Category Archives: Trench HR

What if you and your competitors recruited talent together?

Posted on by
3

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 mal, 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…

7 Secrets Only HR Pros Know!

Posted on by
Reply

I was reading an article the other evening over at Huffington Post, Welcome to the Club: What only Moms know (Why was I reading this I hear some of my dude HR guy pros asking themselves? Let’s face it I’m 40ish and woman are still mostly a mystery to me, so I try and find out their secrets! Plus I hate being left in the dark on this parenting thing, so “I need the info” as Dr. Evil would say.)  I don’t want to spoil the article, but suffice to say, either I’m very in touch with the feminine side of parenting, or what they were sharing really wasn’t the “real” secrets Moms know!

The article did get me to thinking about secrets and how in HR we seem to always have a few that we are either ask to keep by others or just the ones we share in this great fraternity of HR.  Here are some of the HR secrets that I thought of:

1. Who in the organization is on the way out.  (Sometimes many people know of individuals who are on the way out, but usually, HR has a good pulse on everyone)

2. Who in the organization is probably on the way up, and not because they deserve it. (Every leader has an attraction to an employee or two, for a number of reasons, and those folks usually find their way into roles that they don’t deserve.)

3. How much money you’ll get on your next raise.  (Oh, yes we do. But keep working hard anyway, we don’t want it to seem like it’s predetermined)

4. The information of why certain departments tend to get more (resources, staff, etc.) than others – but we can’t you – it would cause organizational chaos!  (I hate to tell you this, but it usually has nothing to do with department performance and everything to do with your department leader – or should I say lack thereof)

5. What you’re going to get for your annual bonus – usually 6-12 months before you get it. (hey, this stuff has to be budgeted)

6. What changes will happen to your benefits – again – usually 4-8 months before it hits you.

7. Who in your company is most likely to go postal on you.  (But we can’t tell you for HIPAA reasons – sorry – but if you sit next to Ted you might want to invest in a bulletproof vest)

I’m sure there are a number of others, but many aren’t unique to just HR.  I was thinking of putting down: We cook the books on our metrics, but guess what? So does every other department!  Let’s face it, in a political corporate structure that relies on metrics to obtain budgeted resources, the numbers aren’t always going to be clean!

I like HR because we tend to have “big” secrets and are called upon to keep those secrets.  It’s probably the biggest failure I see with new HR pros – they tend to try and create organizational friendships by sharing “the secrets” -and it always ends up blowing up on them.

HR has secrets, you knew it and just I confirmed it for you.  Now let’s move on because I not telling you any of the specifics! (besides the Ted thing)

Do you pay your employees more for referring Diverse candidates?

Posted on by
3

I know a ton of HR Pros right now who have been charged by their organizations to go out and “Diversify” their workforce.  By “Diversify”, I’m not talking about diversity of thought, but to recruit a more diverse workforce in terms of ethnic, gender and racial diversity.

Clearly, by bringing in more individuals from underrepresented groups in your workforce, you’ll expand the “thought diversification”, but for those HR Pros in the trenches and sitting in conference rooms with executives behind closed doors, diversification of thought isn’t the issue being discussed.

So, I have some assumptions I want to lay out before I go any further:

1. Referred employees make the best hires. (Workforce studies frequently list employee referrals as the highest quality hires across all industries and positions)

2. ERPs (Employee Referral Programs) are the major tool used to get employee referrals by HR Pros.

3. A diverse workforce will perform better in most circumstances, then I homogeneous workforce will.

4. Diversity departments, if you’re lucky enough, or big enough, to have one in your organization, traditionally tend to do a weak job at “recruiting” diversity candidates (there more concerned about getting the Cinco De Mayo Taco Bar scheduled, etc.)

Now, keeping in mind the above assumptions, what do you think is the best way to recruit diversity candidates to your organization?

I’ve yet to find a company willing to go as far as to “Pay More” for a black engineer referral vs. a white engineer referral. Can you imagine how that would play out in your organization!?  But behind the scenes in HR Department across the world, this exact thing is happening in a number of ways.

