January,
1998
Some
Food for Thought from the Past Five Years
WITH THIS ISSUE, SRA Update begins its sixth year of publication.
Subjects covered in the past five years have ranged from employment
offers to counter-offers, from choosing a search consultant
to selecting the best candidate, from employment law to reference-checking
– and more.
Changing
times have dated some of what we said. (In May, 1993, an Update
referred to the "vast number of unemployed and underemployed
people," hardly the case in January, 1998.) Other comments
remain as true today as when they were first made.
Below
is a brief selection.
You
Can Make a First Impression Only Once
In
January, 1994, we noted that on-site interviews are often
accidents waiting to happen and suggested that many could
benefit from better planning:
"Whether
the candidate is being considered for company president or
design engineer, an on-site visit usually presents the first
opportunity to ‘touch and feel’ a prospective
employer. It takes but little work to make that occasion a
pleasant one, and attention to detail can make all the difference
between disaster and success… The point, quite simply,
is to make your guest feel like a V.I.P."
Thinking
Outside the Box
Organizations
often want to clone their people, but sometimes a fresh perspective
is best. Our March 1996 issue reported on the merger of two
regional banks, and the resulting need to build a new image.
"This
task would be the direct responsibility of the Director of
Marketing, and the [new] institution’s search firm successfully
sought that person not from the banking world – but
rather from the marketing organization of a major consumer
products company. The last thing the employer wanted was to
create an advertising and public relations program that would
make it seem like just another bank."
Recruiter-Proofing
Your Organization
In
July, 1996, we noted that the "lean machines" created
by corporate downsizing had not resulted in the productivity
improvements and renewed sense of employee commitment that
many gurus had predicted. When morale is in the pits, employee
retention is at risk, and recruiters begin to circle.
"Executive
search consultants know that the most vulnerable people in
any organization are those who believe they have a compelling
reason to want to leave. It may be organizational instability,
corporate politics, an insufferable boss, being passed over
for promotion, not having a corner office or any of a dozen
other grievances real or imagined. If headhunters can get
at this information, why can’t your managers?"
The
Problem with Résumés
There’s
a mystique about the résumé that goes beyond
reason. The résumé comes from academia, where
it is called a "curriculum vitae" (literally, "the
course of one’s life"). Employees keep them in
their computers, ready to be printed or E-mailed on a moment’s
notice. Employers insist on them and can’t imagine interviewing
a candidate without one. In the May 1996 issue on the virtues
of reference-checking, SRA Today took a more skeptical point
of view.
"What
job candidate has not walked on water, or at least parted
the Red Sea? The normal modesty with which most people comport
themselves flies out the window when they enter the job market.
Résumés become shining examples of creative
writing, with loyal foot soldiers in the corporate army morphing
into field commanders. Candidates not only put their best
foot forward, they also keep any embarrassing information
tucked deep inside their pockets. Like political candidates,
they seek to put the most favorable spin on their careers."
How
Many Leaders Does a Company Need?
Leadership
has been the organizational development buzzword of the ‘nineties.
The September 1996 issue, however, pondered how much is too
much?
"As
in the tale of the three-legged pig who the farmer said was
too good to be eaten all at once, companies may want to expand
their supply of leaders a little bit at a time. The seeding
of an organization with a few key leaders may be a lot more
palatable than a wholesale upheaval of the management ranks."
"Why
Should I Go To Work for You?"
The
April 1994 issue observed that most companies have a standard
list of features they mention in describing themselves to
the outside world – for example, great product line,
long history of profitability, friendly place to work, world-famous
corporate art collection, etc. But should all the arrows in
your corporate quiver be flung at a prospective candidate
for employment?
"If
your company markets widgets, you know that marketplace success
depends on how well your widgets meet consumer needs. Likewise,
[one of the keys] to recruiting success depends on how well
your company’s intangible assets meet the needs of a
prospective employee. Unless you understand his or her needs,
however, it’s difficult to know which benefits to sell…
"By
learning what turns [a candidate] on or off, you gain important
clues as to how you can best present your company and its
particular job opportunity. The local high school that sends
its graduates to the Ivy League might be an important selling
point to one candidate and relatively meaningless to the next.
Similarly, a candidate who currently feels a lack of challenge
may respond positively to a problem at your company –
if he or she sees the opportunity to fix it… The skilled
executive recruiter can often play an important role in ferreting
out those needs that your company can meet."
No
One Size Fits All
"Pay
for performance" is another buzzword of the ‘nineties.
In a list of corporate New Year’s resolutions (November
1995), SRA Today pointed out that no one compensation program
is likely to meet the needs of all employees.
"What
company wouldn’t like to encourage productivity and
quality improvements, align pay more closely with business
results, focus employee attention on the organization’s
strategic goals and discourage worker expectations that they
are entitled to automatic pay increases?
"Various
forms of performance-based compensation may well provide the
answer. For rank-and-file employees, annual or even quarterly
rewards for the achievement of specific goals will have the
most dramatic impact. At upper management levels, stock options
and deferred compensation can be used to keep executives focused
on long-range goals and consistency of performance over a
several-year period."
Who
Should Make the Employment Offer?
Search
consultants and employers often struggle over the issue of
who should extend the offer of employment to a candidate.
But it’s not so much who makes the formal offer (which,
for legal reasons, should generally come from the employer)
as whether or not it will be accepted. The November 1997 issue
explained why search consultants play a vital role in making
offers stick.
"The
dangers in do-it-yourself hiring are plentiful: Offers get
extended in a vacuum, with little knowledge of the candidate’s
probable reaction. Minor sticking points become major obstacles.
The candidate’s sincerity may be in question. Small
improvements that might make the offer too good to be refused
are overlooked. And, last but not least, the candidate loses
the advantage of an outside coach (the search consultant)
who can guide him or her through the minefields of a counter-offer."
And
from March 1996…
"Good
people are hard to find, are often happily employed and cost
money to attract. But if they can make a difference in your
organization, they may well be worth their weight in gold."
|
