Hiring and Retaining Top Talent Blog

You Think You Work Hard-S. Korea Is Hardest Working Country

Brad Remillard — Fri, 30 May 2008 00:57:42 +0000

Working long hours and 2 hours driving back and forth appear to be the norm in S. Korea, according to an article on Forbes.com.

According to a 2008 ranking by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, South Koreans work the longest hours per year, on average, 2357. That may not seem so bad, until you consider David Lee works 12-14 hour days, 6 days a week and gets only 3 days vacation per year.

The U.S. ranked 9th with 1797 average hours per year. If you are seeking the least hardest working country try Denmark at 1391. Preceded by Norway and Germany.

How hard do you work? Do you put in more hours than the average? Are you closer to S. Korea or Denmark? Now that you know this are you considering moving to Denmark?

ShareThis

82% Will Take Less Money If . . .

Brad Remillard — Tue, 20 May 2008 15:56:09 +0000

Add to Onlywire
According to a global poll taken by Monster.com and published on
RecruitingTrends.com that is the per cent of US workers willing to accept less money for their ideal job.The poll states; “We see a general consensus among workers around the globe that people are open to pursuing more fulfilling careers, not just a fuller wallet,” states Norma Gaffin, director of career content, Monster.” We find this to be especially true for the Gen Y people.

Norma goes on to comment specifically about the US; “It’s interesting to note that despite some notions of a skittish economy, U.S. workers are still willing to be compensated less for a job that they are really passionate about.”

Our position supports this notion that it isn’t always about the money. Companies that help their employees enjoy their work and have a culture that gets to the employee’s real motivation, will always win when it comes to attracting and retaining top talent.

For more information on attracting top talent visit our website.

Let us know your thoughts on this topic. Would you take less money for your ideal job?

ShareThis

What Positions Are In Demand

Brad Remillard — Tue, 20 May 2008 03:36:28 +0000

Add to Onlywire

Recruitinrg Trends.com article from Manpower Inc.’s third annual talent shortage survey is an eye opener. It found that 31% of all employers worldwide are having trouble finding talent.

“According to the survey, the top 5 jobs that employers are having difficulty filling in 2008 compared to 2007 include: Skilled Manual Trades, Sales Representatives, Technicians, Engineers, and Management/Executives.”

We have seen this trend for some time. We speak to over 1000 CEO’s and key executives every year. Filling the skilled manual trades is always high on their hiring frustration list. One thing we believe contributing to shortage is college. The level of high school graduates going directly to college instead of the trades continues to increase. Even those in the trades tell their kids; “You need to go to college.”

Quoting the survey “This year, the most significant finding in our survey is that the percentage of employers in the Americas having trouble filling positions has dropped more than half compared to last year,” says Jeffrey A. Joerres, Chairman and CEO of Manpower Inc. “This dramatic decrease is a reflection of the recent downturn in the U.S. economy. However, the talent crunch is still a very real concern . . .”

Here is the good news. Other countries are struggling far more than US employers. Countries such as Japan, Singapore and the UK are worse off. With Hong Kong reporting the largest increase in employee shortages.

Leave us your thoughts and comments if your company is experiencing the same trend.

ShareThis

14 Top Interviewing Questions - Really?

Brad Remillard — Tue, 20 May 2008 00:56:18 +0000

Careerbuilder.com recently listed the 14 top interviewing questions.

When I read the first few, I thought this was about ridicules questions too ask. Then I realized careerbuilder.com was serious.

Sorry, but we can’t disagree more. Some of the 14 are good and get to the ability of the candidate to actually do the job. But most are the standard fluff questions. Most candidates know the answer to these and spend time rehearsing them.

For example:

What circumstance brings you here today? They comment this is one of the best questions. My first thought was; “What does this mean? Maybe a car is the answer.” What candidate that has had more than one interview has not been asked this or something similar. Maybe like: “Why do you want to leave your current position?” A waste of time and has nothing to do with the candidate’s ability to do your job.

