Interview with Gerald Harzl, Director, People Development & Training at Magna

The scarcities found in the Canadian talent pool have caused organizations to look at talent management and employee development in a very new and different way. As the challenges and responsibilities of talent leaders have shifted, the need to refocus and realign talent management processes has come to the forefront.

Gerald Harzl, Director, People Development & Training at Magna answered a series of questions written by marcus evans before the forthcoming 2nd Annual Talent Management & Leadership Development Canada Conference, July 17-18, 2012 in Toronto, Canada. All responses represent the view of Mr. Harzl and not necessarily those of Magna.

What are some of the programs Magna is currently working on, to tie the talent development and leadership planning to the business goals/strategy?

GH: As the auto industry and Magna continue to expand globally, a key priority set by Don Walker, Magna’s CEO, is to ensure we have the right people in place to match the pace.  It is critical that we have employees available to support operational growth based on the competencies that have helped make Magna so successful. To support this global initiative we established and implemented a Leadership Development process that links Magna’s business and people strategies.

Our goal is to retain, engage and sustain our talented and skilled leaders at Magna. The Leadership Development process is a program that assesses the strengths, experiences and career interests of each of our employees in key leadership positions.  This process is critical to Magna’s ability to build for our success both today and in the future – it’s how we ensure that we have plans in place to develop the people, skills and experience needed to execute our current and future business plans globally.  It is also very important from our employees’ point of view, as it guides their career goals and areas for development.

What suggestions would you give to organizations looking to make sure their talent practices link to the organization’s goals and values?

GH: When an organization considers talent practices, ideally there is a talent management or people strategy. The talent strategy must align with current business objectives and goals in order to be successful.  The current economic climate also drives the direction of this strategy. Not only do your talent practices need to link to the organization’s goals and values, it should also link to the other HR functions, programs and practices within the organization. Most important, your talent practices should have executive sponsorship and acceptance.  The end result of your people strategy accelerates the organization to their business goals.

What methods are you currently using to develop global talent pools?

GH: At Magna we have three leadership talent pools – Executive Management, Senior Management and Management. Each pool is made up of employees identified and nominated as part of our Leadership Development process; each talent pool has a customized Talent Program.

The Talent Program is an intensive, accelerated program that helps participants to strengthen their leadership competencies by combining on-the-job training and off-the-job activities. The program helps focus Magna’s talent pool participants on capabilities, mindsets, and actions to drive Magna to a higher level of future success.

Gerald is a growth oriented leader with a reputation for international awareness delivering innovative programs for evaluating and developing senior leaders, offering keen assessments, and providing hands on guidance in the design, development, and execution of succession plans for key positions. Gerald has been in his current role since February 2011 coming to Magna’s Corporate headquarters in Canada from the Magna Powertrain Group based in Austria, where he was Manager for HR Development for Europe and Asia.

For more information please contact Michele Westergaard, Senior Marketing Manager, marcus evans at 312-540-3000 ext. 6625 or Michelew@marcusevansch.com.

About marcus evans

marcus evans conferences annually produce over 2,000 high quality events designed to provide key strategic business information, best practice and networking opportunities for senior industry decision-makers. Our global reach is utilized to attract over 30,000 speakers annually, ensuring niche focused subject matter presented directly by practitioners and a diversity of information to assist our clients in adopting best practice in all business disciplines.

Here is a suggestion for SHRM and my HR department: before attempting to show your value to investors, how about you successfully prove to me that you can impact the bottom line? Heck, I will make it even easier – just prove to me that you understand our business. While I think the metrics below are vaguely interesting, all they do is highlight the fact that for most organizations human resources is a cost center – not a profit generating function. In running a public company, I want to put our best foot forward when engaging investors. I don’t want to scare them away by showing that HR is a money pit.

The left hand

On the one hand you have a manager’s natural desire to do “whatever needs to be done” to make themselves and their staff (often in that order) a success. These managers resist rules, guidelines or policies as an irritating limitation of their authority as the boss. The “yield” sign waved by Human Resources or other observers is viewed as a barrier to getting things done – a brake on immediacy of action and of decision-making. These folks secretly wish that they could do whatever they wanted to, whenever they wanted.

Left to their own devices, when one with such a mindset considers an exception to policy or practice they tend to focus on the immediate problem (and person) in front of them. Everything else is secondary. When facing down a challenge, they may don a set of blinders that blocks their view of the unintended consequences of their actions. They make not even care.

They plunge straight ahead to fix the problem … because they’re The Manager!

So when should these folks have to toe the line with company policy and procedures and say NO to an employee?  When does the manager have to play the bad guy?

The right hand

On the other side of the spectrum are those who follow the rules (policies, procedures, etc.) to the exclusion of common sense, reasonable judgment or emotional considerations. Similar to the Left Hand managers, they too have an immediate problem to solve and may don their own set of blinders, likewise blocking their view of the unintended consequences of their actions.

They support the organization’s need (monitored and administered by HR) for standardization, internal equity and fair treatment of all employees. There are rules out there, and independent discretion (latitude to act as one sees fit) is often seen as a risky business. it’s easier to follow orders and sanction the rule-breakers than it is to deal with those who toe the line after making an exception.

These are the bureaucrats, the ones who can and will quote company policy, whose eyes glaze over when asked for an alteration of the rules. You’ve seen this type of behavior at the post office, at the Department of Motor Vehicles, or at customer service desks across the country. You’ll find this type anywhere you travel.

The “yeah, but” moment

Practitioners will tell you that compensation programs always need a safety valve to account for exceptional circumstances, for times when the rules shouldn’t apply. Without them, an overly rigid and inflexible system would break down into chaos and a myriad of conflicting independent actions. However, those circumstances, and the desired exceptional solutions put forth by even the short-sighted and the self-absorbed, should be vetted by the appropriate level of authority. Visibility and open action (transparency) is key to effective flexibility.

Hopefully, when the time comes for the manager to support the company position, the response is more helpful than, “HR told me,” or “I wanted to do X but HR wouldn’t let me.” Managers shouldn’t pass the buck or the blame, but be part of the management decision. After all, they are management. They agreed to play that role when they accepted the job.

For their part, employees expect fair and equal treatment, which means consistency of action by management. This also means employees don’t expect a “let’s make a deal” environment, where decisions may depend on who you are or on who or what you know. It means that managers shouldn’t be playing fast and loose (doing whatever they want to, whenever they want) with policies and procedures. These actions set precedents. Therein lays chaos, which can destroy an organization from the inside.  Because even the perception of arbitrariness will broadcast a negative message that will resonate poorly with employees.

