You and your employees have been working very hard, and getting a tremendous amount of work done. You probably didn’t take August off. Perhaps you even worked on Labor Day, and saw the irony in that.
I haven’t been tapping into your payroll records. But I have been paying attention to two sets of statistics: productivity and unemployment.
The U.N.’s International Labour Organization reported in September that the United States beat Europe and Japan in the productivity game last year. The average output per American worker was $60,728 in 2002. The output of the average worker in the European Union was $43,034. That’s what happens when people take August off.
Part of what drives that productivity is the fact that Americans work longer hours than Europeans. U.S. workers averaged 1,815 hours in 2002, compared to a range of 1,300 to 1,800 hours for E.U. workers. The Japanese, who have cited enough cases of people working themselves to death that they have a word for it–karoshi–put in no more hours than workers here did.
So Americans are working very hard indeed. But that’s mostly because we have no choice. In order to stay afloat, many companies have had to cut costs, and that means cutting head count. In one week last month, 3Com Corp. cut 1,000 jobs, International Paper Co. slashed its payroll by 3,000, and Levi Strauss & Co. announced that it would shed 650 employees.
Workers who still have jobs work all the harder, fearing they’ll be next, says Shelly Wolff, a productivity specialist in Watson Wyatt Worldwide’s Stamford, Connecticut, office. Longer hours and the fear of layoffs aren’t the only things that account for high productivity, of course. Technology has made it possible for each of us to get more work done, Wolff says.
Take the online brokerage Ameritrade, which announced last month that it had passed the 3 million-account mark. Because most of those account-holders handle their trades via the Web or through an automated phone system, the workforce is very lean: a mere 1,800 employees, says the company’s CAO, Kurt Halvorson.
“One of the tenets of our success is leveraged technology,” Halvorson says. “We can add transaction volume with very little incremental spending on technology and staff. It is not a linear relationship.”
Productivity can have its dark side, of course. “You get to a point of diminishing return, where people put in too much time and then lose productivity,” Wolff says. Where that line lies “is hard to tease out of the data,” she says. It can show up as an increased use of sick days, as people seek a way to get some paid time off without looking like slackers, she says. It’s possible, of course, that they really are sick. A few weeks–or months–of 12-hour days and six-day weeks can do that.
Some economists say hiring will pick up by the end of the year, and exhausted workers will get a break. Maybe there is a technology option that could further streamline business, so companies don’t have to demand more hours from tapped-out employees. But if the economy doesn’t pick up, and if you’re not another Ameritrade, what then? The next move in the productivity game will have to be something other than longer hours worked by fewer people. Karoshi is nothing to be proud of.
Workforce Management, October 2003, p. 10 — Subscribe Now!
These surveys may be used by human resources and recruiting teams to assess candidate satisfaction and candidate experience going through the recruiting and interviewing process with an organization.
These surveys can help you understand how you are being perceived, what the process felt like to candidates and how candidates were treated. You may want to send such surveys using e-mail and online survey technology as well as include an incentive to get a higher response rate from candidates.
We are committed to ensuring that all candidates have a positive interviewing experience at Company X. In an effort to continually improve our recruitment programs and procedures, we solicit your feedback on Company X’s interview process by providing this on-line form. We encourage you to be open with your comments and suggestions and, in turn, we will respect your confidentiality. Your feedback will be reviewed by Company X’s Employment Managers to identify and implement ways to improve the interview process.
Please note: Respondents are automatically enrolled in a quarterly drawing. Indicate your preference for one of the following gifts if your name is selected:
DVD player TiVo Palm Pilot
To properly tabulate results, we need to categorize your responses. Please enter a few general facts about your interviews
The position you interviewed for: _____________________________________________________
Name of the hiring manager: _____________________________________________________
What prompted your application to Company X? (select all that apply)
Job Fair
Company X Employee
Currently do business with Company X
Trade Show
Company X Vendor
Currently use Company X products
Company X Web site advertisement
Contacted directly by Company X
Open House
Campus recruitment
Worked at Company X previously
Company X in the News
Agency
TV/Radio/Print Ads
Community event
Other
Total number of interviewers that you met with:
-4
5-7
7-10
>10
How many times did you come to Company X to interview
1
2
3
4
5
Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements. (Use a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 means ‘I strongly disagree’ and 5 means ‘I strongly agree’).
How did we do… …With the pre-interview arrangements
Interviews were scheduled and confirmed in a timely manner
1
2
3
4
5
NA
An interview schedule was provided to me in advance
1
2
3
4
5
NA
Interviews with multiple Company X groups were well-coordinated
1
2
3
4
5
NA
Travel arrangements were satisfactory
1
2
3
4
5
NA
If you have any comments or suggestions about the pre-interview scheduling process, please use this space:
How did we do… …With the On-Site Interviews
Interviews were conducted on time
1
2
3
4
5
NA
The interview logistics were satisfactory
1
2
3
4
5
NA
The interview team treated me with professionalism and respect
1
2
3
4
5
NA
The position was clearly explained to me
1
2
3
4
5
NA
I was given a fair opportunity to present my qualifications
1
2
3
4
5
NA
I was given timely feedback on the results of the interview
1
2
3
4
5
NA
If you have any comments or suggestions about the pre-interview scheduling process, please use this space:
How did we do… …With the overall interview process?
I would consider a future opportunity with Company X
1
2
3
4
5
NA
Company X’s interview process compares favorably to that of other companies
1
2
3
4
5
NA
Overall, I am very satisfied with Company X’s interview process
1
2
3
4
5
NA
If you have any comments or suggestions about the pre-interview scheduling process, please use this space:
Before you submit your responses, please confirm that you applied the rating scale properly:
On the 1 – 5 rating scale, I used 5 to indicate my strongest AGREEMENT.