First, what is your cost of hire for diverse candidates versus non-diverse candidates? Do you even measure that? Why not?  I’ll tell you why, is very hard to justify why you are paying two, three and even four times more for a diversity candidate, with the same skill sets, versus a non-diverse candidate in most technical and medical recruiting environments.  Second, how many diversity recruitment events do you go to versus non-specific diversity recruitment events?  In organizations who are really pushing diversification of workforce, I find that this figure is usually 2 to 1.

So, you will easily spend more resources of your organization to become more diversified, but you won’t reward your employees for helping you to reach your goals?  I find this somewhat ironic. You will pay Joe, one of your best engineers, $2000 for any referral, but you are unwilling to pay him $4000 for referring his black engineer friends from his former company.

Yet, you’ll go out and spend $50,000 attending diversity recruiting job fairs and events all over the country trying to get the same person.  When you know the best investment of your resources would be to put up a poster in your hallways saying “Wanted Black Engineers $4000 Reward!”.

Here’s why you don’t do this.

Most organizations do a terrible job at communicating the importance of having a diverse workforce, and that to get to an ideal state, sometimes it means the organization might have to hire a female, or an Asian, or an African American, or a Hispanic, over a similarly qualified white male to ensure the organization is reaching their highest potential.

Workgroup performance by diversity is easily measured and reported to employees, to demonstrate diversity successes, but we rarely do it, to help us explain why we do what we are doing in talent selection.  What do we need to do? Stop treating our employees like they won’t get it, start educating them beyond the politically correct version of Diversity and start educating them on the performance increases we get with diversity.  Then it might not seem so unheard of to pay more to an employee for referring a diverse candidate!

So, you take pride in your diversity hiring efforts, but you’re just unwilling to properly reward for it…

 

Being a Fair Leader Won’t Get You Promoted!

Posted on by
1

Look out HR Leaders this one is going to sting a little – from The Harvard Business Review:

“In management, fairness is a virtue. Numerous academic studies have shown that the most effective leaders are generally those who give employees a voice, treat them with dignity and consistency, and base decisions on accurate and complete information.

But there’s a hidden cost to this behavior. We’ve found that although fair managers earn respect, they’re seen as less powerful than other managers—less in control of resources, less able to reward and punish—and that may hurt their odds of attaining certain key, contentious leadership roles.”

Wow, that really flies in the face of all that we’ve been taught by our HR Heroes, doesn’t it!   Well, not exactly, just because treating employees fairly and with respect might not get you promoted, it doesn’t make it the wrong thing to do.  That’s a hard pill to swallow though, right?

How many times in your career have you looked at someone who was promoted and said to yourself “how the hell did they get promoted!?”  It’s usually the leader who is pushing people around, and no one likes, and the CEO taps them on the shoulder for the next VP role.  Some more from the HBR article:

“We’ve long wondered why managers don’t always behave fairly because doing so would clearly benefit their organizations: Studies show that the success of change initiatives depends largely on fair implementation. Our research suggests an answer. Managers see respect and power as two mutually exclusive avenues to influence, and many choose the latter.  Although this appears to be the more rational choice, it’s not always the correct one—and it poses big risks for organizations.” 

Do you know why managers choose “Power” over “Respect” as a leadership style?  It’s easier!  I mean way EASIER!  Positional power makes your job so much easier to move things through organizations and get things done, but you burn a lot of bridges and relationships on that path.

Getting things accomplished through mutual respect and influence can take time, but ultimately is more rewarding.  Time tends to be the big factor with this, though.  In today’s organizations we frequently feel pushed by time to get things done – Now – and that “now” tends not to work well with “respect”.   More from HBR:

“Companies can benefit from placing more value on fairness when assessing managerial performance. Our early follow-up research suggests that managers whose style is based on respect can gain power. Their path upward may be difficult, but it’s one worth taking, for their company’s sake as well as their own.”

