Author Archives: Tim Sackett

Maybe I’ve Been Wrong About Quality of Hire (QoH)

Posted on by
1

I was at LinkedIn’s Talent Connect Summit this week, and I sat in a session on measuring the quality of hire delivered by Ana Recio, the VP of Talent at Uber. I’m a big fan of QoH, and I’m not alone. LinkedIn’s own annual recruitment data shows that QoH is the #1 priority for people leaders. I actually wrote quite a bit about QoH in my book, The Talent Fix, Vol. 2, but my take was a bit different from most people in our space, and although it pains me to say it, most people might be right, and I might be wrong!

My original belief is that QoH needs to have an industry standard measure to mean anything. If we can’t benchmark across industry, what are we really measuring? Or so I thought.

Ana at Uber and her team built a straightforward survey measure of QoH (You can download Uber’s QoH measure details here) that, after six months, asks the hiring manager simply, “Would you hire this person again, if given the chance?” They also ask the employee if this is the job they thought they would be getting. This is very similar to the approach CrossChq has taken in their QoH measure.

I like the simplicity. My struggle with QoH has always been it’s just too damn difficult to really measure it (in the way I thought it should be measured). I was stuck on the “quality” component and wanting data around quality. In my head, that meant performance data. How can we show this hire was better than another hire that previously worked in this job or many other hires that have worked in this job? That meant you had to wait a period of time to have real performance data. It all seemed like a lot.

Uber figured out, that “data” could just be a signal from the hiring manager. Simple, yet still valid.

Does this simplicity have issues?

Maybe.

I’m kind of stuck on us believing all of our hiring managers will have enough confidence to actually call our their own failure of selection, development, and performance management. That’s what we are asking them – “Would you make this same selection again if given the choice?” Meaning either you chose successfully, and this person has been great, or you failed in your selection, and this person sucks.

Also, if I’m confident, I come clean and say, “No, I would not choose this person again.” Will HR be coming down to put this person on a performance plan? Do I need to put them on a plan? I mean, if we are honest, and I don’t want to hire this person again, it’s probably time we move on and actually hire a person I would hire again, right?

This QoH measure and process are new to Uber, so Ana and her team haven’t really crossed that bridge yet. Since this is so new, maybe they haven’t run into this issue. I wasn’t able to ask her this question, but I plan on sending it to her as a follow-up to see how it’s going when they get some more data.

Still, I like what Uber is doing. Maybe we don’t need “one” measure of QoH to make it meaningful and impactful. Maybe each organization will figure out its own data and measure QoH in a way that makes sense to them. Maybe some organizations will have multiple QoH measures based on positions (Sales vs. Engineering, for example).

The data nerd in me would love one global QoH measure, but I also love that organizations are just trying to figure this out on their own and benchmarking against themselves. In the end, talent intelligence is about making your hiring better, period. Thanks to Ana and Uber team for sharing!!

Annual Review or Annual Purge?

Posted on by
1

Have you ever considered how your company handles terminations when annual review season rolls around?

Back in the day, Tesla made headlines when they let go of 400 employees right after performance reviews. If you missed the details, it’s an interesting read, and you can check it out online. Plus, my friend Kris Dunn took a deep dive into Tesla’s unique culture over at The HR Capitalist—definitely worth a read!

When the news broke, Tesla confirmed in a statement that these departures were “part of an annual review” but didn’t provide an exact number.

The San Jose Mercury News reported that up to 700 employees across roles, from engineers to factory workers, were cut. Tesla’s statement mentioned that performance reviews sometimes lead to employee departures—a common practice for companies of their size, with more than 33,000 employees worldwide.

But here’s the question: is tying terminations to annual reviews a good way to sustain a healthy workplace culture?

Sure, Tesla’s got the cool factor—having “Tesla” on your resume is a badge of honor for many. But does that still apply if employees feel like they’re on the chopping block every review season? I get that letting go of underperformers is a necessary part of business, but should it be tied to once-a-year performance reviews?

Picture the lead-up to review week at Tesla. I can almost imagine the “just-in-case” goodbye lunches, where everyone’s invited to break bread “just because.” And once reviews are over, that Friday could be one big post-review party.

Let’s be real—firing employees around annual review time can turn a standard process into a high-stress, anxiety-driven experience. If a company only addresses performance issues annually, that’s a sign performance management might be falling short.

