Category Archives: hiring

Getting Caught in the Drug Screen

There’s an interesting new story in the New York Times today about how employers are struggling to find a key demographic of the workforce: those who are able to pass a drug test.

From the NYT story:

All over the country, employers say they see a disturbing downside of tighter labor markets as they try to rebuild from the worst recession since the Depression: They are struggling to find workers who can pass a pre-employment drug test.

The hurdle, according to the story, “partly stems from the growing ubiquity of drug testing, at corporations with big human resources departments, in industries like trucking where testing is mandated by federal law for safety reasons, and increasingly at smaller companies.”

Data suggest employers’ difficulties “also reflect an increase in the use of drugs, especially marijuana — employers’ main gripe — and also heroin and other opioid drugs much in the news.”

Indeed, Quest Diagnostics, a national drug-testing service, documented an increase for a second consecutive year in the percentage of Americans who tested positive for illicit drugs — to 4.7 percent in 2014 from 4.3 percent in 2013. And 2013 was the first year in a decade to show an increase, the story notes.

But data on the scope of the problem is “sketchy,” the NYT notes, “because figures on job applicants who test positive for drugs miss the many people who simply skip tests they cannot pass.”

The story gets at an interesting question, but one that doesn’t necessarily get enough attention these days, likely due to all the other debates raging in the workplace: When does drug testing become more onerous than advantageous for an organization?

Twitter It!

Temp Jobs: 3 Million and Counting

New research from CareerBuilder and Emsi (Economic Modeling Specialist Intl.) shows more companies will be tapping into the temporary labor segment of the labor pool, with temporary employment expected to add 173,478 jobs from 2016 to 2018 – an increase of 5.9 percent.

The analysis was reportedly based on data pulled from more 100 national and state employment resources.

“Today, nearly 3 million people are employed in temporary jobs, and that number will continue to grow at a healthy pace over the next few years as companies strive to keep agile in the midst of changing market needs,” said Kyle Braun, President of CareerBuilder’s Staffing and Recruiting Group:

“Opportunities are opening up in a variety of occupations and pay levels, and this is a trend we’re seeing in a wide range of industries and company sizes.”

Click here to see CareerBuilder’s list of fast-growing occupations for temporary employment from 2016 to 2018.

To further bolster the claim that temp jobs are here to stay, in a Harris Poll study commissioned by CareerBuilder and completed in December 2015, 47 percent of employers reported that they plan to hire temporary or contract workers in 2016, up slightly from 46 percent last year. Of these employers, more than half (58 percent) plan to transition some temporary or contract workers into full-time, permanent roles.

“Temporary employment benefits both sides of the labor market. Hiring temporary and contract workers helps companies stay flexible and adapt quickly to changing market demands,” Braun said. “For workers, it opens doors for those who want to utilize various skills, build relationships with different organizations and explore career options.”

More proof that temporary jobs are now a permanent fixture in the labor landscape. Is your organization ready to embrace the temp trend?

Twitter It!

Rethinking Employer Values and Brands

Some interesting points about employer value propositions and employer brands in this recent piece by Susan LaMotte that I came 514648428 -- megaphoneacross on the HR Examiner website.

As her title makes clear, she’d like us all to start Rethinking EVP and Employer Brand Like You Never Have Before.

“We tweet, post and chat about our culture and employment experience,” she writes. “We worry about job descriptions and [applicant-tracking-system] branding. We choose just the right images for our careers site and collateral. But what exactly are we talking about?”

Here are some of her favorite descriptions, none of which really capture what makes any particular employer unique: “It’s a great place to work,” “We’ve got a great culture,”  “For me it means … ,” and “I love to work here because … .” As she puts it,

“We tend to talk in generalities and personal choices because we’re not sure what else to say sometimes. And that’s where the EVP comes in. EVPs are so often used to explain why employees work for a company. We often interchange it with employer brand. But over the years, it’s become a muddled mess. Maybe it’s time for a reset?”