Yes
No
If you wish to be entered in the drawing for a prize, please enter a phone number where we may contact you:
Your name: ____________________________________________
CONGRATULATIONS! YOU’VE MADE A GREAT CAREER DECISION TO JOIN COMPANY X!
We are committed to ensuring that all candidates have a positive interviewing experience at Company X. In an effort to continually improve our recruitment programs and procedures, we solicit your feedback on Company X’s interview process by providing this on-line form. We encourage you to be open with your comments and suggestions and, in turn, we will respect your confidentiality. Your feedback will be reviewed by Company X’s Employment Managers to identify and implement ways to improve the interview process.
Please note: Respondents are automatically enrolled in a quarterly drawing. Indicate your preference for one of the following gifts if your name is selected:
DVD player TiVo Palm Pilot
To properly tabulate results, we need to categorize your responses. Please enter a few general facts about your interviews
The position you interviewed for: _____________________________________________________
Name of the hiring manager: _____________________________________________________
What prompted your application to Company X? (select all that apply)
Job Fair
Company X Employee
Currently do business with Company X
Trade Show
Company X Vendor
Currently use Company X products
Company X Web site advertisement
Contacted directly by Company X
Open House
Campus recruitment
Worked at Company X previously
Company X in the News
Agency
TV/Radio/Print Ads
Community event
Other
Which of these resources were helpful to you during the hiring process? (select all that apply)
Company X’s job page
Company X annual report
Company X Connection Online
Profiler
Company X digicard/CD ROM
Campus info session
Make Friends at Company X
Company X CD-ROM
Company X employees
Campus info session
Company X lobby displays
Total number of interviewers that you met with:
-4
5-7
7-10
>10
How many times did you come to Company X to interview
1
2
3
4
5
Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements. (Use a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 means ‘I strongly disagree’ and 5 means ‘I strongly agree’).
How did we do… …With the pre-interview arrangements
Interviews were scheduled and confirmed in a timely manner
1
2
3
4
5
NA
An interview schedule was provided to me in advance
1
2
3
4
5
NA
Interviews with multiple Company X groups were well-coordinated
1
2
3
4
5
NA
Travel arrangements were satisfactory
1
2
3
4
5
NA
If you have any comments or suggestions about the pre-interview scheduling process, please use this space:
How did we do… …With the On-Site Interviews
Interviews were conducted on time
1
2
3
4
5
NA
The interview logistics were satisfactory
1
2
3
4
5
NA
The interview team treated me with professionalism and respect
1
2
3
4
5
NA
The position was clearly explained to me
1
2
3
4
5
NA
I was given a fair opportunity to present my qualifications
1
2
3
4
5
NA
I was given timely feedback on the results of the interview
1
2
3
4
5
NA
If you have any comments or suggestions about the pre-interview scheduling process, please use this space:
How did we do… …With offer process?
Timeframe between your final interview and your offer:
<1 week
1-2 weeks
>2 weeks
Who presented offer to you?:
Hiring manager
Recruiter
I was kept appraised of the status of my candidacy throughout the offer process
1
2
3
4
5
NA
The various components of my offer package were explained to me
1
2
3
4
5
NA
The background check process was satisfactory
1
2
3
4
5
NA
The time frame for the offer was satisfactory
1
2
3
4
5
NA
I was provided with a good overview of Company X’s relocation package
1
2
3
4
5
NA
If you have any comments or suggestions about the pre-interview scheduling process, please use this space:
How did we do… …With the overall Recruitment process?
Company X’s recruitment process compares favorably to that of other companies
1
2
3
4
5
NA
Overall, I am very satisfied with Company X’s recruitment process
1
2
3
4
5
NA
If you have any comments or suggestions about the pre-interview scheduling process, please use this space:
We’d also like to know a little bit more about your decision to join company X…
What were your primary reasons for choosing Company X as your next employer? (select all that apply)
Company growth
Location
Interesting work
Advancement potential
Technology
Stock apprecriation
Compensation
Employee benefits
Flexible hours/Telecommuting
Company culture
Hiring Manager
Friends/Family at Company X
Other
Did you turn down competing offers from other companies to join Company X?
If you answered yes, where were your other offers?
Before you submit your responses, please confirm that you applied the rating scale properly:
On the 1 – 5 rating scale, I used 5 to indicate my strongest AGREEMENT.
Yes
No
If you wish to be entered in the drawing for a prize, please enter a phone number where we may contact you:
Your name: ____________________________________________
Recently you were offered a position with Company X which you declined. Naturally, we were disappointed that you chose not to join us, but we respect your decision and hope you will consider Company X again should your situation change. You can help us improve our recruiting process if you’d answer this brief survey about your experience at Company X. We encourage you to be open with your comments and suggestions and, in turn, we will respect your confidentiality. Your feedback will be reviewed by Company X’s Employment Managers to identify and implement ways to improve the recruitment process.
Please note: Respondents are automatically enrolled in a quarterly drawing. Indicate your preference for one of the following gifts if your name is selected:
DVD player TiVo Palm Pilot
To properly tabulate results, we need to categorize your responses. Please enter a few general facts about your interviews
The position you interviewed for: _____________________________________________________
Name of the hiring manager: _____________________________________________________
What prompted your application to Company X? (select all that apply)
Job Fair
Company X Employee
Currently do business with Company X
Trade Show
Company X Vendor
Currently use Company X products
Company X Web site advertisement
Contacted directly by Company X
Open House
Campus recruitment
Worked at Company X previously
Company X in the News
Agency
TV/Radio/Print Ads
Community event
Other
What were your primary reasons for choosing Company X as your next employer? (select all that apply)
Company growth
Location
Interesting work
Advancement potential
Technology
Stock apprecriation
Compensation
Employee benefits
Flexible hours/Telecommuting
Company culture
Hiring Manager
Friends/Family at Company X
Other
Total number of interviewers that you met with:
1-4
5-7
7-10
>10
How many times did you come to Company X to interview
1
2
3
4
>4
Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements. (Use a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 means ‘I strongly disagree’ and 5 means ‘I strongly agree’).
