See all mY generation posts here.

The world today is one of nitch marketing and personalized mass consumer products.

The marketing folks are using customization/value-add/service/quality to sell to the individual and to capitalize on tiny segments of the market. The result is a surge in the ‘my way’ mentality of consumers, i.e., people.

OK, so what does all this have to do with your ability to do your job as a manager?

A lot, fortunately or not, depending on you and your MAP.

The mentality described above is the same mentality that you need to appeal to when hiring and with so few openings it’s more critical than ever to hire the right person at the right time and for the right reasons.

In spite of the economy and the abundance of candidates, to get the person you want you’ll need to sell—the job, your company, yourself, your team, corporate culture, everything—to candidates, just as they’re selling themselves to you.

You can make your staffing life easier by doing two things.

First, be sure to write a really complete req, not, as I’m fond of saying, a wreck.

Next, determine your position’s niche and identify the characteristics of that market. Here’s an example of what I mean; match the following programming jobs

1. upgrades
2. advanced development
3. maintenance

with the correct mentality

1. bleeding edge
2. tinkerer
3. improvement

Once this is done you can make sure that both the req and ad target the correct candidates, saving yourself time, energy, money, and nerves—not to mention looking like a hero.

Answer: 1-3; 2-1; 3-2

Image credit: flickr

The scandal at Satyam in India brings forth an interesting thought. In an article by him, Jitendra Singh, a Wharton management professor who is currently dean of the Nanyang Business School in Singapore says, “…companies with “the bluest of blue-chip reputations [such as] Infosys and TCS” could actually gain in the current environment, because of a potential “flight to quality” among client companies.” The third-tier and weaker companies will probably undergo a lot more scrutiny.”

Why does it make sense to do in-depth due diligence on third-or-lower tier companies, while taking top tier companies on faith and accepting their reputations with only cursory review.

Until their dirty linen came to light. Bernard Madoff’s hedge fund, Jeff Skilling’s Enron, WorldCom and Tyco were all considered top-tier.

This attitude of blindly accepting what is said by the top and increasing due diligence on lower levels is found everywhere, but it really permeates the hiring process.

I’ve lost count of the executives and managers I’ve known who went with cursory or no reference checks because the candidate

• was a C-level executive;
• graduated from a top-tier school;
• earned over $100K;
• had a PhD;
• was referred by an executive or board member;
• etc.

but ran exhaustive reference checks on every candidate below VP or director, including credit and criminal checks.

Does that make any sense to you?

Image credit: flickr

Recession of not, you still have an organization that needs to be productive.

According to an Academy of Management Journal study of 200 enterprises even a modest downsizing encouraged their most valuable “keepers” to start looking and move on. Check out these numbers; a 0.5% layoff increased turnover 2.6% (13% vs. 10.4%) over companies that had no layoffs. Add to that research by Frederick Reichheld, author of The Loyalty Factor (1996) and Loyalty Rules! (2001), that proved that a 5% improvement in employee retention translated to a 25%-100% gain in earnings!

So why do companies turn so quickly to layoffs? Mainly for these two reasons

1. Wall Street loves them because they have the fastest impact on the bottom line—and all the Street cares about is the next quarter. It will applaud you now and crucify you when the economy turns around and you have a demoralized staff and nothing in the pipeline.
2. They’re lazy. They require the least energy, managerial skill, leadership and creative effort, whereas keeping your people and juicing innovation and productivity when times are difficult takes energy, skill, leadership, creativity and work—lots of it.

Ever thought about what does it really costs to hire? Caliper has a nifty calculator. Try it, then multiply the answer by the increased 2.6% who walked when you laid off their colleagues. (Info hat tip to The Engage Sage.)

Smart companies, and even some governments, are getting creative, not for altruistic reasons, but because they don’t want to be crippled when the economy turns around. One of the primary actions that they’re using is to cut hours instead of staff—using with four-day work weeks, X% reduction in hours or closing extra days during the holidays and maybe beyond. Employees know that in an economy such as the current one a reduced job is far better than no job and companies finally figured out that staying prepared for the turn around is as important as cutting costs.

Finally, this WSJ article offers insights on attracting top people to a company in trouble, even one close to bankruptcy. Obviously, if these approaches work in those circumstances think how well they’ll work for healthy companies.

Image credit: flickr

Post from Leadership Turn

When a bit of serendipity, no matter how small, drops into your life it’s a wise move to notice and appreciate it.

Last week our channel editor sent a reminder that today was theme day (when participating Biz Channel bloggers all write on the same subject) and the subject was “Does Experience Matter?”

A day later I read a fascinating article based on Wharton management professor Nancy Rothbard’s co-authored paper titled Unpacking Prior Experience: How Career History Affects Job Performance about the dangers in hiring dominantly based on experience.

Obviously a post match made in heaven.

Experience is good, right? Not always.

I remember 30 years ago arguing with managers who wanted to fill their position with a person doing the same job at their competitor—and I’m still arguing.

It’s a mindset best described by the catch-phrase “buy IBM”—meaning making a decision that your boss couldn’t argue with. This was/is especially true in hiring.

The smartest engineering vp I ever worked with had a different attitude. He said “Find me someone who fits our culture and already knows at least two [software] languages and I’ll hire her. If s/he’s learned two s/he can learn more.” He never worried if the experience was directly applicable.

Few managers would move to an identical job at a competitor, yet they look for candidates to do that same thing.

Experience in general has enormous value, but by holding out for direct or exact experience you can shoot yourself in the foot.

“A senior human resource manager told the research team, “We tried to hire from our competitors and paid a premium for the experience — but those hires were the least successful.” Another manager quoted in the paper said: “People are weighed down by the baggage they bring in.””