Managers can choose to ignore one set of behaviors in favor of the other, but only at their peril. Because a rigid fixation on any solution, used every time, doesn’t reflect well on the flexibility of circumstances.  Life is not so cut and dried.

Taking the straight and narrow

If the manager does decide to make an exception, that break from the norm should be for well-considered reasons. It should have the right upward approvals, and should – if necessary – be explainable to other employees. This insures that the decision is not viewed as arbitrary and capricious.

Safety valves are important, because there are always going to be reasons to make some exceptions. But proper consideration and transparency should still be applied, even when the circumstances are confidential and no one else’s business.

What’s the right exception to make? It depends. There are no rules covering specific circumstances, and I wouldn’t think to prejudge. But when you’re ready to go down that independent pathway – stepping away from standard policy or practice – whether you’re the initiator or the approver, be aware that employees are watching. The exception should be visible and acknowledged, not hidden from view.

From the viewpoint of those around you exceptions can make you either a hero or a goat, or maybe both – it depends who is watching.

Meanwhile, effective managers will continue to navigate that tightrope.

No one has ever said that management was easy.

Chuck Csizmar is the Founder & Principal of CMC Compensation Group,an independent global compensation consulting firm whose expertise lies in helping companies manage the effective and efficient utilization of financial rewards for their employees. He also maintains a popular blog on compensation at his website www.cmccompensationgroup.com.

What’s driving this invasive trend is the perceived importance of what gets posted on social media when it comes to evaluating a new hire or current employee. It stems from a study published earlier this year that claimed a glance at someone’s Facebook profile was a better indicator of future job success than more traditional personality tests.

The practice of screening what’s publically available when selecting a job candidate is far from new. It’s standard practice to do research on a candidate via their social media profiles, be they on LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter or any other social networking platform. A 2011 survey by social media monitoring service Reppler found that 91% of recruiters reported using social networking sites to evaluate job applicants.

So is requesting Facebook access any different than requesting access to someone’s email account? Browsing a public profile is worlds apart from requesting access to that which the individual has expressly denied the public access to. Facebook has already stated that such request from employers undermines privacy and security policies. They went on to say that Facebook would be working to protect its users private information by engaging lawmakers and pursuing legal action, including “shutting down applications that abuse their privileges.”

There’s also the fact that recruiters who are engaging in this practice open their organizations to litigation. Since an individual’s Facebook profile will likely reveal information such as their age, race, gender, national origin or disabilities, there’s not a lot of grey area when it comes to the discrimination potential of requesting access to their profile – which is akin to asking for that information outright in an interview.

“We don’t think employers should be asking prospective employees to provide their passwords, because we don’t think it’s the right thing to do,” Facebook chief privacy officer Erin Egan said in a statement. “But it also may cause problems for the employers that they are not anticipating.”

It’s clear that the temptation is incredibly high to pry into someone’s Facebook account, but ethically and legally the best course of action for recruiters is to resist that temptation and ensure that their relationship with the employee gets off on the right footing.

Adi Gaskell is Head of Online at the Process Excellence Network

Online tests for recruitment are widely used and routinely result in specific feedback to applicants in order to communicate decisions, emphasise the pedigree of the process to forestall complaints and to benefit the candidate. But does it deliver on these fronts, particularly when candidates have failed to meet the required threshold?

Sonja Schinkel and colleagues explored the efficacy of these test through two studies. The first asked 81 university students to put themselves into a hypothetical job application process and to attempt two ability tests drawn from a well-established measure of general mental ability. All participants were then told they were ‘rejected’ due to scoring that was below the top 20% of test-takers. They then answered questions about how fair they felt the outcome was and provided a second set of well-being evaluations – the first taken before the test as a control variable for analyses. So how did appearing to fail the test make them feel?

Participants responded that they were happier when they felt the outcome was ultimately fair … unless they possessed an “optimistic attributional style,” which was measured before the ability test with queries like “What do you think when bad things happen to you?” Why was this the case? This particular perceptive style involves attributing negative events to external, impermanent factors, and that attitude can help you dismiss a disappointment as just bad luck. This buffer to well-being, however, is eroded if you accept that an outcome is fair, owing something to internal and more enduring factors.

A second experiment with 244 participants replicated this finding, as well as expanding it by contrasting the non-specific test feedback (you didn’t make the cut-off) with false, specific feedback (this is where you scored). Such specific feedback was worse for the well-being of all participants. Moreover, optimists in this condition didn’t enjoy the well-being buffer when they perceived the outcome as unfair. It’s as if the specific feedback unavoidably presents a jarring internal attribution that can’t be explained away.

Experiencing a negative event, such as rejection, is unwelcome. Being able to attribute the event to external causes can lighten its emotional impact, but these studies demonstrate how many of the features of ability test feedback – emphasising the fairness of outcome through reference to psychometric properties and the specificity of feedback including ranges of performance – impose internal attributions and lead well-being to suffer, at least in the short term.

However, whether the self-insight gained outweighs the self-efficacy lost is a calculation left to another day.

Adi Gaskell is a writer on management issues for Professional Manager magazine.

“Why doesn’t my company consider inflation when determining my pay increase?”

What this employee is asking is, shouldn’t my annual increase percentage at least match the cost of living? And as management is forever touting the company’s ”pay-for-performance” philosophy, shouldn’t my increase be higher than that, given that I’m a good performer?

Have you ever been in a situation where an employee complains to you that their pay increase is no better than the inflation rate? Or worse, that it’s lower? As a further aggravation they might ask you how the company can say there’s a pay-for-performance policy when all they do is grant increases that no more than match the inflation rate? It’s like treading water or running in place. It doesn’t seem fair or like a reward for good performance. Shouldn’t everybody receive at least an increase equal to the inflation rate? Shouldn’t increases reflect more than just a cost of living increase for the higher performers?

The truth of the matter is that it’s common practice for companies to only give a side look at inflation (cost of living) when determining their annual increase budget. They do make note of it as a reference point and to compare against a final decision, but what they’re actually focused on are two prime considerations: 1) competitive market survey data that tells them what everyone else is paying for like jobs in their area; and 2) the expense (annual grant and fixed costs) to maintain the desired competitiveness.

Companies routinely promise to pay competitive rates and, as such, will analyze what they consider the marketplace to learn what other companies are paying for jobs (base salaries) and what they are granting for increases. Their so-called “promise” does not include the granting of inflation-proof increases, or even an implied obligation to reflect the cost of living in their analysis. Their intent is to pay employees a competitive wage – including increases – and by “competitive” they mean what others are doing, not necessarily what is happening out there in the world of inflation.

If affordability is an issue for any given year, it’s likely that maintaining competitiveness will have to suffer. A quick review of salary actions over the past three years will confirm that.

