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 | 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 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.
by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Aug 4, 2018 | Brazen Leader, Executive Improvement, Kevin Berchelmann, Miscellaneous Business Topics, Organizational Effectiveness
As always, “The times, they are a’changin’”
In my upcoming At C-Level, I make mention of a survey I recently completed, in which many of you participated. The full results should be available shortly, but I did want to give you a sneak preview.
From a long-range perspective, with only senior executives (more than 20% were CEO/COOs) participating, here are the top 3 issues you identified:
1. Finding, hiring, developing and retaining talent,
2. Organizational changes, outsourcing, merger/acquisition assimilation, and
3. Compliance, poilitical change, legislation.
We’ve got work to do. Changing our focus to these initiatives — on a long-term basis — takes proactive thought and some simple change management methodologies. Change is simple; just close your eyes, hold your breath, and wait. It happens. Effective change management, on the other hand, takes some skill. From my view of the world, 3 things are necessary for senior executives to successfully drive positive change:
1. Belief and commitment. You gotta believe — really believe — that what you are doing is right and appropriate, using a variety of litmus tests. Mid-management and line employees will quickly detect if your commitment is anything but resolute. Change management isn’t for the weak at heart, so strap in, point the way, and hold the course (I always wanted to use that line).
2. Provide direction. Even if people can believe in your resolve, and even if they understand the basic need, they need real direction, from YOU, to know where to head. Don’t expect overnight adjustment and buy-in to your newfound commitment for change; until that real buy-in occurs, they need a really good map — a compass is probably a better word — to help them start off in the right direction.
3. Unqualified support for the cause. Pay attention here, this one’s really, really important. Not only can you not afford to lose your focus (see “commitment” above), but you must insist others join in the quest. You must insist. Help them work through their issues, convince — as best as possible — for the need to change. At the end, though, the change must occur, and you must be prepared to make all those decisions necessary, some good, some tough, to make it happen. Naysayers can be a fatal distraction. Disbelievers can poison an effective team. Misdirected managers can ruin the entire effort. Make sure you stay aware, and be prepared to do whatever is necessary to ensure the focus is maintained by all.
2007 is upon us; we have work to do, and some unique challenges facing us.
Let’s charge that hill…
Happy New Year…!
by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Jul 19, 2018 | Brazen Leader, Executive Improvement, Kevin Berchelmann, Miscellaneous Business Topics, Organizational Effectiveness
First, that phrase for this post — “I’m just sayin’,” drives me nuts. I hate it. Now that I feel better for sharing…
A diversity consulting firm called The Novations Group, apparently surveyed a couple thousand managers, and concluded that senior managers were poor communicators. For this, they seem to want acclaim…
Survey respondents blamed senior management for (in order of survey popularity):
1. Relying too much on e-mail.
2. Assuming a single message is enough.
3. Having no feedback loop in place.
4. Messages lacking clarity.
To this, I say “hmmmm…”
Nonetheless, there is some truth here.
We all rely too much on email. Email is great for simple information/data sharing. It breaks down when we try to have conversations, include emotion, or the worst: we try to manage by email.
Walk down the hall or pick up the damned phone. Email is the worst medium on the planet for any communication requiring acknowledged understanding, purposeful dialog, or meaning other than the simple written word. There is no defined ‘subtlety’ in emails. And managers shouldn’t use it as a proxy.
Another pox on communication occurred while we were gutting mid-management from organizations. In flattening org charts, we forgot that most on-the-ground communications with employees was done with middle managers. Today, they are either extinct or a bit harried from the evolution of their jobs.
Further, much of what we as senior leaders do has at least a modicum of confidentiality. Next thing you know, we’re acting like everything we say and do is some state secret.
It ain’t.
The problem, of course, is in the absence of communication, our employees fill in all the details, blanks, and relevant information themselves. From spotty knowledge, connecting rumor dots, or simply making it up as they go. None bodes well for us while trying to lead an organization in this age.
Next week, I’ll post some tips and techniques for communications that, though maybe not necessarily “easy,” they probably won’t leave visible scars.
Until then,
