Thought Leadership Blog

The HRS Thought Leadership Blog delivers validated findings, visionary perspectives and op/ed commentaries related to HR, Leadership, Organizational Development and Employment Law. To enjoy the full volume of available articles, please enter topic keywords in the search box to explore our body of work. Articles are regularly presented by the HRS team and guest experts.


Skills Gap Solutions: "If You Build It, They Will Come..."

Executive Summary 

The Problem:

• Company is facing an issue with the Skills Gap
• Potential for 30+ % growth foreseen, handicapped by diminishing quality of incoming talent
• Company Leadership: Internal HR Department of One needs recruitment specialists to assist
• Resources strapped for internal training due to labor intensity.

The Approach:

• HRS: "Build infrastructure to further become an endorsed Employer of Choice; you’ll find yourself winning the war for limited talent and then able to select the best of the best with an elite internal recruitment process.”
• Recruitment in fact proves to not be the only issue. Through first few weeks, HRS finds a higher-than-average rate of candidates selected for hire whom ultimately don’t take the job
• HRS 360-degree research (including candidates) produces the following findings:
     o Misaligned goals and miscommunication between organizational leaders led to outdated job descriptions and noncompetitive internal training programs
     o HR manager had previously identified some opportunities for improvement, however was not given tools or authority to succeed
     o Internal marketing was missing opportunities to sell competitive advantage as a workplace
     o Current handbook handicapped both trainers and managers in consistent policy application

The Results:

• Through attacking above-mentioned areas of improvement in a 360-degree format, Company found themselves in a better position to win the war for talent
     o Growth in number of applicants
     o Growth in number of candidates who accepted an initial offer
     o Quickened time-to-learn on the floor
     o Reduced screening time and time-to-hire
• HRS’ endorsement and presence bought trust in the candidate community and sold Company as an Employer of Choice


Case Study

The Problem

Company Unlimited, a materials manufacturer with operations in Wisconsin and Arizona, is having an issue with the dreaded skills gap. Experiencing a lack of qualified applicants responding to their recruiting ads, they’re having trouble meeting their otherwise projectable growth. Unlimited’s leadership foresees the potential for more than 30% growth in the next 2 years alone, if only they could hire qualified individuals interested in a career in manufacturing and machine operation positions. Unlimited has not had proper success with any of the staffing services in the region, training resources are strapped, and they’re in need of quality talent. Unlimited needs both talent that can grow from entry-level operators and others which can plug more quickly into skilled trades and precision technical roles. Unlimited’s leadership decides to make the call to HRS, looking for answers.

"Give us six months, and we’ll design, build, prove and streamline a process for you. You’ll then have a powerful system which you can self-administer or deploy partners as you choose. We’ll give your team the keys to success, and we’ll maximize the bottom line!"

The following week, HRS shareholders meet with Unlimited’s leadership to discuss the issue at hand. The issue appears to be very straight-forward; machinist, tool & die, warehouse, and other trades positions remain unfilled, and they’ve tried every iteration of recruiting they can think of. Leadership believes they need recruiting-specific consultants to assist their HR Department of One in tackling the numbers. Furthermore, they need help filling several senior roles which are projected to open, including a General Manager. HRS begins the discovery process, detailing how our process will be different than solutions such as PEOs, Staffing Agencies, or other recruiters.

“HRS will be recruiting under your brand name,” explains the HRS shareholder, “as we’re not part of the recruitment industry and we leave that process specifically to those who focus at such. Our focus is to work with your internal team, build an executable system, and return the keys to you at project completion and/or at your discretion. Yes, we will be handling talent evaluation for you and presenting you with ‘top-of-the-pile’ candidates from recruitments and assessments we will help you design, but the real solution comes in helping you build a s trong talent optimization infrastructure which will aid in selling you as an Employer of Choice. Give us six months, and we’ll design, build, prove, streamline and endorse a process for you. We’ll give your team the keys to success, and we’ll maximize the bottom line!”

The discussion between HRS and Unlimited continues from here, and Unlimited agrees to move forward with HRS services as they see how the solution aligns perfectly with their vision of being an Employer of Choice.