Thus, this is the key! Want to build Great leaders in your organization? Give them this time to get things done through leading with a style based in respect.  Want to get something done tomorrow, and not care about how your employees are getting treated?  Let positional power rule the day, and be comfortable with your leaders throwing their weight around the office to get things done.

Let’s face it, this isn’t an all or nothing exclusive thing.  We need our leaders to do both – treat employees with respect, and get results quickly.  That’s why we have HR!  That is a tough thing to accomplish, but HR Pros can help leaders accomplish this task.

It’s Better to Make a Wrong Decision Fast

Posted on by
Reply

For those that don’t know I played and coached volleyball for a great deal of my life.  Being from Michigan I can tell you that is rare (being a male) and I got called “gay” more than once while fundraising to make money to pay for traveling nationally for major tournaments (I think the actual phrases were more like “don’t girls only play volleyball”, etc. Welcome to the rust belt).

Anyway, one piece of my coaching stuck with me (we used with our middle blockers) that I also have used into my adult life and I use it still today:

It’s better to make a wrong decision fast, then make the right decision to slow.

Why?  In volleyball,  when you go to block you have to make split second decisions. You have 3 options: block middle, block right side hitter, or block left side hitter.  You rely on your instincts, you rely on communication from your teammates and you survey the situation (where is the pass coming from, where is the setter, how far off the net is the setter, etc.), then you make a decision.

The problem most middle blockers have at a young age is they want to be up on every block. They want to make the right decision every time, but by doing this, they rarely make it to block any position because they are frozen with indecision.  I taught my middles to decide quickly and then do it. Do it 110%!  Go to which ever spot you decided to block and block and even if the ball went to another position!

Why?  Some positive things happen by you making the wrong decision quickly. For starters it allows your teammates to make adjustments they need to make to try and get the best possible outcome. Believe me your back row players know you made the wrong decision because they’re staring down the hitter with only one blocker! BUT, it also allows them to know how to try and defend that.

If you’re late, and you have a hole in the middle of the block and now they have to guess where to go. Fill the hole, cover the line, take the cross, etc.  It becomes a guessing game. One which you rarely win. What happens if you make the right decision to slow?  About 99% of the time, what was going to happen, already happened. You didn’t make the decision, it was made for you. I like being in control, so this isn’t an option I like.

So what? What the heck does this have anything to do with you becoming a better leader?

Fast Company has a wonderful article on this concept called: Why Keeping Your Options Open is Really, Really Bad Idea – from the article:

Why does keeping our options open make us less happy? Because once we make a final, no-turning-back decision, the psychological immune system kicks in. This is how psychologists like Gilbert refer to the mind’s uncanny ability to make us feel good about our decisions. Once we’ve committed to a course of action, we stop thinking about alternatives. Or, if we do bother to think about them, we think about how lousy they are compared to our clearly superior and awesome choice.

Most of us have had to make a choice between two colleges, or job offers, or apartments. You may have had to choose which candidate to hire for a job, or which vendor your company would engage for a project. When you were making your decision, it was probably a tough one–every option had significant pros and cons. But after you made that decision, did you ever wonder how you could have even considered the now obviously inferior alternative?…

When you keep your options open, however, you can’t stop thinking about the downside–because you’re still trying to figure out if you made the right choice. The psychological immune system doesn’t kick in, and you’re left feeling less happy about whatever choice you end up making.

This brings us to the other problem with reversible decisions–new research shows that they don’t just rob you of happiness, they also lead to poorer performance.

I tend to run into this with younger workers who want to make the right choice, fearing “death” or some other less desirable outcome if they make the wrong choice.  They tend to defer decision making to their boss or a peer instead of making it themselves, thus giving away the chance for superior performance.

When in reality, all I want is for them to make any choice, and we’ll live with the outcome.  I hire great people, so I’m sure they’ll make very wise, research driven decisions, and even then, sometimes they’ll fail.  I’m willing to live with that.  If it’s fast! Because that allows us to adjust and find a way to make it right.

Two things at play in this concept: 1. Fast action; 2. Failure is an option, that we can live with.  Give me those two things, and I’ll show you an organization that is on the move and that can block pretty well!

