Category Archives: strategy

Moneyball Rules: Offering More Experienced Workers Less Money!

Posted on by
2

For years I’ve been trying to get people to understand this Moneyball concept as it relates to hiring, but few really listen. I know you saw the movie, Moneyball, where a major league baseball general manager finds success by signing and drafting ‘undervalued’ players. The players are undervalued for a number of reasons, it doesn’t matter, what matters he was able to get talent on at a discount rate!

Don’t you want to hire employees at a discount rate!?

Hired.com recently came out with a survey that once again demonstrates the most undervalued talent in any market are older workers, 50 years old and up. Apparently, once you become 50 years old, you start becoming worthless! Don’t kill the messenger, “you” are the ones saying this:

Basically, our average salary offer increases every single year of age. It makes sense because as you age, you gain more experience, more experience is more valuable. Or is it?

The chart, also, shows that once a worker turns 50 years old or so, employers (but not you…) start offering those workers less money, even though they have more experience!

Why!?

This has nothing to with wages! This is pure age bias shown towards younger workers. We believe, even older hiring managers, that once someone gets to a certain age, and Hired.com shows us that age to be 50 years old, older workers start losing their effectiveness even as they gain experience.

Somehow, in our minds, that 35-year-old, with three screaming kids and soccer practice four nights a week, is more effective than the 50-year-old with no kids at home, who is willing to work wherever and whenever you need them.

So, now you can play Moneyball!

You already know that most employers in the world hate old people. Thus, there are tons of gray hairs limping around out there willing to take all of your crappy low-ball offers, and they’re probably more loyal for those low wages then any younger worker you have on staff.

Yeah, for capitalism! You get great talent at low rates. Who needs H1B’s when we have old people!

“Well, Tim, it’s not about age bias! It’s about fit and culture and inclusi… I mean, we hire the best available candidate for the job!”

I’m sure you do.

Your reality is as hiring gets tighter, you can continue to overpay for younger talent with less experience, or you can pay a cheaper wage for more experience. Sooner or later, someone is going to ask the right questions. Are you going to have the right answer?

 

America First: The White Collar Workers Who Got Outsourced

Posted on by
2

Your liberal friends want you to believe everyone who voted for Trump are racist, low paid, middle-aged white dudes from the Midwest. It’s nice and clean when you put it into that box. It fits the narrative they are selling really well.

 They don’t want you to know about the black female in California who lost her high paying salaried job to an H1B worker. Or the Asian-American male and female who lost their jobs, as well. Or the 60-year-old plus Hispanic male who lost his job. Those folks also are hoping ‘America First’ takes off.

This from the New York Times (I think this is still ‘real’ news, the NY Times?):

Audrey Hatten-Milholin, 54, was notified in July that she would be laid off from the University of California, San Francisco, at the end of February after 17 years in its technology department. Along with eight others, she filed a complaint in November with California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing, charging that replacing her and others with “significantly younger, male” workers “who will then perform the work overseas” was discriminatory.

“We are at a disadvantage as Americans,” Ms. Hatten-Milholin said. “They look at it like, where can we get it cheaper? And for U.C., it’s not here.”

From the same article:

In other words, it’s true that cheaper labor helps employers increase profits and grow, and having more skilled workers in the United States contributes to economic innovation. But at the same time, individual American employees do face more salary pressure from newcomers who will work for less. And in some cases, they risk losing their jobs entirely, especially older employees who earn higher salaries.

After 11 years working in the I.T. department of Northeast Utilities, a Connecticut-based company now named Eversource Energy, Craig Diangelo was among 220 employees laid off in 2014. Before leaving the company, he was told he needed to train his replacement if he wanted to receive his severance.

Mr. Diangelo, who is now 64 and was receiving $130,000 a year in salary and bonus, said he trained an employee from the Indian outsourcing firm Infosys who was an H-1B visa holder making $60,000 a year. There was also a team of workers in India making $6,000 a year that shadowed him on the computer.

There’s a reason Tech companies are screaming as loud as they can for the current administration to expand the H1B program and it’s not because they can’t find candidates for their jobs. The candidates are there, but the companies don’t want to pay the salaries of the American candidates who are available!

