Top HR leaders weigh in on the revealing results of our latest “What’s Keeping HR Leaders Up at Night” survey.

By Michael O’Brien

It’s awfully tough to fall asleep when you’re counting fleeing workers in your head instead of fleecy sheep. So it should come as no surprise that HR leaders are doing more tossing and turning at night these days.

Certainly, their stress levels are up.

In our second edition of the “What’s Keeping HR Leaders Up at Night?” survey, 74 percent of HR executives say their level of job stress has increased in the past 18 months. Almost one-third — 32 percent — blame that on the difficulty they encounter in retaining key talent.

“And it absolutely should keep them up at night,” says Wayne Cascio, senior editor of the Journal of World Business and a professor at The Business School at the University of Colorado in Denver. “I would be worried, too, and I’d be especially concerned about replacing high performers.”

This latest survey on the insights and perspectives of 782 senior-level HR executives at organizations nationwide finds that the top two challenges identified in last year’s survey — ensuring employees remain engaged and productive (41 percent), and retaining key talent as the economy recovers — also remain top of mind for this year’s respondents.

Cascio says the results of the survey are more likely to give HR leaders nightmares than sweet dreams because they show how other HR leaders view both in-house and external talent: as precious a commodity as oil or gold.

According to this year’s results, concern over losing key talent rose to 61 percent, up from 58 percent a year ago, with 21 percent saying they are “extremely” concerned this year.

“That’s scary, because those are your rainmakers, your stars, your ‘A’ players, the people you don’t want to lose,” he says, “and poaching is very real.”

While the survey shows a slight uptick in the number of respondents who view the current state of employee morale and engagement in their organizations as strong (34 percent compared to 30 percent a year ago), the overall findings show that many of the same concerns about the overall psyches and mind-sets of their workforces that HR leaders held a year ago continue to trouble them today, such as the effects of corporate downsizing.

Last year, 54 percent said downsizing has either “significantly” or “mildly” hindered their organization’s ability to achieve its goals and objectives. In this year’s survey, that number jumps to 73 percent.

Brian Hults, vice president of organization and people development at Atlanta-based Newell Rubbermaid, can’t recall a more challenging time in his three decades in HR.

“Between having multiple generations in the workforce to the demand [for healthy bottom lines] from Wall Street, it feels like the decks have been stacked against us,” he says. “I think it makes it difficult for all of us.”

Engage! Engage!

At Newell Rubbermaid, says Hults, HR is viewed in terms of three separate buckets: enabling the execution of business strategy, motivating employees and effectively managing HR to hold cost structures down.

But it is the dripping sound coming from the holes in that motivation bucket that troubles him most these days.

“This is the one that most keeps me up at night,” he says, adding that a recent employee-opinion survey came back saying workers want more communications and training opportunities.

So, in an effort to open the lines of communication, the company began hosting regular all-employee meetings with senior leaders in its headquarters’ auditorium and added more social-networking offerings to satisfy millennials’ constant cravings.

According to the survey, the company’s response was not a unique one: Sixty-seven percent of this year’s respondents say they are also increasing employee communication, while 59 percent say they are also providing employees with additional training and development opportunities. (See graphs on next page.)

Hults says his HR function also has increased its efforts in providing more career paths and career planning for employees.

So has it helped?

“We’ve made progress in a number of the traditional areas that you would leverage to improve retention,” he says. “But what we’ve found [is] we still have substantial turnover issues. We’re kinda scratching our heads on this one, so we recently partnered with Aon/Hewitt to create a formal engagement survey with employees to try and solve the riddle.”

While the riddle may yet remain unsolved for the time being, it won’t be for a lack of trying. Hults says he has the luxury of being able to dedicate about one-third of his time to the engagement issue. “I’m really lucky in that I’m probably spending 30 percent to 40 percent of my time on [it],” he says. “For me, this is a huge, huge part of my job.”

Challenges of Growth

Meanwhile, at casual-clothing retailer VF Corp., based in Greensboro, N.C., Vice President of Organization Development Ron Lawrence says the HR challenges his company currently faces are largely a by-product of its success, much of which he attributes to “the fiscal conservatism that is so much a part of our DNA.” That corporate trait, if you will, was a key factor in the company’s doubling its stock price and making last year the best of VF’s 112 years in operation.

