by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Nov 28, 2018 | Brazen Leader, Human Resources, Kevin Berchelmann, Miscellaneous Business Topics, Organizational Effectiveness
I received the following question from an HR Director in the midwest:
Contingency Fees: What’s the value? It seems that the fee percentage in permanent placement ranges from sometimes less than 20% to 30%+ of the candidate’s first years salary.
So, what’s the diff??
Where’s the value change between the 20% firms and the 30% firms?
Though I do not conduct contingency searches today, I spent many years in the Director/VP desk wondering much the same thing…
The answer, however, isn’t mysterious.
The difference is frequently just timing. If a recruiter or firm’s current production is down, volume low, or revenue a bit off for the week/month/quarter, a firm may take closer to 20% for that particular search, instead of their customary 25-30%.
Perhaps they already have a couple of ringer candidates in the hopper, and they low-ball just to close a quick sale.
Maybe, they’re new at the business, and right now they just need to pay the bills (surely I don’t have to make all the obvious cautions here…).
Maybe, they’re just stupid. I doubt that, but let’s include all possible answers.
Now, having said that…Here’s the part that really gets me:
I spent a good many years in senior-most HR roles. A manager/company that will quibble over 5-10% on a $100K search for a valuable contributor to their organization, is so colossally short-sided and pound-foolish that it takes my breath away.
A hiring company’s bigger concern should not be whether the fee is 20%, 25%, or 30%; or whether the fee includes just base comp, base plus bonus, etc… The hiring company’s sole concern — SOLE concern — should be “Can this firm deliver one or more solid, successful candidates to fill my serious need?”
If not, then 15-20% is certainly no bargain; if yes, then we’re spending way too much time quibbling over a few thousand dollars.
Just my thoughts…
by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Nov 20, 2018 | Brazen Leader, Executive Improvement, Kevin Berchelmann, Miscellaneous Business Topics, Organizational Effectiveness
In this final related blog entry, I’m closing out the “5 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership” I outlined in a recent article.
This fifth law is something we all wrestle with mightily. It’s caused many a manager or leader to be ineffective, or less than fully effective, and robbed many an employee of the benefits of nearby, accessible leadership.
Law #5. Employees need their managers to be leaders; they don’t need a shoulder, a buddy, a simpatico, or a commiserator. If you want a friend, buy a dog.
We really do struggle with this. Everyone wants to be liked, and it always seems difficult to decline a beer after work, or something similar.
I’m not advocating a monk-like existence, disallowing any contact with your troops; merely reminding you that they would like to have a friend, but they need a leader if they are to be successful.
You do want them to be successful, don’t you?
Thanks for your patience as I moved through these 5 irrefutable laws (at least in my opinion). These laws are fairly intuitive, and certainly not rocket science… or brain surgery… or rocket surgery.
They are simple management and leadership axioms that have passed the test of time.
Sometimes, it’s the simple things that work. Try it sometime — you just might like it.
Cheers,
by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Nov 6, 2018 | Brazen Leader, Human Resources, Kevin Berchelmann
I was speaking with a group of HR folks last week, and the subject of candidate questions (when interviewing) came up. Someone said, “I only ask how much money the candidate wants, not how much they have made. That’s all that matters to me.” Many others agreed.
Say what??? That ranks up there as one of the more ridiculous comments we can make. To enter into a relationship with a potential employee with no idea how much money they are accustomed to making is nearly pure negligence.
First, let’s get something straight: Money matters. Money always matters. It may not be the only thing, but it always, always, matters. Zig Ziglar said it best: “Anyone that says ‘money doesn’t matter…’ well, they’ll lie about other things as well.”
There are a million reasons why simply asking for a desired number is a dumb way to ascertain wage needs. I’ll just rattle off a few randomly, in no particular order.
The candidate heard you paid well. So, they ask for more money than they normally would, hoping for some of that largesse. Oops, priced out of your range, candidate rejected.
The candidate heard you didn’t pay well. But they need a job to pay bills today, so they’ll use your underpaying position as leverage for that better job 3 months from now. Lost another one…
The candidate didn’t understand the role as was described. Lucky you — she underbid it, and you got something for nothing. You are one smart cookie… wait a minute, whaddya mean ‘you’re leaving??’ I gave you what you asked for!!
These (above) are some of the more common, intangible reasons for determining current/recent/accustomed compensation. Want something a bit more logic-based?? Ok, how’s this…
The number one — primo, primera, ultimate, top — source for market-based salary information and data is what organziations today are paying for that position in the marketplace. In other words, you should be constantly gauging and comparing your compensation ranges internally to those in the market in which you compete.
This isn’t rocket science, folks. Candidates expect to be asked, you have a duty to know, and there’s no reason not to… ask the question.
The smart money says you’ll be better for it.
by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Sep 28, 2018 | Brazen Leader, Human Resources, Kevin Berchelmann, Miscellaneous Business Topics, Organizational Effectiveness
Someone recently asked me to give them a general overview of incentives. Never-mind the cliff-notes request format, we simply over-complicate this stuff.
Understanding incentive compensation is simple, and is largely human nature:
1. That which is rewarded is repeated,
2. You don’t get what you want, hope for, manage to, or request — you get what you pay for (as a tenet of compensation, not necessarily a life philosophy), and
3. Simplicity wins.
Exception, contrarian arguments like you mention are just that, and based more on opinion than empirical evidence.
Well crafted incentive schemes will generally work when we can show that:
1. Working harder (bigger, better, stronger, faster) will improve my job performance, and
2. My improved performance will create rewards, perhaps an increase in salary or valued benefits, and
3. I value these rewards.
(oft-paraphrased from Vroom, though not sure his was original)
Again, simplicity wins…
by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Sep 24, 2018 | Brazen Leader, Miscellaneous Business Topics
You know who I’m talking about, too. Those people who just never seem happy; who always see the negative even when the message is positive; who suspect ulterior motives regardless of act. They are the literal “pain in your neck.”