Strong, performance-driven cultures don’t wait for review season to give feedback; they make it a continuous process. If improvement isn’t happening, high-performing companies usually address the issue immediately, rather than waiting for an annual purge day that piles on unnecessary stress.

But hey everyone can march to their own drumbeat! I’d love to meet Tesla’s HR leader back then and hear their take on how they think this approach strengthens their culture.

Keep it real in HR!

Just play your hits!

Posted on by
2

I’ve been on the road a lot this fall. It’s conference season, and that’s what I do!

During that time, I was lucky enough to see two concerts: Garth Brooks (okay, calm down and let the legal stuff play itself out first) and Pink. Both shows were amazing. Both artists have a ton of hit records. Both artists came out and played all of their hits! It was basically a two-hour sing-along, and it was amazing.

Garth even came out and just said – “Don’t you hate it when you go to a concert, and the artist wants to play all of their new stuff that no one knows?!” Yes, Garth! I hate that! He said, well, that isn’t going to be this show, and played all of his great songs. I lost my voice singing!

Play your hits!

As organizations, we stop playing our hits. Marketing departments are the worst at this, but employment branding is pretty bad at this as well. We always want to tell people about the new stuff, not the stuff that made us who we are!

We get sick of our own bullsh*t way faster than the market gets sick of it.

New features, new menu items, new products, new colors, new, new, new.

I get it, and I love the new stuff as well. But we tend to walk away from what we are really good at way too often and way too quickly. There should be a part of our strategy that looks at what are we really good at and how often are we reminding people we are really freaking good at this?!

In HR, that is doing stuff like continuing to tell our employees about those great benefits that we know are great, but not enough are taking advantage of. To highlight great leaders in our organizations that employees love to work for, but well, Tim got that award last time, so let’s not talk about him this time. No, talk about him! Keep selling what you’re good at!

In recruiting, we tend to sell what we think candidates want to hear. Instead, sell who you really are, the good of who you are, and then the candidates who come will want you, the good you! I want to hear about why your longest-tenured employees decide each and every day to stay employed with you. Those hires are your hits!

As individuals, do what you are good at and do it some more. I can’t tell you how often I see amazing individual performers get pulled into jobs they really don’t want. They might want that pay increase, but they definitely don’t want that job. They stop playing their hits, and no one likes their new stuff!

So, what did we learn today? Tim has a very eclectic music taste, and he likes to sing-alongs!

Want to Love Your Job? Have Double The Fun

Posted on by
1

Baseball legend Ernie Banks had a famous saying: “Let’s play two!” Whenever there was a doubleheader coming up, he’d say, “It’s a great day for baseball, let’s play two!”

That kind of excitement can apply to anything we do in life. It’s all about the attitude, right? How often do you think about something you need to do and your first thought is, “Let’s do it twice!”?

“Awesome, a file audit—let’s go for round two!”
“Teeth cleaning? Sure, let’s make it a double!”
“Mowing the lawn? You bet, I’m doing it again!”

For most people, probably never! But this is a great way to tell if you really enjoy what you’re doing.

Instead of asking, “Do I want to do this twice?” ask yourself, “Would I be happy doing this twice?” If the answer is yes, then you know you’re doing something you love.

I enjoy recruiting, but do I want to recruit for the same job twice? Well, that depends. If I’m hiring for the same role because we lost a candidate, that’s not the best feeling. But if it’s because we need someone for a new position, then yeah, bring it on!

It all comes down to how you approach your work. Ernie Banks loved baseball so much he couldn’t wait to “play two.” And sure, baseball is a game, but we’ve all seen people turn something they love into a career and still enjoy it—while others might end up feeling burnt out. The job might be the same, but how they feel about it can make a big difference.

At the end of the day, the gap between someone who’s great at their job and someone who struggles often comes down to their attitude. Loving what you do and having a positive outlook can turn any task into something you’d happily do more than once.

Employment Branding is the New Black

Posted on by
Reply

This Re-Run Friday was originally published in September 2015. Let me know what you think!

3 Things You Desperately Need to Understand About Your Employment Branding

Employment branding is the new black.

It’s been the new black for a few seasons now, so I keep waiting to see what’s next.  Talent Acquisition technology (mostly CRM based tools) are really hot right now and will get hotter in the future, but EB is still king for the moment.