The Approach

“I think we found our proof that we’re not dealing with a purely recruitment issue here,” states an HRS consultant to her coworker. HRS is a few weeks into operations for Unlimited, and while the percentage of qualified-to-unqualified candidates is certainly low, another issue begins to arise. Among the first group of eligible candidates identified through HRS’ rigorous selection process, 70% of candidates identified for potential hire and final evaluation ultimately do not take the job. While refinements have been made, and will continue to be made, through 360-degree feedback to determine what an optimal candidate looks like, Company Unlimited still faces a much higher than average decline rate at the final stages.

Further HRS assessment and root cause analysis identified the following causes leading to their talent issues:
• Misaligned goals and miscommunication between organizational leaders led to vague job descriptions and ineffective internal training programs
• HR manager had previously identified some opportunities for improvement, however was not given tools or authority to succeed
• Leadership was not selling the company correctly to incoming employees; e.g., unique benefit package was often discussed as “what we do and don’t offer” instead of selling strategy of benefits being designed through direct employee feedback
• Poorly constructed handbook handicapped both trainers and managers in consistent policy application

Inconsistency with internal policy led to difficulty in initially engaging incoming employees and directly affected acceptance and retention rates. Unlimited’s leadership believed that such policy issues could be addressed once the right talent was in place. They were not considering that it could have affected an incoming employee’s initial production capacity.

The Results

After presenting hard findings through data analysis, we began our work on the identified problem areas. Through our expanded reach, HRS was able to balance production and leadership needs to achieve a precision implementation which increased the candidate pipeline by 240% in only three months’ time. In the war for talent, Unlimited was now finding themselves in a position to select from a higher number of qualified candidates.

HRS was additionally able to screen and evaluate this improved candidate pool while completing our other projects on implementing the new tools and practices. Beyond this immediate influx of production talent, HRS onboarded a highly preferred General Manager candidate for future vision, as well as complementary engineering, HR, and Accounting talent. Unlimited’s leadership felt inspired and energized by the additional leadership brought on board, stating “We never would have thought a candidate like this would be available.”

HRS’ work also recognized further benefit by selling to incoming candidates that our mere presence positioned the company as a preferred employer. Through third party objectivity, it was found that candidates within this specific market had grown distrustful of other recruiters in the area as Unlimited’s largest competition had grown a reputation for “churning” employees and “never hiring them” following a probationary period. Through our practice and endorsement of direct hire for Unlimited, our workforce reputation, and our known presence by the candidates, candidates were openly trusting and appreciative of Unlimited. Positive perception of Unlimited as a preferred employer began to grow, further facilitating the talent pipeline into the future.

As the number of open positions reached a closing point, HRS began work in turning the keys for recruitment back over to internal talent. Said the internal HR manager, “Thank you. I’ve never loved my job this much before!” as a result of the systems we implemented. While HRS remained as a partner and a relationship available to Company Unlimited, we concluded our project and positioned ourselves for potential further needs.

Note: HRS does not take a stance against staffing agencies or other such recruiters, as we recognize they serve a different mission and we will work alongside and recommend them in specific situations. Situations in this case study above were found to be the result of Unlimited’s competition as opposed to the recruiting agencies themselves. These findings represent our approach as a distinctive talent solution from such providers. HRS prides ourselves on finding the right solution for the right employer, getting the right people doing the right things.

The Team At HRS - Monday, February 19, 2018

 





Super Bowl LII: What Leaders Can Learn from Super Bowl Coaches

Wow. What a game it was last night. Super Bowl LII had just about everything you could ask for from a football perspective; 21 different individual-game Super Bowl records were either set or tied. The offenses combined for an astronomical amount of yards (1,151 to be exact), Special Teams combined to set both the record for most combined field goals made and most kicks missed in a single Super Bowl, The Patriots punted a record-tying zero times during the whole game, and the defenses (contrary to the yardage and points racked up) made some big plays of their own. It was an amazing game, and it was incredibly fun to watch and follow.

So why am I writing about it as part of our company’s business blog? What relevance does a game like football have to business? Football is a game where you have a set salary cap to attract your talent, sign them to contracts, and compete against other organizations in a direct head-to-head competition in order to achieve results. Businesses, well, typically have the opposite of all those things, to put it plainly. There is, however, one aspect of the game of football (or any sport for that matter) that can actually apply to business and make for a relevant article:

The coaches.

Football head coaches are in charge of setting the overall strategy to plot their team’s success, and they then train their team on the execution of how to execute that strategy; they chart their players progress and performance, hold them accountable, and reward and/or discipline them based upon both on-the-job and off-the-job results.