Fairness is in the Eye of the Beholder

Is that a fair way to manage compensation? Well, let’s imagine your name is on the company door. How would you spend your money? It’s likely you would seek to pay the lowest amount possible while still attracting, motivating and retaining qualified talent for your business. That strategy doesn’t imply decreasing pay levels but, as the owner, you would want to allocate your substantial payroll expense as effectively and efficiently as possible to staff your business with qualified and engaged employees. It wouldn’t make good business sense to spend more than you need to, be it for bricks and mortar real estate, raw materials or employee compensation.

Consider the market for talent similar to a purchase at a retail store. How frequently would you pay more than the commonly accepted price if your extra money gained you no added value? Chances are you would not often take that approach.

Other Perspectives

Now let’s consider this issue from the employee’s point of view. What factors weigh heavily on their minds when considering the potential for pay increases?

Most employees expect management decisions on compensation to reflect either the inflation rate (cost of living), the average increase for their industry/geography (typically as pointed out by newspaper “factoids”), or – if the company had a good year – a share of the financial success. You can be sure, though, that the figure employees have in mind is the highest of these three possibilities. And lest you forget, that figure is only for the average performer; better employees should receive more.

Now this view is not necessarily wrong, from their perspective, and one can certainly not blame employees for a viewpoint that puts their interests first. However, companies typically maintain a “this is a business first” strategy, one that seeks to minimize controllable expenses without losing sight of their competitive pay target. The goal of paying competitive wages is not likely to be overturned by changes to the cost of living, newspaper snippets or a “feel good” moment following company success.

Another factor to consider is that employees are comfortable with changing their reasoning from year to year, while companies are stuck on the same track. So when inflation goes up or down, the company has a good or not so good year, or the media is touting industry averages, employee expectations may likely swing from one argument to another, rationalizing a consistently more aggressive pay increase strategy.

Now for a little tongue-in-cheek: turnabout is not considered fair play. Employees would not be pleased if the size of their increase were to fall with their chosen economic indicator. It should only rise. They would similarly object to smaller increases if the company hit a rough patch or if inflation nosed downward. It should be no surprise that employees would want their cake and to eat it too!

However, management strategies tend to be consistent over time, continually focusing on the marketplace and its affordability to maintain a posture of providing competitive pay and pay increase opportunities.

So how do you avoid a clash of employee expectations vs. management strategy? If companies would do a better job of communicating their pay philosophy they would be able to allay the employee guesses and assumptions that always accompany the grapevine rumor mill. Employees would know in advance what to expect. They might not like what they hear, but the employer/employee relationship would be improved by some straight talk about how pay increases are determined.

Chuck Csizmar is the Founder & Principal of CMC Compensation Group,an independent global compensation consulting firm whose expertise lies in helping companies manage the effective and efficient utilization of financial rewards for their employees. He also maintains a popular blog on compensation at his website www.cmccompensationgroup.com.

Interview with Carol Sinclair, Senior Director, People & Organization at VON

Carol Sinclair answered a series of questions written by marcus evans before the forthcoming 3rd Internal Branding & Employee Engagement Conference, April 30-May 2, 2012 in Toronto, Canada. All responses represent the view of Ms. Sinclair and not necessarily those of VON.

What are some of the remarkable programs VON is currently working on to drive the internal culture and engage employees?

CS: VON Canada business strategy has at its core a focus on being the best place to work and volunteer for our 5,000 staff and 900 volunteers. At the center of this is the commitment to provide a work environment for our staff that is as safe and secure as possible, that builds opportunities for staff learning, growth and development and reinforces staff involvement in decisions that have an effect on patient outcomes each and every time. We know that this approach builds employee engagement because our staff told us what they needed to feel engaged in work life at VON. In healthcare employee engagement is critical for client, patient, and staff safety and satisfaction. The theory is simple: when employees are engaged, better patient outcomes ensue.

In 2009, VON embarked on a talent management strategy that was framed by innovative best practices designed to increase our ability to attract, engage and retain frontline staff. We will share our steps to building an employee brand that is based on taking action on the things that matter most to employees. How this affects our culture can be seen in a recent Home Support Redesign Project that effectively reengineered how we are working in small high performance work teams to deliver service in a seamless way to our clients.

What are some of the desired brand/internal culture behaviors for VON employees and how does the organization drive them?

CS: Foremost on our mind is caring for our clients. If we create a culture that is built on exceptional client experiences then we will continue to be a number one community health care provider with a highly engaged and committed workforce who are making in a difference in the lives of their clients each and every day.

In addition, we are committed to creating a learning culture that is reinforced by employees who are working together in small work teams, building their capacity and capability to deliver service in a cost effective manner, and holding each other accountable for generating positive outcomes is a key focus today for us.

Are your employees able to understand that they are linked to VON’s success and the employee value proposition?

CS: We hope so, and work on this constantly. We understand from our engagement surveys what is important to employees at VON at all levels across the organization. We are finding ways to link key performance metrics and program outcomes to key behaviors and competencies and providing training and tools to employees so they can make impactful decisions that drive behaviors and provide the outcomes we are seeking and that our clients and customers want from us.

How are you measuring employee engagement and how are the results reported out to the business? Are managers/departments held accountable to them?

CS: We measure employee engagement via survey and report results regularly. All managers and directors are responsible for driving employee engagement, have site action plans, and work with learning specialists and engagement champions at every site. Our performance management program is built on the employee engagement imperative; our leadership and manager training programs are built to reinforce employee engagement; we provide online tools to all leaders, and finally our business strategy has identified certain key engagement metrics as key milestones in our strategy document.

Carol Sinclair M.A, BA (Hons), BEd. is currently the Senior Director Organization Development at VON Canada. She is responsible for building a great place to work that supports a world class human capital engagement strategy, and best in class recruiting /retention programs. Currently she and her team are challenging the boundaries and perceived limitations, by implementing technology, engagement and online collaborative tools to support organization transformation initiatives.

For more information please contact Michele Westergaard, Marketing/PR Coordinator, marcus evans at 312-540-3000 ext. 6625 or Michelew@marcusevansch.com.

About marcus evans

marcus evans conferences annually produce over 2,000 high quality events designed to provide key strategic business information, best practice and networking opportunities for senior industry decision-makers. Our global reach is utilized to attract over 30,000 speakers annually, ensuring niche focused subject matter presented directly by practitioners and a diversity of information to assist our clients in adopting best practice in all business disciplines.

New research from Michigan State University suggests that better recruitment is the best way to prevent this form of employee theft. The research is one of the first studies to investigate sweethearting in isolation.