How did we do… …With the pre-interview arrangements
Interviews were scheduled and confirmed in a timely manner
1
2
3
4
5
NA
An interview schedule was provided to me in advance
1
2
3
4
5
NA
Interviews with multiple Company X groups were well-coordinated
1
2
3
4
5
NA
Travel arrangements were satisfactory
1
2
3
4
5
NA
If you have any comments or suggestions about the pre-interview scheduling process, please use this space:
How did we do… …With the On-Site Interviews
Interviews were conducted on time
1
2
3
4
5
NA
The interview logistics were satisfactory
1
2
3
4
5
NA
The interview team treated me with professionalism and respect
1
2
3
4
5
NA
The position was clearly explained to me
1
2
3
4
5
NA
I was given a fair opportunity to present my qualifications
1
2
3
4
5
NA
I was given timely feedback on the results of the interview
1
2
3
4
5
NA
If you have any comments or suggestions about the pre-interview scheduling process, please use this space:
How did we do… …With offer process?
Timeframe between your final interview and your offer:
<1 week
1-2 weeks
>2 weeks
Who presented offer to you?:
Hiring manager
Recruiter
I was kept appraised of the status of my candidacy throughout the offer process
1
2
3
4
5
NA
The various components of my offer package were explained to me
The surveys below may be used by workforce management teams to assess hiring manager satisfaction with the services and support of the human resources/recruiting function.
Sending the surveys out to hiring managers immediately after they have completed a hire can help you gather information on hiring manager satisfaction, and to adjust accordingly.
We are committed to ensuring that the recruiting and staffing process is effective and works well for XYZ Company. Please take a moment to review the experience you had in the recruiting process for the employee(s) you recently hired.
Below, we have developed a series of questions about the recruiting process that we would appreciate your comments on. Please take a moment to seriously reflect on your experience and your comments and mark them below.
EMPLOYEE RECENTLY HIRED
Please indicate your level of satisfaction with the following areas. (Use a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 means ‘LOW’ and 5 means ‘HIGH’). Please rate both how IMPORTANT each area was to you and then rate the service you observed.
How did we do….. …….with the pre-recruiting planning process?
Importance
Service
Timeliness of initial recruiter/project manager contact
1
2
3
4
5
na
1
2
3
4
5
na
Effectiveness of planning
1
2
3
4
5
na
1
2
3
4
5
na
Recruiter/Project Manager’s understanding of position
1
2
3
4
5
na
1
2
3
4
5
NA
Recruiting process overview
1
2
3
4
5
na
1
2
3
4
5
na
If you have any comments or suggestions about the pre-recruiting planning process, please use this space:
…….on the execution of the recruitment plan?
Importance
Service
Recruiter/project manager’s knowledge of the market
1
2
3
4
5
na
1
2
3
4
5
na
Sourcing Options
1
2
3
4
5
na
1
2
3
4
5
na
Timeframe to refer candidates
1
2
3
4
5
na
1
2
3
4
5
NA
Use of technology to speed and improve the process
1
2
3
4
5
na
1
2
3
4
5
na
If you have any comments or suggestions about the execution of the recruitment plan, please use this space:
…….in regards to the candidates?
Importance
Service
Quality of referred candidates
1
2
3
4
5
na
1
2
3
4
5
na
Quantity of referred candidates
1
2
3
4
5
na
1
2
3
4
5
na
Diversity of referred candidates
1
2
3
4
5
na
1
2
3
4
5
NA
Information provided to candidates
1
2
3
4
5
na
1
2
3
4
5
NA
Assessment of candidates
1
2
3
4
5
na
1
2
3
4
5
na
If you have any comments or suggestions about the handling of the candidates, please use this space:
…….with our administration of the process?
Importance
Service
Coordinating, scheduling, etc.
1
2
3
4
5
na
1
2
3
4
5
na
Offer/Closing effectiveness
1
2
3
4
5
na
1
2
3
4
5
na
Communication from recruiter/Project Manager
1
2
3
4
5
na
1
2
3
4
5
NA
Recruiter/Project Manager’s ability to solve problems
1
2
3
4
5
na
1
2
3
4
5
NA
Helpfulness of Talent Acquisition and Recruiter/Project Manager
1
2
3
4
5
na
1
2
3
4
5
NA
Recruiting costs
1
2
3
4
5
na
1
2
3
4
5
na
If you have any comments or suggestions about administration of the process, please use this space:
…….with our agreed upon contracted time frame?
Contracted Time to Fill on or before:
Actual Time to Fill:
If you have any additional comments or suggestions, please use this space:
Before you submit your responses, please confirm that you applied the rating scale properly:
On the 1-5 rating scale, I used 5 to indicate my strongest AGREEMENT.
Your situation is a common one. I would approach this situation by conducting a job analysis to clearly identify two things: 1) what are the critical competencies for the rep job? 2) What are the key differences between the different job levels?
This will help you gain a complete understanding of performance for all the jobs, as well as help you determine the key factors that someone must possess to move to a higher level job. With this information in hand, you can base all performance management and promotional activities on a solid foundation that provides a clear map of job performance at each level.
Traditionally, job analysis involves the following steps:
Reviewing job descriptions and training documents.
