Well, two weeks into the new job and I can definitely confirm- I am busy. It's chaotic and fabulous, and I'm exhausted every night when I get home, but I do seem to be settling in ok. It has been rather more chaotic than I expected, and, in fact, rather more chaotic than my boss expected.
I've been learning the ins and outs of their payroll system (seems not bad,) recruiting for at least a dozen positions, most of which are high skill, and desperately trying to reorganize the HR office, which is certainly a bit of a mess.
Not-exactly-highlights include three terminations in the first two weeks, and an employee mental health crisis on day four. Makes for an intense two weeks, but on the plus side, it considerably upped my knowledge of our crisis counselling program and benefits.
I think it was the third day there that my new boss informed me that they needed a completely new employee evaluation system in place- by November 19th. I present the basics of it tomorrow. So I've definitely been busy, but it really is fabulous. I said I wanted a challenge, and there you are, I most certainly got it. Right now, most of what I'm doing is putting out fires, but as that begins to calm down, I will have more of an opportunity to develop the more strategic programs we're looking to implement.
My biggest handicap is that I don't know very much about the jobs I'm hiring for. This is a completely new industry for me, and so, while I'd love to develop new job descriptions, at the moment, I know very little about the jobs themselves and don't have the time to do an intensive study of each position before I get recruiting. So that's something else that will probably have to wait for a bit. I am currently strongly reliant on the hiring managers to help me find candidates, but I'm learning about each position, little by little.
So far I've managed not to feel too overwhelmed, though I do worry a bit that I'm not accomplishing everything that I need to. And my poor blog is certainly feeling a bit of the neglect, but I'm so burned out when I get home that I suspect that's going to continue for a bit.
No worries, though, because I'm loving this. There are so many things that I love about HR, but I think the biggest one is having the opportunity to make things better for the people I work with, and what better opportunity is there than in an organization that is in crisis mode when it comes to their HR?
Bring it on, I say.
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Friday, October 19, 2012
Changes, Changes...
I haven't posted in a while. Like, a month. Mea culpa. I do apologize, but life got unexpectedly busy.
I am very pleased to announce that after 14 months of looking, I finally found the perfect opportunity! Starting October 29th, I have a new position as Human Resources Generalist. I won't be mentioning the company name as of yet, because I do not yet know how they feel about me linking myself to them via my blog. Suffice it to say that I am very excited for the opportunity, because it will let me dig right into the meat of HR best practices, and do what I do best.
The new position goes as follows:
My new org (let's call them Polaris for now- not the right name but convenient shorthand) is a family-owned org. Recently, the founder of the company turned it over to his offspring to run, who hired a CFO about six months ago. They are looking to make some pretty radical changes to company culture, hiring practices, performance management, compensation and benefits, etc. as a way of facilitating considerable corporate growth, and my job is to examine, revamp and revise pretty much all of the above.
Previously, their HR department has been one person without much background or education in HR, and Polaris is looking to change that up and bring in a more strategic HR function. There are considerable challenges to be overcome, and I look forward to the opportunity for change management on this kind of scale. It's going to be an amazing challenge for us to bring Polaris to where they want to be, but there seems to be huge buy-in among the executive and management teams to get us there.
In short, I'm going to be a very busy girl for a while, so I do apologize if this blog gets a bit neglected. I'll try not to go for months on end without posting, I promise. There's just going to be so much to get into, and I have a feeling I may need occasionally to be dragged away into the sunlight for a dose of Vitamin D and sanity, but fortunately, I have a hubby who is very good at supporting me when I need it, and at disabling my cell and internet access when I need that, too.
I can't wait!
I am very pleased to announce that after 14 months of looking, I finally found the perfect opportunity! Starting October 29th, I have a new position as Human Resources Generalist. I won't be mentioning the company name as of yet, because I do not yet know how they feel about me linking myself to them via my blog. Suffice it to say that I am very excited for the opportunity, because it will let me dig right into the meat of HR best practices, and do what I do best.
The new position goes as follows:
My new org (let's call them Polaris for now- not the right name but convenient shorthand) is a family-owned org. Recently, the founder of the company turned it over to his offspring to run, who hired a CFO about six months ago. They are looking to make some pretty radical changes to company culture, hiring practices, performance management, compensation and benefits, etc. as a way of facilitating considerable corporate growth, and my job is to examine, revamp and revise pretty much all of the above.
Previously, their HR department has been one person without much background or education in HR, and Polaris is looking to change that up and bring in a more strategic HR function. There are considerable challenges to be overcome, and I look forward to the opportunity for change management on this kind of scale. It's going to be an amazing challenge for us to bring Polaris to where they want to be, but there seems to be huge buy-in among the executive and management teams to get us there.
In short, I'm going to be a very busy girl for a while, so I do apologize if this blog gets a bit neglected. I'll try not to go for months on end without posting, I promise. There's just going to be so much to get into, and I have a feeling I may need occasionally to be dragged away into the sunlight for a dose of Vitamin D and sanity, but fortunately, I have a hubby who is very good at supporting me when I need it, and at disabling my cell and internet access when I need that, too.
I can't wait!
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Worst Interview Ever?
Well, maybe second worst. I had one some time ago where, crossing the road to get to my interview, I swallowed a faceful of gravel from a passing semi and spent the whole interview choking everytime I tried to speak. They were very understanding, but it's hard to come across as polished and confident when you're red-faced and teary-eyed.
I had a phone screening to do the other day. I had scheduled it for a convenient time, and brought up my resume, cover letter (tailored to the job listing, of course) and the job description. I was all set up and ready to go. I was prepared with a capital P.
Five minutes before the designated interview time, the fire alarm went off. And then again. And again. It seems that day was the day for the annual testing of the fire alarms, starting at 8:00 am. Apparently there had been a posted notification for it that I somehow didn't see at all.
I tried very hard during the interview to hope that the alarm wouldn't go off again. It kept going off on some kind of random interval and I knew this was going to be a relatively short interview.
No such luck.
In the midst of much shrilling of alarms and flashing of strobe lights (thank God it wasn't a Skype interview) I had to explain about the testing and apologize.
Thankfully, he laughed and commiserated with me about the perils of random alarm testing, and it must have gone ok because we did schedule an in-person interview for the end of the week.
What are your scary interview stories? Did it work out in the end, or not?
I had a phone screening to do the other day. I had scheduled it for a convenient time, and brought up my resume, cover letter (tailored to the job listing, of course) and the job description. I was all set up and ready to go. I was prepared with a capital P.
Five minutes before the designated interview time, the fire alarm went off. And then again. And again. It seems that day was the day for the annual testing of the fire alarms, starting at 8:00 am. Apparently there had been a posted notification for it that I somehow didn't see at all.
I tried very hard during the interview to hope that the alarm wouldn't go off again. It kept going off on some kind of random interval and I knew this was going to be a relatively short interview.
No such luck.