Personally, I could recommend you just whack ‘em. That’ll please a lot of people working nearby, and you’d be surprised at the immediate effect that would have on other malcontents in the organization.
But then, we wouldn’t need this article, so here we are. You’re stuck with them, or keeping them for some reason, or simply want to help them emerge from their dark hole.
Here are some ways you can deal with these sourpusses:
- What attitude? Typically, when you try to address an “attitude,” you get a blank, puzzled stare, and some horse hockey about they “have no idea what you’re talking about.” So, let’s get specific. Frankly, it’s not the attitude; it’s the observable behavior that’s a problem.
“Sue, I hear you comment or complain every time we roll out a new initiative. Frankly, I want it to stop. Now. Keep it to yourself, or go speak with your supervisor. No more vocal whining to others.”
You get the idea. Freedom of speech is a protection between the individual and the state (government). Employees’ speech is not protected in the workplace; you can determine–and explicitly state–what is and isn’t acceptable in your organization. (obvious exceptions to this are harassment, retaliation, SOX disclosures, etc.) The idea here is not overt heavy-handedness, it’s making sure the workforce isn’t subjected to a constant complainer’s rants.
- Proselytizing may help. Try to convert them to your way of thinking. Be direct in your comments, and explain why it’s in their best interest to become more positive. Let these folks know that their perceived attitudes (demonstrable, of course) are noticed by others, and certainly effect their ability to succeed in the organization.
In other words, explain the WIIFM: “What’s in it for me.”
“Janet, I want you to be more positive in your interactions with others. Your negativity is noticeable and not much fun to be around. I want to help, so let’s discuss.”
Sometimes, the “next step” may be necessary. “Bill, I need you to behave more positively—in fact, it’s necessary if you want to continue to work here. Smile a bit, be pleasant when asked for help, respond to ‘hellos’ and ‘good mornings.’”
- Zero tolerance is the rule. They are called “non-negotiables.”
When you decide to change a malcontent to something more positive, be specific as mentioned above, and then be prepared: you must address each and every “slip” or transgression that deviates from your discussion.
Every. Single. Instance.
No letting up, no “letting it slide.” If you do, each time it occurs you’ve “reset” the entire change process. There can be no turning back. If they do well for three weeks then have a relapse, you simply cannot think “well, they’ve done well up until now—let’s see how it plays out.” No, you’ve got to address it.
Immediately.
- No try, only do. Master Yoda was right – there’s no credit for saying “I’ll try,” or “make every effort.” There’s only credit for actually doing.
You need a firm commitment from this yahoo that s/he will take immediate, positive action to correct this unacceptable behavior – not that they’ll “do their best to be more positive,” in some vague indeterminate sense.
Make it crystal clear that this is not some esoteric “hope you can do better;” it’s a must-have, a condition for future advancement, opportunities, and yes, maybe even continued employment.
- Close ain’t good enough (pardon the grammar transgression, mom). To continue the thinking from 3 & 4 above, this isn’t hand grenades or horseshoes.
Even when this person is making an effort, you must be diligent. They’ve got to nail it down correctly. Coming close, even if well-intentioned, won’t work here. Remember, you could have simply tolerated the behavior as we had been doing; you chose, instead, to attempt to change it. You must stay the course, and you must be crystal clear.
Close isn’t good enough.
- Inspect what you expect. Follow-up, diligently and repeatedly.
This person needs to know that you aren’t simply “having a nice discussion.” We are discussing performance-related behaviors, we expect them to change to reach acceptable standard, and we intend–as with any good performance management effort–to follow-up to insure those changes are implemented.
In other words, “I’ll be watching…”
This is important, for a couple of reasons: First, this employee needs to know–really, personally understand–that your expectations are for immediate, positive performance improvement. No better way to demonstrate that then being around to see it.
Second, you may actually “catch them” doing something right, in which case, that’s a super time for a little positive reinforcement (see proselytizing above).
- Never let ‘em see you sweat. Don’t get mad, upset, frustrated or annoyed. Treat as you would any other aspect of an employee’s performance. You’ve done nothing wrong—don’t feel bad or guilty, and never assume ownership of someone’s employment conditions when they have the power to change and control those conditions.
Remember, this too shall pass.
Malcontents generally know they aren’t the most pleasant people in the world; they typically, however, feel somewhat justified in their actions, and certainly don’t always realize the extent of their behavior. And those who do generally succeed in being “difficult to talk to,” so their behavior goes unchecked.
So, don’t get mad, just make them change.
Be Brazen.
by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Sep 21, 2018 | Brazen Leader, Executive Improvement, Kevin Berchelmann, Miscellaneous Business Topics, Organizational Effectiveness
In this and the final remaining blog entry, I’m expanding on the “5 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership” I outlined in a recent article.
The fourth law should be unnecessary — make your expectations — as a manager and leader — clear. And that’s “clear” as in crystal, not mud.
Law #4. Make your expectations clear, then back up a bit and give employees room to do their job. That doesn’t mean “never look back;” to inspect what you expect isn’t micro-management, it’s just good-management.
Employees – even top performers – need clear expectations. In fact, especially top performers. Give ‘em a target, provide resources and guidance, remove obstacles when necessary, then let them do their job.
Check back later, since you still have the real management responsibilities and accountability. Hate to quote Ziglar again, but there’s a lot of truth in remembering to inspect what you expect.
Tell your staff what you expect — in clear language; inspect the results of their efforts toward those expectations, then hold them accountable for that performance.
Let’s keep this simple — it doesn’t have to be difficult.