“We are facing the challenges of managing our growth,” says Lawrence, pointing to the acquisition of the Timberland brand as a recent example. “And we’ve also got the challenges that many companies have around succession planning.”

(For the sake of comparison, this year’s survey finds 291 of the executives reporting their workforce increased over the last year, while 242 say their organization has decreased in size. And just 12 percent called succession planning a top-three HR challenge.)

Such growth requires that VF’s talent pipeline never runs dry and, to that end, Lawrence’s main focus is managing that pipeline; 44 percent of this year’s respondents also listed talent management as the area in which they are spending the majority of their time.

Lawrence says he’s constantly working to ensure that the company’s best and brightest know exactly how the company feels about them.

“We’re being transparent about how much we value them,” he says, adding that specific communication strategies have been put in place for company leaders. “We’re a culture that will tell you, ‘You are top talent,’ ” he says. “Our goal is [to get] our leaders … always talking to their rising talent.”

Lawrence says his personal stress level has risen slightly over the past year — mostly due to the acquisitions — but that’s been mitigated by the company’s home-field advantage, of sorts, when it comes to culture.

“We are in the business of casual-lifestyle clothing brands,” he says. “So you don’t come into VF and see a lot of people wearing business suits. People are wearing jeans and casual shirts. It … really does speak to our culture.”

He adds that the company compared “very well” to Google in a recent employee-sentiment benchmarking survey done with the Internet giant that’s known for its proactive approach to younger workers.

Such a combination of culture and communication has helped keep top talent from leaving the company, he says.

“And we lose very few, less than 2 percent of top talent,” he says.

The Power of Stress

Finding a top-level HR executive who says his or her stress level has actually decreased over the past 12 months would be like finding the proverbial needle in a haystack, but Andrew Goodman, chief human resource officer at New York-based E*Trade, says just that.

However, that decreased stress level can only be truly appreciated when one considers where he was a year ago.

Arriving at the online-trading provider E*Trade one month after the arrival of new CEO Steven Freiburg in the spring of 2010, Goodman found himself confronted with an unfamiliar HR function in need of new components and processes.

” ‘We have a lot to do in a short period of time,’ ” he recalls thinking at the time. For himself personally, he says, “there was a lot to absorb and understand.”

Since his arrival, Goodman has built an HR team that has implemented a number of initiatives, including an employee-experience survey, and has earned the trust and sponsorship of his chief executive.

“To some degree, I feel a bit better right now in having the right team and capabilities to do what I’m here to do,” he says.

His ultimate goal is not to get his stress level to zero, however, because stress can often help bring about progress.

“I think a little bit of stress is a good thing, because we all want to be able to push the envelope a bit,” he says.

And while the survey’s overall results resonate “pretty closely in terms of what’s center stage out there,” Goodman says, he also sees a larger, more troubling trend in the data.

HR’s function, he says, is to ensure a good return on a company’s investment in its people. But, to him, the results reveal an HR mind-set that has been conditioned — particularly after the last few painful years — to simply cut costs and “do more with less.”

Indeed, 31 percent of respondents say the size of their organization’s workforce decreased in the last 18 months, and 21 percent say their own HR department decreased in size in the past 12 months.

In approaching the difficult economy this way, says Goodman, many HR executives have “lost their compass” on HR’s true function.

“You can’t manage talent from simply a cost perspective,” he says. “I think if you are able to influence and stay true to investing in talent and strategy, then you’ll sleep a lot better . . . .”

An interesting article from Forbes Magazine….

Receive A Job Counter-Offer? Don’t Take It

By Hal Reiter

Pitting your employer against another in a bidding war for you is often career suicide.

 A few years ago, I recruited an executive to run a mid-level company. The night before he was supposed to start his new job, the executive called to say he was staying put. The board of directors at his current company–a major multinational retailer–had offered to name him CEO in one year’s time.