The research team investigated over 800 service employees in hotels, restaurants, tanning salons and several other similar service industries. Alarmingly, 67% of participants said they had participated in sweethearting in the last two months. The primary motivation was to receive better tips from their favoured customers or a similar sweetheart deal when they in turn shopped at the customers premises.

“I was surprised by how pervasive this behaviour was across a wide range of service industries,” the researchers say.

“I fully expected to see this behaviour in bars and restaurants, but I was surprised at how prevalent it was in industries like retail, sports, and recreation, and even with insurance claims.”

Preventing sweethearting

The research team suggest that the best means of preventing such employee theft is by employing better screening during recruitment.

“Our results show that by adding a few screening questions that focus on the potential employee’s risk-taking, ethics, and need for social acceptance, employers could identify ‘bad apples’ up front and simply avoid hiring them,” they say. “In the long run, this approach would address the issue.”

In the short-term education is the key tactic. Employers need to educate staff on the ramifications of sweethearting, both for the employee and the employer. In many cases, something as simple as reminding employees that such behaviour is un-ethical can often go a long way towards curbing sweethearting.

With the issue costing organizations hundreds of billions each year, sweethearting is something that can no longer be brushed under the carpet. Hopefully this research will make employers more aware of the size of the problem, and provide some help in tackling it.

Adi Gaskell is head of online at the Process Excellence Network and is a writer on management issues for Professional Manager magazine.

For most U.S.-based companies determining the market price of their employees is a consistent need; to determine the competitive, comparative value of local jobs. To do this you need to know what similar jobs are paying within each country.

Many corporate practitioners begin their global study not anticipating a problem, as they’re accustomed to working with U.S. compensation surveys. How much different can it be? they ask. We’ll have a look at competitive pay in, say . . . Austria, or Argentina or Thailand, get ourselves a couple of survey sources, flip a few pages and – there we are.

And while we’re at it, the fantasy continues, let’s make sure we focus on data relevant to our industry. Segmenting jobs by revenue size would also help. Then, while we’re at it, let’s consider the geographic location of our operations to make sure we can nail down local information for the lower ranked jobs.

It should be a straightforward process.

But it’s not.

Reality Bites

Instead of a smooth pathway for the compensation answer man, a role you’ve grown accustomed to playing with U.S. surveys, the road ahead is not only bumpy and pitted, but in some sections the upheaval has taken out the entire road. Let’s look at the why.

• Country size: Compared to the U.S. there are simply less companies in the survey database from each reporting country – sometimes not many at all. Most countries are either much smaller or have less developed economies, and the fewer companies who participate in a survey the fewer data points that will be available for analysis.
• National data only: You may want industry data, or a specific size of organization (revenue), but most times what you’ll find available is only national data. Again, this is because there are too few participants to support data segmentation.
• Basic job matches: Another reflection of limited data is that there are fewer benchmark positions available for matching. Specialty jobs may not be included, and even those simply labeled “senior,” “assistant” or other steps within a job family might not be listed.
• Secrecy:  Confidentiality can be an issue, especially among emerging market countries. In some regions a cultural reluctance to share information further restricts survey participation, and a tight labor market for skilled positions can create a fear of employee poaching – so they’re not talking.

You can elect to conduct a custom survey of selected companies, but custom surveys may not be an effective strategy either, as the process is both time consuming and expensive, especially if outsourced.  And this strategy would still have issues of confidentiality and reluctance to participate, as well as a need to provide those participating with at least summary results.

So what you’re left to deal with is an environment of less certainty, less assurance of what the “market” is paying and more reliance on a “feel” for reasonable compensation. That subjective “sense of the marketplace” can be a tough sell to a skeptical management, especially if they don’t understand or even accept the limitations you’re struggling with.

How many compensation practitioners are comfortable with sticking their neck out with recommendations when they don’t have the smoking gun of multiple survey sources handing them the common practice answer?  Would you?

The Struggle To Adapt

Those who experience such scarcity of data struggle to adapt their mindset in order to present a reasonable assessment of diverse, country-specific competitiveness.

• Limited data weakens reliability: Practitioners cannot rely on survey data with the degree of confidence they’re accustomed to with U.S. surveys. The phrase, “survey says” carries less certitude.
• Damaged credibility: Concern over selling so-called “results” to senior management when the data is scarce, job matching is more tentative and the “marketplace” is not well represented.
• Job family gaps: Certain levels (senior, lead, “x” yrs of experience, etc.) may not be reported, leaving one with a choice of making arbitrary adjustments to benchmark jobs or bypassing (ignoring) the job with a “n/a” code.

So, what are you going to do?

Accepting the limitations of what data is available for analysis is not an easy pill to swallow for those accustomed to robust U.S. information sources.

• Adjustments: When your job is not identified in the survey you may need to select a similar role (larger or smaller) and adjust the figures up or down – or you could “pass” on trying to match the job, though non-answers rarely help.
• Get off the median: When revenue brackets are not available (common) and you’re dealing with a small to mid-size company, you should consider using the 25th percentile of available data as a representative market, instead of the higher median or weighted average.
• Educate management: It’s essential that management is led to understand the limitations of international compensation data in determining “the answer.” Your recommendations, while based on sketchy information, are coupled with your professional experience and judgment. You have to sell this.

Determining marketplace values for overseas jobs is not an exact science. While you’re often left to “feel the pulse” of the country-specific environment you’re not telling management how much to pay someone, only what the generalized “market” seems to be paying for similar jobs. They have to take it from there.

Chuck Csizmar is the Founder & Principal of CMC Compensation Group,an independent global compensation consulting firm whose expertise lies in helping companies manage the effective and efficient utilization of financial rewards for their employees. He also maintains a popular blog on compensation at his website www.cmccompensationgroup.com.

For compensation practitioners, having the right person involved in the selling process can be more important than the compensation program itself, because dangling potential rewards in the face of the wrong person can be a waste of money and represents lost business opportunity.

It’s All About Motivation

Success in the selling process depends on the right motivating elements aimed at the right employee personality. To do this correctly within a sales compensation program requires the design to take that into account, to focus financial rewards toward whatever engages, whatever motivates the employee to perform in the manner the organization wishes.

Costly mistakes can be made when an organization assumes that all employees will react in the same fashion to the same stimulus.

Have you considered what motivates your sales employees? Chances are that not everyone would have the same answer.

• Money: Everybody’s first response is that all you have to do is offer the opportunity for a cash bonus and the employees are off and running. But in chasing the almighty dollar, employees could also drive your company in the wrong direction – even off a cliff – because they may take the path of least resistance (difficulty) and greatest financial reward. If those activities fail to align with what the company needs to assure business success, money is not only wasted but used to reward behavior that could be detrimental to the company.

