Category Archives: hiring

New ADP Index to Focus on ‘Vitality’

ADPPayroll-services provider ADP, which currently puts out a monthly employment report based on its massive trove of payroll data, announced today that it plans to start providing a quarterly workforce index that will offer “deep insights into U.S. workforce dynamics. The first index will be released next month, says ADP. Data from the new index will form the basis of a high-level panel discussion at the HR Tech Conference on October 9 in Las Vegas. David Gergen, senior political analyst for CNN, will chair a panel entitled “Workforce 2020: How Data and Analytics Will Shape the Workplace” that will discuss the implications of data analysis and the workforce from an economic, academic and talent management perspective.

“The U.S. labor market is as dynamic and complex as it has ever been, and this new index will help uncover key factors driving workforce trends,” said ADP president and CEO Carlos Rodriguez in a statement. “The index will provide a clearer picture of the vitality of today’s workforce.”

The new index is intended to answer “critical questions” about the state of the U.S. workforce, according to ADP, such as: How is the workforce thriving as a whole? How do major regions and large states compare? Which industries are doing well? What are the wage trends? What roles do age and gender play?

The index will measure quarterly changes in metrics such as employment growth, wage growth, job turnover and hours worked, says ADP. The index will be compiled by the company’s ADP Research Institute, which also puts out the monthly employment report, and will be derived from its warehouse of 24 million aggregated payroll data sets from companies of all sizes. ADP will collaborate with Moody’s Analytics Inc. on the quarterly report.

 

Twitter It!

Exec Hiring Market Heating Up

Heading into 2015, almost two-thirds of employers are selectively or significantly increasing executive hiring levels, and a similar percentage of employed executives are now open to or actively pursuing new opportunities, according to a newly released survey focused solely on the executive market.

The results of the Greenwich, Conn.-based Claymore Group’s Labor Day 2014 Executive Talent Market survey were culled from the responses of 407 executives.

The executive respondents indicated that the industries they work in that are planning to hire the most in 2015 are:

* Consulting/Professional services,

* Healthcare/Pharm,

* Health insurance, and

* Wealth management.

Executives responding to the survey also indicated that the strongest functional areas demonstrating growth in executive hiring for 2015 are in are in sales, consulting/professional services, product management, risk management/compliance, and IT.

About two thirds of currently employed executives are now open to or actively exploring new opportunities. The best sources for executive employment were indicated to be Networking/Referrals and LinkedIn by both employed and unemployed executives. Facebook and job boards were viewed as the worst sources with internal, retained and contingency recruiters being viewed as good sources.

HR executives increasingly need to recognize the growth in executive hiring and demand by responding more rapidly in making offers as well as in making more competitive offers to attract the top executive talent as they are clearly more in demand, says Managing Director Steven Landberg.

“They also need to recognize a growing need to seek to retain their top executive talent as they will certainly be increasingly sought after by others in the talent market.”

Twitter It!

Hiring Slows Despite Economic Revival

The Wall Streets Journal recently published a story about how employers are still dragging their collective feet when it comes to hiring, even though the economy seems to have fully recovered from the recession.

According to the piece, employers are taking an average of  25 working days to fill vacant positions, based on information Dice-DHF Vacancy Duration Measure which, the paper reports, is an index created by University of Chicago economist Steven Davis.

And, according to Davis’ figures, larger companies (those with at least 5,000 employees) take even longer to fill vacant positions: 58.1 days.

The story goes on to lay out a few possible reasons why hiring is taking so long, among them:

On one hand, companies are feeling sunny enough to post jobs—openings reached 4.7 million in June, the highest number since 2001—but, fearful the economy could falter, they are finding it hard to commit to hires.

Another reason:

Thinner staffing in HR and recruiting departments may be another factor, since recruiters are taking on a larger workload as employers post jobs. “Depending on how many hiring managers [company recruiters are] dealing with, it’s impossible” to fill jobs quickly, says Mark Mehler, co-founder of staffing strategy consulting firm CareerXroads.

Meanwhile, when HRE Staff Writer Mark McGraw reported on the phenomenon back in March, Glassdoor reported the average time-to-fill a vacant position in 2013 was 23 days.