Why?  Mostly because the majority of HR and TA leaders suck at marketing, and their internal marketing folks have bigger fish to fry, like driving top-line sales, increasing traffic, gaining market share, etc.  So, HR and TA pros are left to deal with their employment brand on their own.  Which means, they’re mostly paying others to do this work for them.

Here’s what most HR and TA leaders are missing:

1. Employment Branding is not Advertising. It’s marketing. Marketing and Advertising are different. Employment branding is not about increasing the number of applicants you are getting. It’s about telling and sharing what it’s like to work at your organization.  If you do a great job, yes, you’ll see more applicants. But, I could never share my employment brand and increase my applicants through just sheer advertising muscle.

2. Your Employment Brand is most valuable when people consume it organically. No one likes to be forced fed. They love it when someone introduces them to something cool. Kind of like, “hey, I just discovered this, check it out.”

3. Your own employees’ Network Effect is the most powerful way to share your brand. Network effect is the effect that one user of a good or service has on the value of that product to other people. Meaning your own employees are the most powerful vehicles to share your employment brand that you have. The key is finding ways where they’ll want to freely, and readily, share your brand to their network. This also speaks to the importance of Candidate Experience, since your candidates also have a strong network effect.

At the Glassdoor Employer Branding Summit last week we were asked, “where we see employment branding in five years?”  I see employment branding becoming much more integrated into the overall company branding.  Right now, some big companies are already doing this.  You see General Electric doing a strong job of finding ways to integrate their employment brand directly into their normal brand messaging.

Current GE advertising is sharing the message we are digital company who is also an industrial company, while going after Coders.  It’s a corporate brand message, that is also an employment brand message.  This is not owned or produced by GE’s HR function. This is clearly coming out of GE’s corporate marketing department, with influence from Talent Acquisition and Operations.

Employment branding is still for the most part an issue HR and TA are having to deal with. Within five years, this will be an organizational priority for not only HR, but the entire organization, and marketing will pull it over to their side of the fence, which I believe is where it belonged from the start.

Exceptional or Average?

Posted on by
Reply

With fall comes HR and TA conference season. From October through December, there are events happening every week around the globe. These conferences are packed with vendor booths, big-name speakers, and the chance to step away from the office for a bit. But there’s a common strategy behind these events that keeps people coming back year after year.

The secret? They won’t tell you that your processes are bad. Instead, they show you how far ahead everyone else seems to be, making you feel like you’re behind.

Picture this: You’re at a session, and they’re talking about how a company like Google has created the perfect, diverse workforce. Now, you’re thinking, “How can we ever compete with that?” That’s when you start looking at the expo booths for tools to help you “catch up.”

The truth is, no company is perfect, even if it seems like it at these conferences. The reality is that everyone is trying to improve, and most companies are far from flawless.

“Exceptionalism” is this idea that every company has achieved greatness. But if everyone is “great,” doesn’t that just make “great” average? The cool new tools you see at a conference today will be standard practice for everyone else tomorrow.

In HR and TA, we see this all the time. A new trend or tool spreads fast, and before you know it, everyone’s doing the same thing. You’re not paying all that money to be just like everyone else, but that’s often what happens.

What Really Builds a Great HR or TA Team?

Here’s what they don’t always talk about:

  • It’s about small, consistent improvements: Great HR and TA teams aren’t built overnight. Instead, they grow through steady progress that matches what your company actually needs.
  • Chasing the top 1% isn’t always the answer: It’s tempting to try to be like the few companies doing amazing things, but leadership often doesn’t want to make those big changes. Pushing too hard for this can lead to burnout or frustration.
  • Real greatness takes sacrifice: Reaching the highest levels of success requires both vision and hard work, but not everyone has the desire or resources to make those sacrifices.

But let’s be honest, this isn’t what sells conference tickets. What sells is the idea that you can be just as great if you invest in the latest tools or strategies.

At the end of the day, it’s not about being perfect. It’s about making steady improvements that move your company forward. So instead of feeling like you’re always behind, focus on what really matters for your team’s success.

What If Competitors Joined Forces?

Posted on by
Reply

This Re-Run Friday comes from 2017! Let me know what you think!

What if you and your competitors recruited talent together?

Think about most U.S. cities. What do they have in common? I travel all over the U.S. and to be honest, it’s all starting to look a lot alike!