Do you really want to reward the sale of a money-losing or low margin product?

• Mission: Especially prevalent with not-for-profit organizations, many employees have a “fire in the belly” belief in what the organization espouses, be it products, services or awareness. This internal value system often provides motivation enough to ensure concerted efforts. In such a scenario, money is deemed less important (though not dismissed) as a motivator. Employees are already motivated by the worthiness of the organizations mission.

Helping others or helping a cause can be reward enough for some employees.

• Brand identification: If you identify with the organization’s offerings and have a belief in what you are selling, you’re already halfway to becoming an effective sales representative. For these employees the ingrained belief in what they sell is already present; they just need a bit of training.

Employees are proud to be associated with a particular product or service. They’re always wearing the logo shirts and are the organization’s biggest fans.

• Self-motivation: Here the employee possesses an internal reserve of self worth that helps to make excellence its own reward. It’s a state in which success in one’s endeavors is self-fulfilling. The reward system for these employees is often a nice addition, but isn’t necessarily the prime motivating factor.

A certain level of performance would be forthcoming, no matter what financial rewards are offered.

• Challenge: The mindset here is the joy of climbing the hill, especially if there’s a pot of gold at the peak. Similar to self-motivation, some personality profiles relish a good challenge, and if you provide a reward for goal attainment, so much the better.

For such employees, the game is always afoot. They enjoy breaking down barriers, solving problems and grabbing for the brass ring.

• Competition: The fierce desire to be better than others; where winning (which means that others lose) is critically important. Note: such employees might not be effective team players.

Sometimes this motivational factor is less about achieving company goals than simply doing better than other employees. Like a loose cannon, these players may have their own definition of winning, which may not be synonymous with yours.

The takeaway point here is to understand what motivates your employees and then to place your rewards in front of them in a fashion that leads and directs their behavior.

If you design your incentive program with the wrong assumptions about what engages your workforce, you’ll risk missing your targets, misspending your financial assets and perhaps not even achieving the required level of success – regardless of the money paid out in rewards.

Designing A Better Carrot

When putting together the elements of your incentive program it would be worth your effort to focus rewards in a manner that recognizes the type of activity and performance you’re aiming for. That sounds like a simple and straightforward concept, yet is all too often missed by plan designers.

• Change in behavior: Providing an incentive opportunity should hinge on performance that you would not ordinarily receive. Don’t waste money paying extra for what you can gain for free.

• Longer term focus: Building relationships is often just as important as making a quick sale. Repeat and additive sales are much easier to achieve than finding a new customer.

• Worthwhile rewards: If the reward isn’t deemed worthwhile (“why should I put myself out for so little?”) the motivational factor will be diminished – leaving you with only employee self-motivation to rely on. In such a case your incentive plan would be viewed as worthless.

• Reasonable targets: If the employees don’t see their performance targets as “reasonably attainable,” their effort and engagement will suffer. They should have an expectation that they can succeed and that they can reach their target. Without that belief, no incentive plan in the world will be able to stimulate the right degree of motivation.

To motivate sales employees to achieve a win-win solution, where they deliver the right performance and achieve financial rewards while the company achieves operational success, you have to push the right buttons. But always be mindful that it’s not as easy as simply waving a dollar bill.

Chuck Csizmar is the Founder & Principal of CMC Compensation Group,an independent global compensation consulting firm whose expertise lies in helping companies manage the effective and efficient utilization of financial rewards for their employees. He also maintains a popular blog on compensation at his website www.cmccompensationgroup.com.

The 7^th annual UC Davis Study of California Women Business Leaders paints a similarly bleak picture. It reveals that less than 10% of the 400 largest public companies based in California has a female chief executive. Despite efforts to improve gender equality, this rate has improved by just 0.2% in the last year.

In addition, the study shows that over a third of the biggest companies in California have no women on their board of directors. This is a group that represents nearly $3 trillion of shareholder value.

“Having more women involved at the highest levels of business management and corporate governance brings greater diversity of thinking styles, industry knowledge, educational background and career experience,” says Steven Currall, professor of management at University of California, Davis. “Yet we continue to find disappointingly small proportions of women in leadership roles in what is widely regarded as a progressive, trend-setting state.

“There are plenty of qualified women to hire and promote,” Currall continued, “but the vast majority of the 400 largest public companies in the state don’t seem to recognize that. Our mission is to change that.”

Key findings of the study

• Women hold just under 10% of board level positions.
• Thirty-four percent of the biggest 400 companies have no women on their board of directors.
• Women accounted for just 9.2% of the 1,925 highest paid executives at these companies.
• Not one company looked at had a gender balanced board.
• Tech companies provide 40% of the worst performing companies for gender equality.

The study was conducted in partnership with Watermark, a Bay Area non-profit that offers support to executive women.

“Women are the next global economy. They make up a majority of the work force in nine of the ten occupations that will add the most jobs in the next eight years,” says Marilyn Nagel, CEO of Watermark.

“Despite this, women still represent a significant minority on boards. There are many qualified women capable of serving on boards who are not currently getting those roles.”

Adi Gaskell is a manager at Process Excellence Network

In these situations most HR professionals look to other – mostly senior people or those who have authority to look into HR stuff and show direction. They don’t think of taking the initiative, because doing so would be equivalent to challenging the status quo. It’s common not to think of doing things or saying things that would put the other person in a slightly uncomfortable situation, especially when the other person is more powerful or senior. We avoid this because we want to avoid the hassle of explaining and defending our point of view. So we end up doing the same things without changing a bit and we also keep on feeling sorry for ourselves that we chose this field. We put all the blame for things not being worked out the way they should on higher management, but we don’t realize that it’s us, the HR professionals, who have specialized in the field and who should bring about change.

Unlike what most people think, being an HR Professional is a challenge. This is especially true for a workplace in Pakistan where HR is still evolving and where most of the HR practices don’t meet the standards of what others consider best practices. I’m not talking about MNCs that surely follow popular international practices. I’m talking about companies that are big enough in size while still being at a developmental stage where they are unsure about accepted HR philosophies and practices.

So for all those people who think that they have HR inclinations in them but also think that HR is dull , boring or that there is no thrill and competitiveness in the field … you are mistaken. This is actually an opportune time to make your mark, as you have a big playground in front of you to play in. For example, how many “certified” OD professionals do we have out there …and what effort is going into developing psychometrics in the South Asian context. I can’t see any. What we typically cite are western studies carried out according to their norms and culture. For that matter, I can’t even find HR professors in universities who have concrete industry experience and who can present unique case studies developed in a Pakistani perspective. Recently, a well known telecom’s HR head in Pakistan got notice for criticizing and proving that certain agile work models are not possible. When are we going to come out of the stereotypical thinking that HR is supposed to keep a check on people and their work at all times? Why don’t we consider trusting them?