I was aghast, but my former candidate could hardly envision a better scenario. He had leveraged an offer to run a mid-sized company and used it to land the coveted top spot at a retailing giant. No greater career coup exists, right?

Wrong.

After three tumultuous years as CEO, my former candidate was fired. This executive was not yet ready to run such a large organization. Had he accepted the job at the smaller company, he could have gained the necessary experience to successfully run a major multinational in due time.

Instead, he lured his company into a bidding war and forced the board to make a rash decision about retention in the name of corporate competition. As a result, his career ultimately suffered a mortal blow, not to mention the damage he caused shareholders, who watched their stock drop as a result of his inexperience.

Unable to land another CEO position, he took an early retirement.

In my 25 years of experience, I have learned that accepting a counter-offer is usually career suicide. Watching your boss scramble to keep you may be a heady experience, but in exchange for that sweet moment, you’ll have squandered your honor, a sacrifice that will haunt you for many years. Even more troubling, you may never know exactly when or to what extent your reputation has been sullied.

There’s a good chance hiring executives might blacklist you from other employment opportunities.  Aside from refusing to ever hire you again, executives have long memories and will bad mouth you any chance they get.

I remember sitting on a plane with a group of retail executives when someone mentioned, by name, a seasoned retailer. The group listened intently as one of the executives launched into an unflattering tale of how the employee had used the executive’s perfectly good job offer as a bargaining chip for a fat buyback. By being dishonest with one company, the employee harmed his reputation with all of the executives on that flight.

Whenever I deliver a short list for a top job to one of my clients, I feel obligated to mention which potential candidates have accepted buyback offers in the past. Often my client will choose not to proceed with one of these people. Remember: Recruiters never forget a buyback, and computer files help us immensely.

Bosses don’t forget either. Initially, the company that retained you delights in winning you back from the competition. But after perhaps six months, management will begin resenting you for essentially extorting money or power from the firm.

A bitter taste of disloyalty lingers. Now you’re tacitly expected to perform like a new hire, proving yourself all over again to justify your new salary or position. You had better be up to the task.

Anytime you use a new job offer as a bargaining chip with your boss, there’s always a risk you’ll lose the bet. Next thing you know, you’re sitting in a strange office, having left a trail of ill will in your wake.

To be fair, counter-offers can provide an opportunity for employees to voice issues or concerns about their jobs. When you are recruited for another job, ask yourself: What are the pros and cons of my current position? If the negatives outweigh the positives, you simply must leave. However, you may decide you genuinely like your position, aside from one or two problems, in which case it’s time to have an open, honest conversation with your boss–before you accept the offer.

Down the road, such a conversation will be far more valuable if you choose not to force your boss into a buyback offer. You will retain your reputation for honesty, and, in my experience, this will serves you far better than a single raise or promotion ever could.

Hal Reiter is chairman and CEO of Herbert Mines Associates, a senior-level executive search firm specializing in the retail, fashion, beauty and consumer products industries.

One of my biggest challenges as an Executive Recruiter is to get people to think differently about their career.  The next step to greatness is not always the most obvious.  This is especially true when it comes to rectruiting sales people…  Often times, the best sales people don’t think of themselves as “salespeople.”  Along those lines, I saw this article at the Harvard Business Journal and will forever keep it by my side.

Seven Personality Traits of Top Salespeople

If you ask an extremely successful salesperson, “What makes you different from the average sales rep?” you will most likely get a less-than-accurate answer, if any answer at all. Frankly, the person may not even know the real answer because most successful salespeople are simply doing what comes naturally.

Over the past decade, I have had the privilege of interviewing thousands of top business-to-business salespeople who sell for some of the world’s leading companies. I’ve also administered personality tests to 1,000 of them. My goal was to measure their five main personality traits (openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and negative emotionality) to better understand the characteristics that separate them their peers.

The personality tests were given to high technology and business services salespeople as part of sales strategy workshops I was conducting. In addition, tests were administered at Presidents Club meetings (the incentive trip that top salespeople are awarded by their company for their outstanding performance). The responses were then categorized by percentage of annual quota attainment and classified into top performers, average performers, and below average performers categories.