This sure sounds like a business leader to me.

In a game where the attention frequently focuses on the execution of the individual players on the field (especially the quarterbacks), I decided to take a deeper look into the decisions each head coach (and their coordinators) made as they looked to achieve their ultimate goal. I sure have to say, this was a lot more fun than expected, and I think I found some great pieces of insight that we, as business leaders, can all take away from their decision making.

Before we dive in, let’s just take a moment to understand that the key to appreciating the following piece is all about understanding that this WAS a masterfully coached game. Obviously, it’s easy to say that about Belichick and his staff, and I’d think it should be easy to accept that Doug Pederson did equally as good of a job (if not better) since his team came out on top.

My goal here is to analyze some key plays and decisions that, I think, dictated the flow of the game and had a huge impact on the ending outcome.


1. Eagles convert a 3rd and 12, 1st Quarter, Opening Drive of the Game
This play was big for several reasons, especially when you take it in context with the fact that the Eagles opened the game with 3 straight passing plays for Nick Foles. In a game (or an entire postseason, if you will) when the entire watching world expected the Eagles to play ball control and protect their backup quarterback as the best way to win the game, Doug Pederson decided to come out and do the opposite. It sure looked like the Patriots were expecting them to run the ball, as well, deciding to play simple coverage and not bring any extra pressure during the first three passing plays of the drive, and the result was that the Eagles got out to the 49-yard line. After two stalled plays, however, the Eagles faced a 3rd and 12, and the Patriots decided this was the time to send pressure and hassle the backup. What happened? The OL picked up the blitz, Foles stood tall and he found Torrey Smith down the middle for a first down.

Never mind the end outcome of this drive (stalling in the red zone and settling for a field goal), this play, and this drive, were huge for the Eagles and Nick Foles. Early on, Nick Foles was able to get comfortable and into a rhythm, finding success and being able to respond no matter what challenges (defensive scheme) were facing him. I think it’s likely that, if the Eagles came out and ran the ball to start the game and found themselves in a similar situation without those early passing plays, there’s a much lower chance that Foles converts this big 3rd down.

Lesson: Trust your talent. Show confidence in them and put them in a position to succeed as opposed to avoiding the situations in which they may fail.


2. Foles passes left to Agholor on 1st down for a 7-yard gain, 1st Quarter
It’s the first play of the subsequent Eagles drive after the Patriots tie the game at 3-3 with a long drive of their own. Doug Pederson, sticking to his guns, decides to continue his passing game approach to get his team into the rhythm he wants to set. Admittedly, this first play wasn’t a show stopper, but what it represents, and what it opened the door to, is.

Foles hits Agholor on a shallow crossing route for a few yards, but Agholor then breaks a tackle and picks up an additional 2-3 yards, bringing up a 2nd and short. Since it’s 2nd and short, the Eagles have the ability to call a running play. The Patriots crash the box in an attempt to stuff them and force a 3rd down, but Blount runs right and gets the 1st down. The next play, Foles takes the snap and find Alshon Jeffrey, deep left, for a long touchdown.

So why did I choose the Agholor play instead of the Jeffrey touchdown? To look at that, let’s go in reverse. The Jeffrey touchdown may not have been an option had the Eagles not been able to convert on the previous play with the Blount run to the right. The Patriots, possibly still convinced the Eagles were eventually going to stick to the running game, made the decision to play the run on defense and try to take that away, leaving the deep throw available as the defenders played shallow. Now, let’s back it up further and ask what would have happened if Agholor hadn’t broken that tackle and picked up those extra yards. Would the Eagles have still called a run play on a 2nd and 5 or 6? More importantly, would the Patriots have crashed the box to try and stop the run if it were that situation instead of a 2nd and 3? My guess to both questions is, “probably not.”

Lesson: Sometimes it’s an above average effort by an individual member of your team that opens the door for something greater. Maybe you don’t realize it at first, but it’s important to always acknowledge that a single accomplishment, no matter how big or small, can open doors that you cannot assume would have otherwise been there. Pay attention to what your team is doing, and again, trust your talent. Recognition is key.