In my opinion, there’s a lot of excitement and fun that awaits and would welcome you if you want to walk on the path of change and the breaking of mental barriers. But it takes guts. Lots of competencies are required; even more than what you expect from an extraordinary marketer or finance person. HR professionals don’t only need to have emotional intelligence, interpersonal skills and candor, they also have to have the temperament of business leaders who have drive, ambition and a will to bring results. Of course an HR person should be empathetic and sensitive towards others, but they should also not be afraid to get confrontational when it comes to convincing business leaders regarding HR decision they believe – along with the support of logical thinking, reasoning and business data – will favor the company.

Following this path will challenge your intellectual abilities and give work to your creative sense. If you are able to streamline even one HR process and to bring it up to the level of international standards, the feeling of accomplishment is enough to push you to do more.

So my friends, HR is not everyone’s cup of tea. It’s for those who are ready to take the challenge of being a little different from the rest, who can draw the line between being empathetic and being a door mat, and who have the ability to deal with the complexity of multiple issues. All senior HR professionals that I know are strategic thinkers, with a sense of urgency and responsibility that carried them to where they are now. What they often lacked, though, is the ability to sell their ideas to other business leaders and the guts of making difficult and unpopular decisions; possibly lending credence to research showing that most HR professionals have a need to be liked. Perhaps the important lesson is determining the times you need to make some people dislike you for going in the right direction.

Roll up your sleeves! It’s time to polish some of your long forgotten abilities and start challenging, convincing and inspiring as an HR person. I guarantee that if you do, you won’t feel stuck in HR anymore. Rather, you will feel satisfied, thrilled and accomplished during the process. Happy journey!

But while that’s all fine and good – for us and for them – it’s only half of the equation. The other half is how your brand responds after a messed up a client interaction.

A significant part of your brand’s reputation is built on what you do after you’ve made a mistake.

Not long ago. a financial services company came to us wanting to become more of a customer-focused organization. They wanted everyone in the company to put the customer experience first on their to-do lists every day. On a teleconference that connected teams in New York and Minnesota, one executive stunned the group by telling the simple story of how he became a lifelong fan of an online shoe store only after they had sent him the wrong size shoes.

How could a company blow an order and still come out winning over a customer for life? They made resolving the error as simple, inexpensive and hassle-free for the customer as they possibly could. They provided customer service reps who were knowledgeable and reachable by phone, without the need for the equivalent of an online anthropological dig to find the phone number on the web site. They also provide easy-to-follow return instructions, tracking numbers and packaging, as well as options for store credit or free shipping.

They made it so easy for the executive to replace the shoes that he walked away with faith and trust in the brand, and ultimately recommended them to family and friends.

What we call “experience brands” know that aligning employees to deliver exceptional experiences means creating a dialogue with them on the brand’s purpose and mission. It’s about giving them the flexibility they need to meet unexpected customer needs, and properly rewarding, recognizing, incenting and celebrating those who provide great service.

Whatever you think of its complex coffee concoctions, it’s clear that Starbucks is one company that gets this right. Twice I’ve had baristas unexpectedly give me my drink for free – once when an employee thought I’d simply waited too long for my coffee (it was 5:30 a.m. and the staff was running late); another time when the register was down and she couldn’t ring up my drink. In the latter case, the employees didn’t do what you might have expected – close and bar the doors until the register was fixed. Instead, they just continued giving early morning customers their daily fix for free.

Roadrunner Sports, an online running store, didn’t even wait to make a mistake before doing something about it for their customers. They recently had a communication outage and so didn’t know how many customers might have been trying to get through to them for a specific three-hour period of that day. So, instead of popping up an “Under Construction” sign with a cute yellow hard hat and waiting for things to come back online – essentially doing nothing – they sent an email to all of their members with a message that apologized to everyone who might have been trying to get through. On top of that, they gave everyone a 20% off coupon that was good for a limited time.

Their fast action not only turned a negative situation into a positive one, it very publicly sent a signal to all of its members and regular shoppers about how they handle mistakes even when no one is looking. The result? More goodwill and brand loyalty instead of less. And, while making a mistake is not something to make a habit of – we all know “to err is human” – what really matters is how you handle it when the one doing the erring is you.

Joe Panepinto, Ph.D. is VP, Senior Strategist at Jack Morton Worldwide, a global experience brand agency that connects brands to the people most important to them. He is also an adjunct professor at Boston University’s College of Communication. You can reach him at joe_panepinto@jackmorton.com.

Today we remain stuck in the mire of a severe economic malaise, a situation that is causing enormous employment anxiety, deep concern for the future and perhaps more than a few sleepless nights. As organizations ponder the question of whether employees can handle the true state of affairs (health and future prospects) they can choose to deal from either the top or the bottom of the deck with their internal communications.

The troubling issues raised could be pending layoffs, reduced or frozen pay increases, hiring freezes, reorganizations or other such “bad news.”

Management messaging can either be straightforward regarding current events – addressing the cause of problem and how economic circumstances would likely affect employees – or they could toss out a series of artful communication hedges (i.e. excuses). In other words, employees could be fed “corporate-speak.”

Corporate Speak

By this I mean a headquarters-generated sleight-of-hand communications effort, typically prepared by smooth-tongued professional writers instead of subject matter experts. The prose, approved by corporate legal to insure that no liability is stated or implied, minimizes the negative and accentuates the positive. The intent is to say little of substance, while at the same time making a self-congratulatory production of their communication efforts.

Content in these communications is usually a combination of feel-good phraseology intended to instill a sense of confidence. The target of the communications is expected to walk away feeling that, whatever the problem, management is a) doing the best they can, b) not at fault, c) continues to have the interests of the employees firmly in mind and d) will be providing more details soon.

When these officious corporate pronouncements inevitably provide little in the way of satisfactory answers, most employees turn to their direct managers in an effort to obtain straight information. However, when the going gets rough (challenging, complex, contentious), many managers will waffle, dribble their thoughts, obfuscate and start to make their own excuses. They may even point a finger in the direction of Human Resources. Poorly prepared managers have difficulty facing issues important to employees without trying to pass the buck. Employees want to know the why, the what next and what about me?, but managers are rarely equipped to offer an effective response.

So when the straight story is not forthcoming, employees will tend to read between the lines and form their own perceptions of the company message, and that perception is less reliable than the grapevine for spreading accurate information. It is also more skeptical.