First, she says, when you ask your employees what they value in their employment experience, your EVP is the sum of those common themes. Second, an employer brand is a subset of the EVP.

“If the EVP is all the things employees value,” according to LaMotte, “the employer brand is what you choose as an organization to hang your hat on when you market your employment experience.” As she describes it:

“Think about it like a new car. There are a ton of great things customers may value in the car. And things the car’s engineers think are worth touting. But the marketers at the car company know you can’t sell everything. So they have to choose. How do they choose? The same way the engineers decided what should go in the car: research. Let research be your base, then use marketing to sell.”

She goes on to lay out the best steps to take to find out what employees value most in the organization and what candidates want. Next on the list is narrowing the focus, she says:

“There are likely 10, 12, 20 themes that may comprise your EVP. Don’t try to sell a laundry list. Use your company’s core values and business strategy to narrow down your focus. And consider two key things marketers know well: You have to sell the reality [and] you have to consider what your audience wants.”

“Finally, build that brand. Once you decide what to hang your hat on, sell it over and over and over again. Weave the messages in varying ways through all those channels you’ve spent so much time on — social media, websites, job descriptions and branded platforms. Pull those messages through to job fairs, recruiter conversations and on campus. Whatever you do, just take the time to think it through.”

I ran LaMotte’s premise by the folks at the Institute for Corporate Productivity (i4cp), the Seattle-based human capital research and data firm, because much has come from that organization over the years pertaining to employer brand and EVP. Got some interesting and very thorough comments from Jay Jamrog, i4cp’s senior vice president of research:

LaMotte, he says, “correctly points out that there is a lot of confusion around the differences between employer brand, employee [and employer] value proposition and talent brand; and, they are often used interchangeably, as the article does when it trie[s] to articulate what needs to be done.”

So what does Jamrog suggest? “I believe the first step is to clearly define each term and then determine how to develop a strategy to leverage each one’s potential.” With that in mind, he says, here goes:

Employer brand:  How a business builds and packages its identity, origins and values, and what it promises to deliver to emotionally connect employees so that they, in turn, deliver what the business promises to customers.  Some of the ingredients that make up the employer brand are:

  • Company culture and history,
  • What a company stands for,
  • Work/life balance,
  • Rewards: compensation and benefits
  • Leadership and employee behaviors
  • Work environment

What to consider when developing an employer brand:

  • What employer brand you have already built?
  • How does your employer brand support your business strategy, and your talent strategy?
  • How well do your employees understand and believe in your customer brand?
  • How committed are your employees to deliver the brand to customers?

Employee [or employer] value proposition:  Articulation of the value proposition is a shorter version of the employer brand that helps potential and current workers answer the question, ‘What’s in it for me?’ In many cases, the EVP is part of the employer brand and contains many of the same characteristics.

Talent brand:  Marketing of the employer brand and/or EVP to critical talent segments of the potential and current workforce, to become known as a magnet for talent.  It’s purpose is to create demand that attracts, retains and engages the right people to do the right work at the right time with the right results.  To do this, you need to segment the workforce and determine which roles are 1) critical to the business’ success and 2) difficult skills to acquire.  Then you need to treat the talent in these critical roles as “consumers of work.” To attract consumers of work, you need a compelling brand proposition as a place to work for that special critical role/skill.

To create a talent brand you need to:

  • Have a talent strategy,
  • Develop marketing strategy,
  • Segment the workforce, and
  • Articulate your employer brand.

There you have it. Lots of definitions, descriptions and bullets in this post, but just in case it helps … or at least adds to the discussion … it’s all yours.

Twitter It!

Learning from Exiting Employees

Whenever we ask employment and HR experts about the value of exit interviews, they inevitably arrive at the same, logical conclusion: Departing employees can be a source of priceless advice that, if acted upon, may just save you from losing talented workers in the future.

Taking action, of course, is the key. And the problem, as the experts have always pointed out, is that some (many?) employers don’t do enough with the information gleaned from exit interviews to address the issues that soon-to-be-former workers bring to light.