In the midst of much shrilling of alarms and flashing of strobe lights (thank God it wasn't a Skype interview) I had to explain about the testing and apologize.
Thankfully, he laughed and commiserated with me about the perils of random alarm testing, and it must have gone ok because we did schedule an in-person interview for the end of the week.
What are your scary interview stories? Did it work out in the end, or not?
Sunday, September 9, 2012
Everybody Hates HR...
...But they need us. Even if they don't think they do.
This report is a bit old now, but it's the PROFIT magazine's survey of Canadas 50 hottest companies, as measured mainly by revenue growth rate. The CEOs of these companies were asked what the most important factors were in sustaining their growth and their list's top two answers were 1) Retaining good staff and 2) Recruiting good staff. Top two on the list and they are major HR functions, but pick a company, almost any company, and canvass the staff, and I would bet you the opinions of HR (outside of the human resources department staff, obviously,) often be negative. Part of this, I think, stems from a seperation from the HR function and a lack of understanding of what it is HR actually does (besides hiring that idiot in accounting you couldn't stand, and firing people, that is- everybody knows HR does that) and part of it is because, at least in my own admittedly limited and anecdotal experience, a lot of companies aren't big on strategic HR, and their HR function is not especially well performed.
I think we HR pros have an uphill battle to fight. There are some extremely important strategic functions that HR performs, and properly-performed HR brings a lot to the table. I do believe that most companies are starting to realize the costs related to recruitment and retention, but where HR really needs to do the work is in showing that HR pros can do a better job with recruitment and retention. I know, I know, "metrics" might be one of the more overused buzz words in the HR world, but ultimately, metrics matter. They are the only way we really have to track and show the contribution that we are making to the bottom line of our organizations. If you want HR to matter to your CEO, you'd better be able to show him how you make a difference.
Here's one of the ways HR makes a difference.
Say you work for a fairly large organization that does not know how much turnover costs per employee, and maybe it doesn't even know exactly what its turnover rate is. All those retention-related costs get lumped in under general operating costs. Say this organization also generally pays its employees under the market rate, and hasn't performed a compensation survey in years- and it is finding itself with a major recruitment and retention problem. (Before you start complaining about this scenario being unrealistic- it isn't. I worked there, and I dealt with this exact situation.) Retention levels kept getting worse, even if nobody knew exactly how bad, more and more positions kept going unfilled for longer, and we didn't even know how much it was costing us. We just had a general sense of, "well, this is bad." Does this strike you as a good way to run your business?
That example might be a bit extreme, and I've had other HR folks tell me that I'm obsessed with data, but you know what? It's important. It matters. Having been in an organization with virtually no data, I have an unbelievable appreciation for what the numbers can tell you. It's pretty darn hard to be strategic going totally off of guesswork. And I'd be the first to tell you that HR is about a whole lot more than just recruitment- but recruitment and retention are the most important functions HR provides, because they are the functions that have the greatest impact on organizational performance. They are the functions that matter most to the CEO, ergo, they are the most important to HR, or should be. Otherwise it's no wonder HR gets looked at as out of touch.
So, I say, bring on the metrics, bring on the data, bring on the strategy. If HR wants a seat at the big boy table, we'd better be up to it.
This report is a bit old now, but it's the PROFIT magazine's survey of Canadas 50 hottest companies, as measured mainly by revenue growth rate. The CEOs of these companies were asked what the most important factors were in sustaining their growth and their list's top two answers were 1) Retaining good staff and 2) Recruiting good staff. Top two on the list and they are major HR functions, but pick a company, almost any company, and canvass the staff, and I would bet you the opinions of HR (outside of the human resources department staff, obviously,) often be negative. Part of this, I think, stems from a seperation from the HR function and a lack of understanding of what it is HR actually does (besides hiring that idiot in accounting you couldn't stand, and firing people, that is- everybody knows HR does that) and part of it is because, at least in my own admittedly limited and anecdotal experience, a lot of companies aren't big on strategic HR, and their HR function is not especially well performed.
I think we HR pros have an uphill battle to fight. There are some extremely important strategic functions that HR performs, and properly-performed HR brings a lot to the table. I do believe that most companies are starting to realize the costs related to recruitment and retention, but where HR really needs to do the work is in showing that HR pros can do a better job with recruitment and retention. I know, I know, "metrics" might be one of the more overused buzz words in the HR world, but ultimately, metrics matter. They are the only way we really have to track and show the contribution that we are making to the bottom line of our organizations. If you want HR to matter to your CEO, you'd better be able to show him how you make a difference.
Here's one of the ways HR makes a difference.
Say you work for a fairly large organization that does not know how much turnover costs per employee, and maybe it doesn't even know exactly what its turnover rate is. All those retention-related costs get lumped in under general operating costs. Say this organization also generally pays its employees under the market rate, and hasn't performed a compensation survey in years- and it is finding itself with a major recruitment and retention problem. (Before you start complaining about this scenario being unrealistic- it isn't. I worked there, and I dealt with this exact situation.) Retention levels kept getting worse, even if nobody knew exactly how bad, more and more positions kept going unfilled for longer, and we didn't even know how much it was costing us. We just had a general sense of, "well, this is bad." Does this strike you as a good way to run your business?
That example might be a bit extreme, and I've had other HR folks tell me that I'm obsessed with data, but you know what? It's important. It matters. Having been in an organization with virtually no data, I have an unbelievable appreciation for what the numbers can tell you. It's pretty darn hard to be strategic going totally off of guesswork. And I'd be the first to tell you that HR is about a whole lot more than just recruitment- but recruitment and retention are the most important functions HR provides, because they are the functions that have the greatest impact on organizational performance. They are the functions that matter most to the CEO, ergo, they are the most important to HR, or should be. Otherwise it's no wonder HR gets looked at as out of touch.
So, I say, bring on the metrics, bring on the data, bring on the strategy. If HR wants a seat at the big boy table, we'd better be up to it.
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Social Media Management
How do you manage your social media presence? Do you? If you're here, reading this blog, the answer is probably yes, or at least, you are interested in managing your social media presence.
It's not as obvious a question as it seems, I think. Not everyone out there puts much thought into their online presence, though that is changing as there are more and more high profile stories about social media and the impact it has on our personal and professional lives. The impact of Facebook goes far beyond ensuring you stay updated on Aunt Marge's latest kitty pictures, adorable though Whiskers may be.
I think most of us by now have heard the online hype about employers asking for your facebook passwords, and I think this practice is not exactly widespread, despite all the attention it has received. Certainly here in Canada, I've never personally heard of anyone using this practice, and I would hope I don't- this is a terrible hiring practice. As an employer, it would be pretty difficult to defend against allegations of discrimination on the basis of legally protected grounds if it were shown that I had demanded someone's Facebook password and in doing so, found out about a pregnancy, say, or religious status, national origin, sexual orientation, etc. You get the idea. These things are iffy enough if you merely google a prospective candidate's name to see what comes up.