Typically, this latest WSJ story says, a longer time between employers advertising a job and having an offer accepted is a sign of a thriving economy, suggesting there are more openings than job seekers to fill them.

“But with nearly 10 million Americans currently unemployed, that doesn’t describe today’s labor market,” the story notes.

“Slow” would likely be a better way to describe it.

Twitter It!

Christmas Gifts for 1 Million: Jobs

There’s a movement afoot to put a million people to work by Christmas that does seem a bit outside your standard hiring 482134293 -- job seekingapproaches. First off, understand, this is not a company looking for employees. Nor is it a mere job fair. This is a relatively new organization known as Apploi, a jobs app and ecosystem that’s been traveling the country and hosting events aimed at helping job seekers find work.

It’s last week-long event in the Chicago area culminated this past Thursday, Aug. 28, in a final event at the city’s House of Blues. The event featured an information and training session, networking opportunities and meetings with hiring managers. That event capped off a week in which job seekers, using the app, were able to apply to jobs with a number of big companies in the region, including UNIQLO, Best Buy, Cinnabon, Piercing Pagoda and Forever 21.

Working under the banner and social hashtag #Million4Christmas, Apploi’s goal, according to its release is “to increase access to jobs for people across the United States and even beyond, while providing training and career advice to those looking for jobs in retail, service and support.”

Here is a video from an ABC News special in December of last year explaining how the app works. As its release states, it “transforms the initial point of capture for job seekers, allowing companies to see personality and soft skills up front, through video and audio questions; hire talent quickly, both through filters and screening tools and instant communication; [and] also provides greater access to people who previously couldn’t apply, due to lack of Internet, or who didn’t know about opportunities.”

Its public kiosks, it says, are available at companies, as well as job centers, community centers and colleges, workforce centers, and libraries in cities and towns throughout the country.

Exactly how this plays out and how the jobs are to be tallied and verified remains to be seen. As Apploi CEO Adam Lewis says, “helping 1 million job seekers find work by Christmas is, by no means, an easy task.”

On first impression, though, the effort seems to be one that can only help all involved, employers included.

Twitter It!

Destroying the Barriers to Vet Hiring

Despite the impressive images earlier this week of Special Op forces landing on a mountain top in Iraq to scout out a possible rescue option for refugees stranded there (and, in turn, help prevent an even more nightmarish situation from occurring), the reality is the U.S. military has been in the process of drawing down personnel from the Middle 477606281East, with the last U.S. troops currently due to leave Afghanistan by the end of 2016. A natural outgrowth of this drawdown, of course, is the need for these individuals to find jobs in the private sector. You’d think that might not be an insurmountable challenge, considering many of these vets bring with them amazing skill sets that make them ideal candidates for a long list of positions, including many at the leadership level.

Yet while there certainly have been plenty of stories about the commitment forward-thinking organizations are making to the recruiting and hiring of vets — including some published in HRE and on its website — there still remains a significant number of stumbling blocks that stand in the way of making this happen. True, many companies are taking significant steps in that direction. Earlier this month, 100,000 Jobs Mission, an organization with the goal of bringing together companies committed to the hiring of U.S. military veterans and military spouses, reported that member firms have hired, since its founding in 2011, a total of 161,752 U.S. military veterans through the second quarter of 2014. (The 165 companies now involved in the group pledged to hire 200,000 veterans by 2020.) But there’s little question plenty of barriers remain for these returning vets, including many put in place by employers themselves.

So what factors are standing in the way of returning vets landing jobs? In an effort to answer that question, Christopher Stone, a University of Texas at San Antonio Ph.D. student, is in the process of leading a research study — announced yesterday in a press release issued by the UTSA — aimed at uncovering what might be at work here. Stone, who is about two years into his research and has, thus far, developed a model for understanding factors affecting the hiring decisions of vets, recently co-authored an article titled “Factors Affecting Hiring Decisions About Veterans” (requires purchase) that appeared in the July edition of Human Resource Management Review and proposes several hypotheses and potential solutions. (No surprise Stone — who also discussed the research earlier this month at the 2014 Academy of Management annual meeting in Philadelphia — selected this as a research project, considering he served in the Air Force for eight years, first in an aircraft-maintenance unit overseas and then as a military training instructor.)

