-But how do you find the right people?

Finding the right candidate is like searching for a needle in a haystack — but when you do, it’s great fun to find a wonderful candidate who makes a real difference when hired.


-How do you write a job description, and how flexible should it be?

I don't think I can give a 100% yes or no on this one. But I am leaning more towards the yes. While I agree that someone should be able to do what they want outside of the office... what they choose to do in public is a totally different situation. If I am recruiting for someone to be in a "face of the company" position... they need to be able to portray the company values and ideals at all times when in the public. People are encouraged to "get a job" rather than "make a job". This "employee mentality" is rampant in our society and it starts in our school systems." Sadly though herd mentality is encouraged - those that "think out of the box" are usually NOT encouraged to do so.


One right process for one professional would be very different than the one right process for another.

One would probably do best by using his network to schedule face to face meetings and get referrals. The other would probably be more successful by setting aggressive cold-calling activity goals and following through with personal visits as necessary.

This doesn't mean job descriptions need to vary by individual. It means people need to be given some leeway to find their own "one best way". Give them guidelines, goals and objectives and then allow them to be themselves. You'll find they can reach new heights of productivity and fall in love with their jobs all over again.


-How can you apply consistent guidelines in interviewing situations so that you are able to make good choices between applicants?

If more of us in the HR fraternity thought like entrepreneurs (and my estimate tags entrepreneurs at less than 1/2 of 1% of the total population!) we'd bring more enthusiasm, more "passion" to the workplace.


But what comes first? The lightening or the thunder? How do we touch members of our society with that rod of enthusiasm that carries over to others? How do we engage those that aren't hard-wired to engage?

If we wait until after the hire to create a more passionate workforce, we have waited too long. Hiring managers should hire competent people who have a passion for their jobs or a some call the process -- hiring for talent.


In this tight labor market, most strong job candidates have their choice of several opportunities. This makes it more critical than ever to move quickly on hiring decisions.


I've worked most of my life with either start ups or SME's (Small Medium Entreprises). These were my choices and have likened everyone of these places, in fact, whenever the company started looking for more and more numbers, I decided to look for another job and changed over. For it has always been my belief that when you work in volumes quality suffers, and in the case of HR they get reduced to machnies -they work in the factory mould producing nuts and bolts, without even worrying if the nut is being used for a car, a station wagon, a tractor, or a lorry or a huge passenger bus.

Most of the smaller companies have the ability to do this. The larger companies, however, are at a distinct disadvantage. These larger companies find it almost impossible to move quickly due to incredibly inefficient screening, interviewing and debriefing processes.

Screening
Small Company: Resume reviews and phone screens are the responsibility of a single individual. The entire process can take a day or less.

Large Company: HR screens all resumes and passes them onto the hiring manager for additional review. Given the immediate priorities of most hiring managers, this process can take several days to a couple of weeks.

Interviewing
Small Company: Candidates usually get to meet with all individuals charged with making the decision during one to two interview visits.

Large Company: The sheer number of people involved results in several more layers and days of interviewing than necessary. This means more time scheduling and more time conducting the actual interviews. This also results in frustrating the job candidate who is asked to return for 3 or more interview visits.

Debriefing
Small Company: Similar to efficiencies during the interview process; small companies are able to get the necessary individuals together quickly. Decisions are typically made in less than a week.

Large Company: Again, the number of people involved results in dramatic inefficiencies. Getting everyone together to discuss their thoughts and concerns related to a candidate can take several weeks.


-What factors are the best predictors of performance?


What does all this mean?


It means companies should start acting small by:

Speeding the screening process - They can do this by giving HR total responsibility for screening or ensuring hiring managers give top priority to reviewing screened resumes.
Limiting the number of people involved in interviews - Limiting interview participants will speed both the interviewing and debriefing processes.
Learning to trust teammates - The only way to achieve the above two points is to trust others to make decisions. This also means ensuring that the key decision factors are agreed upon up front.
This doesn't mean rushing the process and making harsh decisions. It just means cutting out the "fat" to better compete in the war for talent.

The talent wars are back --- with a vengeance always. Are you ready? Are you positioning your company to win?

More than ever in our history, huge value is being leveraged from smart ideas - and the wining technology and business models they create. So the people who can deliver them are becoming invaluable, and methods of employing and managing them are being transformed – just as baby-boomers are retiring in record numbers. The pundits refer to this as a candidate driven market.

In my world of high-stakes (IT/ITES), - (intelligent, academically bright, technically strong, experienced professionals), search this is always the case – too much demand for too shallow a talent pool. And as usual the candidates that you are looking for are not looking for you. They already have a job - almost certainly a good job. They will not be scanning the "Careers" section and likely aren't spending hours upon hours cruising the boards. They're heads down producing wealth for one someone else.