Is Talent Acquisition Wasting Your Hiring Manager’s Time?

Posted on by
Reply

I had a conversation the other day with a corporate HR Director and we were talking recruiters, corporate recruiters.  My friend had a dilemma, a classic corporate recruiting scenario. The problem is she has recruiters who are doing a decent job, but they won’t get out from behind their desk and get out into the organization and get face-to-face feedback from the hiring managers. But, here is the real reason:  the recruiters feel like they are “wasting” the hiring manager’s time.

“So,” she asked, “How do I get them out to build these relationships?”

Great question, but she asked the wrong question (was partially my answer).  Her problem isn’t that her recruiters aren’t building the relationships face-to-face with managers. The problem is they feel they are “wasting” someone’s time.

They don’t value or understand the value they are providing to the hiring manager. If they did, it sounds like they wouldn’t have a problem with visiting with the hiring managers.  It’s a classic leadership fail, solving a symptom instead of solving the actual problem.

I don’t think that this is rare, recruiters feeling like they are wasting hiring managers time. It happens constantly at the corporate level.  Once you train your recruiters (and hiring managers) on the value the recruiters are providing, you see much less resistance of the recruiters feeling comfortable getting in front of hiring managers to get feedback on candidates, and actually making a decision.  This moves your process along much quicker.

What value do recruiters provide?  Well, that seems like a really stupid question, but there aren’t stupid questions (just stupid people who ask questions).  Here are few that will help your corporate recruiters understand their real value to hiring managers:

  • Corporate recruiters are the talent pipeline for a hiring manager. (or should be!)
  • Corporate recruiters can be the conduit for hiring managers to increase or better the talent within their department.
  • Corporate recruiters are a partner to the hiring managers in assessing talent.
  • Corporate recruiters are a strategist for the hiring managers group succession planning
  • Corporate recruiters are your hiring managers first line of performance management (setting expectations before someone even comes in the door)
  • Corporate recruiters are tacticians of organizational culture.

So, the next time you hear a recruiter tell you “I don’t want to waste their time.” Don’t go off on them and tell them to “just go out there and build the relationship”. Educate them on why they aren’t wasting their time. Then do an assessment for yourself to determine are they adding value or are they just wasting time. All recruiters are not created equal and some waste time, and it’s your job as a leader to find ones add value.

A critical component to all of this is building an expectation of your hiring managers of what they should expect from your recruiters.  They should expect value. They should expect a recruiter who is a pro, and who is going to help them maneuver the organizational landscape and politics of hiring. They should expect a recruiter is going to deliver to them better talent than they already have. They should expect a partner, someone who is looking out for the best interest of the hiring managers department.

Ultimately, what they should expect is someone who won’t waste their time!

The 5 Hiring Managers You Never Want to Work With

Posted on by
4

I tend to read a lot about the type of manager you want to work for and with. It got me thinking, what about the 5 Hiring Managers You Don’t Want!? Not only for performance reviews but for interviews, development planning, discipline, etc. In HR we are constantly dealing with every type of hiring manager you can imagine but I came up with the top 5 I hate dealing with:

1. The Up-And-Out:  You know this person, usually happens in larger organizations, at some point they were given a manager/director/VP title because they were the last one standing.  As the talent took off in the organization to better positions with your competition, they kept moving up based mostly on the fact they had been around longer.  But in the end, they lack talent, lack motivation, aren’t respected, and usually way over their head.  They’ve been promoted past their ability and are now just waiting to be fired or retire.

2. The Nana-Nana-Boo-Boo I’m Better Than You:  This the person who became a manager because they were probably the best at what ever function they were in, but lack leadership skills, so their leadership philosophy is to continue to show their staff that they are still better than their team by showing them up constantly and publicly.  A huge piece of this stems from lack of self confidence and they feel they have to continue to show their bosses why they put them in charge, to begin with because they “get” this stuff and no one else does.