Take heart, however. Menlo Park, Calif.-based staffing firm Office Team offers evidence that more companies are getting the message.

Office Team’s recent survey of more than 300 HR managers found 63 percent of these respondents saying their organization commonly acts on feedback received in exit interviews.

How are they reacting? When asked how they follow up after conducting said interviews, the most common actions were to update job descriptions (29 percent), discuss feedback regarding management (24 percent), make changes to the work environment/corporate culture (22 percent) and review employee salaries (19 percent).

The poll also asked HR managers how often their firms act on the information gathered during exit interviews. Thirty-five percent said they do “somewhat often,” while 28 percent reported taking action “very often.” Another 24 percent indicated they instigate change based on exit interview feedback “not very often,” and 13 percent said they “never” do so.

In a press release highlighting these findings, Office Team offers some tips for getting the most out of these final sit-downs with employees about to leave the organization. For example:

  • Time it well. Consider scheduling the meeting on one of the worker’s last days. Keep the conversation brief and professional.
  • Don’t make it awkward (and make sure HR is involved). Because departing employees may be uncomfortable discussing certain topics with their supervisors, have an HR representative conduct one-on-one meetings in private settings.
  • Don’t get defensive. Avoid correcting or confronting the employee, and listen carefully in order to gather as many details as possible.
  • Don’t brush things off. Give all comments that are shared the proper attention. Also, check for patterns in feedback collected from employees, which can signal persistent problems.

“The only silver lining to losing employees is obtaining useful feedback to help stem further turnover,” says Brandi Britton, an Office Team district president, in the aforementioned statement.

“Departing workers can provide valuable insights that current staff may be reluctant to share. Although not every criticism will be worth responding to, the most crucial issues should be addressed immediately to help keep existing team members happy and loyal.”

Twitter It!

Why You Shouldn’t Link Culture and Retention

Here are some vexing questions on culture: Why do people leave Google, Virgin and Zappos and take jobs elsewhere? Why, if 516216924 -- worker leavingthose companies are so focused on building exceptionally strong and compelling cultures, don’t people stay forever? Doesn’t it entirely contradict all the rhetoric about the power of culture if even the bellwethers of the corporate-culture surge can’t convince people to stay?

So poses Colin J. Browne — head of a Gauteng, South Africa-based culture, engagement and leadership think-tank firm called How to Build a Happy Sandpit — in a recent post on his company’s website. In his words,

“One of the greatest misunderstandings about culture is that it has some mystical power to lock people in to your organization for the long term. If you’re building it for that, you could be wasting your efforts … .”

On the contrary, he writes,

“[t]he answer lies in what I consider one of the most fundamental hallmarks of human nature: Familiarity breeds contempt. In a work sense, Happy Sandpit research [of 308 executives and business leaders over the past three years] shows that, within about 18 months, all employees slightly resent you for ever hiring them in the first place.

“It’s not that they don’t like their work, or their workplace, their colleagues or their bosses, it’s just that when we become used to things, we’re less inclined to see them as fresh and exciting and more inclined to overstate the irritations that surround us. And any workplace is full of irritations.”

In Browne’s estimation, given enough time and enough repetition of the tasks that make up [employees’ roles], the artifacts, strong values and general way of feeling while they are there begin to take a back seat to the day-to-day of their work. In that context, a new job offer bears the promise of reinvigoration, reinvention and a release from the things they’re bored with.

Since many more companies are awakening to the understanding that focusing on culture strengthens their employee-value proposition, the things you offer your employees may begin to lose their edginess, he says, adding that “you can get caught up in a vicious cycle if you react to that.” As he puts it,

“A far better goal for your culture efforts is to increase productivity, the voluntary sharing of talent, good will and skills, to iron out the rough spots that create barriers to team work and to develop a clear set of profiles for the people [who] you’ll have to hire to replace the ones [who] have left.

“Culture isn’t about retention. It’s about performance. Let that inform your decisions and you could save yourself from a world of pain.”