The social media minefield is an issue no matter what side of the employee/employer divide you happen to be on, and, to mix my metaphors, the waters are murky at best. As an employer, you need to be careful about what you look up when, and as an employee or a candidate, you need to watch what you put out there for the world to see, because even if it's not exactly a best practice to demand access to your Facebook or other social media accounts, that doesn't necessarily mean it isn't going to happen. So what do you do, especially when we're hearing more and more about how those individuals without facebook accounts aren't to be trusted? (See a recent forbes article here about this.) I don't know.
Personally, I keep my Facebook private. I am searchable, but only my name and picture, because my Facebook account is strictly for personal use. You can find me quite easily on LinkedIn and Twitter, because that's professional, and intended to be public. Even with Facebook, though, I do try to monitor what I post. I always keep in mind that this is the internet, and there is never a guarantee of anonymity, and you can never be sure that something you've written is really gone, even after you hit delete. It means I have no problem adding my boss on Facebook- but then, I don't really post much there anyway. That's the balance that I've found, and it seems to work for me. I've also heard of people with multiple Facebook accounts as well, and that seems to work for them. I don't think there's one right answer- just think about whatever you do.
What do you do?
It's not as obvious a question as it seems, I think. Not everyone out there puts much thought into their online presence, though that is changing as there are more and more high profile stories about social media and the impact it has on our personal and professional lives. The impact of Facebook goes far beyond ensuring you stay updated on Aunt Marge's latest kitty pictures, adorable though Whiskers may be.
I think most of us by now have heard the online hype about employers asking for your facebook passwords, and I think this practice is not exactly widespread, despite all the attention it has received. Certainly here in Canada, I've never personally heard of anyone using this practice, and I would hope I don't- this is a terrible hiring practice. As an employer, it would be pretty difficult to defend against allegations of discrimination on the basis of legally protected grounds if it were shown that I had demanded someone's Facebook password and in doing so, found out about a pregnancy, say, or religious status, national origin, sexual orientation, etc. You get the idea. These things are iffy enough if you merely google a prospective candidate's name to see what comes up.
The social media minefield is an issue no matter what side of the employee/employer divide you happen to be on, and, to mix my metaphors, the waters are murky at best. As an employer, you need to be careful about what you look up when, and as an employee or a candidate, you need to watch what you put out there for the world to see, because even if it's not exactly a best practice to demand access to your Facebook or other social media accounts, that doesn't necessarily mean it isn't going to happen. So what do you do, especially when we're hearing more and more about how those individuals without facebook accounts aren't to be trusted? (See a recent forbes article here about this.) I don't know.
Personally, I keep my Facebook private. I am searchable, but only my name and picture, because my Facebook account is strictly for personal use. You can find me quite easily on LinkedIn and Twitter, because that's professional, and intended to be public. Even with Facebook, though, I do try to monitor what I post. I always keep in mind that this is the internet, and there is never a guarantee of anonymity, and you can never be sure that something you've written is really gone, even after you hit delete. It means I have no problem adding my boss on Facebook- but then, I don't really post much there anyway. That's the balance that I've found, and it seems to work for me. I've also heard of people with multiple Facebook accounts as well, and that seems to work for them. I don't think there's one right answer- just think about whatever you do.
What do you do?
Friday, August 10, 2012
The Biggest Thing You're Doing Wrong When You Hire... Yes, You.
Not you, personally of course. I have no idea what your hiring practices are like, and it's entirely possible that you have the best hiring practices out there and a wonderful track record with just the right level of retention. But if that's so, I do have to wonder a little bit what you're doing here reading this blog. Shouldn't you be writing your own blog or book, or just generally cashing in on your wonderful hiring secrets?
Or maybe some of the following situation sounds familiar.
You have an unexpected job opening, because someone gave notice, you had to let someone go, business grew more that expected, etc. You need to fill this position, preferably soon, and having the vacancy is causing you some stress. Maybe it's not the biggest issue on your plate at the moment, but it's a constant low level irritation, a reminder that certain things are not getting done and the workload is piling up. Maybe you don't have that unexpected job opening just yet, but you know you will soon, because someone is going on mat leave, or back to school, or something.
So, you start by digging out your job description. Maybe you have a job ad template that you already use, maybe you make one up, maybe you call HR or your recruitment firm. You get your ad out there. You post on working.com or monster.ca, or craisglist. You post on your organization's career page. Maybe, possibly, you post on LinkedIn or twitter. And the resumés start coming in, through your ATS or your email.
Suddenly, you have stacks of resumés to sort through. Some of them look pretty good, some of them are terrible, and some of them are in between. You sort your piles and start calling your potential candidates, and some of them don't want to travel so far, some of them want way more money than you can offer, and some of them don't call you back. Some of them come in for interviews and are awful, some of them don't show up. You're getting a headache now, everytime you think of your unfilled position, because all you really want is someone who can do the job. Sure, you'd love a superstar candidate, but at this point, you'd settle for competent if it meant you didn't have to deal with the interviews and the resumés and the whole bit.
Then you interview a candidate who seems decent. Reasonably qualified, personable, etc. You're so relieved, because this one could be the one. You just want to fill the role. And your candidate has several years of industry experience, knows the software you use, and is extroverted and personable. So you make your candidate an offer, and voila, you have yourself a new employee.
And then it all starts to go wrong. Your new employee seems to be really disorganized, stressed out, and alienates your customers and fellow employees. Chronic lateness becomes a problem, and performance is simply not up to par. Ultimately, you have to let your new hire go and start the process all over again.
Bad hires cost a lot. Think about all the time and money invested in trying to recruit somebody in the first place, the salary costs of paying someone who simply isn't up to par, performance-wise, the lost customers due to poor service, and now you're right back where you started, with another round of recruiting in front of you. But we tend to get so stressed out about having an opening and all of the stress surrouding recruitment that we jump on hiring a candidate who interviews well without maybe doing everything we could do in order to determine if our potential candidate is a good fit.
Hiring too quickly is the single biggest mistake you can make, and it is potentially a very expensive one, not to mention a waste of effort. Spending more time with a position unfilled, if it means you end up with a better candidate, is a better way to go. Don't rush to hire, don't take shortcuts from your usual, well-thought-out interview and selection process. Don't skip the reference check "just this once" and don't ever assume that hiring someone you have reservations about is better than leaving the role empty, because in a lot of cases, it simply isn't true. This holds true whether you're the hiring manager who has to oversee the vacant role or whether you're the recruiter trying to find good candidates. Don't hire quickly- hire well.
Of course, if you're losing your good candidates because they have other offers by the time you get around to making your own offer, well, you may have the opposite problem. But that's a post for another day.
Or maybe some of the following situation sounds familiar.
You have an unexpected job opening, because someone gave notice, you had to let someone go, business grew more that expected, etc. You need to fill this position, preferably soon, and having the vacancy is causing you some stress. Maybe it's not the biggest issue on your plate at the moment, but it's a constant low level irritation, a reminder that certain things are not getting done and the workload is piling up. Maybe you don't have that unexpected job opening just yet, but you know you will soon, because someone is going on mat leave, or back to school, or something.
