Wednesday, May 04, 2005

Out with the old / in with the new

This is simultaneously the last post on my Blogger account and the first on it's new home.

What you need to know.


First, I have decided to use my old company's url for the blog. This is www.resourcingstrategies.com. There are two reasons for doing this. First 'brand' - I wanted something which I could tell people about & that we'd both remember. Second 'corporate firewalls' - there are some big, prominent companies who have stopped access to blogspot sites as they are deemed 'personal use'. Either that or the writing was deemed too disruptive.

Second, for those of you subscribing to the RSS feed you will notice no change. Business as usual. You don't need to do anything.

For those of you not using the RSS feed you really should. If you need more information about RSS the BBC published a simple guide.

Third, if you're one of the very few people who subscribed via email I suggest that you change to the RSS. It's much better - honest.

The positive changes.


There are some technical changes that moving to Wordpress will enable. You can subscribe to an RSS feed of the comments for example. I will also start classifying the posts by categories which should help you find old relevant posts.

The negative changes.

I will lose some of my comments & trackbacks on old posts. Over the next few days I will try and restore them. Please be patient.

Other things


If you were currently linking to the old blog please can you change the link to the new one. The old one will remain up, at least for now but it'll add one more click to get to the new content. Oh, and thanks for the links - I really appreciate them.

Tuesday, May 03, 2005

Understanding the people

I'm not sure how many employee opinion survey presentations I have sat through or been shown. They tend to say things like '25% of people in our retail arm are engaged'. So what?

To get value out of these things we need to be a bit more sophisticated with the data. The way that the data is usually segmented (by division, sex etc) is interesting, but generally not that insightful. To get more information you need to look at creating your own segments, based on finding interesting clusters.

What you generally want to understand is the groups, the likeliness of somebody having an certain set of opinions. You probably want to drive this from a result that you are interested in - for example 'what do our high performers typically think?' or 'what behaviours do engaged staff show?' Basically, you're interested in segmenting people not by their demographics (gen X, Y etc) or division within the business but by attitude. This will give you an understanding of which organisational levers you can pull which will be most influential to your chosen group.

There are a few techniques that you can use for this, one of which is CHAID (Chi Squared Automatic Interaction Detector). SPSS's AnswerTree product is widely used here.

What have I seen? Well we've seen that high performers are generally most interested in organisational issues (leadership etc), where the average people are more focussed on their role. We have seen that people who feel underpaid generally also are keen for more work / life balance and have spent longer in their current job. What do your people think?

Bias in the interview process

On a few occasions I've rolled out advanced interviewing courses. The target groups were often senior managers. Unfortunately the slides that went with those courses have long been lost.

From experience the most powerful part of the courses was a discussion of the typical types of bias that can occur. If you understand the typical types of bias you are more likely to understand when you're being biased, and a good interviewer can then counter it or ensure that you gather additional data to qualify it.

Wikipedia has a list of typical cognitive biases in it's article on Buyer decision processes. Most can be directly applied to the selection process.

Monday, May 02, 2005

Hiring Managers

Johanna Rothman posts about hiring managers, saying that they shouldn't be doing their own sourcing. Agree (mostly). That is a tactical job. We can step in and do actual hires but we'll use a team of external researchers to map our competitors, provide us with backgrounds of target candidates etc. We'll do it for very senior hires. Sometimes a call from a senior company representative opens more doors.

However Johanna says we should be adding value:
in job analysis, determining the interview team, who'll ask which kinds of questions, how you'll audition, how you'll decide about candidates, what to make as an offer, checking references, and starting the person working in a way that makes sense.

Let's face it, that's about as tactical as doing the sourcing & just as open to bringing in experts. I will bring in a psychologist when needed, we'll outsource references to the sort of people who do due diligence on management during M&A deals. Other times I'll step in.

The hiring manager's job is to know when it's appropriate to be hands on. It's about knowing who the experts are, when you need them & when you don't.