Every city has a mall or three. At these malls, you’ll find the same restaurants. Chilis, Olive Garden, Applebee’s, Bravo, steak places, some random Japanese hibachi place, etc. Usually, down from the mall, you’ll find a Home Depot. Across the street from Home Depot, you’ll find a Lowes. Down from those are the car dealerships.

Sound like your city!?

Our cities are set up like this because it works. Putting all of these competitive places close together works for the consumer. They like all the choices close together.

Talent really isn’t much different.

If I’m a nurse, I want to be close hospitals. The more hospitals the better. That way if my job at one hospital isn’t working out, I don’t have to commute all the way across town to another hospital. If I’m in IT having a bunch of tech companies in the same area is desirable for the same reason.

What we don’t find, normally, are employers working together to solve their talent issues. A cook at one restaurant might be begging for more hours, but we never think about sharing that cook with the restaurant next door. We force the talent to go figure this out on their own.

Traditionally, I think career fairs thought they were doing this. Bring all the employers to one location and then all the talent can come and pick who they want to work with. It’s a start, but this isn’t really organizations working together to bring in more and better talent.

A modern-day equivalent to the traditional career fair might be cities working to ‘attract’ talent to their cities from places like Silicone Valley. In recent years, Minneapolis has been working to position themselves as a Midwest IT hub, so local and state government dollars have been working to get workers from other cities to come to Minneapolis.

What I’m talking about is what if two companies came together to share their talent databases for the benefit of both? Could it work? What would get in the way?

I think it could work. I think the organizations involved would be some forward-thinking leadership, some tight rules of engagement, and a very new way of thinking about collaboration.

So often we make a hire of someone we know if talented, but it doesn’t work out for a number of reasons, many times those reasons are self-inflicted by the organization. What if you could ‘move’ that talent to your ‘talent partner’ organization for a fresh start, and vice versa?

I love times when talent is tight because it forces us to start thinking about different solutions and ways of doing things. We all have talent in our databases that we aren’t using and might never use, but someone else might have exactly what we need in their database.

Instead, we sit on our unused, expensive inventory of candidates and do nothing. That doesn’t seem like a smart business practice…

Does “Overqualified” Really Mean “Too Old”?

Posted on by
3

I recently spoke with an incredibly talented woman. She’s 49, a college graduate, and has a solid work portfolio. She’s been applying for jobs, but keeps hearing the same thing in interviews: “You’re overqualified.”

Now, sure, she does have more experience than the role requires, but she knows what the job involves and wants to do it. She’s not expecting anything more, unless she proves herself and the company needs her to move up.

Let’s be honest: “Overqualified” is often just code for, “You’re too old for us.”

Prove me wrong!

Why is someone labeled overqualified when they clearly understand what the job is and want to do it?

Let’s say I’m a heart surgeon, but I want less stress, so I decide to switch to a cardiac rehab role. It still involves working with heart patients, but it’s less demanding and pays less. I don’t need as much education for the job either. So, am I overqualified for the rehab job just because I used to be a surgeon? Only if you say I am! I’ve got the skills and I want the role, so why wouldn’t I be a great fit?

Hiring managers often say someone is “overqualified” when they can’t come up with a real reason not to hire someone with lots of experience.

It’s an excuse. A bad one too.

Here’s an example: “Oh, Susan has too much experience. She wouldn’t be happy reporting to me long-term, especially since she has more experience than I do!” Did Susan say that? “Well, no…”

This happens a lot with older folks who don’t want to retire yet. They’ve got years of valuable experience, but 32-year-old Steve won’t hire them because he thinks they won’t take his direction. That’s Steve’s problem, not the candidate’s.

And it’s not just guys. Women do it too! Turns out we all love discriminating against older workers.

Tech companies are the worst for this, thinking only young people understand technology. Creative companies are just as bad, acting like the only people who matter are 26-year-olds on Instagram.

Then there’s the classic: “I don’t want to hire someone who’s going to retire in five years!”…

How long do people usually stay at your company? “About 4.2 years.” Yeah, having someone for five years would be awful, right?

I once had a hiring manager say they needed someone for the long term when talking about a 52-year-old candidate. 13-15 years isn’t long term?!

I’ve found that calling hiring managers out—saying, “You’re being ridiculous”—works wonders. It cuts right through the bias.

So tell me, what’s the real reason you won’t hire someone “overqualified”?