As might be expected, two of the primary barriers identified by Stone and his colleagues include stereotyping and a lack of understanding as to how military skills transfer over to civilian roles. According to the UTSA press release, the researchers used a model based on the treatment of people with disabilities to suggest specific steps employers might want to consider as they reassess their veteran hiring strategies (or lack of them), including:

  • Using education programs to dispel stereotypes, publicize veterans’ job successes and change the organizational culture to emphasize the value of hiring veterans;
  • Employing decision makers who value hiring veterans, recognizing and rewarding those who hire veterans, expanding recruiting to find talented veterans and giving bonuses to employees who refer veterans to the company; and
  • Familiarizing decision makers with military jobs and the associated knowledge, skills and abilities that are similar to civilian positions.

I’m sure many of your organizations are already doing some, if not all, of the above. But, that said, considering the significant talent challenges companies are facing today and extraordinary skills many of these vets are bringing to the table, I would think the timing couldn’t be better for employers to take inventory of what they’re doing and ask themselves, “Are we doing enough to ensure we’re not standing in the way of our progress?”

Twitter It!

Liar Liar, You’re Still Hired

liarWe all know lying is wrong. But we’ve all done it. And those who say they’ve never told a lie—not even a tiny little white one—well, they’re probably not being truthful.

That goes for job seekers too. It’s not uncommon for hungry applicants to embellish their skills and experience a bit, in order to pump up their resumes and increase their odds of getting a foot in the door.

But what happens when a candidate gets caught trying to put one over on a hiring manager? That may depend on the severity of the lie, and the potential an employer sees in the person who told it, according to a recent CareerBuilder survey.

In a poll of 2,188 hiring managers and HR professionals, 51 percent of respondents said they would automatically dismiss a job candidate if they uncovered a lie on his or her resume. Interestingly though, 40 percent said their decision to move forward with an applicant who lied on a resume would depend on what the candidate lied about. Another 7 percent said they would be willing to overlook a lie if they liked the candidate.

Dave Ulrich, professor of business at the Ross School of Business at the University of Michigan, was “surprised” at the number of hiring managers willing to look past an applicant’s stretching of the truth, however small the fabrication may be.

“I tend to be quite strongly in the 51 percent who believe that, if someone lies [about] little things, he or she might lie [about] bigger things.”

Some may contend that not all information on a resume—titles or job duties, for instance—is of equal importance, says Ulrich.

“But I would argue that even these less significant facts signify an attitude of integrity,” he says. “The messages on the resume signify the candidate’s style. Applicants would be better served demonstrating candor and transparency to build relationships of trust.”

Indeed, many hiring managers (more than half, according to the aforementioned survey) wouldn’t exactly rush to put their faith in would-be employees they saw as being dishonest right off the bat. And there are some fibs—or flat-out, obvious lies—they may not be so inclined to forgive. Enjoy this sampling of some of the most unusual lies employers reported catching on resumes:

• A candidate’s job history included a stint as the assistant to the prime minister of a foreign country. (Just one problem—the country in question does not have a prime minister.)

• One hopeful boasted on his resume that he was a high-school basketball free throw champion. (Not sure how Kevin Durant-like consistency from the charity stripe would even apply to the workplace, but he fessed up to his lie in the interview nonetheless.)

• A 32-year-old applicant indicated having 25 years of professional experience. (He or she must have been one smart, hard-working baby.)

• And, speaking of babies, one job seeker claimed to have worked for 20 years as a babysitter for celebrities such as Madonna and Tom Cruise.

I actually feel for the prospective employer in this last case. It’s too bad this candidate was lying, because I’d think an employee with that kind of experience could be a big help in dealing with divas and difficult bosses in the workplace.

Twitter It!

Branding, Schmanding

brandingHR hears a lot of talk about the importance of building a solid employer brand in order to lure top talent, and to make the company known as much for its cool, unique culture as the products and services it provides.

There’s no doubt that establishing and maintaining a reputation as a great place to work is extremely important. And, working for an organization with a fashionable employer brand may indeed be important to some job seekers. But not nearly as important as the work they do and the people they work with, apparently.

In a Monster.com survey of more than 2,400 visitors to the site, job seekers were asked the question, “Aside from salary, benefits and location, which of the following would most likely attract you to a new job?”