Interviewing employees and their immediate supervisors and observing them doing the jobs.
Creating a first draft of competencies based on the information gathered in the above two steps.
Verifying your model via a survey administered to incumbents and supervisors.
In many cases a full job analysis study is not feasible due to time and expense constraints. In such cases, you could use theOccupational Information Network, known as O*NET, to learn more about the competencies needed for the job. It would be advisable to then do some of the interviews and observations to verify the model presented by O*NET, and to clearly identify differences between each job level.
Another option is to hire a consultant to help you develop the model. A good consultant can identify critical competencies and help build a performance/evaluation/promotional system to identify reps ready to move to the next level–and help others develop the required skills for advancement.
SOURCE: Charles A. Handler Ph.D., PHR, Rocket-Hire, New Orleans, Louisiana, Jan. 10, 2003.
The information contained in this article is intended to provide useful information on the topic covered, but should not be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion. Also remember that state laws may differ from the federal law.
Positivity Rates by Drug Category For general U.S. workforce, as a percentage of all positives (More than 5.7 million tests from January to December 2002)
The drug of choice for the majority of American workers isn’t marijuana, cocaine or amphetamines, all of which must be obtained illegally. The winner is alcohol, which can, of course, be purchased legally at a large number of stores, bars and restaurants in virtually every community in America.
The National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, released by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services last year, reports that 7.8 percent of the full-time workers queried said they had used illicit drugs during the previous month. A slightly higher 8.1 percent reported heavy alcohol use. Illicit drug use was defined as any use in the previous 30 days. Heavy alcohol use was defined as five or more drinks on the same occasion on at least five different days in a month’s time.
Some employers are required by federal law to conduct random and post-accident alcohol tests on safety-sensitive workers such as nuclear power plant operators or locomotive engineers. Yet few other companies incorporate alcohol testing in even the most stringent drug-testing programs. Alcohol testing detects current use, whereas drug tests detect only past use, and it’s a rare occasion when a job applicant or cubicle dweller is given a Breathalyzer or blood-alcohol test.
“We’ve declared a war on drugs but not on alcohol. It’s part of our culture and a great source of tax revenue, too,” says Noel Ragsdale, a specialist in employment law at the University of Southern California Law School. She adds that alcohol-testing technology, whether it’s used to test breath or blood, is more labor-intensive and expensive than tests for most other drugs. Also, alcohol testing opens up companies to the same kinds of legal challenges and obfuscation used by defense attorneys in drunk-driving cases.
Not that many companies have gone so far as to worry. Most people don’t even realize that alcohol is a drug, says Bruce Cotter, author ofWhen They Won’t Quit and an an expert on workplace addiction and recovery. “When people go drinking, they don’t say, ‘Let’s go out and do some drugs after work.’ Or ‘Let’s go to the Plaza. We’ll do some drugs before we go home.’ “
Another obstacle is that in many cases the person responsible for implementing alcohol testing has a strong reason to avoid it, says Don Rothschild, a self-described recovering alcoholic and the head of Peak Paths, a Denver firm that provides consulting services to companies on drug and alcohol matters. “If the head man has a problem with alcohol, he always says, ‘We don’t have a problem,’ ” Rothschild relates. He says that all companies should draft and enforce unambiguous policies that treat at-work alcohol and drug use identically. More important, supervisors, and not lab technicians, should be the first line of defense against substance abuse. “To have a viable drug-free workplace, they must be trained to detect the signs of employee abuse,” Rothschild says. “They must confront these employees. And if they’re drinking or drugging on the job, they should be offered help.” .
Workforce Management, October 2003, p. 38 — Subscribe Now!
David Reed, former director of recruiting at Accenture, remembers the day last fall when his bosses told him they were outsourcing his job. It wasn’t personal; Accenture management had just decided to outsource all of the company’s recruiting to its subsidiary, Accenture HR Services.
“I struggled with the idea that somebody else could do my job better,” Reed says. Initially, he reacted defensively, wondering, “How can an outside organization do this better, cheaper and faster than I can?”
Recruiting directors all across the corporate world may be asking themselves the same question soon. Currently, only about 9 percent of companies outsource large portions of organizational recruiting, according to a Staffing.org poll, with about 57.6 percent planning to increase their large-scale outsourcing.
Sodexho’s reduced time-to-fill One company that recently took the plunge into outsourced recruiting is Sodexho, a $4.5 billion global food and facilities management services company with 130,000 employees in North America. As of September 2003, Sodexho began to outsource the hiring of all exempt employees across all of its divisions in North America to Spherion. Two years ago, Sodexho began working with Spherion on a pilot program in its campus division. Since then, the company has discovered that Spherion can recruit employees more cheaply and more efficiently than Sodexho can.
“Recruiting is not our core competency,” says Diana Newmier, corporate VP of human resources at Sodexho, which hires more than 2,700 managers each year.
“Recruiting is not our core competency,” says Diana Newmier, corporate VP of human resources at Sodexho, which hires more than 2,700 managers each year. “Spherion comes in and does for us what we do for other businesses in the food-services industry–we make them more efficient and reduce their costs.”
Initially, Sodexho set a goal of 31 days for its average time to fill a job. Spherion far exceeded that goal, with an average time-to-fill of 16.3 days. In addition, Sodexho now has a fixed cost-per-hire, which makes it easier to plan financially, says Newmier. Still, she admits that change management–and helping hiring managers get used to the idea of outsourcing–is extremely important. Sodexho started with a pilot program, trying to prove to other departments that outsourcing can work.