It’s Not You, It’s Them

Posted on by
Reply

This Re-Run Friday was originally posted in September 2019.

Why am I being ‘ghosted’ after I interview?

Dear Timmy,

I recently applied for a position that I’m perfect for! A recruiter from the company contacted me and scheduled me for an interview with the manager. I went, the interview was a little over an hour and it went great! I immediately followed up with an email to the recruiter and the manager thanking them, but since then I’ve heard nothing and it’s been weeks. I’ve sent follow-up emails to both the recruiter and the manager and I’ve got no reply.

What should I do? Why do companies do this to candidates? I would rather they just tell me they aren’t interested than have them say nothing at all!

The Ghost Candidate

******************************************************************************

Dear Ghost,

There are a number of reasons that recruiters and hiring managers ghost candidates and none of them are good! Here’s a short-list of some of these reasons:

– They hated you and hope you go away when they ghost you because conflict is uncomfortable.

– They like you, but not as much as another candidate they’re trying to talk into the job, but want to leave you on the back burner, but they’re idiots and don’t know how to do this properly.

– They decided to promote someone internally and they don’t care about candidate experience enough to tell you they went another direction.

– They have a completely broken recruitment process and might still be going through it believing you’re just as happy as a pig in shi…

– They think they communicated to you electronically to bug off through their ATS, but they haven’t audited the process to know this isn’t working.

– The recruiter got fired and no one picked up the process.

I would love to tell you that ghosting candidates are a rare thing, but it’s not! It happens all the time! There is never a reason to ghost a candidate, ever! Sometimes I believe candidates get ghosted by recruiters because hiring managers don’t give feedback, but that still isn’t an excuse I would accept, at least tell the candidate that!

Look, I’ve ghosted people. At conference cocktail parties, I’ve been known to ghost my way right back up to my room and go to sleep! When it comes to candidates, I don’t ghost! I would rather tell them the truth so they don’t keep coming back around unless I want them to come back around.

I think most recruiters ghost candidates because they’re over their head in the amount of work they have, and they mean to get back to people, but just don’t have the time. When you’re in the firefighting mode you tend to only communicate with the candidates you want, not the ones you don’t. Is this good practice? Heck, no! But when you’re fighting fires, you do what you have to do to stay alive.

What would I do, if I was you? 

Here are a few ideas to try if you really want to know the truth:

1. Send a handwritten letter to the CEO of the company briefly explaining your experience and what outcome you would like.

2. Go on Twitter and in 280 characters send a shot across the bow! “XYZ Co. I interviewed 2 weeks ago and still haven’t heard anything! Can you help me!?” (Will work on Facebook & IG as well!)

3. Write a post about your experience on LinkedIn and tag the recruiter and the recruiter’s boss.

4. Take the hint and go find a company who truly values you and your talent! If the organization and this manager will treat candidates like this, imagine how you’ll be treated as an employee?

Are Robots Really the Threat?

Posted on by
1

The idea that employees are losing sleep over being replaced by robots has become a hot topic. Everywhere you look, people are saying AI is going to take over most jobs soon. Headlines scream, “Automation will wipe out 97% of jobs by next week!”

But the reality is: employees aren’t actually terrified about robots snatching their roles. That doesn’t mean they’re not afraid, though.

What’s freaking them out? Turns out, employees are more scared of being replaced by another person than a robot. When it comes down to it, we’d rather a machine take our job than have Mark the intern take our spot.

The research shows that people generally feel more comfortable with the idea of others being replaced by technology than by another worker. But when it comes to their own jobs, the tables turn. Most workers find it less distressing to be replaced by AI or automation than by a human colleague.

This boils down to one thing: people don’t compare themselves to machines in the same way they do to other people.

Being replaced by another person can feel like a direct blow to self-worth, while being replaced by technology doesn’t trigger that same emotional reaction.

It makes sense. Getting replaced by another human stings because we naturally compare ourselves to them. The thought process might go, “Sure, a robot can handle this part of the job better than I can, but no way can Mark do it better!” Our egos can rationalize being outdone by technology, but not by someone we see as our equal.

Let’s be real: getting replaced by a robot makes sense since AI can do some things better than humans. But being replaced by another person? That’s a harder pill to swallow because it feels like a reflection of your value. And honestly, it’s way harder to explain to your family that your job was handed to someone else instead of a machine.