done" a lot. The service companies that are going to struggle are going to generally ignore good performance as something that's expected and spend their energy berating poor performance.
The service companies that are going to win are going to be employers of choice who build their total rewards programs around what their workers really want versus what they'd prefer to give them. (Think: maybe an afternoon off with pay rather than a gift card?).
The service companies that are going to win are going to win with less than ideal candidates. If your organization is determined to find plug-and-play, immediately productive workers that don't need to be trained or managed, you're going to spend a lot of time recruiting.
Wednesday, December 13, 2017
What Matt Lauer Means to Your Business
There has been an avalanche of sexual harassment and misconduct claims making the headlines in recent weeks. I'm sure that a lot of politicians and public figures are sitting on pins and needles hoping their name doesn't make the news. This is good news for employees, mostly but not exclusively women who have tolerated much more of this type of behavior than they ever should have. Employers of all sizes will likely have more of these claims to process and more judgement calls to make as victims feel empowered to come forward.
With regard to the Matt Lauer situation, NBC is going to be facing the same questions your organization would be facing, albeit much more publicly - what is your policy, what kinds of training did you have in place, who knew about the behavior and what happened when management found out?
Here are some tips for any organization that is concerned about their own vulnerability to situations like NBCs current predicament:
1. Review your harassment policies. You likely have boilerplate language in your handbook. Nothing wrong with that, just make sure the language is clear and especially make sure that your employees know whom they may contact in the event they are harassed in any manner, including sexually. Make sure that there are several avenues for reporting the harassment, don't limit them to chain of command. Many Davidson Group clients include our phone number as an outside third-party option for employees to contact.
2. Train your managers and supervisors. Now is a great time to offer training to your managers and supervisors on what is and isn't harassment, what to do if they suspect harassment, and what to do if one of their team members reports harassment to them.
3. Train your employees. Now is a great time to remind your employees what types of behaviors are not acceptable in the workplace, what to do if they are victims of those types of behaviors, and what might happen to them if they are the one doing the harassing.
4. Treat all accusations seriously, investigate thoroughly and apply consequences consistently. This is the hard part because harassment claims are so personal and can vary so much in nature and substance. The very clear-cut cases, like when the behavior is caught on video or when there are multiple witnesses, are not as difficult. But sometimes these situations are much grayer. In some cases it may not even be clear that something happened at all. With these we can find ourselves torn between supporting the accuser and being fair to the accused.
We can learn something from observing the political personalities that have been in the news recently. What I have observed is when a figure considered a political opponent stands accused, it's portrayed as outrageous behavior that needs to be dealt with sternly and immediately, but when someone considered a political ally stands accused, we are urged not to rush to judgement.
How does this translate to your company? When the accused is a mediocre performer whose contributions are easily replaced, it's easy to stand with the accuser. When the accused is a rain-maker who is not so easily replaced, it's tempting to impugn the accuser or to raise our burden of proof requirements.
It takes courage of leadership to do the right thing, even if it temporarily hurts the organization. NBC will probably find that it would have been better off addressing the situation with Matt Lauer after the first credible complaint versus what they are now facing. It is the organization's responsibility to treat every case with the same level of seriousness, whether the accused or accuser is a low level employee or an executive, and attempt to apply consequences for bad behavior that are consistent and appropriate.
If your organization could use some help with developing policies, delivering training, conducting an investigation, or helping with a messy situation, contact The Davidson Group and we'd be happy to help.
With regard to the Matt Lauer situation, NBC is going to be facing the same questions your organization would be facing, albeit much more publicly - what is your policy, what kinds of training did you have in place, who knew about the behavior and what happened when management found out?
Here are some tips for any organization that is concerned about their own vulnerability to situations like NBCs current predicament:
1. Review your harassment policies. You likely have boilerplate language in your handbook. Nothing wrong with that, just make sure the language is clear and especially make sure that your employees know whom they may contact in the event they are harassed in any manner, including sexually. Make sure that there are several avenues for reporting the harassment, don't limit them to chain of command. Many Davidson Group clients include our phone number as an outside third-party option for employees to contact.
2. Train your managers and supervisors. Now is a great time to offer training to your managers and supervisors on what is and isn't harassment, what to do if they suspect harassment, and what to do if one of their team members reports harassment to them.