3. The Classic Politician:  This is Captain Ass-Kisser (which was my first title for this hiring manager but I didn’t want to offend anyone) and Captain Fence Sitter.  This is the hiring manager that will never take a stand, never be controversial and never put themselves in a position where they will protect their team. Basically, these are 85% of hiring managers at the Fortune 500 (hey don’t get mad at me I didn’t come up with the stat! Okay, I did but it seems about right, right?).

4. The Super Model:  Have you ever noticed that most leaders are “pretty” people? Not only that, but they’re Tall. Abnormally tall and pretty on average, like there’s some conspiracy against short, ugly people.  Look around at your leadership team and you’ll see 3 things: the average heigth is above the national average, they don’t have adult acne, and they have good hair.  There actually have been academic studies done on this concept. People want their leaders like they want their celebrities, good looking and tall.  Now this doesn’t make them less qualified, but it doesn’t make them more qualified either. And yes, I’m short with red hair and only my youngest son thinks I’m good looking and that’s only because he still fears I’ll shut off his iPhone.

5. The Tony Robbins-Stephen Covey-Wayne Dyer-Dr. Seuss:  This one drives me completely insane! It’s the manager who reads leadership books constantly and only speaks in leadership-quotes-I’ve-read-in-books speak.  You know, it’s gotta be a win-win, sharpen your saw, focus on our hedgehog, get that fly wheel going kinda day! These are the people that don’t have an original thought in their head but think their mashup of all the latest leadership crap somehow is an original master piece of their own.

So, hit me in the comments, which leader persona do you hate!?

The Secret to High Performance? Stay in your Box!

Posted on by
3

I was reminded of something recently – getting out of the box – isn’t comfortable.

Now – I know what some of your are thinking – “But, Tim, you need to get out of the box to challenge yourself, to push the limits, to get you and your organization better!”

Really?

Or have we been sold this by this eras snake oil salesmen and women (leadership trainers, life coaches, every motivation, and leadership book written in the last 20 years)?

I’m not sure.

Here’s what I know:

1. People perform better when they know their boundaries. (their box)

2. There is comfort in knowing what to expect, with comfort comes sustained performance long-term.

3. In reality, a very small percentage of your employees will actually perform above their average performance being “out of the box”.

We as HR Pros tend to go a little overboard sometimes, in the attempt to “help out” the cause within our organization. That can be both good and bad.  Things are going as well as they could be, so we push to get everyone out of their box and reinvent themselves, in hopes that this will lead to better performance and higher organizational results.

When in fact, many times, it will lead to the exact opposite.  Not everyone is wired to get “out of the box”. In fact probably at a minimum 80% of the workforce should stay in their box, and keep plugging along with their solid performance that they are already giving you.

The trick to great HR in getting great performance is to find those race horses who you can push out of the box, and they show you a whole other level of performance that you and they didn’t know existed.  But if you keep pushing plow horses out on to the track in hopes of turning them into a race horse you, and they will fail.

So, don’t drink the Kool-aid and believe everyone can and wants to be out of the box thinkers and performers. Not everyone does and you limit yourself by thinking in such general terms.

When You Want It More Than They Want It

Posted on by
1

You know what?  Being an HR Pro isn’t tough, being a Dad/parent is tough!  But, sometimes they seem to be very similar jobs.

I was reminded this weekend that many times in life, you want more for your kids/employees than they might want for themselves.  We run into that frequently as HR Pros – you sit through 100’s if not 1000’s, performance management reviews, and in many of those, the conversation is centered around asking the employee,”Well, what do you want out of your career?”

The smart ones usually tell you what you want to here, the not-so-smart ones will tell you something totally off the wall, but either way, you end up feeling like you’re doing the parenting!

Recently, I was taught a lesson that I’ve taught many people in my career.  The usual scenario is me sitting with an executive or hiring manager, explaining to them there is nothing we can do to change this employee if they are not willing to change this for themselves first.  Seems simple, right!?