So, you start by digging out your job description. Maybe you have a job ad template that you already use, maybe you make one up, maybe you call HR or your recruitment firm. You get your ad out there. You post on working.com or monster.ca, or craisglist. You post on your organization's career page. Maybe, possibly, you post on LinkedIn or twitter. And the resumés start coming in, through your ATS or your email.
Suddenly, you have stacks of resumés to sort through. Some of them look pretty good, some of them are terrible, and some of them are in between. You sort your piles and start calling your potential candidates, and some of them don't want to travel so far, some of them want way more money than you can offer, and some of them don't call you back. Some of them come in for interviews and are awful, some of them don't show up. You're getting a headache now, everytime you think of your unfilled position, because all you really want is someone who can do the job. Sure, you'd love a superstar candidate, but at this point, you'd settle for competent if it meant you didn't have to deal with the interviews and the resumés and the whole bit.
Then you interview a candidate who seems decent. Reasonably qualified, personable, etc. You're so relieved, because this one could be the one. You just want to fill the role. And your candidate has several years of industry experience, knows the software you use, and is extroverted and personable. So you make your candidate an offer, and voila, you have yourself a new employee.
And then it all starts to go wrong. Your new employee seems to be really disorganized, stressed out, and alienates your customers and fellow employees. Chronic lateness becomes a problem, and performance is simply not up to par. Ultimately, you have to let your new hire go and start the process all over again.
Bad hires cost a lot. Think about all the time and money invested in trying to recruit somebody in the first place, the salary costs of paying someone who simply isn't up to par, performance-wise, the lost customers due to poor service, and now you're right back where you started, with another round of recruiting in front of you. But we tend to get so stressed out about having an opening and all of the stress surrouding recruitment that we jump on hiring a candidate who interviews well without maybe doing everything we could do in order to determine if our potential candidate is a good fit.
Hiring too quickly is the single biggest mistake you can make, and it is potentially a very expensive one, not to mention a waste of effort. Spending more time with a position unfilled, if it means you end up with a better candidate, is a better way to go. Don't rush to hire, don't take shortcuts from your usual, well-thought-out interview and selection process. Don't skip the reference check "just this once" and don't ever assume that hiring someone you have reservations about is better than leaving the role empty, because in a lot of cases, it simply isn't true. This holds true whether you're the hiring manager who has to oversee the vacant role or whether you're the recruiter trying to find good candidates. Don't hire quickly- hire well.
Of course, if you're losing your good candidates because they have other offers by the time you get around to making your own offer, well, you may have the opposite problem. But that's a post for another day.
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
What I Really Want
How many of you out there have read that you should follow your passion in your life? How many of you feel that you are really passionate about what you do/would like to be doing?
For me, I don't think the answer is quite as simple as follow your passion. For one thing, you'd better find a way to make your passion pay the bills, and for another, your passion better be something you are at least somewhat good at, or have the potential to be good at, if you want to spend your life doing it. And sometimes, doing what you love isn't enough. For instance, I think it's fair to say I'm passionate about food. I love to cook, and will happily spend the whole day preparing a meal for friends or family, trying new recipes. I delight in farmer's markets and funky little restaurants. However, I've never pursued a professional career in cooking, and I doubt I ever will, because there are too many other things about a professional career as a chef, etc. that I would not enjoy, and because I'm afraid my enjoyment of cooking for friends and family would be less as a result of a professional career in cooking for others.
What I want in a job is not so much the specifics of what I'll be doing, but that I have a job that I enjoy going to. Maybe not everyday, because we all have moments lying there in a nice cosy bed when that alarm is going off where all we want to do is go back to sleep, but generally. And for me, I've managed to figure out what that means. That means a job where I get to interact with people, for one. That means a job where I have some a variety of things to do, and a role that grows and changes as I do, because I thrive on a challenge and despise being bored. That means a role where I get some say in how I do things, and where I can constantly learn new skills. It means problem-solving, and using my brain and my skills to find solutions. It also means a job in HR because I really, truly enjoy what I do, and know that good HR makes a huge difference to the culture and working environment of any organization.
If you are passionate enough about what you do that other people get bored when you start nattering on about it, that to me is a sign that you're in the right place, doing what's right for you. So I'll continue to try to make a difference in HR, and I will continue to cook for friends and family, and that will make me happy.
What makes you happy?
For me, I don't think the answer is quite as simple as follow your passion. For one thing, you'd better find a way to make your passion pay the bills, and for another, your passion better be something you are at least somewhat good at, or have the potential to be good at, if you want to spend your life doing it. And sometimes, doing what you love isn't enough. For instance, I think it's fair to say I'm passionate about food. I love to cook, and will happily spend the whole day preparing a meal for friends or family, trying new recipes. I delight in farmer's markets and funky little restaurants. However, I've never pursued a professional career in cooking, and I doubt I ever will, because there are too many other things about a professional career as a chef, etc. that I would not enjoy, and because I'm afraid my enjoyment of cooking for friends and family would be less as a result of a professional career in cooking for others.
What I want in a job is not so much the specifics of what I'll be doing, but that I have a job that I enjoy going to. Maybe not everyday, because we all have moments lying there in a nice cosy bed when that alarm is going off where all we want to do is go back to sleep, but generally. And for me, I've managed to figure out what that means. That means a job where I get to interact with people, for one. That means a job where I have some a variety of things to do, and a role that grows and changes as I do, because I thrive on a challenge and despise being bored. That means a role where I get some say in how I do things, and where I can constantly learn new skills. It means problem-solving, and using my brain and my skills to find solutions. It also means a job in HR because I really, truly enjoy what I do, and know that good HR makes a huge difference to the culture and working environment of any organization.
If you are passionate enough about what you do that other people get bored when you start nattering on about it, that to me is a sign that you're in the right place, doing what's right for you. So I'll continue to try to make a difference in HR, and I will continue to cook for friends and family, and that will make me happy.
What makes you happy?
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
NKE Results
I am very pleased to announce that I am now officially a CHRP Candidate, having passed the NKE with 81%. The official pass rate was 65%, so I did quite well and am very happy with that.
I may write the NPPA next June, but I will wait and see as the CHRP program is being revised due to the new experience requirements. I want to see how that process works, but I may be able to obtain the designation through the experience assessment instead, so we shall see.
I hope everyone else did well, and I wish luck and good studying to all those writing next October!
I may write the NPPA next June, but I will wait and see as the CHRP program is being revised due to the new experience requirements. I want to see how that process works, but I may be able to obtain the designation through the experience assessment instead, so we shall see.
I hope everyone else did well, and I wish luck and good studying to all those writing next October!
Monday, July 9, 2012
Beer, Batman and Business
I had an interesting conversation about hiring the other day.