3. Train your employees. Now is a great time to remind your employees what types of behaviors are not acceptable in the workplace, what to do if they are victims of those types of behaviors, and what might happen to them if they are the one doing the harassing.
4. Treat all accusations seriously, investigate thoroughly and apply consequences consistently. This is the hard part because harassment claims are so personal and can vary so much in nature and substance. The very clear-cut cases, like when the behavior is caught on video or when there are multiple witnesses, are not as difficult. But sometimes these situations are much grayer. In some cases it may not even be clear that something happened at all. With these we can find ourselves torn between supporting the accuser and being fair to the accused.
We can learn something from observing the political personalities that have been in the news recently. What I have observed is when a figure considered a political opponent stands accused, it's portrayed as outrageous behavior that needs to be dealt with sternly and immediately, but when someone considered a political ally stands accused, we are urged not to rush to judgement.
How does this translate to your company? When the accused is a mediocre performer whose contributions are easily replaced, it's easy to stand with the accuser. When the accused is a rain-maker who is not so easily replaced, it's tempting to impugn the accuser or to raise our burden of proof requirements.
It takes courage of leadership to do the right thing, even if it temporarily hurts the organization. NBC will probably find that it would have been better off addressing the situation with Matt Lauer after the first credible complaint versus what they are now facing. It is the organization's responsibility to treat every case with the same level of seriousness, whether the accused or accuser is a low level employee or an executive, and attempt to apply consequences for bad behavior that are consistent and appropriate.
If your organization could use some help with developing policies, delivering training, conducting an investigation, or helping with a messy situation, contact The Davidson Group and we'd be happy to help.
Wednesday, November 8, 2017
Progressive Discipline Policy?
Our high school band director gave out demerits to students who misbehaved or failed to follow a band rule. For a couple of years I held the record for the most demerits ever accumulated in a single semester. Interestingly, I was among the very best musicians in that band. But I didn't particularly like that teacher, I got pleasure from getting under his skin, and was not particularly concerned with possible negative outcomes associated with the accumulation of demerits.
Well-defined progressive discipline policies are popular in some circles and I run across them frequently when reviewing or updating employee handbooks. 1st occurrence=Verbal warning, 2nd occurrence=written warning, then suspension... If you have a policy like this, here are some thoughts on progressive discipline programs in general:
1. The larger the organization the more it benefits from a defined progressive discipline program. If you have 5,000 employees and hundreds of managers and supervisors spread across multiple locations, ensuring consistency in the way employees are treated is an important risk management and cultural component.
2. The smaller the organization the less it benefits from a defined progressive discipline program. If you have 40 employees and you know them all by name and are based in a right-to-work state, why would you tie yourself down to a formal policy that may make it difficult for you to get rid of a problem employee?
3. Virtually all research I've ever read indicates that positive reinforcement is more powerful and longer lasting than punishment in changing behavior. Demerits, occurrences, and other forms of documenting negative behavior are attempts at deterrence that often fail to change behaviors at all, and if they do, it often isn't for very long.
Recognizing and/or rewarding behavior you want is going to be more effective over time than spending your energy punishing behavior you don't want. So, rather than giving demerits, occurrences or other forms of documentation for missing the target, try doing the opposite - some type of acknowledgement that an employee is doing what you want.
One example might be that all employees who meet some defined performance goal are eligible for a drawing (rather than all who fail get an occurrence). Pursuit of this recognition will motivate some employees, but at the worst it'll be neutral to the others. For those it motivates, it'll be more motivating than a desire to avoid an occurrence and for those to whom it's neutral, it won't motivate them in the wrong direction. (Yes, some employees derive pleasure from seeing their supervisor frustrated like I did with my band director, and some enjoy seeing how much they can get away with).
For you managers who say, "why should I give a prize to someone for simply doing what I hired them to do?" I ask, "why continue to use methods that don't work as well when the science is clear regarding how humans respond to punishment as a motivator?"
Does this mean that you don't document bad behavior? Of course not. If your goal is to win unemployment hearings you must demonstrate that you made a good faith effort to communicate your expectations and the employee failed. But there may be times when you have an employee who behaves like I did in high school and doesn't want to row in the same direction as everyone else. There's no need to be trapped by your progressive discipline policy. My band director should have simply kicked me out of the band, or he should have made more of an effort to engage me. If you're in a right-to-work state, you should do the same with your problem child. Your "A" players will appreciate it.