The test results from top performers were then compared against average and below average performers. The findings indicate that key personality traits directly influence top performers’ selling style and ultimately their success. Below, you will find the main key personality attributes of top salespeople and the impact of the trait on their selling style.

1. Modesty. Contrary to conventional stereotypes that successful salespeople are pushy and egotistical, 91 percent of top salespeople had medium to high scores of modesty and humility. Furthermore, the results suggest that ostentatious salespeople who are full of bravado alienate far more customers than they win over.

Selling Style Impact: Team Orientation. As opposed to establishing themselves as the focal point of the purchase decision, top salespeople position the team (presales technical engineers, consulting, and management) that will help them win the account as the centerpiece.

2. Conscientiousness. Eighty-five percent of top salespeople had high levels of conscientiousness, whereby they could be described as having a strong sense of duty and being responsible and reliable. These salespeople take their jobs very seriously and feel deeply responsible for the results.

Selling Style Impact: Account Control. The worst position for salespeople to be in is to have relinquished account control and to be operating at the direction of the customer, or worse yet, a competitor. Conversely, top salespeople take command of the sales cycle process in order to control their own destiny.

3. Achievement Orientation. Eighty-four percent of the top performers tested scored very high in achievement orientation. They are fixated on achieving goals and continuously measure their performance in comparison to their goals.

Selling Style Impact: Political Orientation. During sales cycles, top sales, performers seek to understand the politics of customer decision-making. Their goal orientation instinctively drives them to meet with key decision-makers. Therefore, they strategize about the people they are selling to and how the products they’re selling fit into the organization instead of focusing on the functionality of the products themselves.

4. Curiosity. Curiosity can be described as a person’s hunger for knowledge and information. Eighty-two percent of top salespeople scored extremely high curiosity levels. Top salespeople are naturally more curious than their lesser performing counterparts.

Selling Style Impact: Inquisitiveness. A high level of inquisitiveness correlates to an active presence during sales calls. An active presence drives the salesperson to ask customers difficult and uncomfortable questions in order to close gaps in information. Top salespeople want to know if they can win the business, and they want to know the truth as soon as possible.

5. Lack of Gregariousness. One of the most surprising differences between top salespeople and those ranking in the bottom one-third of performance is their level of gregariousness (preference for being with people and friendliness). Overall, top performers averaged 30 percent lower gregariousness than below average performers.

Selling Style Impact: Dominance. Dominance is the ability to gain the willing obedience of customers such that the salesperson’s recommendations and advice are followed. The results indicate that overly friendly salespeople are too close to their customers and have difficulty establishing dominance.

6. Lack of Discouragement. Less than 10 percent of top salespeople were classified as having high levels of discouragement and being frequently overwhelmed with sadness. Conversely, 90 percent were categorized as experiencing infrequent or only occasional sadness.

Selling Style Impact: Competitiveness. In casual surveys I have conducted throughout the years, I have found that a very high percentage of top performers played organized sports in high school. There seems to be a correlation between sports and sales success as top performers are able to handle emotional disappointments, bounce back from losses, and mentally prepare themselves for the next opportunity to compete.

7. Lack of Self-Consciousness. Self-consciousness is the measurement of how easily someone is embarrassed. The byproduct of a high level of self-consciousness is bashfulness and inhibition. Less than five percent of top performers had high levels of self-consciousness.

Selling Style Impact: Aggressiveness. Top salespeople are comfortable fighting for their cause and are not afraid of rankling customers in the process. They are action-oriented and unafraid to call high in their accounts or courageously cold call new prospects.
Not all salespeople are successful. Given the same sales tools, level of education, and propensity to work, why do some salespeople succeed where others fail? Is one better suited to sell the product because of his or her background? Is one more charming or just luckier? The evidence suggests that the personalities of these truly great salespeople play a critical role in determining their success.

A few years ago my assistant chimed me on the intercom and said “George” was on hold.  Calling from an airport lounge he wanted to connect before he got on his flight home.  Intrigued – I had no idea who George was– I dumped the current call and picked up.