I had met up with my hubby and some friends at the pub, and was a little later getting there than everybody else, so that by the time I had arrived, they were mid-appies and mid-debate. I walked in on a rather spirited debate about compensation and ethics, and so naturally I jumped right in.
It's worth mentioning first that these were my husband's fencing club buddies, who I have met only a couple of times, and who have no idea about my background in HR. It's also worth noting that a fair amount of beer had been consumed already by the time I got there, and that, as far as I know, none of those involved actually do any hiring of their own.
When I first sat down, the conversation was revolving around the hypothetical situation of a billionaire business owner (and I am very sure that this one was a completely hypothetical situation, and that there is no hidden billionaire lurking in the university fencing club) with a business manager of some sort who is negotiating a new salary. The debate centered specifically around the ethics and advisability of paying him $70,000 a year (as he or she apparently has asked) while knowing that you would be willing to pay up to $150,000 per year for the value he adds to your organization. One point seemed to be that the decision to pay $70,000 per year was both ethical and advisable, as you (as the billionaire, though why the business owner should have to be a billionaire was not mentioned and may have had more to do with the quantity of beer consumed than anything) are paying your employee exactly what he has asked you for. The other side of the debate seemed to be that the decision was not ethical, because you were working from more knowledge than the business manager, as you knew you were willing to pay more than double his asking price.
My contribution? I asked them who had done the market research for jobs of this type, our billionaire business owner or the manager, because having a salary range that was that far apart indicated that one or the other of them must be too stupid to find out what a position like that is actually worth in the labour market.
They told me that wasn't the point of the exercise, and the conversation segued into a discussion about the ethics (from a utilitarian standpoint) of being the man who murdered batman's parents. Which maybe explains the billionaire.
I had met up with my hubby and some friends at the pub, and was a little later getting there than everybody else, so that by the time I had arrived, they were mid-appies and mid-debate. I walked in on a rather spirited debate about compensation and ethics, and so naturally I jumped right in.
It's worth mentioning first that these were my husband's fencing club buddies, who I have met only a couple of times, and who have no idea about my background in HR. It's also worth noting that a fair amount of beer had been consumed already by the time I got there, and that, as far as I know, none of those involved actually do any hiring of their own.
When I first sat down, the conversation was revolving around the hypothetical situation of a billionaire business owner (and I am very sure that this one was a completely hypothetical situation, and that there is no hidden billionaire lurking in the university fencing club) with a business manager of some sort who is negotiating a new salary. The debate centered specifically around the ethics and advisability of paying him $70,000 a year (as he or she apparently has asked) while knowing that you would be willing to pay up to $150,000 per year for the value he adds to your organization. One point seemed to be that the decision to pay $70,000 per year was both ethical and advisable, as you (as the billionaire, though why the business owner should have to be a billionaire was not mentioned and may have had more to do with the quantity of beer consumed than anything) are paying your employee exactly what he has asked you for. The other side of the debate seemed to be that the decision was not ethical, because you were working from more knowledge than the business manager, as you knew you were willing to pay more than double his asking price.
My contribution? I asked them who had done the market research for jobs of this type, our billionaire business owner or the manager, because having a salary range that was that far apart indicated that one or the other of them must be too stupid to find out what a position like that is actually worth in the labour market.
They told me that wasn't the point of the exercise, and the conversation segued into a discussion about the ethics (from a utilitarian standpoint) of being the man who murdered batman's parents. Which maybe explains the billionaire.
Friday, June 15, 2012
The Importance of Being Social
Does your organization use social media effectively? Do you think it should?
I should think it is clear at this point that social media is not going away. It may change- Myspace came and went, Facebook is still going strong, Google+ wasn't the crazy success some people thought it was going to be- but social media as a whole is very much here to stay. And any business that isn't taking advantage of the prevalence of social media in our lives is, in my humble opinion, falling behind.
The PR and marketing advantages of using social media should be obvious. Social media is free, and if you put a little work into it, you can have quite an effective, interactive space that gets your brand out there to nearly everyone at little to no cost. You can showcase yourself and people can talk about you, give you feedback and recommend you, for free. Everyone should be doing this.
However, if you're going to go the social media route, do it right. Invest a little time in it, and keep it up. There is nothing sadder than a company twitter account that has 30 followers who are all employees, and has tweeted six times in two years. Might as well delete it and move on, because it just makes you look like you hopped on the bandwagon and then didn't know what to do next. And be aware that if you have a Facebook page, you may get a disgruntled client posting on it- don't just ignore it, don't just delete it and move on! Handle it, and if it is done effectively, you can create a customer for life. I work for an organization that had this kind of issue- the president of the company responded personally, and ultimately flew the client out to head office for a tour. She is now one of the biggest brand evangelists we have, and all this came out of a complaint on Facebook.
The advantages of using social media effectively go beyond marketing though- social media is a godsend to anyone in recruitment. It is free and easy advertising. If you've done your job properly and created a consistent branding image, you can reach all kinds of passive and active candidates through social media. Create a Facebook careers link, send out tweets with links to job descriptions, use LinkedIn, and in a very short time, you have gotten your message out to a wide pool of possible candidates that you might never have reached any other way.
In short, I think everyone should be using social media. Are you?
I should think it is clear at this point that social media is not going away. It may change- Myspace came and went, Facebook is still going strong, Google+ wasn't the crazy success some people thought it was going to be- but social media as a whole is very much here to stay. And any business that isn't taking advantage of the prevalence of social media in our lives is, in my humble opinion, falling behind.
The PR and marketing advantages of using social media should be obvious. Social media is free, and if you put a little work into it, you can have quite an effective, interactive space that gets your brand out there to nearly everyone at little to no cost. You can showcase yourself and people can talk about you, give you feedback and recommend you, for free. Everyone should be doing this.
However, if you're going to go the social media route, do it right. Invest a little time in it, and keep it up. There is nothing sadder than a company twitter account that has 30 followers who are all employees, and has tweeted six times in two years. Might as well delete it and move on, because it just makes you look like you hopped on the bandwagon and then didn't know what to do next. And be aware that if you have a Facebook page, you may get a disgruntled client posting on it- don't just ignore it, don't just delete it and move on! Handle it, and if it is done effectively, you can create a customer for life. I work for an organization that had this kind of issue- the president of the company responded personally, and ultimately flew the client out to head office for a tour. She is now one of the biggest brand evangelists we have, and all this came out of a complaint on Facebook.
The advantages of using social media effectively go beyond marketing though- social media is a godsend to anyone in recruitment. It is free and easy advertising. If you've done your job properly and created a consistent branding image, you can reach all kinds of passive and active candidates through social media. Create a Facebook careers link, send out tweets with links to job descriptions, use LinkedIn, and in a very short time, you have gotten your message out to a wide pool of possible candidates that you might never have reached any other way.
In short, I think everyone should be using social media. Are you?
Monday, June 4, 2012
Employee Handbooks- How Valve Does It
I read this article the other day, and, because my significant other is an avid gamer, I knew immediately what I was looking at. If you have a gamer in your life, you probably do, too.