Well-defined progressive discipline policies are popular in some circles and I run across them frequently when reviewing or updating employee handbooks. 1st occurrence=Verbal warning, 2nd occurrence=written warning, then suspension... If you have a policy like this, here are some thoughts on progressive discipline programs in general:
1. The larger the organization the more it benefits from a defined progressive discipline program. If you have 5,000 employees and hundreds of managers and supervisors spread across multiple locations, ensuring consistency in the way employees are treated is an important risk management and cultural component.
2. The smaller the organization the less it benefits from a defined progressive discipline program. If you have 40 employees and you know them all by name and are based in a right-to-work state, why would you tie yourself down to a formal policy that may make it difficult for you to get rid of a problem employee?
3. Virtually all research I've ever read indicates that positive reinforcement is more powerful and longer lasting than punishment in changing behavior. Demerits, occurrences, and other forms of documenting negative behavior are attempts at deterrence that often fail to change behaviors at all, and if they do, it often isn't for very long.
Recognizing and/or rewarding behavior you want is going to be more effective over time than spending your energy punishing behavior you don't want. So, rather than giving demerits, occurrences or other forms of documentation for missing the target, try doing the opposite - some type of acknowledgement that an employee is doing what you want.
One example might be that all employees who meet some defined performance goal are eligible for a drawing (rather than all who fail get an occurrence). Pursuit of this recognition will motivate some employees, but at the worst it'll be neutral to the others. For those it motivates, it'll be more motivating than a desire to avoid an occurrence and for those to whom it's neutral, it won't motivate them in the wrong direction. (Yes, some employees derive pleasure from seeing their supervisor frustrated like I did with my band director, and some enjoy seeing how much they can get away with).
For you managers who say, "why should I give a prize to someone for simply doing what I hired them to do?" I ask, "why continue to use methods that don't work as well when the science is clear regarding how humans respond to punishment as a motivator?"
Does this mean that you don't document bad behavior? Of course not. If your goal is to win unemployment hearings you must demonstrate that you made a good faith effort to communicate your expectations and the employee failed. But there may be times when you have an employee who behaves like I did in high school and doesn't want to row in the same direction as everyone else. There's no need to be trapped by your progressive discipline policy. My band director should have simply kicked me out of the band, or he should have made more of an effort to engage me. If you're in a right-to-work state, you should do the same with your problem child. Your "A" players will appreciate it.
Overworking "A" Players
Jane manages both Bob and Stan. Bob does high quality work and never says "no" when asked to take-on an extra work project. Stan, on the other hand, is just as capable as Bob, also does high quality work, but sends out clear verbal and non-verbal signals of resistance when asked to do anything extra. When Jane has an important project with a quick turnaround, who is she going to ask? Bob, of course.
This is the plight of the Bobs of the world. They are punished for being good, efficient workers with a good attitude. The Stans of the world learn that they can be rewarded by being bristly, prickly or defiant. Managers who'd just as soon not have to hear the excuses or experience the huffs and the roll of the eyes will go to Bob just to avoid dealing with Stan.
Fortunately for managers like Jane, the Bobs of the world often score high S on the DISC profile and high S individuals often choose to stay with the devil they know rather than risk the devil they don't. Unfortunately for managers like Jane, high S individuals don't often show their emotions in an outwardly demonstrative way, so Bob could be highly frustrated but simply doesn't show it. When Bob really does reach the end of his rope, Jane is usually caught totally off-guard and is dismayed that she lost Bob and is stuck with Stan.
This is the dilemma facing conflict avoidant managers. By going to their Bobs over-and-over to avoid dealing with their Stans, the eventually end up with a department made up mostly of Stans.
The source of the managers' dilemma is the manager focusing too much on him or herself. When Bob submits his resignation, no doubt Jane's first thought will be, "how could you do this to me?" It's this same thinking that got her into this situation to begin with - "I don't want to deal with Stan."
Jane could avoid this by focusing more on her team than herself. "I have this important project with a quick deadline. Bob will do it, but I went to Bob last time. Stan will huff and puff to try to get out of it, but I'm not going to reward that behavior - it's Stan's project!"