The questions therefore HR professionals in most IT/ITES would be asking of themselves.


How you attract and land the star candidate you want requires more than a checkbook. Without overpaying for the identified Value, how do you meet the needs of the human being you are dealing with? What value requirements does he or she have that you could fill?



For many top performers - especially the non-executives - it's not about money. In literally thousands of pages of articles, research documents, and interview transcripts, what comes through loud and clear was that the high tech industry, in its battle for human resources, has stagnated into a bidding war where the only winner is the company with the deepest pockets. "Shrimp wars", gift baskets ,three raises a year, beer fridges, pool tables, planes towing banners, booths set up at gardening shows, paid tuition, options, flexi-hours, and the list goes on - when does it all stop and at what point does one realize that the war, fought in this way, is lost already?

It's about changing the world. Today's knowledge workers do not want to be managed, they want to lead: to be trusted. They need to be empowered with the right information to make sound decisions, to grow the business and to be part of a community that is contributing to something worthy of their time and energy. Witness the people at Google to name just one about which I read details.


Those companies with the highest profile - Cisco, Microsoft, Google, etc - have already won. And they'll continue to do so until a company like yours changes the rules or plays the game differently…

Listen and Learn now ... It's Not The Money...

The people who you're after define who they are by what they do- and where they do what and they do. There is nothing they love more than to face a challenge and accomplish what's never been accomplished before - it's how they work, play and complete among themselves.

The power of individual accomplishment within an organization is one of the single most important strategic elements that must come through in your pitch. People, the people that we want to talk to, need to know, for selfish and unselfish reasons, that they can make a difference.

Back in the late 90's [oh doesn't it seem ages ago?] one of the most starting things was an employee survey done at Oracle that indicated people don't actually want to move around. As long as they can believe that they are working for and with the best, they're happy to stay. Likewise, one of the key elements that potential hires look for is the training offered at a company. Essentially, what training seems to mean to these people is "marketability" should they need or want to leave a company.



What both of these issues say to us is people need and want stability. People would rather deal with change in the job they do. not where they do that job.

The ability of a company to be structured in such a way that will allow the individual to succeed, as part of a team of top performers, is the key to attracting people. Many companies now provide techies with two career paths – technical or management whereas before people "went up and out" in order to advance in both responsibilities and income.

For a company to promote itself effectively it must make both a logical and emotional connection with the consumer. Recruiting "super star candidates" is no different! The needs of the recruit must be reflected at both an emotional and logical level, and the company can't present an image that is boring, staid, or traditional. You must present an emotionally-based image of dynamism, youth and forward movement.

Recruiting today for the IT/ITES requires we treat each potential recruit as an individual, providing a personalized - even customized response - to their needs. The emotional appeal of a company that offers individual meaning, status and project glory, will upset the predictable offers of the conformist companies you compete with.

Winning doesn't require you to think outside the box – it demands you live there!

Now coming to the case under the microscope


CASE : The Applicant you'd Dream to get

Jack announced he was leaving, Steve felt a sagging weight. His departure meant that on top of his workload, which had doubled since last year, now he had to hire and train someone new.


This is a very natural feeling, so one has to empathise with Steve because a lot of time and effort would have gone in to make Jack a health and a wealthy resource. Steve, gives me an impression that he is a bundle of energy. He thrives on activity and doesn't take rejection easi;y hence he takes Jacks announcement a little more person.


As Steve drove home late that night, his mind began to drift. He imagined a dream applicant who could do things Jack lacked the experience to do. The dream applicant could supervise five or six of the people who were now reporting to him. The dream applicant could make presentations. The dream applicant could use project management software and was experienced with handling clients. A honking horn jolted him. He was sitting at a green light. Reality hit. His dream applicant would demand twice, maybe even three times what he'd been paying Jack. But as he drove through that green light, he couldn't help but wonder if it was possible for his dream to become reality.

For Steve, the incumbent making the sale (human lease - outsourcing/on-site), is not nearly as important building relationships, hence he start conceiving in his mind as to what would the replacement be like. Perhaps Steve should be told about this quote of Thomas Carlyle, "The purpose of man is in action not thought."


Quick, we need to recruit new employees!! Better call the recruiter!!!
Quick, we need to do a better job retaining our employees!! Better call the...retainer??

Who's responsible to employee retention anyway?
Is it the recruiter?
Is it HR?
Is it the manager?
Is it a combination of all three?

He should moot action -
Quick, we need to recruit new employees!!
Better hire ace recruiters!!!
Quick, we need to do a better job retaining our employees!!
Better hire the best...retainers!!


The Question lies ‘What would you do ?'