About half of all the H1B’s issued annually go to outsourcing firms. What are those? These are basically companies who perform modern day indentured servitude. They find a foreign worker with great skills who desperately wants to come to America, pay them a very good rate as compared to where they are coming from, but much less than a similar American worker. Since the outsourcing company holds the H1B, they basically have this person at the lower rate for six years.

The tech companies get great talent, for a much lower wage than a similar American worker. Everyone is happy. Well, almost everyone. Miss Hatten-Milholin and Mr. Diangelo from above, they’re not too happy, they are really hoping this America First thing takes off.

If you really dig into what the new administration is trying to do with the H1B program it’s not to eliminate it, it’s to bring it up to an equal footing of the American worker. If the American worker gets paid $100K to do the job, you also have to pay the H1B worker $100K for the same job. The theory being if everything is equal American companies will hire American workers. Or, in the case where a true shortage exists, then hiring H1B workers will make sense without limits.

Ah, equality, it’s what I love about America. There are at least two sides to every story, this side rarely gets shared.

The Super Bowl Should be on Saturday: An Employer’s Plea

Posted on by
3

So, it’s the Monday after Super Bowl and 15% of your employees didn’t show up. As HR professionals we are not shocked by this, it happens every year after the Super Bowl.

The Super Bowl has become an unofficial national holiday. You don’t even have to like the teams playing to want to go to a Super Bowl party, or throw a Super Bowl party, because it’s become a national social event.

Kraft Foods understands this and instead of trying to move the Super Bowl started an online petition to declare the Monday after the Super Bowl a national holiday, since, they claim, more than 16 million employees call in ‘sick’ the day after the Super Bowl costing organizations over $1 billion in lost productivity.

Think you have a God-given right to be off the day after the Super Bowl? Kraft Heinz agrees with you. So the food company’s giving all of its salaried employees the day off on February 6 after Super Bowl LI…

In addition to letting its employees stay home, Kraft Heinz is launching a campaign to push for everybody to be off after Super Bowls. It’s started an online petition to essentially create a new national holiday it calls “Smunday,” which extends Sunday’s Super Bowl fun into Monday.

Okay, some of this is just good old fashion marketing. Kraft Heinz food group makes a killing on Super Bowl weekend, so why not try a marketing stunt like this to drum up even more business and brand recognition!

The problem with this solution is it doesn’t really help employers gain back lost productivity and revenue, in fact, it only increases expenses by now having another paid holiday (an expense), with nothing to return the lost productivity of having your entire workforce off for a day.

The issue is that the NFL should move the Super Bowl game to Saturday evening or day. Can you imagine the nationwide party that would take place, over what it already is, if the Super Bowl was on Saturday night!

The NFL already gives both teams an extra week off to prepare. Starting the game on Saturday, instead of Sunday, wouldn’t harm the players, wouldn’t harm the NFL, and bars and restaurants would have even a bigger day than they do already.

If Kraft Heinz really wants to help America, they should change their petition to move the Super Bowl to Saturday, not just make up another work holiday.

Would You Facebook Live Your Interview?

Posted on by
1

A few weeks ago, after an NFL playoff game, a wide receiver from the Pittsburg Steelers, Antonio Brown, Facebook Lived his coaches post-game talk to the team. That kind of talk is almost always a private conversation between the coach and the players.

Beyond the concept of betrayal between player and coach, this entire thing got me thinking about how our world has changed in what society views and private vs. public. My parent’s generation is extremely private. You don’t talk about money, political beliefs, religion, love life, family, your job, etc., with anyone outside your immediate family, and maybe not even them!

My generation was a little less, we would speak our political beliefs, talk opening about relationships, etc. The most recent generation to enter the workforce seemingly will talk about anything publicly! Somedays it seems like nothing is off limits within the walls of the office, this was not always the case.

Antonio Brown’s Facebook Live broadcast of this private moment got me to think about how long is it until we see someone broadcast an interview live!? This is truly a private moment between candidate and hiring manager. A time that both could look awesome or like a total fool.

There might be value for both sides to broadcast an interview live.