Being willing to engage in difficult conversations and standing your ground to protect your "A" players is part of a manager's responsibility. It's why Jane was promoted. Avoiding conflict hurts both the team and the organization - and ultimately the manager, herself. Another question you might ask when facing this dilemma - "who would I rather have leave the organization - Bob or Stan?" If the answer is Stan, then why are you coddling his counterproductive work behaviors?
And who knows, if you refuse to reward Stan's resistance, he might get it - and morph into a new Bob. Now you have two Bobs on your team.
This is the plight of the Bobs of the world. They are punished for being good, efficient workers with a good attitude. The Stans of the world learn that they can be rewarded by being bristly, prickly or defiant. Managers who'd just as soon not have to hear the excuses or experience the huffs and the roll of the eyes will go to Bob just to avoid dealing with Stan.
Fortunately for managers like Jane, the Bobs of the world often score high S on the DISC profile and high S individuals often choose to stay with the devil they know rather than risk the devil they don't. Unfortunately for managers like Jane, high S individuals don't often show their emotions in an outwardly demonstrative way, so Bob could be highly frustrated but simply doesn't show it. When Bob really does reach the end of his rope, Jane is usually caught totally off-guard and is dismayed that she lost Bob and is stuck with Stan.
This is the dilemma facing conflict avoidant managers. By going to their Bobs over-and-over to avoid dealing with their Stans, the eventually end up with a department made up mostly of Stans.
The source of the managers' dilemma is the manager focusing too much on him or herself. When Bob submits his resignation, no doubt Jane's first thought will be, "how could you do this to me?" It's this same thinking that got her into this situation to begin with - "I don't want to deal with Stan."
Jane could avoid this by focusing more on her team than herself. "I have this important project with a quick deadline. Bob will do it, but I went to Bob last time. Stan will huff and puff to try to get out of it, but I'm not going to reward that behavior - it's Stan's project!"
Being willing to engage in difficult conversations and standing your ground to protect your "A" players is part of a manager's responsibility. It's why Jane was promoted. Avoiding conflict hurts both the team and the organization - and ultimately the manager, herself. Another question you might ask when facing this dilemma - "who would I rather have leave the organization - Bob or Stan?" If the answer is Stan, then why are you coddling his counterproductive work behaviors?
And who knows, if you refuse to reward Stan's resistance, he might get it - and morph into a new Bob. Now you have two Bobs on your team.
Tuesday, October 17, 2017
Assessing Talent Accurately
Sometimes I'll get a call from a client because they're ready to fire Bob. I'll ask a few follow-up questions and discover that there is no major policy violation, they're really just irritated with him for an accumulation of stuff that seems important today but is somewhat minor in the big picture. In most cases I'll convince them that they're probably better off keeping Bob than trying to replace him and recommend they just have a conversation with him regarding their frustrations and expectations.
Then I'll get a call a couple of weeks later to be informed that Bob's just been promoted to supervisor. "Since our talk, he's been doing great!"
I call this the talent assessment elevator - the speed of movement between "the penthouse suite" and "the basement." Some small to mid-sized businesses have express elevators. A worker can go from hero to bum and back to hero within a few days or even hours.
Organizational Behavior textbooks they call this "availability bias," which is defined as our tendency to make decisions based on information that is readily available in our memory. Decision makers can easily overvalue information that we recently received. So when we get word that Bob screwed up, "Bob's a bum. Fire him!" When we get word that Bob pulled us out of a ditch with an important client, "Bob's great. Promote him!"
One of my heroes, basketball coach Dean Smith, once said, "if you make every game a life and death proposition...you'll be dead a lot." He knew - he lost 254 games in his Hall of Fame career! The same applies to making important personnel decisions such as whom to keep and whom to promote, based almost exclusively on recent events. The problem is, the stuff that's in your short term memory may not be the best information to base an important organizational decision on.
So when it's time to decide whether to fire Bob or promote him, take a few minutes and consider:
1. What knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs) does Bob add to the team and how easily will it be to replace those if we send him packing?
2. What performance metrics can we use to evaluate Bob's performance over the course of a year (or longer), so that we don't overvalue his most recent short-term performance?