3. Coaching Decision: Malcolm Jenkins on James White
While not a play, it was certainly a big coaching decision that affected the flow of this game. Everyone, including the announcers, assumed that the Eagles would play their best Safety Cover Man on Rob Gronkowski. That would be conventional wisdom, right? Well, Doug Pederson and his staff saw an opportunity for something that wasn’t conventional wisdom and what they believed was even better. They stuck Malcolm Jenkins on James White, arguably the biggest difference maker in last year’s Super Bowl comeback, as one of their keys to their defensive scheme.

Lesson: A lot of time, we as business owners are so concerned about filling one particular need or hole in our business that we often stick to conventional wisdom and try to make things work in the most obvious way possible; sometimes this works, and sometimes the outcome fails because we’re trying to take the most “circle-like” square we have and fit it into a round hole. Know the strengths of your team and play to those strengths; don’t always try to make your team play to the strengths of your strategy or operations.


4. Coaching Decision: Malcolm Butler doesn’t play
Yes, I’m finally getting to something that the Patriots did; lest I make it about a question that a lot of people are scratching their heads over (don’t worry, Patriots fans – this isn’t a Doug Pederson love article. In fact, the next three points are about positives for your team).

A lot of business owners react differently when it comes to an issue with one of their top performers, and I personally find it safe to say that leaders are split down the middle between whether they will take the approach to treat a star player like everyone else or to give them the “special treatment” and let them get away with more because of the overall good it does for the team and the organization.

We may not yet know why Malcolm Butler was benched, but we can surmise that Belichick is on the side of treating everyone equally and believing that no one person is greater than the team (having previously directly stated that last part).

Lesson: While it may be possible that the game would have been different had Butler played, I do not for a second doubt Belichick’s decision to bench him. Maybe it’s because it’s hard to question Bill at this point in his illustrious career, but he presumably did the right thing here. If a star performer does something wrong and needs to be reprimanded, the scenario of you taking action is that star performer’s fault, not yours. The star performer is the one who let their team down by doing something wrong, not you.


5. Brady finds Hogan deep right for 43 yards on 2nd and 10, 2nd Quarter
To this point in the game, the Eagles base defense with their Wide-9 technique (defensive ends split out wider than usual) was largely working on the Patriots. Yes, they had already racked up a bunch of yards, but they were also only held to two field goals (and a missed third one). This play was huge, not just from a yardage total, but also because it was the Patriots direct answer to the Wide-9.

Brady had an extra second (or two) to look down the field because the Pats had both Gronk and the Running Back chip the ends on their way out into their routes (sic, slow them down with a momentary block). This wound up being huge because the Patriots were able to scheme, through chip blocks and play action, to take away the biggest threat which was facing them. For the rest of the game, it’s important to note that the Wide-9 didn’t stop working, it’s just that the Patriots found ways to work around it (foreshadowing – this remedy only worked when it was a legitimate threat to the Eagles). This also wound up being huge because James White ran for a touchdown on the very next play. Eagles 15, Patriots 12.

Lesson: Take what the defense gives you. Okay, that’s not actually business advice. The closest thing like that to business analysis would likely by a SWOT analysis. The best business minds know how to take in information in the moment, analyze the situation, and deploy a remedy. Jeff Bezos, as an example, states that you need to become comfortable with making decisions with only about 70% of the information available.


6. Following Halftime, it’s Gronk Time
The Patriots are down by 10 points and getting the ball to start the half. There’s no sugar coating what they did to cut the lead down; they fed Gronk. Look, I’ll keep this brief. Sometimes you just need to go with what works.

Lesson: Use your best asset(s). As a business, strategy and overcoming adversity is a huge part of the game, but you can’t forget what it is that you do best and what your competitive advantage is. In the biggest moments, “with the game in the balance,” it can be a great time to go with your strength.


7. Coaching Decision: Matt Patricia seen on sidelines in heated discussion with his players
This flashed on screen for a few seconds, but you could see Patriots Defensive Coordinator Matt Patricia in a heated discussion with his players following another Eagles touchdown. Maybe he was instilling a sense of urgency, or maybe he was being perceived as “yelling.” Admittedly, I’m not sure. What I do know, however, is that the Patriots were looking for answers on defense, and it wasn’t necessarily their fault. Honestly, I was a huge fan of Nick Foles’ performance in last night’s game. He was phenomenal. He was beating the Patriots defense whether they played man or zone coverage, whether they brought pressure or even dropped extra men into coverage (like they did when he threw over the top of double coverage on the Corey Clement touchdown). He had an amazing game, but the Patriots needed answers if they were going to win.