George was on edge.  He had recently been promoted to Vice President and taken on some huge projects – one of which was not going well.  This particular “problem child” came in the form of a recently acquired facility with a history of high employee turnover, continual delays and significant cost overruns that were costing the company millions.  To make matters worse his GM had just quit and he’d gotten an earful from an angry customer threatening to pull millions in business. Forever thankful of that promotion he reached out to us.   

For 30 minutes we discussed his problem, and agreed to talk again upon his return home.  In the meantime, I made some calls to some folks to get a better idea of George’s challenges.  It only took a few of those calls – met by chuckles and laughter by those who knew the facility well – to determine that George was up the proverbial creek.  After those calls, I too, thought about walking away.

George and I reconnected a few days later, agreed on the search, and talked at length about the ideal person who could be successful in the role.  After 90 days looking, talking and interviewing George narrowed the field two great candidates.  Each person was outstanding, presented a great solution to George’s problems brought much needed skill sets.  One was an Ivy League youngster, the other a seasoned industry veteran with a high school diploma.  So who got hired? 

It was at this time George showed something I find uncommon in these tough times – courage. 

Looking at the tight budget and the options ahead of him, George went to his bosses and convinced them that – despite recent layoffs and a tight budget – they needed to double down and get the right people in the seats.  The youngster brought a lot to the table in the form of ideas, youth and vigor.  The veteran brought experience and leadership.   The added expense of an additional hire were paltry to the costs they’d face if the facility continued to fail.  And, he was right.  Failure at this juncture would cost millions.  Up against a wall, George hired BOTH executives.

Every few weeks I checked in with George to see how the crew was doing.  “Great!” was the quick answer, never going much into detail.  In similar fashion, I’d check in with the new recruits.   “Uggghhhh!,”  was the common reply.  No doubt, they had underestimated the scope of work.  But, they stayed in the fight and also showed amazing courage –long hours, long commutes, and working holidays – to get the job done.  They were as determined as George to see success.    

The other day I got some photos of the facility, exactly 20 months after first dialogue.  Shocked, I picked up the phone to see if the results were real…  Indeed, they were.  The scorecard:

• Within 90 days of hire, the two executives completed and delivered 6 stalled projects – with a value of roughly $100M – to an angry customer.
• Within 6 months, they had completely caught up on the backlogged work – some of which was more than a year late – and began accepting new orders.
• Within 12 months, the angry customers had gone from pulling work, to adding it.
• Within 18 months, the facility was recognized by corporate and customers as a “model” facility.  It recently delivered a $20M item – the first one to come in on time, under budget – to a very, very happy customer.

When I look at this situation I think the courage each showed was genuine.  George took a stand, doubled his budget and did what he needed to do to be successful! The guys he hired took on a huge project, and displayed the fortitude to do the things they needed to do to be successful – much of it at great personal and family sacrifice. 

Right people, right seats, right bus.  In theory, it is a solid recipe for success.  In reality, getting the right people into the right place is painful and often expensive.  And making decisions takes courage.  But when you do it, the results can be amazing.

How about you?  Will your team have the courage to do what they need to do to be successful?

I was watching this mindless program called “Selling New York”, about the endeavors of realtors and their clients buying and selling townhome condos, and co-ops in the Big Apple.

 In this particular episode there was a guy who wanted the world. As a successful hedge fund manager, he could afford whatever he wanted, but he always wanted it on HIS terms and HIS price. Thinking he was so smart he would throw out ridiculously low offers, pontificate every minor detail and wait and watch until his wife’s dream house was bought – by someone else.  After months of looking and pontificating he finds THE PERFECT Upper East Side townhouse, and they love it!  So what does he do?  He throws out a ridiculously low offer… gets outbid…  and disappoints his wife yet one more time.  

Time after time after time he found exactly what he wanted.  But, because it wasn’t on HIS terms, he couldn’t pull the trigger. 

I started laughing. When it comes to hiring, there are companies that do the same thing. 