2. What KSAs plus any intangibles does Bob potentially bring to an expanded role with the organization?
If Bob has solid KSAs and has historically been a solid contributor, don't over-manage as a result of a recent wobble. Have a conversation, if need be, or even a documented disciplinary write-up, if warranted. But investing in getting Bob back on track is going to be less costly than replacing him, almost guaranteed.
If Bob has done something worth celebrating, consider a one-time bonus or some form of public recognition, but don't rush to put him in that supervisor role that just opened-up based solely on this single victory or recent short-term success. Evaluate his KSAs and fitness for this new position separately from his recent star performance. Otherwise, you may have just taken a solid individual contributor and put him in a supervisor role where he's miserable and might soon be underperforming.
When it comes to your talent assessment elevator, it should be like a slow freight elevator - faster than the stairs but doesn't make your ears pop. Organizations with an express elevator seem to habitually lose good people that they needn't have lost because of over-reacting to both short-term performance failures and short-term performance successes.
Then I'll get a call a couple of weeks later to be informed that Bob's just been promoted to supervisor. "Since our talk, he's been doing great!"
I call this the talent assessment elevator - the speed of movement between "the penthouse suite" and "the basement." Some small to mid-sized businesses have express elevators. A worker can go from hero to bum and back to hero within a few days or even hours.
Organizational Behavior textbooks they call this "availability bias," which is defined as our tendency to make decisions based on information that is readily available in our memory. Decision makers can easily overvalue information that we recently received. So when we get word that Bob screwed up, "Bob's a bum. Fire him!" When we get word that Bob pulled us out of a ditch with an important client, "Bob's great. Promote him!"
One of my heroes, basketball coach Dean Smith, once said, "if you make every game a life and death proposition...you'll be dead a lot." He knew - he lost 254 games in his Hall of Fame career! The same applies to making important personnel decisions such as whom to keep and whom to promote, based almost exclusively on recent events. The problem is, the stuff that's in your short term memory may not be the best information to base an important organizational decision on.
So when it's time to decide whether to fire Bob or promote him, take a few minutes and consider:
1. What knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs) does Bob add to the team and how easily will it be to replace those if we send him packing?
2. What performance metrics can we use to evaluate Bob's performance over the course of a year (or longer), so that we don't overvalue his most recent short-term performance?
2. What KSAs plus any intangibles does Bob potentially bring to an expanded role with the organization?
If Bob has solid KSAs and has historically been a solid contributor, don't over-manage as a result of a recent wobble. Have a conversation, if need be, or even a documented disciplinary write-up, if warranted. But investing in getting Bob back on track is going to be less costly than replacing him, almost guaranteed.
If Bob has done something worth celebrating, consider a one-time bonus or some form of public recognition, but don't rush to put him in that supervisor role that just opened-up based solely on this single victory or recent short-term success. Evaluate his KSAs and fitness for this new position separately from his recent star performance. Otherwise, you may have just taken a solid individual contributor and put him in a supervisor role where he's miserable and might soon be underperforming.
When it comes to your talent assessment elevator, it should be like a slow freight elevator - faster than the stairs but doesn't make your ears pop. Organizations with an express elevator seem to habitually lose good people that they needn't have lost because of over-reacting to both short-term performance failures and short-term performance successes.
Improve Your Good Hire Percentage
Many small companies choose their new employees based on a single interview. Unfortunately research shows that interviews have extremely poor validity when it comes to selecting the right employees. (In case you've forgotten, "validity" means an instrument measures what it's supposed to measure). Interviews are supposed to measure the likelihood that a candidate will be a good fit for our organization and our job vacancy. Casual interviews are pretty good at measuring interviewing skills, but they don't do very well at measuring how well a candidate will perform in the job we're trying to fill.
Studies show that we are subject to so many biases when it comes to a typical interview process that we are probably just as likely to pick a star employee from a stack of resumes, sight-unseen, than from bringing five people in for interviews.
So, how do we improve the validity of our process?
First, screen resumes against a predetermined set of KSAs (knowledge, skills and abilities) only. Consider having an administrative employee scrub information that might lead to biases from the resumes' themselves. For example, as a Carolina grad, I might have a negative opinion about a resume from a Duke grad. Another common bias is unintentionally rating a resume lower based on the candidate's name (assumptions rooted in gender, age and ethnic stereotypes). If you can't see the university name or the candidate's name, you are more likely to evaluate the resume on the KSAs alone.