Accenture’s 20 percent savings It took Accenture’s Reed about six weeks to come around to the idea of outsourcing recruiting. It probably helped that Accenture HR Services offered him a position as vice president of resourcing services, North America. But the decision to outsource wasn’t a sudden one. Since May of 2001, the company had been outsourcing some of its back-office recruiting functions such as background checks and production of offer letters. Outsourcing recruiting was simply the final step.
Today, Reed has changed his mind entirely about outsourcing recruiting. “It’s virtually impossible for an in-house function to make the kind of investment in skills and knowledge and technology that a company who’s working across clients can,” he says. During this fiscal year, Accenture HR Services will hire between 5,000 and 6,000 new employees in North America for Accenture. “The cost-savings target we are on the hook to achieve is greater than 20 percent,” says Reed.
Kellogg’s culture change Cost savings can go even higher. Recruitment Enhancement Services has helped Kellogg’s reduce its cost-per-hire by more than 64 percent since they started working together in the late 1990s. Today, RES fills 95 percent of available jobs at Kellogg’s, versus only 10 percent in 2000. By February 2003, RES had reduced Kellogg’s average time-to-hire from 67 days to 26 days. “Kellogg’s owns the strategy behind staffing–we outsource the execution–but it has been a very positive thing for us,” says Cydney Kilduff, director of staffing and diversity at Kellogg’s, who was hired to implement the company’s decision to outsource recruiting.
Still, Kilduff faced her share of challenges in the beginning. At first, the sweeping changes didn’t go over well with hiring managers. The company had been through a downsizing, and hiring managers were wary of further change. Since Kilduff was new to the company, she was also just beginning to learn that the corporate culture at Kellogg’s values relationships, many of which had been established between hiring managers and outside search firms. “I thought we were asking people to stop spending all that money [on search firms], but I was asking people to give up relationships they thought were important,” she says. “We had to shift their thinking about relationships and create new relationships they could also value.”
Kellogg’s had pretty much eliminated its recruiting department in anticipation of outsourcing. That meant that when the company needed to hire again, RES had to hit the ground running. “All of a sudden they wanted us to handle hiring,” says Barry Siegel, president of RES. Both Kilduff and Siegel say that, given the opportunity to do it again, they would approach it more gradually. “The big lesson is to pilot and work out the bugs on a smaller scale,” says Kilduff.
Baby steps Experts generally agree that inducing a large change all at once is stressful for employees. It’s better to introduce change slowly. For Sodexho, that meant starting with a pilot program implemented by George Koenig, vice president of human resources for Sodexho Campus Services. After Koenig had successfully implemented outsourced recruiting in his department, management could use his experience as a positive example for other employees.
If indeed the rebounding economy will soon yield more jobs, as some predict, corporations may have to think about outsourcing recruiting sooner rather than later. “Companies are not well positioned for an economic rebound or the coming demographic crunch [when baby boomers retire],” says Accenture’s Reed. “They will have to do something quickly,” he says, adding that most companies don’t want to rebuild the recruiting infrastructure they’ve hacked apart in recent years.
Linda Zumstein still remembers the anger on a former client’s face. As branch manager of a staffing agency, Zumstein had been asked to fill an order for five temporary workers. The job entailed little more than photocopying legal documents for a local company. But what began as an easy enough assignment ended in absolute disaster. “Every day I walked in there, the client was in my face screaming,” Zumstein recalls. “It was getting worse by the minute.”
What went so horribly wrong? Zumstein says that she made the honest mistake of providing her client with contingent workers who simply couldn’t do the job. That was 20 years ago. Now she runs her own training and testing firm, L. Zumstein & Company, but the effects of the mismatch long ago still reverberate.
“We were kicked out, and I could never get back into that client’s company,” Zumstein says. “None of my sales reps could ever get past the lobby. It was awful.”
To this day, she doubts that her former employer has been able to win back that company’s business, and the experience taught her this: No organization can afford to take any chances on the quality of its contingent workforce. The right temps can help increase revenues, whittle down labor costs, enhance productivity and improve employee morale. Failure to match a candidate’s qualifications with a position’s demands, however, can result in ruin.
Marc Pramuk, program manager for human resources management and staffing services at IDC, says, “Depending on their role, temps can touch a lot of things that really impact a company’s brand, reputation in the marketplace and customer experiences.” Poorly trained customer-support representatives can chase consumers into the arms of competitors. Temps who don’t quite fit in with a company’s corporate culture can anger and frustrate full-time employees. And disgruntled temps can lead to high turnover rates.
Laura Sarna, president of Dallas Training and Consulting Services Inc., says that a high turnover of temps necessitates the constant training and initiating of new temps, all of which can result in a long-term drain on productivity.
Good temps save big bucks Despite the problems inherent in hiring temps, the demand for contingent workers shows no sign of waning. According to the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, 122,000 new temporary jobs have been created since April. There were 42,000 new temp jobs in July alone. Using the year 2000 as a benchmark, the agency predicts that the contingent workforce will double by 2010, compared to a 15 percent increase in full-time workers during the same decade. Yet questions remain about how to get the most out of contingent workers. Who should be responsible for ensuring that a temp is really right for the position? Is it the staffing agency or a hiring manager? How can you quantify the impact of using temps?
Julie Sorci has some answers. Sorci, manager of staffing at MidAmerican Energy Holdings, says the Iowa-based company made every mistake in the book when it came to finding suitable candidates for its call center. An antiquated pen-and-paper test was used to assess most temporary workers. For every 15 hires, 40 candidates were tested at an administrative cost of $150 each, a total of $6,000. The company’s hiring managers relied on as many as 25 different staffing agencies, thereby failing to ensure consistency in quality-of-hire and hourly wages. And temps that were fed up with MidAmerican Energy’s disorganized recruitment process accounted for a turnover rate of 25 percent.