From a candidate perspective, you could show yourself in a very good light. If you nail the interview, not only do you have proof but now others also can see this and might want to hire you. If you bomb, having a video of this to analyze might be the best thing to help you get better at interviewing.

From an employer perspective, having a live broadcast of an interview might be a bonanza of publicity from an employer branding standpoint. We already know if would take a unique organization to be willing to do this, and every organization is trying to find ways to set themselves apart from their competition for talent. It would also be a great record for employment law purposes to prove you were compliant during an interview (or vice verse).

It’s easy to pick apart this idea and see both good things and bad. I suspect most HR and TA pros would see more bad than good, which is why I like it! If the majority only see negative, you can use this to your advantage.

The reality is, if you do what you should do, you have nothing to worry about and only could really use this to your advantage. If you suck and you don’t trust your hiring managers, this isn’t for you! That’s most of us, by the way!

It’s something to think about. I don’t see us, as a society, going backward as it relates to privacy. Every day another privacy barrier is broken. My question is, how long until we begin broadcasting live from the interview room?

Why do we still hate hiring older workers?

Posted on by
14

Over two years ago I wrote a post for Halogen’s Talent Space blog titled: The Gray Wave: Why Companies Refuse to Hire Older Workers. It was very popular when it launched and it still gets great traffic because apparently there are a ton of older people Googling things like “why won’t companies hire older people?”

In the past two years, little has changed within organizations when it comes to hiring an aging workforce. A study in 2015 actually showed that recruiters, in a corporate environment, actually had lower call rates to older female candidates, than to younger female candidates.

Why? Why would a corporate recruiter prefer, consciously or subconsciously, to call a younger candidate over an older candidate? Age alone would tell us that the older candidate probably has more experience, thus, probably should be the first one they would call. But that doesn’t happen.

This is happening because this is exactly what organizations want to happen. 

I know. I know. This isn’t “your” organization. You hire old people all the time. It’s all those ‘other’ organizations. Stop it. It’s you. Now, I’ll give you that you’re fighting against centuries of organizational dynamics to change this, but demographics are going to force this upon you whether you like it or not.

Organizationally, we’ve been trained to hire this way. The oldest employees moved up the career ladder to the top of the organization. Below them on the next rung of management are people slightly younger than them. It continues in this fashion until you get to the entry level employees in your organization that is the youngest.

Sure, once in a great wild, a young buck will rise up and leap over a generation or two into leadership. But, for the most part, we march along, waiting our turn, waiting for retirements and death. This sounds very traditional but if you were to run your demographics for age only by position, you would see this very clearly in almost every single organization, industry, and location around the world.

To be fair, organizationally this started because it was experienced based. The carpenter with 20 years of experience is much better, usually than the carpenter with ten years of experience, and the apprentice has even less experience. It made sense hundreds of years ago.

What this means is that you hire younger, because the hiring manager you’re recruiting for wants someone younger than them to manage. Most hiring managers are intimidated by managing someone who is older than they are, for numerous reasons. Very few would ever admit this fact because it’s akin to saying your racist, but if you run the numbers in your organization you’ll see very few older employees being managed by people who are younger than them.

So, how do we change this?

You have to get your leaders to see the problem, agree that it’s a problem, and be a part of changing the problem.

Your organization needs talent. You have hiring managers turning down talent for reasons that make no sense. If you call them out, you burn your relationship. So, this becomes really hard to change at the individual level.

If your organization values experience and hiring an aging workforce, I would begin tracking this by department and publicly posting this for all to see. When I was at Applebee’s we wanted more female leaders and we made this a measure that executives owned and were measured on, and it got changed very quickly. There is no difference here. It’s a simple bias, just like not hiring females.

Hiring managers who refuses to hire older workers has nothing to do with older workers, and everything to do with a hiring manager who can’t see their own bias.

 

What is your most valuable hiring source?

Posted on by
1

I’m taking a break from my normal writing during the holidays to share some of my most read posts of 2016. Enjoy. 

I find every year, I’ve been blogging now for 8 years, that my most read and shared posts are usually based on a fairly basic problem we all face, and quite simply just want to know what others are doing. That’s the case with the post. We all struggle to know what sources we should use and which ones are our best. 