Not that we haven’t presented this premise in previous features and news analyses, but his way of articulating it caught a fresh eye so I gave it a fresh look.

I also contacted Browne to ask him specifically what HR practitioners and leaders should be doing to achieve that “far better goal.” His response:

“The one challenge shared by anyone who leads people in a discretionary environment [differentiated from a non-discretionary one, such as the military, where you are expected to follow orders fairly rigidly] is to convince people to volunteer their best efforts, loyalty and enthusiasm for the long term. You can’t lift them up by their feet and shake that stuff into their brains, so they have to choose to give it to you.

“Every culture conversation seems to be about how we make that happen, but I think we’re overlooking a couple of obvious things which keep hindering progress pretty much across the board:

  1. We don’t build jobs that support best efforts, loyalty and enthusiasm in the long term. You can come out of a design college and get a job at your dream digital-design company, be given the latest Mac computer and software to work on, in a great office, with exciting people and still feel like your job is boring within six months, because the projects you are working on and the clients you’re working with are, in fact, boring. Unless we’re building perfect jobs, therefore, which in an imperfect world with imperfect clients is impossible, people will find that they’ve had enough one day and go and find something else to do.

  2.  People are more loyal to their friends than they will ever be to a boss or a company. Ironically, the best reference for this is the behavior of soldiers in combat. While it’s often supposed that soldiers commit acts of great bravery for the grand notion of country, or unit or even God, the evidence suggests that, instead, they do it for the person next to them. When the order to retreat is given, they will blatantly ignore that order in order to rescue one of their colleagues. At the moments that matter, their loyalty is clear, and it’s not to ‘management’ or any sort of system. It’s to each other.”

I asked him to send me a specific, itemized list of the things HR should be doing or thinking about in light of his research. Here is that list:

  • You increase productivity when employees feel that they will let their colleagues down by slacking and care enough not to want to do that either because they’re emotionally invested or feel emotionally handcuffed. Either way, it works. This doesn’t happen overnight of course, but, by increasing the autonomy of individual teams — you can be as granular about this as you like, and I would encourage you to not be too broad — [so they can] make decisions on their own behalf [and] you make them more accountable for their results and actions, which then makes each individual member accountable to the others. You can’t be the one person who never pulls [his or her] weight in such an environment and expect to get anywhere. And to counter an obvious objection, if you find you have an entire team of slackers who merely cover each others’ backs instead of a productive team that cheers one another along, you change the challenge that they must meet and leave them to sort out the how. Raised expectations can have a very big impact.

  • They share talent, good will and skills voluntarily, because they’re sharing them with people they care about and whose success they link to their own. It doesn’t have to be altruistic; it just makes good sense as long as it is reciprocated and constant.

  • You iron out the barriers to teamwork by allowing them to decide how to work together. This goes to point one. Managers should care about the results and have a view about the way in which those results are achieved, but you’re unlikely to get the best out of people when you force them to stick to a rigid process that prevents them from developing their own flow. This may seem like voodoo to many organizations, which depend on processes to iron out the risk of defect, but those things are not mutually exclusive. You can have processes that must be adhered to, being followed by two teams with wildly different personalities, and get identical quality.

  • You create a clear set of profiles to replace those people by giving employees some say, or perhaps even all the say, about the people who join their team. They’re the ones who have to work with that new person and, unless you long to deal with employee friction, the manager’s view should be given less importance.

His list, he says, is a worthy goal of culture because it achieves the things you need it to: people giving their best efforts while they are with you.

Twitter It!

Helping Older Workers Find the Work they Want

OK, this baby boomer officially feels old now. I was just informed by Paul Magnus — vice president of workforce development for Akron, 474168522 -- older workerOhio-based Mature Services — that “mature” actually refers to 40 and older.

I was asking him to elaborate on his organization’s 26th Annual Mature Workers’ Job & Career Fair, coming up on Tuesday, April 12, at the Akron Fairlawn Hilton, designed “to help the 40-and-older population find employment,” as its release states.