So the next time you’re hiring look first at the candidate’s MAP (mindset, attitude, philosophy™), then at talents, then skills, then experience—the experience that shows that the person knows how to learn and enjoys the challenge.

What do you look for when hiring?

Your comments—priceless

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

Image credit: bodee  CC license

Recently, the conversation at Slacker Manager turned to how a manager bounces back from a bad hiring. Although the five steps Barry Moltz listed are good, I commented that they didn’t include making hiring a priority and core competency, which would do much to alleviate bad hires. (Barry agreed:)

In most instances, the key to a bad hire is poor synergy between the candidate and the corporate culture. Culture is also the culprit in most screwed up M&A.

There’s actually not a lot of difference between hiring one person and acquiring/merging two companies. No matter how complementary the skills, technology and experience, cultural incompatibility usually leads to disaster.

There are dozens of examples to choose from—Alcatel-Lucent is one that’s happening right now.

Good technical synergies, but light-years apart culturally.

“But the cultures could hardly have been more different. One was hierarchical and centrally controlled, the other entrepreneurial and flexible.”

Don’t assume that the first description is Alcatel, it’s not.

[Lucent] retained a command-and-control style, and after years of restructuring, executives were so obsessed with cost-cutting that even the smallest purchase had to be logged into a central accounting system… “It was a slow-moving ship with an entitlement mentality,” says John Wright, a former Lucent vice-president…”

While it may be that the candidate is the ship, it’s just as possible that she’s a speedboat. Either way synergy is unlikely and conflict almost inevitable.

While culture may not be obvious when acquiring or hiring, due diligence/interviewing is able to identify and explore it. The problem is that managers often ignore culture, because they believe they that theirs is ‘right’ and the other will change. It’s not a case of you/your company being right and ‘her/them’ being wrong, it’s a case of the pieces don’t fit—and 98% of the time you should see it coming.

Image credit: owaisk_4u

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

When the economy slows, it’s easy to ignore retention factors because management kids itself into believing that replacing people is no big deal.

But slow as it’s happening, the times they are a’chnging.

At least here and there, in companies that really understand the importance of attracting and retaining scarce talent.

“To reduce “female brain drain,” global companies such as Ernst & Young, Goldman Sachs, Booz Allen Hamilton, Hewlett-Packard, Best Buy and dozens of others are increasingly offering a variety of flexible work options.”

Don’t get me wrong. These companies aren’t doing it out of the goodness of their corporate heart or caring social consciousness, they’re doing it because it makes financial sense, AKA, vested self-interest.

“Business analysts and executives say talent retention and the forces of demography are the chief reasons large, traditional companies accommodate the needs of female employees. Fifty-eight percent of college graduates are women, and nearly half of all professional and graduate degrees are earned by women…the number of women with graduate and professional degrees will grow by 16 percent over the next decade compared with an increase of only 1.3 percent among men.”

Many small companies are in the forefront, although they skip the language and the programs are more informal—that’s why they’re so often described as “being like a family.”

And although the work-life trend started with, and is being driven by women, the guys want it, too, as do the Millennials.

The economy will turn around—it always does; more Boomers will retire; talent will be scarcer and the companies that already know how to offer balance will have an enormous recruiting edge.

How does your company handle work-life issues?

Image credit: mjamesno

Post from Leadership Turn Image credit: danaloganphotography

Cynic that I am, I never really bought into the idea of “sisterhood” and that women supported each other because they were all in the same boat. Nice idea, but I just couldn’t swallow it, partly based on my own experience and partly on what I saw happen around me.

For all you doubters I offer more proof from a brief item in Business Week synopsizing a study in the Journal of Applied Psychology.

Researchers at George Mason and Rice universities had 105 people (56 men, 49 women) play the role of interviewer as nonpregnant and visibly pregnant candidates (the researchers, some wearing prosthetic bellies) “applied” for such [traditionally “male”] jobs as corporate lawyer and engineering professor… Hostility toward pregnant applicants was 33% higher than for the other women, with the “interviewers” agreeing afterward with such statements as “she’ll try to get out of doing work” and “she would be too moody.”

Complaints are up 14%, but probably would be higher if more women bothered.

But if that same 105 people had to answer the questions publicly or in front of an audience of predominantly pregnant women, I bet that the general hostility would evaporate, the attitudes change drastically and political correctness would shine through.

Is it right? No. Is it fair? No. is it reality? Unfortunately, yes.

Have you or someone you know experienced pregnancy bias?

What do you think can be done to change it?

Your comments—priceless

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

Why is it that articles about changing culture in major corporations employing mostly skilled, well-paid workers, e.g., Ford, are met with serious discussion, but changing it in major corporations, with mostly minimum wage earners, e.g., McDonalds, is marked down as hype?

Why is a cultural change at Ford seen as key to the company’s survival, but instilling pride in the workers at McDonalds, Taco Bell and KFC is viewed as hype, ‘Raising spirits is cheaper than raising salaries.’

Why do we expect young people to take pride in their first ‘real’ job, or care about the customer, when they were laughed at for the same attitudes/actions in their minimum wage job?

Why does our society denigrate those who work low-paying jobs, when they’re honest, hardworking, pay taxes and even manage to raise families?

In the same vein, why is the four-year grad, with a degree paid for by mom and dad, considered a better candidate than the one who took longer working ‘non-professional’ jobs to pay for the same degree from the same school?

Maybe companies need to wake up. I haven’t seen the same high sense of entitlement in kids who spent their summers working in minimum wage jobs as I have in the ones who worked frequently overpaid jobs for their parents or didn’t work at all.

And I, for one, am thrilled that companies such as YUM! Brands and McDonalds are finally building their people up and, hopefully, offsetting the normal teardown that goes with these jobs.