We can offer the best tools, the best teachers and mentors, send them away to great conferences and nothing happens, it’s the same old employee that we had before.  We (HR, leadership, etc.) keep trying to change the individual, but the individual hasn’t decided, yet, that they are willing to change. In a nut shell, this is Performance Management, and there is a ton of performance management in Parenting!

For me, this is about wanting to turn one of my sons into something they are not, or are not yet ready to become.  I can yell and push and plead and do everything my Dad probably did to me but if he hasn’t made up his mind to change, it’s just not going to happen.

It’s funny how we all teach and train things that we haven’t really experienced or understand.  It’s in our DNA to want more for those we care about most. If you are a great leader/HR Pro and you care about your employees, you innately want them to reach their highest potential, it’s a natural feeling.  The hardest part is getting to the point where you understand that no matter how much you want your employee to change for the better they have to want to change, first before any step forward will take place.  The hardest thing to do as a leader/parent is to wait for this to happen.

So, don’t stop giving them the opportunity because you don’t know when the light will come on when the desire to change will take over. It could happen at any time.  We set the table, we invite them to eat, then they either come and eat or they don’t.  The next day, we set the table again and again and again.

One of my favorite quotes of all time comes from Leo Buscaglia (who is a wonderful writer and teacher), Leo says: “We don’t love to be loved in return, we love to love.”   As HR Pros/Leaders/Parents I think Leo has it right. We don’t try and make those we care about better, for something we are going to get in return, we try and make them better (and continue to try) for the simple reason, it’s the right thing to do.

The hard part is we know, we see the potential usually because, we didn’t reach that potential ourselves, and through that experience, we want to make sure others don’t miss their opportunity.  So, we will head back to the gym, a little smarter, a little wiser and, yeah, I’ll probably still yell a little too much…

Recruitment Marketing Isn’t About Automation

Posted on by
1

Look, I love everything Recruitment Marketing (RM). It takes two things I’m very passionate about Recruiting and Marketing and puts them both together. I love the creativity and science behind how do you get someone interested in some thing, more specifically how do we get a person interested in coming to work for us.

Recruitment Marketing technology is pretty freaking awesome! I love it as well. But, great RM isn’t about automation. Great RM is about what originally attracts us to anything.

Great RM boils down to only two things:

1. Do you want me?

2. You don’t want me.

I like to think about RM in dating terms. I’ve been married for twenty-five years so my dating references are a bit dated, but I now have sons who are dating so I get a new perspective.

When you like someone a couple of things could happen. One, they like you in return. This could be great for some, but a turn off for some as well. There are two specific things that happen when we date. We want to be wanted and we want to be pursued. So, the second is they don’t like you, and you don’t know why.

Let me give you an example from my own career. I always have wanted to work at Nike. I love their products. I love their brand. I would have been the best employee Nike ever hired! They didn’t want me. That made me want that job even more. Working at Nike is a tough gig to get, which is part of the reason I wanted it.

I did get offers from other organizations that were also great brands. Target was one who offered and pursued hard. Even tried to get me after I turned them down and went to work for Applebee’s. Sent a gift basket to my house before Christmas, 6 weeks after I already started working for Applebees. It felt really, really good to be pursued and wanted by another!

Most of us do the pursuing. If you’re extremely lucky in talent acquisition you have a brand that allows you to be pursued. There aren’t many of these organizations that are wildly pursued by almost everyone. Google, Facebook, Nike, etc. But, we all have a small group of folks who love our brand and organization for whatever reason.

We tend to discount these folks, especially if we have questionable employment brand, to begin with! Why would Charlie want to work here so bad!? Something must be wrong with him! That’s where most TA organizations fail.

If you have Nike’s brand you never question ‘why’ someone wants to work for Nike. It’s Nike! Everyone wants to work for us. If you’re ABC Manufacturing in Wildwood, NJ you question why anyone wants to work for you. It’s crazy, right!? It’s the exact same scenario, one positive, one negative.

All of this has nothing to do with the RM platform you choose. This is about the culture you allow on your TA team. You might not be Nike, but it doesn’t mean you’re not a great opportunity for someone. Leave that up to the person to decide, don’t decide for them!