The most common response, by a wide margin, was “the opportunity to work in an industry I’m passionate about,” at 61 percent, followed by “the opportunity to work with people I professionally admire,” at 17 percent. Thirteen percent cited “a lively and energetic office environment” as the biggest selling point for a potential new gig, with 6 percent and 3 percent saying the same about “the opportunity to work for an aspirational/cool brand” and “an innovative office design,” respectively.

“Job seekers are naturally most concerned about salary, benefits and convenience to their home,” said Mary Ellen Slayter, career advice expert at Monster, in a statement. “But once that’s settled, the intangibles come into play. People are craving ways to bring meaning to their work, and they want to work in an industry they feel passionate about. Employers can take an active role in supporting these positive feelings by helping people see the connection between the work they do and how it benefits others. No fancy office can replace that sense of satisfaction.”

From touting their freewheeling work environments to overhauling their “conventional” office spaces, some organizations are forever looking for new ways to present themselves as cool and progressive employers. And while there should always be room for innovation, it seems that coolness quotient still doesn’t quite trump passion for their work and respect for their peers in the eyes of most prospective employees.

Twitter It!

Considering Criminal Convictions

mug shotDelving into job applicants’ criminal records during the hiring process can get dicey.

Many employers are legally permitted to pose questions concerning criminal history on job applications. But an increasing number of cities and states are moving to prohibit such queries, enacting “Ban the Box” laws that eliminate questions about criminal convictions and, theoretically, help level the playing field for job seekers with criminal backgrounds.

The EEOC has recommended that all organizations take similar steps, and has encouraged employers to avoid relying on bright-line background screens to weed out those with criminal infractions in their past.

A recent survey conducted by Cleveland-based EmployeeScreenIQ finds that, while many companies still seek information about criminal histories, they may be starting to put a bit less emphasis on what these inquiries uncover.

In its poll of nearly 600 HR professionals, EmployeeScreenIQ found a majority of respondents (66 percent) indicating they continue to ask candidates to self-disclose criminal convictions on job applications, while 78 percent said they ask them to do so at some point in the hiring process.

Just 8 percent, however, said they automatically disqualify an applicant who admits to having a criminal record before a background check. Less than half of the survey respondents (45 percent) said job candidates with criminal records are not hired due to their past imprudence less than 5 percent of the time.

What sort of indiscretions worry employers the most? When asked what type of convictions would disqualify a candidate from consideration for a job, survey respondents most commonly replied:

• Violent crimes (felony convictions) – 88 percent

• Crimes of theft and dishonesty (felony convictions) – 82 percent

• Drug offenses (felony convictions) – 68 percent

Misdemeanors matter as well, with 52 percent citing misdemeanor convictions for crimes involving theft or dishonesty as dealbreakers. Fifty-two percent said the same about misdemeanor convictions for violent crimes. In addition, 35 percent indicated misdemeanor drug offenses would take an applicant out of the running, and 13 percent said minor infractions and/or driving offenses would exclude a candidate. For that matter, 8 percent of respondents said charges that didn’t result in a conviction may eliminate a job applicant from contention.

(A full, complimentary survey report is available for download here)

Naturally, felonies “have always been of greater concern,” says Nick Fishman, co-founder of EmployeeScreenIQ, and the organization’s chief marketing officer and executive vice president.

“I do think [employers] are justified in their concern over felony offenses,” he says, “especially relating to violence and theft or dishonesty. These types of offenses really speak to a person’s character, and could foreshadow future problems.”

Misdemeanors can be “a bit trickier,” adds Fishman, noting that patterns of behavior should be the key indicator in weighing criminal convictions.

“Regardless of the criminal activity, employers need to look at things such as the type of crime, severity, age [at the time] of conviction, whether the person is a repeat offender and relevance to the job before making a hiring decision.”

Twitter It!

Your Words Matter

leadership wordsIt’s not news that men still outnumber women in leadership roles.

New research, however, suggests fewer women even apply for management positions. Why? Part of the reason may be found in the way companies word their job postings.

A team of scientists from the Technische Universitat Munchen in Munchen, Germany recently found women feel less inclined to respond to employment ads containing words such as “determined” and “assertive,” because such words are “linked with male stereotypes,” according to the researchers.