As many of you know I’m a writer over at CareerBuilder’s recruiting blog called The Hiring Site. Great group of industry practitioners writing about everything related to talent and recruiting. Because of my relationship, they share cool data with me, that I can share with you!

Some of the most eye-opening stuff I’ve gotten recently is all around hiring sources, and it’s not stuff you normally hear about or see.  Let’s face it. We (Talent Acquisition Pros) hate sharing our data because it makes us feel like we’re giving up our secret sauce!

It’s not really secret sauce, that’s the secret, we all pretty much do the same thing when it comes to talent attraction. We get referrals, we leverage our internal databases, we use job boards and postings, we pray. We pray a lot!

Here’s the data that CB shared with me from crunching the data of 1600+ CareerBuilder clients in 2015:

– 21% of hires came directly from using CareerBuilder.

– 41% of hires actually could have come from CareerBuilder, if the client was fully utilizing the technology they purchased!

– 45% of companies added more sources of hire over the past five years

– On average a candidate will use 18 sources to search for a job!

What does this really mean?

Every organization’s talent acquisition strategy has to have a multi-pronged approach.  You have jobs that you can post on CareerBuilder and find great talent. You have jobs that you will need a great referral strategy to fill. You have jobs that you’ll need outside specialized help to fill. You have jobs that need hardcore sourcing and bust-your-butt on the phone recruiting to fill. You need all these approaches, just one won’t work.

You need all these approaches, just one won’t work.

The key is are you fully utilizing the easiest, fastest sources you have?  We tend to want to discount our job board vendor (mine is CareerBuilder), but the numbers usually tell a different story.  41% of hires seems like a lot, but the data is deep! 1600 clients equal ten’s of thousands of recruiters banging on CB technology. The data is real.

What does this really mean, to you?

1. Make sure your recruiting staff is fully trained on the technology you give them. Then, retrain them!

2. Make sure you’re accurately measuring your source of hire. This is the single most important thing that recruiting leaders miss, consistently. It drives all of your purchasing decisions. I can’t tell you how many recruiters I speak with that truly believe LinkedIn is their most valuable source, and, so far, 100% of the time, the data says it’s not when we pull the numbers.

3. Are you looking at your existing internal database first? It’s the most valuable source in the industry and this is consistently underutilized.

Happy recruiting my friends!

How to Rehab Your Career in One Step

Posted on by
Reply

I know a lot of people who have had to go through the process of rehabbing their career. You make a bad move for money, or you get fired for some reason that will look bad but doesn’t necessarily mean you’re bad, or you out of work for longer than you wanted to be and now it’s hard to explain. Many, many folks get into these career rehab scenarios.

One of the most common rehabs I see is in college and professional coaching. A major one is in the works know and I think it gives us all a roadmap on how you should rehab your own career. Lane Kiffin was a comet in college coaching! He was a hotshot assistant coach at USC when legendary Oakland Raiders owner Al Davis hired him as his head coach at only 31 years old! A year and half into that job he was fired,

A year and a half into that job he was fired, but it didn’t cost him his reputation on the college level and the University of Tennessee hired Lane to be their head coach almost immediately. Lane spent one year at Tennessee when USC came calling for their head coaching gig and the USC job is one of the top coaching jobs in the country, so Lane left Tennesse for USC.

That’s a lot of movement in a very short timeline! USC-Raiders-Tennessee-USC all in about three years. Lane spent three seasons and two games at USC before he was fired after a game at LAX after being called off the team bus.

So, you now have been given three head coaching jobs, two of which you’ve been fired from, one of which you left in the dead of night after only one season for a prettier girl! Needless to say Lane needed a big time career rehab!

Kiffin’s next move was critical, and he nailed it! If your career is in shambles and you want to fix it, you take a job you know you can flat out kill, at the best company possible, and you stay patient. Kiffin took the Offensive Coordinator’s job (his specialty) at the University of Alabama under the arguably the greatest college coach of all-time, Nick Saban.