“It was a nightmare,” Sorci recalls. The situation markedly improved when MidAmerican Energy teamed up with Manpower Inc. in 1998. Today, Manpower administers a series of tests to assess a candidate’s skills in areas such as typing, customer service and problem solving. The staffing agency then issues a report outlining each candidate’s job suitability according to standards set by MidAmerican Energy itself. The process has enabled the company to dramatically reduce its turnover rate from 25 to 7 percent.
“There are many organizations out there that are great at filling the job quickly, but they’re just getting a warm body in the chair for you. They’re great at time-to-fill but poor on getting the right fit.”
“The turnover rate is critical,” Sorci says. “There are many organizations out there that are great at filling the job quickly, but they’re just getting a warm body in the chair for you. They’re great at time-to-fill but poor on getting the right fit.” Manpower not only promises Mid-American Energy a good match, but it also pays for pre-employment testing. This partnership has resulted in huge cost savings. Sorci estimates that for every 15 temps Manpower places, the company saves $6,000 in testing, $29,000 in such costs as Social Security and benefits, $1,200 in in-house recruiting costs such as having to pay administrators to sift through résumés, and $4,000 in advertising expenses–a total savings of $40,200.
Finding the right fit for a temporary position requires looking beyond technical prowess, says Julie Ward, branch manager of Abigail Abbott in Santa Ana, California. She says that it’s a staffing agency’s responsibility to select candidates who not only have the necessary technical skills but also can mesh with a client’s corporate culture. Abigail Abbott accomplishes this by hiring customer-service representatives whose sole responsibility is to visit clients once a month. These customer-service representatives assess temporary workers’ productivity, meet with supervisors and human resources administrators, and familiarize themselves with the company’s corporate environment.
“Having our staff supervisors filling orders out there, working with a customer one-on-one, allows us to make a better match,” Ward says. “Having clients trying to communicate their corporate culture over the phone is difficult.”
Determining intentions Assessing corporate culture is only one part of the puzzle when searching for suitable temps. Stan Redman, senior human resources manager at American Suzuki, says that it’s important to ascertain a temporary worker’s long-term employment goals. For example, is a temp willing to maintain a flexible work arrangement or does he view a part-time assignment as a possible bridge to full-time employment?
Given American Suzuki’s seasonal business model, it’s easy to understand why temporary workers’ intentions are important to Redman. His company has long relied on Abigail Abbott to find temporary workers for its call center. Suzuki specializes in the sale of motorcycles, and its call-center demands are strictly seasonal. Because of these temporal constraints, Redman says, it’s not uncommon for call-center workers to seek full-time, year-round employment within the company. It’s a never-ending source of frustration for Suzuki’s call-center manager, who provides temps with 30 days of intense training and then often finds himself back at the drawing board as temporary workers make their way onto the company payroll.
So how can a recruiter learn what a temp’s intentions are? There is no easy answer, Redman says. But he will say that hiring managers, staffing agencies and contingent workers must all learn to be as precise as possible when communicating temporary workers’ long-term goals, companies’ expectations and skills requirements. Melanie Holmes, senior vice president of assessment and development at Manpower, agrees that communication is integral to the matchmaking process. She says that companies play a significant role in the placement of temporary workers. Finding the perfect fit means that they must provide a staffing agency with sufficient information about a particular job.
“One of the challenges we have is getting customers to take enough time to really give us detailed job descriptions and information about the work the temporary employee is going to do,” Holmes says. “If a customer doesn’t give us that information, it’s very difficult for us to make a good match.”
Finding the right candidate often entails partnering with the right staffing agency. Denny Clark, senior vice president and director of recruiting solutions at Wachovia Corporation, recalls a time when the financial services company relied on literally hundreds of vendors for its contingent workers. “We had so many vendors who were out there doing business with us, we couldn’t get our arms around what they were charging us and what kind of quality they were bringing to us,” Clark says. Desperate to whittle down the company’s roster of vendors and to gain control of costs, Clark turned to White Amber’s workforce-management software.
This Web-based tool enables companies to streamline their staffing-agency process, from gathering bids to negotiating prices. By providing increased visibility into the procurement process, it helps companies identify those staffing agencies that provide the best workers. White Amber’s customers typically save 12 to 20 percent annually by ensuring that each position is filled with the right person at the most cost-effective rate.
Since implementing the software last year, Wachovia has seen significant benefits, including cost savings, reduced turnover rates and higher-caliber contingent workers. The company now depends on about half the vendors it once used for its nearly 7,000 temps and has greatly simplified its staffing-agency sourcing process.
There are those, however, who argue that technology cannot measure up to a long-nurtured relationship between a staffing agency and its clients. “We’re not trying to replace the human element,” says Michael Cruz, executive vice president, client services, at White Amber. Technology cannot determine a great cultural fit, Clark adds. “What it does do, though, is give you the ability to take the data that you’re gathering about performance and analyze that data so that you can then assess the companies that are giving you great talent.”
Workforce Management, October 2003, pp. 49-51 — Subscribe Now!
You just spent six months and thousands of dollars to hire that new senior vice president. Here it is a few months out, and you’d like to know if you got a truly quality person.
On the surface, it might seem impossible to assess something as subjective as quality in another human being. But an increasing number of companies are establishing metrics to help them assess both quantitative and qualitative aspects of a new hire’s performance.
12 questions for managers Measuring the quality of a new employee isn’t easy, nor is it universal. The 2003 Benchmark Report, a nationwide survey of companies done by Staffing.org and the Human Capital Metrics Consortium, showed a less than 1 percent increase from last year to this year in the number of companies evaluating new hires for quality. Thirty percent do, but the vast majority of companies still put their faith in the front end–a rigorous selection process–to ensure that they get a “quality” employee.