Don’t get me wrong, hiring is more of an art than a science and a bad hire is always expensive.  But, what happens when companies find the right person – The “A+ Player?”  Time after time after time hiring managers are identifying exactly what they need, and then losing it for the simple reason that they do not know how to get it on board.  With that, some simple observations:

1. The A+ player WILL negotiate for salary.  And, they are willing to walk away if they do not get what they want.  It is a business transaction and if they negotiate well for themselves, they will negotiate well for their current/future company.
2. Lowball offers are just plain stupid.   While the B or C executive may accept one, and hope for better (which never comes), the A+ player will rarely even respond.  A+ Players know their value in the market.
3. Time Kills Deals.  A+ Players have options.  Even in the worst economy in our lifetime I have been involved with multiple situations (five in the past 2 years) where executives had multiple / simultaneous offers from competing interests.  If you think an executive is great, so does your competition.   An overly lengthy hiring process makes companies look wishy washy, and the top players do not want to work for someone who can’t make a decision.
4. A+ Players will interview with peers, and superiors.  What this means is that they will talk to a peer group or a hiring manager during the interview process.  Want the top salesman at your competition? Then the first step in the dialogue should be with the VP of Sales.
5. The “Problem” is relevant.  Your budget is NOT.  A+ talent will fix the “Problem” – whatever that may be.  Too many times a hiring manager will call me and say “we’re struggling in X area and we need someone to fix it.  But, we only want to pay $120K.”  In almost EVERY circumstance, they have the problem because they have a $120Kexecutive managing it.  The RIGHT hire is the guy or gal who can fix the problem.  The WRONG hire is the “best we can find… in the budget.”  When you find the RIGHT person, spend a little more to get him or her on board.
6. A+ Players are evaluating YOU in equal in equal fashion to your evaluation of them.  Is your hiring process attracting A+ talent, or turning it off? 

The unemployment rate in the country is 9 percent.  The unemployment rate for A+ talent – the type companies both want and need – is ZERO.  The war for the A+ Player is vicious.  What are you doing to get it?

Cost of a Bad Hire

January 10, 2011

Ever wonder how much a bad employee costs?  Not just in money, but in lost productivity of other employees, your productivity, etc.  By some estimates the cost of a bad hire can be up to 14 times the annual salary- or more   - depending on how one calculates it. 

I know this guy who is a high energy entrepreneur.  When it comes to vision, he is the master.    

At one Joe’s former companies, his sales team was “commission only.”  No salary, no draw – nothing.  The upside of working there was that the products were extremely expensive, and the commissions paid accordingly.   Those who took the risk and were successful made a LOT of money.   

Joe cut his teeth in sales and was a collector of sales people.  Thinking “more is better,” he kept adding sales people to the team with little due diligence.  He hired on “feel” back by the knowledge that sales in his company was a commission only job.  With that, it didn’t cost him to anything to add people.  And, he thought that parading new people through on a regular basis it would keep the others from getting complacent. 

One of Joe’s collections was a former professional ballplayer who was absolutely horrible. Not only could he not sell, he had no interest in doing so.  When asked by others ‘what are you doing here?’, he simply said that Joe was a friend of his father.  Thinking this kid had what it takes to be successful (other than sales experience), Joe would say ‘get him leads, get him selling, get him out there…’  With that, he got leads, he got customers, he got plenty of sales opportunities. What he never got was sales – ZERO, ZIP, ZILCH, NADA, NUTHIN’.     About 6 months later, and zero dollars in pocket, he disappeared… 

Nothing ventured, nothing gained – right?  The kid made no salary, he got no benefits… he was a freebie.  Until you figure what it cost in lost dollars. How many BUYERS – of very expensive products- did this kid turn off?  How many qualified customers came and left, turned off by his carelessness?

At this company, the closing ratio was about ten percent.  With that, if a qualified sales person met with 10 qualified buyers a month, he’d close what was on average, one million dollar deal.  If this kid found his way 60 qualified buyers during his tenure, it meant 6 deals not closed, and $6M in sales going… going…. Gone!  I don’t know about you, but $6M in lost sales opportunities seems like a lot of money!

Want to make better hires?  Take some advice from Jack Daly – one of the best Sales Trainers in the business.   “Recruiting is a process, not an event.  Hire slowly.  Fire quickly.  Use a proven hiring process to reduce the likelihood of making a hiring mistake.”

What is your hiring process?