What would you say are your 2 greatest weaknesses? Wow, now instead of answering; “I work too hard.” I have to say; “I work too hard and I’m a perfectionist.” Every book, career coach and outplacement firm knows this is going to be asked and helps the candidate rehearse the answer.

And my personal favorite:

How do you alleviate stress? Not even sure this is legal? But what if they answered; “I prefer a beer and a massage. How about you?” What candidate is going to tell the truth and say; “I take it out on the people around me. Sometimes I yell, other times I slam the door and if I’m really stressed I simply swear like a drunken sailor.” Better questions might be; “Give me an example or situation where you worked in a stressful environment?” or “What would be an example of a project that caused you stress?” Bring it to the real job. PLEASE.

Click the link above to read the others. We decided not to waste anymore space.

Let’s start asking questions that deal with performing the job. Such as:

We need to improve cash flow by X%, can you give me a specific example of where you have done something similar in size and scope?

Give me an example where you demonstrated high initiative?

When you come on board as my new X, how would address this challenge_____ in our company and with our resources?

Let’s get away from these soft ball, feel good, emotionally analytical questions and start asking questions that get to whether the person can do the job. Because once they come on board that really all the hiring manager cares about.

ShareThis

Cost of a Bad Hire

Brad Remillard — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 01:16:16 +0000

Business guru Peter Drucker has said, “Of all the decisions an executive makes, none are as important as the decision about people because they ultimately determine the performance capacity of the organization.” Warren Bennis, professor of business at the University of Southern California and author of Managing the Dream, calls the search for Top Talent “the most significant problem facing all organizations.”

According to a study by the Corporate Leadership Council, hiring the wrong executive can cost an organization as much as three times their annual salary. The Gallup Organization has noted that the cost of poor hiring decisions may even be much higher than previously estimated. Some researchers have calculated the cost of a bad hire can be as high as twenty four times the position’s base salary.
Presidents, CEOs, Boards of Directors, and hiring managers should never underestimate the ramifications of a bad hire. The fallout can affect an entire organization, doing far more damage than leaving the position empty would have.
Think of all the lost opportunities and hidden costs associated with a bad hire. The total financial impact can include reduced time to market, lost revenue from incomplete projects, and failed execution of strategies. This results in untold lost profits and productivity.
While reasonable experts may disagree about specific salary-to-cost ratios, the fact remains that the cost of new executive failure is much higher than merely search costs and salary. Those are just two of the direct costs.

To avoid a bad hire your company has to have an effective hiring process. Most of time when a bad hire occurs it is generally a break down in the system. The problem is most companies just accept this and try again. Few if any take a serious review at what went wrong, what failed, what can be done to reduce the chances of it happening again, are the people using the process competent and so on.

We recommend that you step back take a hard look at your hiring process. Determine if it is effective, are the people competent interviewers, have they been trained, is the job description effective, does everyone interviewing really know what is important to success in this role and then implement change. Just as you would do if any other system in your company failed.

Don’t just accept a failed hiring process. It costs too much.

ShareThis

The Causes Of Hiring Mistakes

Brad Remillard — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 04:04:41 +0000

In our experience, hiring mistakes are not caused by willful ignorance or negligence. Most often, new executive failure has several interrelated causes.

Inadequate preparation. Rarely had the hiring companies outlined a detailed, measurable definition of “success” that could be used to source, evaluate, and select candidates. Instead, they relied on outdated or insufficient job specs, focused around desired attributes, educational attainment, and so on.

Lack of information. After our work with the surveyed companies, nearly all dramatically improved hiring practices and (most importantly) the performance of new hires. We conclude, therefore, that at least one cause of their earlier hiring failures was not endemic organizational dysfunction, but a lack of information and training about how to hire more effectively at the executive level.

“Human nature.” Interpersonal situations like interviews, conducted in a vacuum, are often guided primarily by gut feelings. Hiring team members who have not been trained to minimize these distractions are easily influenced by preconscious perceptions and nonverbal cues. When provided with a tool set designed to counterbalance these biases, interview team performance is far more likely to overcome distractions and focus on more critical success-based matters.