Second, develop good interview questions! Write questions that have a likelihood of predicting the behaviors that you want. Use an interview guide and ask each candidate the same questions. Practice interviewing your current stars and see how they answer those same questions.
Third, use assessments! Utilize skills assessments - having them demonstrate skills they claim to have. This can range from taking a keyboarding test, to taking them out in the warehouse and allowing them to demonstrate their ability to operate your forklift. (There are some do's and don'ts regarding "auditions," so make sure you don't cross a line). Behavioral assessments will show if their personality style is ideal for the demands of the position. Driving Forces/Motivators assessments will show if their motivators align with the rewards and demands of the position. Competencies assessments will show what types of core competencies the candidate brings to the team.
Small employers frequently tell me, "I'm not spending $50 or $100 on a test - I know how to hire!" Considering the high cost of a poor hire and the science that shows utilizing valid assessments increases the validity of the selection process exponentially, that might be a penny-wise, dollar-foolish commitment.
Fourth, check references! LinkedIn is a great resource to see referrals and endorsements on many of your candidates. It's also a venue to conduct "unofficial" reference checks. If the candidate is connected to someone you know, you might be able to gain valuable insight. Many people dismiss the references the candidate submits - but I've gotten honest references from these in the past, so don't neglect them either. The best predictor of future success is past success!
Fifth, make sure your background screening criteria match your risk profile. Some organizations screen too tightly here and miss out on potentially good workers due to invalid criteria. If your company provides residential services and a candidate has a recent breaking-and-entering conviction, that candidate clearly doesn't fit your risk profile. But screening out a candidate who has a 12-year-old misdemeanor possession conviction might be an invalid selection criteria if you have an opening on a production line or on a commercial construction site.
Finally, if you're doing all these things but you're still losing people, it's probably not your selection process. It's likely something else, like job design, compensation, benefits and perks, or most likely, your supervision and management style. But that's a subject for another blog!
Studies show that we are subject to so many biases when it comes to a typical interview process that we are probably just as likely to pick a star employee from a stack of resumes, sight-unseen, than from bringing five people in for interviews.
So, how do we improve the validity of our process?
First, screen resumes against a predetermined set of KSAs (knowledge, skills and abilities) only. Consider having an administrative employee scrub information that might lead to biases from the resumes' themselves. For example, as a Carolina grad, I might have a negative opinion about a resume from a Duke grad. Another common bias is unintentionally rating a resume lower based on the candidate's name (assumptions rooted in gender, age and ethnic stereotypes). If you can't see the university name or the candidate's name, you are more likely to evaluate the resume on the KSAs alone.
Second, develop good interview questions! Write questions that have a likelihood of predicting the behaviors that you want. Use an interview guide and ask each candidate the same questions. Practice interviewing your current stars and see how they answer those same questions.
Third, use assessments! Utilize skills assessments - having them demonstrate skills they claim to have. This can range from taking a keyboarding test, to taking them out in the warehouse and allowing them to demonstrate their ability to operate your forklift. (There are some do's and don'ts regarding "auditions," so make sure you don't cross a line). Behavioral assessments will show if their personality style is ideal for the demands of the position. Driving Forces/Motivators assessments will show if their motivators align with the rewards and demands of the position. Competencies assessments will show what types of core competencies the candidate brings to the team.
Small employers frequently tell me, "I'm not spending $50 or $100 on a test - I know how to hire!" Considering the high cost of a poor hire and the science that shows utilizing valid assessments increases the validity of the selection process exponentially, that might be a penny-wise, dollar-foolish commitment.
Fourth, check references! LinkedIn is a great resource to see referrals and endorsements on many of your candidates. It's also a venue to conduct "unofficial" reference checks. If the candidate is connected to someone you know, you might be able to gain valuable insight. Many people dismiss the references the candidate submits - but I've gotten honest references from these in the past, so don't neglect them either. The best predictor of future success is past success!
Fifth, make sure your background screening criteria match your risk profile. Some organizations screen too tightly here and miss out on potentially good workers due to invalid criteria. If your company provides residential services and a candidate has a recent breaking-and-entering conviction, that candidate clearly doesn't fit your risk profile. But screening out a candidate who has a 12-year-old misdemeanor possession conviction might be an invalid selection criteria if you have an opening on a production line or on a commercial construction site.