It's also about setting the strategy. It's not about worrying about the 1 passive candidate when you can worry about what you can do to develop relationships with 500. It's about mobilising the whole organisation, removing blocks, monitoring the competition, understanding the changing labour markets, facilitating a liquid internal labour market, building your employment brand. It's all about connecting these and a hundred other things together.

I have the utmost respect for Heather & guess she would agree with me on most of this. There are transactional in-house recruiters out there but I'm not sure she is a great example. The smart hiring manager knows that if you are focussing at the individual sourcing level you're adding little value & might as well be outsourced 'to the experts'.

Focussing on Learning

Personal development. Developing their people. Helping them learning. Helping them help themselves and each other to learn. Oh, and a bit of training.

Yes, training comes last and rightly too. Training is useful, but for many things it's one of the worst ways of helping the organisation learn. Training these days is pretty commoditised. Few providers offer anything different, well maybe apart from The Mind Gym.

Face it, your employees like training because it gets them out of the office, and they don't really like that. It is also pretty tangible - 'I had this issue so I went on a course'. Easy to measure.

Oh, and HR provides training. 'If one of my team needs to develop I can offload it to HR' - bingo (if it doesn't work it's all HR's fault)

Let's refocus this. It's not an 'HR issue' it's a business issue, and that is where is should sit. No, not booking training courses but delivering the organisation's learning.

So what does the HR provide? Well it should be encouraging things to happen. How about setting up a few interdepartmental workshops? Get them talking to each other. How about influencing the communications agenda? It's not the CEO preaching that makes people listen, it's about conversations. HR is usually number 1 or 2 user of internal comms so has a good place to start.

Why doesn't everyone use the intranet? Because it's not easy to find what you want or is explained like you want to say it, not how they want to hear it. Bring in folksonomies, put information on wikis where they can question and update. Use blogs, RSS feeds - give them the choice to publish what they're doing and listen to who they want to. Ever considered that this might raise their engagement? There is probably an inverse relationship between your control and their interest.

It's not about big programmes. it's about starting small 'learning fires' - little, easy to implement local initiatives - and then watching them fan the flames.

Sunday, May 01, 2005

A new job board

A new job board - so what? Well I thought that this was an interesting development as it initially seemed to be a move in the wrong direction.

Last week DirectEmployers Association, a non-profit employers organisation, announced the launch of JobCentral.com, what on the face of it seemed to be another yet another job board. A lengthy press release is available.

DirectEmployers has provided an employment search engine for some time. On it you will find all jobs currently posted by the organisation's members. It seems to be the only job search site that is truly global, though the focus is the US. It directs the job seeker to the employers website so the application process can be the same.

I have written before on why I think that job search will eventually replace job boards as search is currently replacing categorised lists. Why then could one of the pioneers of job search be moving in the 'wrong' direction?

One of the issues for a job search site is how to balance the quantity / quality issue. Job seekers are going to want to go to a site with the highest number of relevant jobs for them. So to be successful you need to have a large number of jobs (quantity) but you also need to have a low amount of 'noise' (the quality side of the argument).

DirectEmployers.com has always been very high quality, probably the highest level of any large search / job board. It has a good level of quantity but to shine in needed to raise the quantity. How to do this? Increase the number of jobs without adding 'noise'. How to significantly reduce noise? Charge, even a minimal charge. You could also ensure that posters have to be the 'owners' of the jobs (that is not a third party agency). From the site I'm not sure if this is the case.

What got my initial 'Why are they doing that?' to a 'That's a smart move' is that quickly I realised that they haven't replaced the search, they've given a way for non-members to include their listings at a very low price (around 10% of a traditional job board) so as to increase quantity but without increasing noise. This will increase the power of their search.

It gets better. Along with Simply Hired, DirectEmployers has announced a partnership with LinkedIn. LinkedIn obviously seem to get where job hunting is going. What is great is that they talk about
LinkedIn will tell you how many people in your network can help you find out more about the company and get the job.

That is, an acknowledgment that the network might be better served to help the candidate research the company rather than finding a 'backdoor' through the company's referrals scheme.