Post from Leadership Turn

Today is theme day around the channel, all about graduating and new beginnings in a downturn. For a full list of participants check with Darlene over at Interview Chatter.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Their reputation precedes them.

Hiring Millennials is an iffy business when your focus is a desire for long term employees.

On top of their sense of entitlement, many have no idea how to be led.

As CandidProf says, “Teaching is also an exercise in leadership, particularly in college. You do not simply download knowledge into student brains… Students need to be properly prepared in order to be led to learning.”

That goes double (at least) in the work arena. Too many Millennials see more value in peer information and advice than in listening and learning from anyone who has been there/done that. Their actions, more than their words, display an ‘I am the sun” attitude; they already know how to do it better and faster—cheaper rarely enters the equation—and see no use in learning other approaches, since theirs is better.

I’m not saying that every 18-35 year-old thinks this way, but plenty do—although the severity of “Millennial Fever” varies by individual.

The problem for you is that turnover is costly and you need to minimize it.

How? By latching on to the number one piece of hiring intelligence that is espoused by the smartest companies—attitude trumps skills.

And if you don’t agree, ask yourself whether you would rather teach someone to program in a new language or convince them to change something in their MAP (mindset, attitude, philosophy™)

It’s really a no-brainer when you think about it and it applies not just to Millennials, but to all people at all levels—from entry-level to executive.

What do you think? Does attitude trump skills?

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: asifthebes

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Sphere: Related Content

This is a continuation of the March 17th post.

The cost really starts mounting up based on what leaves. Yes, of course, the person in that position matters, s/he was a unique individual with a unique set of skills—that can’t be duplicated, but it can be replaced. But the loss of a certain position at a certain time can wreak corporate havoc costing millions. For example:

• The engineer whose missing piece of the project delays delivery and launch of the product.
• The product marketing manager tasked with a new product launch.
• The admin no one noticed or worried about, who, in actuality, was both the department glue and grease.

Notice there are no senior managers listed. Think about it, if the VP of engineering leaves it may garner comment in the media and create headaches for the CEO, but it won’t delay the product.

But is turnover really as bad as I’m making it out? And if it is, can there really be enough ROI to offset it? I can almost hear the skepticism (and worse) echoing through cyberspace.

Frederick Reichheld, founder of Bain & Company’s Loyalty Practice and author of Loyalty Rules!, and other loyalty books, shows in carefully researched studies that a 5% improvement in employee retention translates to a 25%-100% gain in earnings.

So there’s your proof!

The solution overview I promised can be summed up in two letters, CC—culture and communication—and one guiding principle: People who join your company for money, will leave for more money.

I’ll elaborate on CC next week, but the principle needs no explanation, it speaks for itself.
Have a great weekend!

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Sphere: Related Content

Yesterday I commented that good hiring was the flip side of good retention, but is retention so very important? Is it really that expensive to replace someone? You bet it is! Is there actually ROI associated with retention? Absolutely!

Let’s start with the overt (obvious) costs. Ads and/or headhunters; value of time of the hiring team (hiring manager, peers, other managers, support people); everybody’s time preparing for the interview, interviewing, debriefing, discussing (possibly agonizing), and negotiating. Considering the hourly pay of a few managers and staff and we’re already talking substantial money.

Of course, where there’s overt, there’s usually convert (hidden). Covert costs really start running things up. Think: lost productivity—a lot of work didn’t get done because the time was being used to hire; lowered moral—the person who left had friends and colleagues who are sad the person is gone and concerned about who they’ll be working with next. The dynamics are worse if the person was laid off, in that event, besides sad and concerned add scared (Am I next?) to the mental mix. Finally, there’s the de facto truth that it takes anyplace from six months to one year for a person to become fully productive in any organization. The cost just climbed significantly (gee, this makes the overt costs look cheap)!

The cost to replace someone that I’ve heard bandied about over the years is two to six times the annual salary. But the real kicker is that that’s the good news!

Come back tomorrow for the really bad news along with proof of the ROI and an overview of what to do about it.

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Sphere: Related Content