Shocked as I was by that clause, Magnus pointed out that the oldest of the “Gen Xers [those born from the early 1960s to the early 1980s] started turning 52 in February 2016.” (Stop the world, I want to get off!)

But whether they’re 40 or 52 or on up into baby-boomer territory, he says, “we advocate for all older workers” and the extensive experience, skills and work ethic they bring to the workplace.

If you consider baby boomers alone, he adds, they possess the “highest level of intelligence and institutional knowledge, highest motivation factor and highest skill set of any demographic that has come through the workforce to date.”

Though many are staying in the full-time workforce out of necessity, a growing share are just heading into retirement age and are trying to “reinvent their lives,” be it through a mentor or tutor role or a part-time consultant’s role, says Magnus, whose agency helps those people achieve their desired situations as well.

In all work situations, says Don Zirkle, Mature Services’ training and placement supervisor, “[o]lder workers bring to the job commitment, experience and the ability to work as part of a team.” Older workers, he adds, have “adapted to technology as well.”

“These are traits that all employers are looking for in a new hire,” Zirkle says.

Unfortunately, far too many employers are still disregarding senior job candidates, especially those who have been long-term unemployed — a problem we’ve certainly written about on this site and on HREOnline.com.

“Many older workers have gotten trapped in that long-term-unemployment racket,” Magnus says. “We’re seeing that individuals who are not working aren’t getting the calls back. The longer they’re unemployed, the longer they’ll remain unemployed.”

Also on the unfortunate side, many baby boomers, when they started working, “didn’t necessarily need a degree for all the positions that were open to them,” he says. “Now, students are coming out of college with certificates and degrees for those same jobs,” and older workers trying to compete find themselves way behind the eight ball.

Through numerous programs run by his organization, including the U.S. Department of Labor-funded Senior Community Service Employment Program, which most other states also run, seniors are getting pointers and guidance in educational opportunities, job-hunting and skills training, and even tips on best ways to use social media, which many — surprisingly — aren’t that well-versed in, he says.

Times have changed, he adds, and seniors need to change with them.

I asked Magnus to describe the challenges and changes he’s seen in his 31 years with Mature Services.

The biggest difference he’s noticed over time, he said, is that everyone now has a different idea about what retirement means, from semi-corporate retirement to at-home part-time consultancies, and his agency is there to adjust to the changes, and guide and advocate for all older workers in his corner of the world — i.e., the Akron and surrounding areas.

“I remember starting this job when I was 28 years old,” Magnus says. “I remember walking up to a senior group of men and asking them if they would be interested in the recruiting help my agency had to offer, and they just laughed at me and said, ‘Why would I want to work when I’m retired?’ ” So at least that’s changed.

Second to that, he says, is that a growing number of employers are starting to see the value older workers, in any capacity, can bring to the workforce.

Though many still “do get bogged down in the older-worker perceptions that aren’t based on reality [like they can’t perform or produce like they once could, or they simply don’t want to be there], many others aren’t getting that hung up on age anymore.”

So there’s some progress at least.

Twitter It!

Gone and Never Coming Back

Many companies have recognized the benefits of rehiring a former employee: familiarity with the organization and its culture, existing relationships with colleagues and clients, built-in knowledge of the job and so on.

HRE is among the many who have noted the increasing number of employers embracing the boomerang employee in recent years (as seen here, here and here).

A new survey, in fact, finds that 98 percent of more than 300 human resource managers said they would be either “very likely” or “somewhat likely” to rehire a departed employee who left the company on good terms.

That same study, however, suggests that HR’s love for former employees is more often than not unrequited.

Menlo Park, Calif.-based Accountemps also polled more than 1,000 United States-based workers for the aforementioned survey. Fifty-two percent of them said it was unlikely they would apply for a job at a company they used to work for.

More specifically, 25 percent said it would be “very unlikely,” with another 27 percent characterizing their prospects of becoming a boomerang employee as “somewhat unlikely.”