Gerry Crispin is a principal in the international staffing firm MMC Group. “I think one of the key problems that most corporations face is defining what quality really means,” he says. “Quality is a measure of ‘did I get what I wanted?’ “
Among those that are assessing quality, the systems in place vary from gut instinct to research-based questionnaires. Experts agree that either the recruiter or the hiring manager must define quality, establishing some kind of standard against which to judge the employee.
At Health First, an integrated delivery health-care system in Melbourne, Florida, senior vice president of human resources Robert Suttles uses the Q12, a tool from The Gallup Organization that assesses both new managers and established ones. The Q12–which stems from extensive Gallup research conducted during the 1990s–measures what Gallup calls employee engagement, which is correlated with sales growth, productivity, customer loyalty and other business metrics.
Larry Emond, chief marketing officer for Gallup, says the company did a ton of bad employee surveys in the 1990s, asking about an employee’s overall satisfaction. But, he says, “that question is not good, not predictive of outcomes. Q12 questions differentiate highly productive work groups from others.” More than 500 corporations worldwide now use the tool as a barometer of quality in their workplaces.
Q12 information tells Robert Suttles of Health First how well a manager is doing in creating the right work environment for her team. Compensation is partially tied to the results of the survey. “The benefits for us are enormous,” he says. “Where we have high scores, turnover is low, the group under that manager is more productive, more profitable, and we have higher customer satisfaction.”
Bristol-Myers’ six-month plans Jim Ellinghausen, vice president and head of worldwide human resources for Bristol-Myers Squibb in Princeton, New Jersey, says the company measures quality in its senior people by how well a person has been integrated into the organization.
First, however, a structured plan is created, with certain deliverables–which Ellinghausen calls “integration goals”–for the first three to six months of that executive’s tenure. For a new head of research and development, for example, goals might include visiting all his major research sites and meeting with key members of the executive committee within six months. About 90 days into the hire, the executive meets with his direct reports and talks to them about who he is and why he joined the company. Then for the next three or four hours–while he is out of the room–that group works with facilitators to develop questions for the executive.
Typical questions developed at that meeting ask what the executive looks for in his people, how he operates, what his goals for the job are and where he sees the organization going, Ellinghausen says. “It’s a dialogue that helps the organization say to this newly hired executive: ‘Here are things you will need to be aware of to be successful here.’ “
A year ago, Bristol-Myers also began to judge the quality of new and existing executives by looking at seven core behaviors that tie into the company’s culture and its pledge to “enhance human life.” Six months into their tenure, new managers are assessed on their previously established integration goals as well as these core behaviors.
The metrics of caring At Ritz-Carlton Hotel Co., the quality of a new hire is measured in ways more warm and fuzzy. The international hotelier has about 28,000 employees and looks to its customers for guidance. Ongoing surveys ask customers about their experience in emotional terms: Did they feel cared for? Were greetings warm and sincere? Did they feel as if they were a guest in someone’s home? The answers, while appearing subjective, are actually part of “satisfaction scores” that each department in a Ritz-Carlton hotel receives.
Sue Stephenson, senior vice president of human resources, says the company uses assessments of customer loyalty to determine the quality of new and existing employees. Results come back to human resources on a monthly basis by hotel and department. A housekeeper’s quality, for example, won’t be judged only on the person’s work ethic or ability to be part of a team. “We also look at things like caring,” says Stephenson.
Results have been “tremendous,” she says. Year-to-date, Ritz-Carlton has achieved “top box”–the top box on the customer survey, indicating the highest satisfaction level–76.3 percent of the time. “That’s up 4 percent from last year,” Stephenson says. “Most hotels don’t get near that result.” Much of that success is attributed to both the after-hire assessments and a rigorous selection process.
It’s much more common to use rigorous selectivity in hiring than in after-the-fact assessments. Ritz-Carlton has in place a QSP–“Quality Selection Process”–that lays out explicitly what is expected of new hires, so that when they’re assessed, they know on what criteria they will be judged. “Much of our focus is on the selection process, what talents they bring to the table,” says Stephenson. “For instance, you can’t teach someone to smile.”
Dante Capitano, a managing director in the Philadelphia office of executive coaching firm RHR International, specializes in executive assessment and integration of new executives. His primary work is done when companies are hiring, at which time RHR develops a “profile of success” for a new candidate. The profile includes everything from behavioral characteristics to leadership style crucial to that person’s success.
Capitano then advises clients to conduct a 360-degree assessment of senior managers at about the six-month mark. He prefers that the survey be qualitative rather than quantitative. “We interview 10 to 12 stakeholders who have an interest in this person’s success and find out how they perceive this person’s effectiveness,” he says. “It’s not scientific. It’s not a lot of metrics… It’s more measuring up against a set of principles.”
Just the beginning Companies like Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ritz-Carlton are at the forefront of a trend. The idea that companies should evaluate the quality of new hires is just beginning to gain a foothold in corporate America’s human resources departments. Human-capital guru Jac Fitz-enz, founder of the Saratoga Institute and author of The ROI of Human Capital, says assessing quality isn’t as objective–or prevalent–as it ought to be. Although he acknowledges that plenty of good tools exist, he says companies are reluctant to use them. “It goes against our national culture to assess people in this way, so we don’t want to do it.”
In an economy with rising unemployment, where people apply for jobs even if they know they won’t be a good fit, assessing quality is increasingly important, says Peter Weddle, a publisher of guides to online job boards. Weddle agrees with Fitz-enz that most assessments are too subjective. “That’s the rub, isn’t it?” he says.