Here’s what Kiffin knew before even taking the job. Alabama and Saban are going to win. If your career is in shambles you want to work for a winner. Kiffin would have taken any job working for Saban! Grad Assistant, Quarterback Coach, Receivers coach, academic advisor, etc.! Kiffin knew being on Saban’s staff would immediately elevate him if he just did the job he was hired to do, and was a good soldier to Saban.

He played the part perfectly. Three seasons with Saban, even when he could have left for head coaching job earlier. He stayed patient, he stayed loyal and last week he was rewarded with his next head coaching job at Florida International University. Another brilliant move in rehabbing his career! Make you next big gig one that has almost zero expectations. So, if you fail, no one expected you to do good there anyway, it’s not you, it’s them!

How do you rehab your career in one step? 

Go find the absolute best company and best boss in the world to work for. No matter the job. No matter how low level. And work there under that person until you put enough distance between the bad stuff and the new stuff. Might take a year, might take five years, it’s all relative to how screwed up your career is.

You rehab your career by taking one giant step back, not worrying about the position you get, but really worrying about where and who that position is. Most people do the opposite. They take the first job that pays them similar to their last job, which is usually an awful job where they’ll be set up for failure, and continue the downward spiral of their career.

Which HR Certification Should I Get? HRCI or SHRM?

Posted on by
13

I’m being put in the middle of two friends. On one side I have HRCI. I’ve known HRCI ever since I got certified in my SPHR in 2001. I trust them, they were my first professional designation. They made me feel special.

On the other side, I have SHRM. I’ve known SHRM a bit longer. I trust them, they are ‘the’ professional organization of my profession. They are recognized the world over. To be recognized by SHRM for anything is an accomplishment in the field of HR.

We’ve all been in this scenario before, right?

Two of your friends, who don’t really get along anymore, but you want to stay friends with both. The problem is, both of these friends only want you to be friends with them and not the other. If you have your HRCI – PHR, SPHR and/or GPHR, or you have your SHRM-CP or SCP, or maybe, like me, you have both, you’re kind of being put in the middle of these two friends and being asked to choose.

It’s uncomfortable. It’s confusing. It’s frustrating.

I’ve gone on record to say I won’t have both my HRCI-SPHR and my SHRM-SCP. I said that. I said it was stupid and this past week I got an email from HRCI that my SPHR was up for recertification. Ugh. My initial reaction was, “oh, I need to get online and log my credits and get my certification up to date.”

Then I remembered, why am I doing this? I don’t want two certifications I only want one. But, which one do I want? Which one is going to be the best for my career? Which one is the right now?

That’s the question that neither HRCI nor SHRM has answered for us. I’ve told both of them this, specifically. They actually both feel they’ve answered this question for us (HR Pros and Leaders), but they haven’t. It’s the one question I get most asked by my readers via email, LinkedIn messaging, on Twitter, etc. “What HR certification should I get, Tim, HRCI or SHRM?”

Unfortunately, I also have that same question. My frustration level has gotten so high with this I’m currently thinking I’ll probably just keep both because no one has answered which one I really need, but having both is really redundant. You don’t need both. You only need one. Which one? That is literally the multi-million dollar question for both organizations!

If you’re waiting around for either organization to answer this question, you’ll be waiting a long time. Both have their marketing statements on why you should choose them, but it still doesn’t answer that one question. WHICH ONE IS RIGHT FOR ME!?

I think it’s going to take time for the market to flush out which one it finds to be the most valuable. I believe you’ll see organizations in the near future accept either because they don’t see a differentiation between them. Eventually, both organizations, SHRM and HRCI, will make changes to more clearly differentiate what their certifications will offer those going after each, respectively.

Don’t you just love it when your friends stick you in the middle and make you choose!? Great marketing strategy for organizations, don’t you think…

The One Conference HR Pros Need to Go to in 2017 #WorkHuman

Posted on by
Reply

So, I’ve been on the record that my favorite conference to attend is the HR Technology Conference. It’s my favorite because I geek out on HR and TA Tech and I’ll send three days on the expo floor demoing every product under the sun. That’s me. That’s not most HR pros.

