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.
Monday, July 9, 2012
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!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)