Finally, if you're doing all these things but you're still losing people, it's probably not your selection process. It's likely something else, like job design, compensation, benefits and perks, or most likely, your supervision and management style. But that's a subject for another blog!
Monday, September 11, 2017
Referral Bonuses - Good or Bad?
The battle for talent is heating up. Unemployment rates have been steadily declining over the past few years and we've reached that point where I'm hearing, "we're having a hard time finding people" even from my clients who hire low skill workers.
One temptation during times like these is to add a referral bonus incentive or increase the one already in place. I've heard of companies offering as much as $4,000 for an employee referral!
Here are some things to think about when considering an employee referral bonus program:
1. If you have a healthy culture, you don't need one. Employees will refer people they want to work with for no referral at all if they consider your place to be a good place to work. If your culture is lousy, they won't refer people they like, but they may refer people they don't care about if the bonus is tempting enough.
2. The higher the bonus, the weaker the referrals get. Good employees will refer "A" players whenever they get the chance. However, they'll also screen out people they don't think would be a good fit or whom they'd be embarrassed to be linked to. However, the higher the bonus, the easier it is for them to convince themselves that "Bob" who they know is lazy and has never been able to hold down a job, might just work out this time. I remember one of our supervisors took a bunch of application forms, wrote his name in the "referred by" space, and went down to the local mall and handed them out like fliers. Not exactly what we had in mind.
3. Referral bonuses can weaken your employment brand. Research recently published by Applied Psychology suggests that candidates, upon learning that the company has a referral bonus, may question the motives of the referring employee and change their perception of the hiring organization.
4. Too much dependence on employee referrals can increase discrimination risk. People tend to refer people like them (same race, age, gender, etc.). So bragging that 100% of your vacancies are filled by employee referrals could result in a discrimination claim by someone who doesn't look like the rest of your employees.
This is not to say that you should trash your employee referral bonus altogether. There are some benefits. Positions filled by referral tend to be filled more quickly and those referred tend to last longer and perform better (on average). But make sure your bonus is a token of gratitude, not an incentive to refer every bum they know or distribute applications like a ticker-tape parade. When the candidate finds out the employee referring them is getting something, it shouldn't be large enough to bring into question the referring employee's motives nor make it look like your organization is desperate and willing to settle for just about anybody.
One temptation during times like these is to add a referral bonus incentive or increase the one already in place. I've heard of companies offering as much as $4,000 for an employee referral!
Here are some things to think about when considering an employee referral bonus program:
1. If you have a healthy culture, you don't need one. Employees will refer people they want to work with for no referral at all if they consider your place to be a good place to work. If your culture is lousy, they won't refer people they like, but they may refer people they don't care about if the bonus is tempting enough.
2. The higher the bonus, the weaker the referrals get. Good employees will refer "A" players whenever they get the chance. However, they'll also screen out people they don't think would be a good fit or whom they'd be embarrassed to be linked to. However, the higher the bonus, the easier it is for them to convince themselves that "Bob" who they know is lazy and has never been able to hold down a job, might just work out this time. I remember one of our supervisors took a bunch of application forms, wrote his name in the "referred by" space, and went down to the local mall and handed them out like fliers. Not exactly what we had in mind.
3. Referral bonuses can weaken your employment brand. Research recently published by Applied Psychology suggests that candidates, upon learning that the company has a referral bonus, may question the motives of the referring employee and change their perception of the hiring organization.
4. Too much dependence on employee referrals can increase discrimination risk. People tend to refer people like them (same race, age, gender, etc.). So bragging that 100% of your vacancies are filled by employee referrals could result in a discrimination claim by someone who doesn't look like the rest of your employees.
This is not to say that you should trash your employee referral bonus altogether. There are some benefits. Positions filled by referral tend to be filled more quickly and those referred tend to last longer and perform better (on average). But make sure your bonus is a token of gratitude, not an incentive to refer every bum they know or distribute applications like a ticker-tape parade. When the candidate finds out the employee referring them is getting something, it shouldn't be large enough to bring into question the referring employee's motives nor make it look like your organization is desperate and willing to settle for just about anybody.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)