With the most common hiring mistakes and their causes in mind, we have developed and refined the Success Factor Methodology^TM. This structured approach to executive hiring helps our client companies avoid repeating predictable, avoidable hiring pitfalls that plague many high-level hires.

We believe every organization-large or small, for-profit or nonprofit, public or private-is capable of using this methodology to significantly improve its hiring success at the executive and managerial level.

But it isn’t easy without a proven systemic process.

What are some of the hiring mistakes you have seen? Have you learned from any hiring mistakes to share with others? We welcome and want your comments.

ShareThis

Flipping A Coin Is Better Odds

Brad Remillard — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 22:30:54 +0000

56% of hires fail! So just flip a coin and increase your odds.
The failure rate our client experienced with the VP of Sales position was painful for them, but it is not unusual.
When companies hire a six-figure executive, they expect them to “hit the ground running” and produce results quickly. But according to our surveys of more than 20,000 hiring executives over the past fifteen years and a review of published literature on the subject of executive failure, roughly 56% of newly hired executives fail within two years of starting new jobs.
Frankly, 56% is worse than a flip of a coin.
Published studies and decades of direct experience bear out the findings. We have interviewed more than 10,000 hiring executives during the past two decades, and we suspect that the actual rate of executive failure and turnover in the first two years is even higher.
It goes without saying that a 56% failure rate is abysmal.
If a similar failure rate happened on the manufacturing floor, the plant would be shut down. If a company’s financial statements were only accurate 56% of the time, it would be disastrous. And yet, year after year, organizations experience this syndrome and act as though they are helpless to overcome it.
Is the problem that these companies are not interviewing enough people? Or asking the right questions? Could it be that it is impossible to predict whether somebody can succeed in an open position before that person comes aboard?
No, no, and no.
Based on extensive research and experience, we have determined the most common root causes of much executive failure are:
• Focusing on irrelevant past experience and skills
• Nebulous expectations
• Failure to clearly communicate expectations up front
• Flawed hiring processes
The crux of the problem is that every company says it wants to hire a “superstar” who will “succeed,” but if you ask what a superstar looks like, or what “success” means in concrete terms like dollars, cents, percentages, time, headcount, and other hard numbers, you generally get a blank stare by way of reply.
Is it any wonder that new hires fail to meet expectations when those expectations are not clearly spelled out?

ShareThis

Recruit or Not To Recruit - That Is The Question?

Brad Remillard — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 17:28:49 +0000

When do you start the process of hiring a new person?

Most companies start the hiring process when they need someone. They wait until the best person quits or if it is a new position they wait until they need this person. Since it can take between 2 and 4 months to hire someone, what is the frame of mind of most hiring managers after 2 or 3 months of the position being empty? Our experience tells us the hiring manager is becoming desperate. When a hiring manager hires out of desperation, they generally make a poor hire. When desperation hiring sets in, the hiring process becomes one of “can they fog a mirror” if “yes” hire them. Someone is better than no one.

To be effective at hiring top talent and avoid “desperation hiring” you have to become proactive when hiring. The reactive process used by most companies has to stop. Hiring managers must separate the hiring process from the recruiting process. It is imperative to recruit 365 days a year, even if you only hire once a year.

Hiring manager resources are key to proactive hiring. Hiring isn’t just providing interviewing techniques and interviewing questions, these are important, however, if you are hiring from desperation these don’t matter.

As a company leader it should part of your culture that all managers recognize the importance of recruiting even when not hiring. It is time consuming, but it should be as much a part of the job description for a hiring manager as the duties, tasks, activities and responsibilities that come with the job. After all they are a “HIRING MANAGER.” Recruiting is implied in the title. Meeting potential top talent is always a good activity for a hiring manager.

Recruiting is a process, hiring is an event.

ShareThis

I Crown You “Hiring Manager”

Brad Remillard — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 00:39:53 +0000

And all the skills that go with that title.

One day we are just hard working individual contributors and all of a sudden the next day we are hiring managers. One day we know little about managing others and the next we are expected to be competent hiring managers. It is as if with that title comes all the skills, abilities and knowledge we need to be effective.