Why were the majority of respondents so hesitant to consider coming back?

Management seems to be the biggest issue, with 23 percent of workers citing leadership as the primary reason why they wouldn’t be keen on a second go-round with an organization. Fourteen percent chalked it up to corporate culture, with the same number indicating that dissatisfaction with the job itself was why they would be apt to spurn a former employer’s advances. Another 10 percent said “the company burned bridges when I left.”

Indeed, a company that bungles the offboarding process does so at its own peril, according to Bill Driscoll, a district president at Accountemps.

“Boomerang employees have a shorter learning curve, may require less training and have already proven themselves and their fit with the organization, so there are fewer surprises,” says Driscoll, in a press release summarizing the findings.

“Companies who part ways unprofessionally or don’t take seriously the information they glean from exit interviews could miss out on bringing back someone great.”

Ultimately, organizations looking to rehire former employees should “consider why they left in the first place,” says Driscoll, whose recommendations for such companies include conducting quality exit interviews and stressing to good workers on their way out that the door would be open to return down the line if they so choose.

“If they resigned to pursue education, training or a role with more responsibility, having them back may bring new skills and ideas to the organization,” says Driscoll. “On the other hand, those who quit because of dissatisfaction with management, pay or the corporate culture may still be unhappy if they perceive nothing has changed while they were away.”

 

Twitter It!

Charging Candidates for Job Interviews

Truly, airlines really WILL charge you for everything these days. Witness:

A new low-cost Spanish airline, Air Europa Express, has allegedly been charging job candidates €60 (or approximately $65) for the opportunity to interview for its 250 available pilot and cabin crew positions, according to this recent USA Today post

Representatives from a pilots union and from Unión Sindical Obrera, a trade union, have slammed Air Europa Express for its unsavory (and possibly illegal) hiring procedures. USO spokesperson Isaac Valero told the Telegraph:

“If they asked for 60 euros this time, what may they charge the next time? Faced with an ever more precarious labour market with over 20 per cent of the active population out of work, this is clearly a disgraceful and abusive new measure which only contributes to making it harder for people to access employment.”

Spain’s 21-percent unemployment rate is the second-worst in Europe (after Greece). A spokesperson for the Spanish Guild of Commercial Aviation Pilots called the charge illegal and “immoral,” saying that any candidates should be evaluated based on their experience and qualifications, not by their willingness to swing by an ATM.

According to the USA Today post, Air Europa — Spain’s third-largest airline and parent company of Air Europa Express — has not confirmed that it expected candidates to pay for interviews.

But given the sluggish Spanish economy, can you really fault candidates for paying up just to get a shot at a job?

Twitter It!

How Favoritism-Free Do You Really Want to Be?

Here’s an interesting question for you to ponder on Martin Luther King Day, posed in this piece by Simma Lieberman on the Workforce 478884006 -- hiring biasDiversity Network: “Before you spend your next dollar on unconscious-bias training, ask yourselves if you just want people to have a good day, [and] forget or not apply what they learn, or if you want ongoing change that will make you a benchmark organization and the employer of choice.”

Though she doesn’t exactly say the former is generally what happens in companies that espouse diversity transformations, it’s implied in her piece, How Can Unconscious Bias Training Go Wrong?

Basically, she says, if you really want to establish a meaningful and effective diversity and inclusion culture without favoritism, one that results in “breakthrough innovation, [you need to instill] transformation at every level, risk-taking and the willingness to be uncomfortable.”

And that starts at the top, she says: “The CEO and other people on the executive team need to be the first ones to learn about unconscious bias and how it impacts their leadership behavior. We have our clients take the Implicit Association Test from Harvard, to be aware of their own biases. Transformation begins at the top and doesn’t stop!”

In her helpful numbered list of ways to add value to unconscious-bias training, Lieberman also stresses the need to “involve and seek input from people who manage all levels of the recruiting process. They need to be aware of their unconscious bias in the whole hiring process from where and how they recruit, how they write the job description, how they conduct the interview, and ways in which they develop rapport,” she writes.