For those of you HR types who may not be quite so up on the gaming world, the linked article is discussing the employee handbook of a company called Valve, who are huge in the world of videogames, PC and platform-based. They are creative and innovative, and make games people love to play. They also have one hell of an employee handbook.
For those of you who click the link, I'd love to know what the first thing you thought of that handbook was. I know for me, it was their hierarchy that did me in. Valve doesn't have one, apparently. At all. They have a completely flat hierarchy, and no one reports to anyone else. The HR geek in me loves it. I may have squeaked. It is just so simply cool to see a company doing something totally differently.
Obviously, this type of non-existent hierarchy is going to be a bit radical for most organizations to accept, but radically different is what Valve does, and it sure seems to work for them. I'd love to know more about HR at Valve, and what that looks like compared to what my HR looks like. Fascinating stuff.
I think most organizations are not prepared to be quite so radical when it comes to their hierarchy, but the part about the Valve handbook that I like the best isn't about the hierarchy at all. It's the bit where people are assumed to be responsible adults, who are at work because they love what they do. Valve is assuming that if you work there, you're there because you want to be. That assumption, that attitude, has to be a big part of why people are there. If you always think the best of people, they will rise to the challenge. I love that.
I know a lot of cynical HR types out there who will tell you that this simply isn't true, and maybe it isn't always. Certainly, I've worked in many organizations and environments where there were shirkers, people who abused the sick pay policies, people who only worked if the manager was there micromanaging every second- but I don't actually think that's how things really ought to be, I think that's a sign of unhappy workers. Put someone in an environment where they are expected to live up to a high standard, make sure they have the proper tools to perform to said standard, and turn 'em loose, and see what kind of creativity you get from that. If you've got a good fit, you're going to know it.
What do you think about Valve? Would you love it, or hate it?
For those of you HR types who may not be quite so up on the gaming world, the linked article is discussing the employee handbook of a company called Valve, who are huge in the world of videogames, PC and platform-based. They are creative and innovative, and make games people love to play. They also have one hell of an employee handbook.
For those of you who click the link, I'd love to know what the first thing you thought of that handbook was. I know for me, it was their hierarchy that did me in. Valve doesn't have one, apparently. At all. They have a completely flat hierarchy, and no one reports to anyone else. The HR geek in me loves it. I may have squeaked. It is just so simply cool to see a company doing something totally differently.
Obviously, this type of non-existent hierarchy is going to be a bit radical for most organizations to accept, but radically different is what Valve does, and it sure seems to work for them. I'd love to know more about HR at Valve, and what that looks like compared to what my HR looks like. Fascinating stuff.
I think most organizations are not prepared to be quite so radical when it comes to their hierarchy, but the part about the Valve handbook that I like the best isn't about the hierarchy at all. It's the bit where people are assumed to be responsible adults, who are at work because they love what they do. Valve is assuming that if you work there, you're there because you want to be. That assumption, that attitude, has to be a big part of why people are there. If you always think the best of people, they will rise to the challenge. I love that.
I know a lot of cynical HR types out there who will tell you that this simply isn't true, and maybe it isn't always. Certainly, I've worked in many organizations and environments where there were shirkers, people who abused the sick pay policies, people who only worked if the manager was there micromanaging every second- but I don't actually think that's how things really ought to be, I think that's a sign of unhappy workers. Put someone in an environment where they are expected to live up to a high standard, make sure they have the proper tools to perform to said standard, and turn 'em loose, and see what kind of creativity you get from that. If you've got a good fit, you're going to know it.
What do you think about Valve? Would you love it, or hate it?
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
NKE Madness
So I'm writing this post today while sitting in the chair at my hairdressers. I have some time waiting for my dye to process, so I thought I'd pay some attention to my poor neglected blog.
I write the NKE exam this Saturday, so my studying's gone pretty much insane. In my opinion, the worst part about this exam is not being sure if you're studying the right things. For me, I think most of the uncertainty stems from the fact that the RPCs listed on the CHRP website are very broad, and there is no study guide put out by the CCHRA. I tend yo be a pretty thorough person, so there's a little voice in my head whispering to me that I'm not studying right because I'm not working from my usual comprehensive listing. If I do fail, (which, realistically, is more than possible- 60% of people do,) I will register to write it again in October. At that point, I will have the consolation of having written the thing once already and knowing better what the content will be.
I'm feeling generally anxious, which is pretty common for me before a test. I take solace in the fact that the NKE is really more about the application of your knowledge than testing recall, because I'm fairly confident about that. The last practice exam I took went fairly well, though I struggled most with Labour Relations. That didn't surprise me; I have no experience with Labour Relations whatsoever, so that's been a big study area for me. Staffing is probably my best area.
It's gotten to the point that I eat, sleep, and breathe HR. Don't get me wrong, I've really been an HR nerd for some time, but right now I find myself assessing nearly everything from a strategic HR standpoint, including the business setup at my hairdressers. Fortunately she's been very patient with me, even as I sit here with flash cards while my hair is cut.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Why HR?
So, all you HR types out there, why did you get into HR?
Lately it feels like all the HR people I've met more or less fell onto it from other positions. Not that many of them are like me, who deliberately signed up for a career in human resources. I guess I'm wondering, is this common? I got into HR because I have always liked working with people, dislike sales and wasn't good enough with kids to see teaching as a viable option (though I did, at one point, get accepted into the Secondary Education B.Ed program at the University of Calgary, then decided not to go), so HR seemed like a natural fit. I've always enjoyed training as well, and conflict resolution. In short, it seemed like a natural fit. I enjoy recruiting a lot, since it's all about people, and problem solving. In fact, the only part of HR practice I'm not big on is termination.
Why did you get into HR?
Friday, March 30, 2012
NKE Study
Well folks, I certainly am finding life a little on the full side these days. There's a little over a month to go before the NKE exam, and I am studying like a mad thing. It's a very intimidating exam- 70% is a pass, and the fail rate is 60%, which is somewhat nervous-making. So we'll see how that goes. In the meantime, I go to work, come home, and study. My Kobo is loaded with PDF documents on labour law and HR Best Practices so I can read on the train during my commute, and my desk is breeding documents from the looks of things.
For those of you not in Canada, or otherwise unaware, the NKE is the National Knowledge Exam, and it is step one in the process of achieving CHRP, or Certified Human Resources Professional, status. In order to write the NKE you must now have a Bachelor's degree, and, as of January 2013, 3 years experience in your field. After you successfully pass the NKE, you may call yourself a CHRP Candidate, and you have five years to write the NPPA, or National Professional Practice Assessment. Once you pass the NPPA, you are a CHRP, and you have to recertify every three years with a certain number of CE credits.
In short, it's a big deal. I'm very excited, and very nervous, and very, very busy, so you probably won't hear a whole lot from me until afterwards.