In their study, the TUM team showed fictional employment advertisements to approximately 260 test subjects, in an effort to study how leaders are selected and assessed. If an ad described a large number of traits—assertive, independent, aggressive and analytical, for example—commonly associated with men, female participants found the ad less appealing and were less likely to apply, according to researchers, who note that women responded more positively to words such as “dedicated,” “responsible,” “conscientious” and “sociable.” Male test subjects, however, found a job advertisement’s phrasing to be of no consequence.

In addition, investigators found that women may be selling their on-the-job abilities short. In conjunction with researchers at New York University, TUM conducted a separate poll of approximately 600 Americans of both genders, in which respondents considered women and men to be equally competent, productive and efficient on a fundamental level. Both genders, however, rated men’s leadership skills more highly. Women also reported believing themselves and other women to be, on average, less capable in terms of leadership abilities than male respondents perceived themselves and other men.

Such findings seem to echo an all-too familiar refrain in our workplaces, with regard to gender equality: We’ve come a long way, but still have a long way to go.

Claudia Peus, chair of research and science management at TUM, and lead author of the study, suggests that employers can help close this gap by choosing their words carefully when crafting employment ads.

“A carefully formulated job posting is essential to get the best choice of personnel,” said Claudia Peus, in a statement. “In most cases, it doesn’t make sense to simply leave out all of the male-sounding phrases. But without a profile featuring at least balanced wording, organizations are robbing themselves of the chance of attracting good female applicants. And that’s because the stereotypes endure almost unchanged, in spite of all the societal transformation we have experienced.”

Twitter It!

Another Sign Your Talent May Be Bolting: Hooky

160611067-- sick employeeA month ago, almost to the day, Editor David Shadovitz posted this about a Utah State University professor’s study laying out specific behaviors to look for in top talent about to head out the door.

I thought the signs themselves, as revealed by researcher Tim Gardner, were interesting and deserve repeating. Employees about to leave, he found:

  • Offered fewer constructive contributions in meetings;
  • Were more reluctant to commit to long-term projects;
  • Became more reserved and quiet;
  • Became less interested in advancing in the organization;
  • Were less interested in pleasing their boss than before;
  • Avoided social interactions with their boss and other members of management; and
  • Began doing the minimum amount of work needed and no longer went beyond the call of duty.

Now, thanks to this from Monster Worldwide, we have another dimension to offer up in this flight-detection protocol: playing hooky. Or at least playing “I have a doctor’s appointment.”

According to Monster’s global poll, based on votes cast by Monster visitors from Dec. 2 through 6 of last year, 44 percent of respondents consider telling their boss they have a medical appointment to be the best excuse to leave work for a job interview.

The second-most-popular choice for getting out of work to interview for other work is also health-related: saying they’re sick, weighing in at 15 percent. Of course, the way I see it, both excuses — especially the latter — requires some play-acting as well, so perhaps there are some additional behavior traits we can read between the lines.

There were other non-health-related excuses — childcare, at 12 percent, and delivery/repairman at 8 percent — but faking personal health challenges topped the chart.

Especially interesting, I thought, were the differences in faking forte by country. As the Monster release states:

French respondents are the most likely to create faux doctor’s appointments when sneaking out for interviews, with 54 percent answering that they believe it is the best excuse;      conversely, French respondents are the least likely to fake an illness to excuse an interview-related absence, with only 7 percent selecting it as the best option. Respondents in the United States were the biggest proponents of the call-in-sick method, with 16 percent choosing illness as their preferred excuse. Canadian respondents were the least likely to use a delivery/repairman excuse, with under 7 percent selecting this option and were the most inclined to use a childcare-related excuse, with 16 percent picking this answer.”

Mary Ellen Slayter, a career-advice expert for Monster, says all employers ought to look at this as a reminder that “they have no choice but to be on both sides of this coin.”

“Making it easy for people to be honest is a good approach,” she says. “That means when you’re recruiting, make an effort to schedule interviews before or after work hours — or perhaps at lunch. With your own workers, don’t press them about how they’re spending their requested time off.”

As for what you’re supposed to do when you notice your top talent scheduling an inordinate number of doctor’s appointments, that’s anyone’s guess. I would think that might be a good time to start examining their engagement levels.

Twitter It!