It has been a while since our last newsletter.  But don’t take our absence as a lack of effort.  We have been busy – having placed 9 senior level executives in the past 4 months. The War for Talent is ON and it is about to get more active!

Watching the news, there is bad news everywhere: Greece in crisis, double-dip recessions, bad housing numbers, yak, yak, yak.  This is why I frequently hear “in today’s economy, you must have a lot of candidates to choose from…”

I WISH! The reality is that finding the right people for our searches has never been harder.  WHY?  You ask. Let’s talk about what CNN is not reporting…

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) recently reported unemployment statistics pegging the June 2010 unemployment rate at roughly 9.5%.  But take a deeper look…

For workers in the management, professional and related skill sets, the unemployment rate in June was 4.9%.   And, for those with college degrees, the unemployment rate was lower – just 4.4% and the LOWEST it has been since April 2009!  This means that 95.1 to 95.6% of college graduates and management professionals have a job and are gainfully employed in someone’s organization.

In connection with the above, famed economist Milton Friedman’s accepted theory is that the unemployment rate will never be zero, no matter how good the economy and FULLemployment actually occurs when the unemployment rate hovers between 4-6 percent.  Combining this accepted theory with the government figures, one can easily deduce that the effective rate of unemployment for college grads and management professionals is ZERO.  None!  Zip! Zilch!

Looking to attract and retain “A” talent?  Now, more than ever, companies must offer a clear and compelling reason.  It’s not just pay folks want.  Opportunity, and growth potential are now equally important, and companies need to be creative to get the best. To offer “more of the same” means many of their critical openings may sit empty for extended periods.

From what we see, the War For Talent has not ceased.  With that, what is your company’s clear and compelling reason?  Are you actively grooming talent from within?  Are you protecting your “A” players?  Are you actively recruiting to keep a pulse on the market?  Do you offer one at all? If your answer is “NO” to any of these, it’s time to give us a call…  (910) 509-7129

Are you an “A” player? Are you looking for a reason?…

I routinely get calls from executives asking for my help or guidance. Many are doing well in their careers and simply looking for a new challenge. Some have been caught in the current economic conditions, with other than positive consequences.

If you, the employee, are starting to re-evaluate your career, it is never about you. The reality is, it is all about ME.

I don’t mean ME in particular. What I mean is the requirement to put yourself in the other person’s shoes.

What is the most exciting thing you can do for a company?

As the employer W-I-I-F-M – WHAT’S IN IT FOR ME?… to hire you?

In today’s world, “What’s in it for me” is the question on every hiring manager’s mind.

Nobody really cares if you, the prospective employee, need a job, want equity, are bored at work, or hate your boss. What they care about is YOUR ability to cure THEIR problems. What is in it for me, the employer, to hire you? Can you make me a pile of money? Can you save me a pile of money? Can you fix a crappy design so my product can ship next week?

My clients don’t care that my overhead is expensive or that that my health insurance costs are going up. MY problems are irrelevant. THEIR problems are important. “Okay Craig, you’re in my office and using up my valuable time – WIIFM? How are you going to make my life easier?

When it comes to YOUR career search, your new mantra is WIIFM! WIIFM! WIIFM! WIIFM!

WIIFM comes from the executive who introduces himself as “I’m the VP of Sales for XYZ Company. I just doubled sales, increased net margin and dominated the space so much our competition bought us out just to get rid of us.”

WIIFM also comes when you can inspire the hiring manager by saying “Mr. Smith, your world is changing because your product is old, your competition is kicking your butt, and your distributors hate you. Keep going down the path and you will be screwed, blued and tattooed. Here is what I can do to help YOU keep YOUR job.”

Come with statements like these, and they know WIIFM. YOU’RE HIRED!

Companies also need to remember WIIFM. Despite the economy, good talent is still hard to find. Once you have found the perfect candidate that little voice inside his head is saying “WIIFM?” WIIFM to move my family across country? WIIFM to take over this territory? WIIFM to work for you ? If you’re company doesn’t have a WIIFM statement, you better get one quick. I will guarantee your competition has one, and it’s probably darn good.

What’s your WIIFM?