What employees “hear” can usually be generalized by the following attitudes:

• “Where are they going to go?”: Employees are trapped in their jobs and have little choice but to remain, because other jobs will be hard to find. Management has implied, “We don’t need to do anything for them.”
• “Everyone else is cutting back, so we have to as well”: This trite phrase only gets dragged out when the circumstances being described save the company money. Has the “everyone else” phrase ever been used to support giving something to employees?
• “In anticipation of difficult economic times ahead we are forced to / reluctantly / have no choice but … “: This is a pre-emptive strike while the sun is still shining. It’s a particularly onerous practice if rewards for past performance are cut, and is often viewed by those on the receiving end as a breach of trust.
• “We employ average workers, so they should be satisfied …”: Perhaps an after-the-fact rationalization, but sometimes your senior leadership feels that most employees can easily be replaced, like a commodity.

Not surprising, the reaction to such doomsday communication efforts is always negative, planting seeds in your workforce for a bitter harvest of lowered morale and increasing disengagement.

• The ineffective message lacks credibility with an increasingly skeptical audience, as does the messenger and the organization behind it.

• As insincerity is recognized, employee listening and attention stops – like shutting off the TV – so the communication effort is wasted.
• Engagement and performance levels drop as trust, confidence and loyalty erode and employees start to ask themselves, “why bother?”
• The supposition gains traction that the company is lying, holding back or not telling the whole story. It is hard to see the glass as half-full when attitudes have soured.

On the other hand, when the message is honest, straightforward and without guile the opposite reaction tends to occur:

• Organizational credibility is strengthened
• Company loyalty is fostered
• Engagement levels and management support are strengthened.

The implication is clear:  employees can handle the truth, should rightly expect it from their employer and will not take kindly to bland corporate-speak. So don’t get caught making excuses; it didn’t work when you tried it with your mother, and it won’t work with your employees either.

Chuck Csizmar is the Founder & Principal of CMC Compensation Group,an independent global compensation consulting firm whose expertise lies in helping companies manage the effective and efficient utilization of financial rewards for their employees. He also maintains a popular blog on compensation at his website www.cmccompensationgroup.com.

Study Highlights:

• Many respondents cite a mobile device as “the most important technology” in their lives.
• Seven of 10 employees have “friended” their managers and coworkers on Facebook.
• Two of five students have not bought a physical book (except textbooks) in two years.
• Most respondents have a Facebook account and check it at least once a day.
• Half of respondents would rather lose their wallet or purse than their smartphone or mobile device.
• More than two of five respondents would accept a lower-paying job that had more flexibility with regard to mobile device choice, social media access and mobility than a higher-paying job with less flexibility.
• At least one in four respondents said the absence of remote access would influence their job decisions, such as leaving a company sooner rather than later, slacking off or declining job offers outright.
• Three out of 10 respondents said that once they begin working, it will be their right – more than a privilege – to be able to work remotely with a flexible schedule.

Despite these findings however, many of the people I’ve spoken with about the research express concern over whether social media should even be allowed at work. They regard social media access as being a productivity sink, with employees wasting time checking Facebook updates when they should be working.

So, should social media be allowed at work?

I am going to answer with a firm “Yes.” Here’s why.

1. It increases productivity.

An AT&T study in 2008 revealed that social networking access actually increases productivity at work. http://www.corp.att.com/emea/insights/pr/eng/social_111108.html. The report cited the tools abilities to increase individual knowledge and collaboration between teams as key benefits of using social media at work.

In a similar vein, a University of Melbourne study in 2009 found that allowing employees to use social media at work actually increased productivity by 9% over workplaces where access was forbidden. In a video presentation, author of the report Dr Brent Coker, suggests that this was because use of social media provids the brain with a natural break, therefore when work resumes it is done so with renewed vigor.

2. Banning social media does not work.

Just like government prohibition failed to stop alcohol consumption in America, banning social media access at work will not stop employees from accessing it. The lesson from the prohibition era was that people had already cemented their liking for alcohol, so trying to remove access to it simply would not work. It’s fair to say that social media use is well cemented in modern life, and the Cisco study shows just how important it is to employees today. More and more people have smartphones now, so it’s very easy for them to circumvent your firewalls should they choose.

3. You can’t just use it when it suits you.

An increasing number of companies are using social media to recruit people. They advertise on LinkedIn, for instance, or have a Facebook page geared toward potential recruits. These organizations are clearly looking to recruit people with high social media savvy, so why take that away as soon as they agree to enter your workforce?

4.  Show me the trust.

Also during the recruitment process, a company presumably hires because the candidates skills, abilities and attitude are suitably impressive and aligned to the organization. To then suggest to that same employee that they cannot be trusted to manage their own social media usage so as not to affect their work performance seems a strange about turn.

I’d love to hear your take on this topic. Does your organization ban social media at work?

Adi Gaskell is a writer on management issues for Professional Manager magazine.

When that goal is finally reached, when someone says, “we love you, please come to work for us,” the tendency will be to respond with “thank you, YES.”  However, that immediate, knee-jerk reaction could be a mistake, as at that point you’re a desired candidate with options, while tomorrow you’ll be one of the staff – with little leverage at all.

When the moment of decision occurs, most Human Resource professionals would advise you to give the person who extended the offer a warm thank you, but then to take a little time for reflection on the particulars – the details.  The higher up the food chain you are, the more moving parts will comprise your employment offer.   No one is going to force you to decide right away, so don’t.

Presuming that the career implications are positive, that you don’t have to move to Northern Alaska, and that you want to accept the offer, let me suggest a few tactical strategies to help you make the most of what was offered.  Because with a bit of luck you can do better.

The Recruiter

Internal recruiters can be difficult to work with at times, but you need them.  So keep a smile on your face and play nice throughout the interview process.  At some point your recruiter may be called on to negotiate with management on your behalf, so the relationship you have with this individual is critical.  Why?  As your offer was likely developed from the combined thought of the hiring Manager and Human Resources, the recruiter would play the part of the messenger.  So if you wish to negotiate revised terms it’s the recruiter who needs to “sell” your point of view for a better deal.

The Package

I always advise clients to look past the base salary to the rest of the package, considering the offer in its entirety.  And make sure you have the offer in writing.   All the necessary elements should be included (i.e., title, salary, incentive, vacation, relocation, stock options, retirement, etc.), as there may be a cornucopia of opportunity to negotiate improvements by expanding your line of sight.

Cash Is Still King

It’s a safe bet that the company has left itself some wiggle room with its base salary offer, but the trick is to gauge how much room is left.  So be cautious.  Don’t be greedy by asking for a major increase, as that will alienate the hiring manager and your new friend, the recruiter.  Also, avoid giving the impression that you think they’ve low-balled you.  You can lose a lot of goodwill with that tact.