Measuring the quality of an employee may prove elusive, Weddle says, but you can certainly measure the impact of a quality employee. “In terms of the work completed and how well it’s done, you can measure that. It shows how well that person fits within an organization,” he says. “And that’s what quality is: a measure of how well someone fits.”
There’s something comforting and classy about Starbucks. It’s not just the enticing aromas and blues tunes wafting through the air, the handsome surroundings or the likelihood of running into a friend or neighbor. It’s more the way the baristas (never called “counter help”) greet people, perhaps offering a blueberry scone sample, or remembering a customer’s preference for nonfat soy latte with extra foam.
Starbucks attracts a near-cult following, serving 25 million drinks a week at nearly 7,000 locations worldwide. In a four-week period ending in August, the company–which is growing by three to four stores a day–reported net revenues of $335 million, an increase of 26 percent over the same period last year. The Seattle-based coffee empire was among the top 10 on Fortune’s most recent “America’s Most Admired Companies” list. The magazine also rated it the most admired food-services company in 2001 and 2002. Business Week named founder Howard Schultz one of the country’s top 25 managers in 2001.
Since Starbucks began with a single store in 1971, its overriding philosophy has been this: “Leave no one behind.” With that in mind, new employees get 24 hours of in-store training, steeping themselves in information about coffee and how to meet, greet and serve customers. Full health-care benefits (medical, dental, vision and alternative services) are offered to all employees, including part-timers who work at least 240 hours per calendar quarter. The EAP is available to all employees. Employees share in the company’s growth via “Bean Stock” (stock options) of up to 14 percent of their gross pay, and a stock-investment plan allows them to buy shares of Starbucks common stock at a discount (85 percent of fair market value) through payroll deductions. The company also matches employees’ contributions to their “Future Roast” 401(k) plans, adding from 25 to 150 percent of the first 4 percent of pay, depending on length of service.
As a result of such measures, Starbucks employees have an 82 percent job-satisfaction rate, according to a Hewitt Associates Starbucks Partner View Survey. This compares to a 50 percent satisfaction rate for all employers and 74 percent for Hewitt’s “Best Place to Work” employers. Though the company won’t release specific numbers, it also claims that its turnover is lower than that of most fast-food establishments. But it’s not just the benefits that attract employees. Another company survey found that the top two reasons why people work for Starbucks are “the opportunity to work with an enthusiastic team” and “to work in a place where I feel I have value.”
Omollo Gaya, who grew up on a coffee farm in Kenya and immigrated to San Diego to attend college, was drawn inside a Starbucks store seven years ago by the heady aroma. He bought a pound of coffee, struck up a conversation with the employee behind the counter, and was impressed by the barista’s knowledge. As he sipped his brew, “something clicked,” Gaya says. After researching Starbucks, he applied for a job and spent the next four years in a San Diego store before being promoted to his current position as one of eight coffee tasters at company headquarters. After six years, Gaya exercised his Bean Stock options, which netted about $25,000 after payment of the exercise price, to build a new four-bedroom house for his widowed mother on 15 acres in her home village.
“The health benefits, the 401(k) and the stock options really surprised me, and confirmed what this company is all about,” Gaya says. “From my first day on the job, I got a lot of satisfaction when I offered a cup of coffee to customers and saw the smile on their faces, when I answered their questions about coffee, and when I saw their enthusiasm when they returned with a friend or colleague. My love for coffee started when I was 5 years old, but I never thought it would come to mean so much to me. Buying a home for my mother is the highlight of my being with Starbucks.”
Maintaining that kind of feel-good atmosphere in a small mom-and-pop company is one thing. The question is how Starbucks manages to keep the spirit flowing with 11,000 full-time and 60,000 part-time employees in North America, and an additional 7,400 workers globally. “Staying ‘small’ while we grow is one of our biggest challenges,” says Dave Pace, executive vice president of partner resources (the company’s term for human resources). “It sounds clichéd, but we do it by taking our mission statement seriously. Almost all companies have a mission, but at Starbucks, we use it as our guiding principle and hold it up as a filter for decision-making.”
Providing a great work environment and treating employees with respect is number one on Starbucks’ six-point mission statement. The list also includes a commitment to diversity; excellence in purchasing, roasting and delivering coffee; keeping customers satisfied; contributing to communities and the environment; and, of course, achieving profitability.
Starbucks encourages its employees, who are called partners, to keep in mind its mission statement, monitor management decisions, and submit comments and questions if they encounter anything that runs counter to any of the six points. Employees submit about 200 such Mission Review queries a month, and a two-person team considers and responds to each one. As a result of one such review request, Starbucks extended its military-reserve policy to protect the jobs, salaries and health-care benefits of employees who were called into action after September 11 and again during the Iraq war.
The company also encourages community involvement by donating $10 for each hour that an employee volunteers to a nonprofit or charitable organization. Profits from sales of the company’s logo-emblazoned “coffee gear” are channeled into clubs and services for employees, which include everything from running groups and bowling leagues to quilting and book clubs. Employees can donate an amount of their choice to a voluntary “CUP (Caring Unites Partners) fund,” which is used to provide grants to fellow employees who fall on hard times. And every year, as part of its Earthwatch program, the company selects a few employees to travel to coffee-producing parts of the world, where they learn firsthand about environmental and conservation issues from the growers. Last year two were selected; this year five are going.
“People come to Starbucks to socialize and interact, so our partners do much more than just make coffee,” Pace says. “They are the ones who create that environment in our stores and make this a place that people feel good about. So they feel empowered and know they are making a contribution. This is a company where we look out for each other and look out for the community. And when people see us responding to them, they feel like this company really ‘gets it.’ ”
Workforce Management, October 2003, pp. 58-59 — Subscribe Now!