Which reminds me of a piece I posted last Martin Luther King Day,  “Favoritism is No Friend of Diversity.” In it, Kansas City Star writer Michelle T. Johnson gets at the heart of just how insidious and nebulous favoritism is among managers and HR leaders when they’re making personnel decisions:

“What does favoritism even look like? Favoritism is usually about choice. In some workplaces, the work and the people who do it don’t have much variance in how the work is done and who does it. However, in other workplaces, work decisions are made frequently — assignments, shifts, territories, days off. With most decisions come subjective judgments. Every industry and workplace is so different, yet everyone can probably relate to some area of the job that bosses influence [subjectively] at least weekly.

“People are quick to defend their decisions, saying they base them on the best person to do the job. But over time, what conditions have you created to allow, for example, one person to inevitably do the job better than another? And if that has happened, what is the reason? Is it that the person reminds you of yourself or has similar interests, or because the person has a personality you find easier to get along with?”

Dave Kipe, chief operating officer for New York-based ABCO HVACR Supply + Solutions, who describes himself as “passionate about leadership behavior and the impact it can have in our workplace and our lives,” got back to me after that favoritism post, underscoring the need for business leaders to be more “self-aware and conscious of their implicit behavior [and bias-tinged] body language.” He calls their failures in this regard a “pitfall many leaders fall into, but don’t even acknowledge exists.”

I reached out to him about Lieberman’s post as well, considering how closely intertwined unconscious bias and favoritism are. He had a lot to say:

“I think most of us have this inflated self-perception that we are unconditionally ethical and perfectly unbiased. We are confident in our decision-making abilities and proud that we are ‘great judges of people.’ However, research has shown that’s simply not true.

“In Lieberman’s case in point, the employees embraced the ‘unconscious bias’ training, but the company didn’t sustain that focus; therefore, nothing changed. Her point that ‘there is an unconscious — and sometimes conscious — bias that people at the lower levels don’t need to be involved or won’t understand the new culture’ really resonated with me. Company leaders must engage the entire organization and drop the narcissistic attitude that employees are just too dumb or too ignorant to understand.

“Unconscious bias in the workplace is seldom discussed, but it’s impact is deep and, if uncontrolled, it can be destructive. Training is a critical component of creating a culture of inclusion, but it’s money and time wasted if not supported by the organization.”

Twitter It!

Giving New Hires a Boost in Pay

Despite much stronger U.S. jobs reports—the latest released by the Department of Labor this morning showing an increase of 292,000 jobs added in December—employers have typically kept wages in check. Many have expected the tightening labor market to begin to lift take-home pay, but with a few exceptions, that hasn’t materialized. Indeed, wages dropped a penny in this latest DOL report.

ThinkstockPhotos-476196983Of course, it’s another story for those switching jobs, as a study released yesterday by Robert Half confirmed. In a survey of CFOs, the Menlo Park, Calif.-based staffing firm found more than half (54 percent) of those surveyed report increasing new hires’ starting salaries from what they made in their previous jobs, with the average increase around 10 percent.

About 36 percent of the CFOs said the salary was the same, while 5 percent said it decreased and 5 percent weren’t sure.

Asked how the pay increase compared to what they offered two years ago, 68 percent of CFOs responded that today’s salaries were at least somewhat higher.

As Robert Half’s Paul McDonald explains …

“Employers who want to improve their odds of securing skilled talent are offering highly attractive starting salaries right now. Companies are competing not just with other businesses that are hiring but also with the applicant’s current employer, who may make a counteroffer to retain the services of a valued employee.”

McDonald added that “professional job seekers with in-demand skills are receiving multiple job offers. Employers need to put their best bid on the table—and do so quickly—or they risk losing good talent.”

Seemingly good advice, as employers start their efforts to fill some of the positions they’ve budgeted for 2016.

Twitter It!