I’ve actually had HR pros read my stuff and go to HR Tech and then come back to me and said they weren’t too happy with my recommendation. When I asked them why they went, it was because it was my favorite conference. To which I needed to ask, but are you even into HR Tech or have a need to buy? It was always no!

The one conference that I really like and I’ve yet to find someone who didn’t get a ton out of it, has been Work Human. Work Human is really unlike any HR conference you’ve gone to. It’s as much about making you a better person, as it’s about making you or your organization better at HR. You leave feeling positive, refreshed, ready to go back and make things better. Let’s not kid ourselves, that’s really hard to do for a conference!

At the end of May in 2017, I’ll be heading back to Work Human for my third straight year. The content stream is unique. Don’t think you’ll be sitting through non-stop hour and fifteen-minute sessions, Work Human is not that! You’ll find twenty-minute sessions, hour sessions, A list keynotes, time to meditate if you’re into that, or time to have a cupcake, if you’re into that (I was way more into the cupcakes!).

The Work Human folks are actually offering my readers a $100 discount off the early-bird pricing of $895, if you register before the end of 2016 (December 31st). All you have to do is visit the Registration page and put in the code – WH17INF-TSA. 

For what you’ll get for $795 there isn’t a better conference value on the planet for HR! So, here you go, this is how to use up that last little bit of budget money you have left and before finance will take away unless you use it. Plus, we can sit down and share cupcakes!

Check out the conference site and I hope to see you in Phoenix in 2017!

Pretty People Make the Best Employees

Posted on by
1

What do you think of, in regards to smarts, when I say: “Sexy Blond model type”?

What about: “Strong Athletic Jock?”

What about: “Scrawny nerdy band geek?”

My guess is most people would answer: Dumb, Dumb, Smart – or something to that context.

In HR we call this profiling and make no mistake, profiling is done by almost all of our hiring managers.  The problem is everything we might have thought is probably wrong in regards to our expectations of looks and brains.  So, why are ugly people smarter?

They’re Not!

Slate recently published an article that contradicts all of our ugly people are more smart myths and actually shows evidence to the contrary. From the article:

Now there were two findings: First, scientists knew that it was possible to gauge someone’s intelligence just by sizing him up; second, they knew that people tend to assume that beauty and brains go together. So they asked the next question: Could it be that good-looking people really are more intelligent?

Here the data were less clear, but several reviews of the literature have concluded that there is indeed a small, positive relationship between beauty and brains. Most recently, the evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa pulled huge datasets from two sources—the National Child Development Study in the United Kingdom (including 17,000 people born in 1958), and the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health in the United States (including 21,000 people born around 1980)—both of which included ratings of physical attractiveness and scores on standard intelligence tests.

When Kanazawa analyzed the numbers, he found the two were related: In the U.K., for example, attractive children have an additional 12.4 points of IQ, on average. The relationship held even when he controlled for family background, race, and body size.

That’s right HR Pros, pretty people are smarter!  I can hear hiring managers and creepy executives that only want “cute” secretaries laughing all over the world!

The premise is solid though!  If you go back in our history and culture you see how this type of things evolves:

  1. Very smart guy gets great job or starts a great company and makes a ton of money.
  2. Because of his success, this smart guy now has many choices of very pretty females to pursue as a bride.
  3. Smart guy and pretty bride start a family which genetically result in Pretty-Smart children.
  4. Pretty-smart children grow up with all the opportunities that come to smart beautiful more affluent families.
  5. The cycle repeats.

First, this is a historical thing so my example of using a male as our “Smart guy” and not “Smart girl” is just how this originally developed in society. I’m sure in today’s world this premise has evolved yet again adding women as breadwinners, but attractiveness probably remains. We are talking about how we got to this point, not where are we now.

Additionally, we are looking at how your organization can hire better.  So, how do you hire better?  Hire more pretty people. White, black, male, female, American, Hispanic, gay, straight, it really doesn’t matter, just make sure they’re attractive!

Seems simple enough. Heck, that is even a hiring process that your hiring managers would support! The one thing I’ve never had a hiring manager tell me, male or female, is “hey, you know Tim, they’re just too pretty, they won’t work here.” Never happened. Never will.

Want to increase the talent in your organization? Just hire pretty people!