For those of you not in Canada, or otherwise unaware, the NKE is the National Knowledge Exam, and it is step one in the process of achieving CHRP, or Certified Human Resources Professional, status. In order to write the NKE you must now have a Bachelor's degree, and, as of January 2013, 3 years experience in your field. After you successfully pass the NKE, you may call yourself a CHRP Candidate, and you have five years to write the NPPA, or National Professional Practice Assessment. Once you pass the NPPA, you are a CHRP, and you have to recertify every three years with a certain number of CE credits.
In short, it's a big deal. I'm very excited, and very nervous, and very, very busy, so you probably won't hear a whole lot from me until afterwards.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
CHRP Status
Well, folks, I am officially registered to write the first CHRP exam, the NKE, or National Knowledge exam, on May 5th. That means I'm well into study mode, so blog postings may be even less frequent than they are right now. Trying to fit in blogging, studying, and a 40+ hour workweek along with a job search is frankly kind of exhausting. Still, I'm looking forward to writing the exam, and hopefully being able to call myself a CHRP candidate.
I know that feelings as to the value of this designation are somewhat mixed. Personally, I favour a licensing designation that requires CE to remain current, because it cuts down on those people who have never learned anything new since they left school however many decades ago, and I think a national designation for HR professionals is a good thing. I also think the changes to the program (such as requiring the completion of a bachelor's degree, and, as of 2013, three years' experience in the field) should help increase the standards and make the CHRP designation more valuable.
So, I'm studying, and both looking forward to and dreading the exam. Any of you Calgary people, I will see you there!!
I know that feelings as to the value of this designation are somewhat mixed. Personally, I favour a licensing designation that requires CE to remain current, because it cuts down on those people who have never learned anything new since they left school however many decades ago, and I think a national designation for HR professionals is a good thing. I also think the changes to the program (such as requiring the completion of a bachelor's degree, and, as of 2013, three years' experience in the field) should help increase the standards and make the CHRP designation more valuable.
So, I'm studying, and both looking forward to and dreading the exam. Any of you Calgary people, I will see you there!!
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
The Importance of References
Any prepared job hunter will walk into an interview with extra copies of his or her resume, a notebook, and references. References are a critical part of the job searching process, and they're equally important on both sides. Any prepared interviewer will ask you for references, and make sure to call and see what your references say about you.
Of course, one presumes that even the least prepared job hunter has someone in mind for a reference who will say something nice about him or her. Recruiters and employers fully expect that you, as the interviewee, are not going to be dumb enough to give a reference for someone who will only have bad things to say. There's also a number of companies whose policies are limited to confirming dates of employment and nothing else, so the value to a reference is not always that great, but it's still a critical step to check. Because, in my experience at least, most people do have more to say than that, and oftentimes you can learn more about the personality of the interviewee when he or she is not on his or her very best interview behaviour.
As a job hunter, make sure you pick your references carefully. A supervisor is always ideal, provided he or she can tell someone what makes you wonderful. Just make sure you ask in advance, and try to feel out what he or she might have to say about you and your work.
I've seen a lot of employers skip the reference check altogether. Sure, they'll ask for a copy of your references, but then it never goes any further than that, and a hiring decision is made before references are called at all. In my opinion, this is a mistake. Just because you presume someone's references are preselected to show their best side (and they probably are) doesn't mean that you won't learn anything valuable from the call. Oftentimes, if this step is skipped, it is because there is a rush to fill the position and the candidate seems perfectly qualified, or because the hiring manager or recruiter is under a time crunch and has other priorities. Nevertheless, the reference check is an important step in the hiring process, and most of the time, it really doesn't take very long, and it might just change your hiring decision.
Do you check references? Why or why not?
Of course, one presumes that even the least prepared job hunter has someone in mind for a reference who will say something nice about him or her. Recruiters and employers fully expect that you, as the interviewee, are not going to be dumb enough to give a reference for someone who will only have bad things to say. There's also a number of companies whose policies are limited to confirming dates of employment and nothing else, so the value to a reference is not always that great, but it's still a critical step to check. Because, in my experience at least, most people do have more to say than that, and oftentimes you can learn more about the personality of the interviewee when he or she is not on his or her very best interview behaviour.
As a job hunter, make sure you pick your references carefully. A supervisor is always ideal, provided he or she can tell someone what makes you wonderful. Just make sure you ask in advance, and try to feel out what he or she might have to say about you and your work.
I've seen a lot of employers skip the reference check altogether. Sure, they'll ask for a copy of your references, but then it never goes any further than that, and a hiring decision is made before references are called at all. In my opinion, this is a mistake. Just because you presume someone's references are preselected to show their best side (and they probably are) doesn't mean that you won't learn anything valuable from the call. Oftentimes, if this step is skipped, it is because there is a rush to fill the position and the candidate seems perfectly qualified, or because the hiring manager or recruiter is under a time crunch and has other priorities. Nevertheless, the reference check is an important step in the hiring process, and most of the time, it really doesn't take very long, and it might just change your hiring decision.
Do you check references? Why or why not?
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
The Power of Positive Feedback
Many of us know that positive feedback is important, and that a manager who gives out as much positive feedback as negative ( or 2:1) is going to get better motivated, happier people out of the deal. But how many of us actually do it?
I had a manager at one point who constantly felt under-appreciated and ill-used by her boss, the regional manager. He played managers off each other, by talking up the accomplishments of one to the other, and never said anything positive about you to your face. My manager was certainly able to recognize that he was doing a terrible job of increasing job satisfaction, engagement, and motivation, and felt his was a poor management style. Which it was, however, she failed to see that his lack of positive feedback was the same as hers to her staff.
During one conversation about the regional manager, where she was complaining about his lack of appreciation, we discussed the importance of positive feedback in the workplace and I asked her gently when the last time was that she had said something positive about any of her staff's work to that staff member? She was quite appalled to realize that, while she did say positive things, it was almost never to the employee directly. She'd say good things about someone, but very rarely to their faces.
If you want to be a better manager, make a point of saying positive things about your employees, and make sure the positives outweigh the negatives. Then make sure your positivity goes directly to the employee in question. It'll take conscious effort, because we are all much more used to negativity at work, but it'll pay off in terms of employee job satisfaction if they feel appreciated for what they do.
I had a manager at one point who constantly felt under-appreciated and ill-used by her boss, the regional manager. He played managers off each other, by talking up the accomplishments of one to the other, and never said anything positive about you to your face. My manager was certainly able to recognize that he was doing a terrible job of increasing job satisfaction, engagement, and motivation, and felt his was a poor management style. Which it was, however, she failed to see that his lack of positive feedback was the same as hers to her staff.
During one conversation about the regional manager, where she was complaining about his lack of appreciation, we discussed the importance of positive feedback in the workplace and I asked her gently when the last time was that she had said something positive about any of her staff's work to that staff member? She was quite appalled to realize that, while she did say positive things, it was almost never to the employee directly. She'd say good things about someone, but very rarely to their faces.