Perhaps an early performance review (six months?) will give you the time to prove your worth; or a sign-on bonus to improve your first year earnings.  Both are less visible within the organization than base salary, and management is often amenable to such “compromises.”

What’s Negotiable?

Once you’re past the cash part of the offer the company may prove more flexible, as the transparency of cash can be a limiting factor due to possible internal equity concerns.

Unless the company is restricted by plan documents, policy or statutory obligations they may be accommodating to certain requests, especially as they are eager for your acceptance.   As verbal promises carry little weight even a signed note in the margin of the offer letter would be sufficient authorization, so consider vacation days, early eligibility for incentives and options, perquisites as well as flexibility on relocation as possible improvements.

But have a care before asking for changes to tax-advantaged programs or those where equity issues might be a concern.  You will have little success here.

The Push Back

To open the negotiations first profess your genuine appreciation for the offer, then express an excitement at becoming part of the company team.  Only then should you mention your “disappointment” with whatever aspect of the offer package has created concern.

Note: make sure your list of disappointments is small.

When you ask for consideration of an improved offer remind the recruiter of your extensive background and experience, and the type and degree of contribution you will soon be making – but be specific.   Give the recruiter enough ammunition to help represent you.  Don’t leave the impression that you simply want more, but that you deserve more.

Final Thought

Your hard work at job search will pay off, that offer of employment will come your way.   When it does make sure you finish the job by not leaving opportunities on the table.  You can’t go back later to pick them up.

Chuck Csizmar is the Founder & Principal of CMC Compensation Group,an independent global compensation consulting firm whose expertise lies in helping companies manage the effective and efficient utilization of financial rewards for their employees. He also maintains a popular blog on compensation at his website www.cmccompensationgroup.com.

Since Pfizer launched the PfizerWorld platform in 2009 to connect the entire organization to a single platform, the biggest transformation was that, “Our messages are far more aligned across the enterprise than they ever were before,” said Bob Libbey, Senior Director, Global Colleague Communications.

“This was a major goal of the PfizerWorld Super Site Project – to speak with what we call a ‘One Pfizer’ voice,” Libbey, a speaker at the upcoming marcus evans 7th Annual Internal Communications & Situational Messaging Conference added.

The platform had more than 60 million hits and over five million article views last year. “This has raised both the overall awareness of the importance of internal communication and the profile of the function itself.”

Also a speaker at the 7th Annual Internal Communications & Situational Messaging Conference, Elizabeth Golden, Vice President, External Affairs and Worldwide Communications, at Pfizer said: “Another major advance is that we are providing a more timely and steady flow of news and information to our colleagues. Prior to the creation of the platform, content was being posted to the old intranet site on a weekly basis. We knew that we had to move to daily publication, and that is what we did.”

There are now 39 editions of the site: one for each of the company’s eight business units and for divisions and functions, regions, country organizations and locations all over the world, including sites in different languages. The platform is continually expanded and usage tracked. Mobile access was added in December 2010 and a social networking hub in February 2011 to bring together Twitter- and Facebook-type capabilities. Employees can also use the hub to filter their PfizerWorld news from among the platform’s many editions. The MyWorld hub now has approximately 30,000 users.

“Knowing that our colleagues need tools and information to advocate for the company, we recently added a resource center that provides key business and policy information. This includes company talking points, FAQs and policy papers, to help them better educate and communicate on behalf of the company,” Golden went on to say.

Every internal campaign now runs through PfizerWorld at some point. “The platform has helped us reach our colleagues with internal communications efforts across the board in a reliable, credible and easy-to-use way,” Libbey said. Since some employees are less likely to be online, such as those in manufacturing roles, the platform is complemented by an e-signage system.

To ensure success in internal communications initiatives, it is important to know what employees want and to have a clear plan for mixing content they want with the content the business needs to get to them, Golden said. Having a reliable measurement system to track what is working and what might need adjustment is key.

Golden concluded: “Be patient. It takes time to build credibility, change employee habits and to establish new ones. Building an audience takes time.”

The marcus evans 7th Annual Internal Communications & Situational Messaging Conference will take place 29 November to 1 December 2011, at the Omni Park House, Boston, Massachusetts.

For more information please contact Michele Westergaard, Marketing/PR Coordinator, marcus evans at 312-540-3000 ext. 6625 or Michelew@marcusevansch.com.

About marcus evans

marcus evans conferences annually produce over 2,000 high quality events designed to provide key strategic business information, best practice and networking opportunities for senior industry decision-makers. Our global reach is utilized to attract over 30,000 speakers annually, ensuring niche focused subject matter presented directly by practitioners and a diversity of information to assist our clients in adopting best practice in all business disciplines.

But here’s the really interesting thing.  Once new employees are finished with training, they are offered a $3,000 bonus to quit right then and there.  According to Hsieh, this is Zappos’ way of saying, “we only want people who really want to work here.”  Two or three percent of trainees take the bonus and leave, and the employees who remain are more committed to the company’s mission.

Obviously, only a certain type of employee is going to survive and thrive throughout the interview and training process at a company like Zappos, but that’s exactly the point.  Even in a poor job market like this, I still hear of organizations succumbing to desperation hiring so that they’ll have warm bodies to fill gaping holes.

Read More…

If you haven’t, take a few minutes and watch it now. It’s really thought provoking.

RSA Animate — Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us from Daniel Pink on Vimeo.

The research Pink references shows that, once basic financial needs are met, autonomy, mastery and purpose – not money – are better motivators of performance.

Pink points out that engagement and motivation come from a sense of self-direction – of trust, and of ownership. The message for managers here is that it’s time to get out of the way.

Fostering Autonomy, Mastery, Purpose

Let your employees take on projects that interest them, that will develop their skills and challenge them to be their best. By providing employees this freedom, you give them a sense of purpose, and ultimately the outcome can be extremely beneficial to your organization.

Read More…

Is your recruitment process based on what you know about job seekers…or what you think you know about job seekers?

If there’s one thing over 15 years of in-depth research on job seeker behavior and perceptions have taught us, it’s that now, more than ever, experience matters when it comes to the ability to drive quality candidates to apply for your open positions.

A recent CareerBuilder and Inavero study revealed that top talent wants to engage with prospective employers and experience what it’s like to work for their company before they decide to apply to a position – and they’re increasingly utilizing emerging technology to do it.

How do job seekers really see you? Three questions to ask
If you’ve never taken a step back to consider the experience you offer candidates – from their perspectives – it’s time to do so now.  Below are three forms of emerging media candidates utilize today to find opportunities and research potential employers. In effect, they also provide employers the opportunity to interact with and engage with job seekers on their terms. The following exercises will help you see the experience you’re providing candidates – from their point of view.

Read More…