The truth is we are generally only as good as the people that were our hiring managers. That is where most knowledge comes from. If we had tough, hard, non complimenting managers we often emulate that style. On the other hand, if we had compassionate, open, motivating managers we tend to emulate that behavior. How we hire is no different. It is thought that the moment we become hiring managers along with that title comes the skill and ability to be great interviewers. The facts don’t change from the previous example. We learn how to hire from those that hire us. We get our questions from those that interviewed us. So if those people are incompetent interviewers, lack the skills in hiring top talent the mantle is passed on to their team. This mantle is passed on from generation to generation like the family jewels. I believe it can probably be traced back to Moses.

Few companies invest in training their managers on “How to properly hire.” This became clear to us when we did our research study to come up with the “10 Biggest Hiring Mistakes Companies Make.” They don’t invest any resources educating new managers on the best way to interview, how to properly define a position, and how to assess candidates. I have never seen that requirement on a job description or a competency test on these before becoming a hiring manager. Companies will spend lots of money reimbursing education expenses, spend money on skills training programs and legal issues, but when it comes to ensuring your team can attract, hire and retain top talent the resource well dries up.

Companies would do well to consider some specific actions every hiring manager must go thru prior to moving into management. This includes even when hiring a new VP. As part of the assimilation process a class or two on how and who to hire would bring a high ROI to the company.

For example, requiring every manager to attend specific classes on hiring, required reading prior to becoming a manager, continuing education classes offered by the company and given on company time, a minimum number of education hours a year around leadership and hiring linked to their bonus. Can you imagine the quality of people and leadership within a company that did just a few things a year with the key players in the company. Hiring top talent doesn’t come naturally and it sure doesn’t come with a title. It is a skill. No different than any other skill. It requires education, practice, mentoring, learning from mistakes and on-going support system to become great.

Let us know what you think is important to know when hiring? Have you read any books you think should be required reading as a hiring manager? What classes have you taken that made you a better manager?

ShareThis

What Is Your Company’s Reputation

Brad Remillard — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 01:07:45 +0000

Interviewing is a PR Event.

We recently conducted a retained executive search for a VP Marketing . The position had been open for more than six months, during which time the company had interviewed ten people who showed little interest in the position or company. In fact, one offer had been turned down. At first glance, this seemed strange, since it was a good company offering a reasonable compensation.

Shortly after contacting prospective candidates working for competitors and others in related industries, the mystery became clear. The company had a reputation for trouble, high turnover, lack of innovative products, and low pay. One candidate stated, “It’s known as a ‘burn ‘em and churn ‘em’ company.” All of these had been true three years back, but new management had since come on and started changing things. The reputation, unfortunately, lagged behind.

In conjunction with the company we put together a marketing plan, beginning with changing the website. We encouraged the company to address the baggage of the past while emphasizing the changes that had been made and the future. The redesigned site also included testimonials from happy employees, along with information about new and improved company benefits and management’s new commitment to employees. Another new web site section discussed the company’s new products and how they were performing in the marketplace, as well as the company’s dedication to R&D. Finally, we changed how potential candidates were treated when they came in for interviews. All interviews were now looked upon as a PR event. Hiring managers were required to meet the candidate on time, they were given tours of the facilities, candidates were given materials on the company, the company’s vision was posted in the lobby for all candidates to read, the company had won numerous awards that were now prominently posted in the lobby.

As a result, even if a candidate didn’t end up getting the job, they still walked away with a completely different image of the company and wanting the job.

We ultimately filled the search with a candidate who originally told us that she didn’t even want to interview. In fact, she told us the same thing three times before finally going out for a meeting. She came away overwhelmed by the changes and her misunderstanding of the company. She had done a 180 from not wanting to even interview to one of excitement about working for the company.

Understanding your company’s reputation is an important issue when conducting a search. Regardless of your reputation, developing a compelling marketing plan and understanding the mistakes companies make when hiring is key to a successful search. Insuring your company’s image is well received by candidates will help you attract more top candidates and reduce the cost per hire.

ShareThis