If you want to be a better manager, make a point of saying positive things about your employees, and make sure the positives outweigh the negatives. Then make sure your positivity goes directly to the employee in question. It'll take conscious effort, because we are all much more used to negativity at work, but it'll pay off in terms of employee job satisfaction if they feel appreciated for what they do.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Culture in the Workplace
What's your workplace culture? How would you define cultural fit with your organization? Do you even know?
Most of us don't. "Cultural fit" is one of those things that we're assured is very important in finding the right job, but when you get right down to the nitty-gritty, what does that even mean?
I've always found the concept of a workplace culture to be a little bit nebulous, and I come from a background in Anthropology, where "culture" applies to just about everything. The problem isn't the validity of the concept of workplace culture, but rather on the definition and identification of it.
Within the context of hiring/job hunting, we all try to assess cultural fit on both sides. But how do you go about doing that? It's especially difficult as the person doing the hiring, because while you might have a solid idea of what your workplace culture is, how do you assess fit reliably based on an interview and a resume? Since chances are your interviewee is trying his or her very best to convince you that he or she would be a perfect fit, regardless of the truth, because sometimes, you just gotta find a job even if the fit isn't ideal. As the jobseeker, though, it is difficult to read between the lines and figure out what the culture is really like- and frankly, if you've been unemployed for six months, you're not gonna care all that much what the culture is like. You just want a job.
Every organization out there seems to have values and a mission statement these days, so that's one way for the jobseeker to try and see something about the culture. The problem is, it's always difficult to tell from the outside how closely the organization adheres to their values and what that means. If you have a connection with someone within the organization, ask him or her about the culture and see where that gets you.
Personally, I feel as if we often overstate the importance of culture. Don't get me wrong, workplace culture and fit is very important for the overall level of engagement, I just feel as if cultural fit is one of the favourite buzzwords of the moment. At least in my limited experience, you will never find a perfect fit and there will always be things you don't like about your current workplace environment. I would rather have a job that is interesting and engaging and doing things I want to do in a culture that isn't a perfect fit for me than one in the perfect company that is boring and unsatisfying. Of course, it all depends what it is about the culture that isn't a good fit for you, but we are speaking in generalizations here. Or maybe I just say that because I haven't worked for an organization that had a truly terrible cultural fit for me.
Thoughts?
Most of us don't. "Cultural fit" is one of those things that we're assured is very important in finding the right job, but when you get right down to the nitty-gritty, what does that even mean?
I've always found the concept of a workplace culture to be a little bit nebulous, and I come from a background in Anthropology, where "culture" applies to just about everything. The problem isn't the validity of the concept of workplace culture, but rather on the definition and identification of it.
Within the context of hiring/job hunting, we all try to assess cultural fit on both sides. But how do you go about doing that? It's especially difficult as the person doing the hiring, because while you might have a solid idea of what your workplace culture is, how do you assess fit reliably based on an interview and a resume? Since chances are your interviewee is trying his or her very best to convince you that he or she would be a perfect fit, regardless of the truth, because sometimes, you just gotta find a job even if the fit isn't ideal. As the jobseeker, though, it is difficult to read between the lines and figure out what the culture is really like- and frankly, if you've been unemployed for six months, you're not gonna care all that much what the culture is like. You just want a job.
Every organization out there seems to have values and a mission statement these days, so that's one way for the jobseeker to try and see something about the culture. The problem is, it's always difficult to tell from the outside how closely the organization adheres to their values and what that means. If you have a connection with someone within the organization, ask him or her about the culture and see where that gets you.
Personally, I feel as if we often overstate the importance of culture. Don't get me wrong, workplace culture and fit is very important for the overall level of engagement, I just feel as if cultural fit is one of the favourite buzzwords of the moment. At least in my limited experience, you will never find a perfect fit and there will always be things you don't like about your current workplace environment. I would rather have a job that is interesting and engaging and doing things I want to do in a culture that isn't a perfect fit for me than one in the perfect company that is boring and unsatisfying. Of course, it all depends what it is about the culture that isn't a good fit for you, but we are speaking in generalizations here. Or maybe I just say that because I haven't worked for an organization that had a truly terrible cultural fit for me.
Thoughts?
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Absenteeism and Attendance Management
Does your organization have a formal Attendance Management policy?
Mine doesn't, but they are a good idea. Does your organization have an absenteeism issue? If so, then an Attendance Management policy is an even better idea.
Absenteeism is a major problem in a lot of organizations. Low morale increases productivity costs in many ways, and unscheduled absenteeism is one of those ways, but it there is often a hidden cost to reduced absenteeism.
The goal of a progressive attendance management program is not to eliminate unscheduled absenteeism. For one thing, people still get sick, and there are a lot of costs to having sick people come to work despite their illness. The other problem is that people tend to come to work while sick in situations where their morale is low, because they feel there is a higher risk to staying home than there is misery in being at work while ill. Don't be that workplace that makes it a badge of honour to have never taken a sick day in five years. The sniffles may not be that contagious, but the damage to productivity that can be done by something especially nasty going through the office makes it not worth it, let alone the damage due to people feeling resentment because they feel they cannot stay home when they are ill.
One of the best ways to handle involuntary absenteeism, which is to say, absences that are not the fault of the employee, such as illness, family emergency, etc. is to introduce as much flexibility into working hours as possible given the demands of the job. Make it understood that being sick is permissible, but have an Attendance Management policy in place to handle the abuses of the system. Make allowances for the differences between sick days, personal days, family emergencies, etc. and have it all be clearly laid out and transparent for the staff.
Of course, if there are morale issues anyway, then absenteeism is not your only problem.
What do you think?
Mine doesn't, but they are a good idea. Does your organization have an absenteeism issue? If so, then an Attendance Management policy is an even better idea.
Absenteeism is a major problem in a lot of organizations. Low morale increases productivity costs in many ways, and unscheduled absenteeism is one of those ways, but it there is often a hidden cost to reduced absenteeism.
The goal of a progressive attendance management program is not to eliminate unscheduled absenteeism. For one thing, people still get sick, and there are a lot of costs to having sick people come to work despite their illness. The other problem is that people tend to come to work while sick in situations where their morale is low, because they feel there is a higher risk to staying home than there is misery in being at work while ill. Don't be that workplace that makes it a badge of honour to have never taken a sick day in five years. The sniffles may not be that contagious, but the damage to productivity that can be done by something especially nasty going through the office makes it not worth it, let alone the damage due to people feeling resentment because they feel they cannot stay home when they are ill.
One of the best ways to handle involuntary absenteeism, which is to say, absences that are not the fault of the employee, such as illness, family emergency, etc. is to introduce as much flexibility into working hours as possible given the demands of the job. Make it understood that being sick is permissible, but have an Attendance Management policy in place to handle the abuses of the system. Make allowances for the differences between sick days, personal days, family emergencies, etc. and have it all be clearly laid out and transparent for the staff.
Of course, if there are morale issues anyway, then absenteeism is not your only problem.
What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)