Lesson: How do you respond to your team when adversity arises? Do you try and instill a sense of urgency, or even a sense of fear? Do you try to reassure and build confidence? It’s no big secret that how we respond in these situations is a lot of what defines us as leaders and how our team perceives us.


8. Patriots bring a Slot Corner Blitz on 1st down with the Eagles on the Patriots’ 24-yard line, 4th Quarter
I’m pretty sure I even blurted out an “Oh, interesting,” as this happened in real time and my family just stared at me blankly. I was so deep into my note taking as the game was coming to a close, and I’m pretty sure they all thought I was insane for not paying close attention to the moment. The thing is, though, that this made me pay so much closer attention to the game than I had ever thought and, believe it or not, I had fun doing it.

On to the play, this happened on the very last true offensive possession for the Eagles – where they ultimately scored the go-ahead touchdown and went up by 5. On this drive, something was brewing on the left side of the offensive line that you may or may not have noticed; James Harrison was consistently beating the Eagles left tackle. He was incredibly close to getting sacks multiple times on this drive, including the immediately preceding few plays leading up to this 1st and 10 on the Patriots 24-yard line.

The Eagles were driving, and the Patriots once again needed answers, but I scratched my head at this decision. After however many plays in a row of James Harrison almost getting home on only four men rushing, the Patriots decided to send a corner blitz to bring extra pressure. What happened? Foles hit Agholor in the flat from where the blitzing corner just came and picked up a first down. It’s hard to second-guess Belichick and Patricia, as some of the best defensive minds in football, but I still question it. You’re essentially in the red zone, and zones automatically get tighter down there (so it’s a little easier to play pass defense) and you could have stuck with that defense and tried with the four-man rush that was, largely, working.

Lesson: The Patriots overreacted to recent results on this play. I’ll admit, this one may be subjective, and I see a valid argument for those saying, “they needed to do something. Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.” I think there’s a valid takeaway for business leaders here, though, in that sometimes we can feel the pressure and overreact ourselves to recent developments. When you see an obstacle continuing to unfold and you need a solution, how many times do you change your strategy instead of staying the course on what is, perceivably, so close to working?


9. Eagles play Zone Defense on a 2nd and 2, 2:16 left in the game
And now we come to the biggest play of the game; the one that decided the outcome. Why did I describe this play as I did above? Because this decision was $%!^ing brilliant. That’s why.

For almost the entirety of the game, the Eagles were visually playing man coverage against the Pats. Even more importantly, the Eagles had shown man essentially every time that Brady sent the Running Back in motion (a common tactic that modern offenses uses to identify zone vs. man coverage). On this play, with 2:16 left in the game, the running back went in motion but no single player followed him. The Eagles were in zone.

Brady dropped back to pass and, likely, needed one extra second to digest the zone coverage that he hadn’t seen much of to that point. What did that one second mean? Remember how I said that the Eagles Wide-9 was largely working throughout the game?

Bingo. Sack-fumble.

The Wide-9 never stopped working; it was just that the Patriots were, again, using those chip blocks and play action to slow it down and give an extra second to Brady. On this play, however, when you need quick routes and the threat to run goes away so play action becomes null and void with the clock running down, the Wide-9 finally paid off, and it may all have been because they showed zone.

Lesson: Know your strengths, but adapt when necessary. Wait, isn’t this in direct contradiction to the last lesson presented? Yes, but that’s the point and also the biggest lesson to take here. As business leaders, inasmuch as we have to understand our strengths, strategize against challenges, lead our teams through adversity, and know when to not overreact, we also have to know when to react and to adapt. It’s an exceedingly difficult task, and one that most business leaders only learn through trial and error.

This is why I compiled this article; I wanted to get a glimpse of any such examples that I could take from such an easily digestible, and entertaining, form of media. I need some takeaways myself to see how some of the best minds in football responded to game flow and adversity, and I personally feel that I got some valuable insights out of these key plays. I hope that anyone reading this feels the same way.


Matthew Bare - Monday, February 05, 2018

 





Why HRS Exited Recruitment & Why We’ve (Somewhat) Returned

“Just When We Thought We Were Out... 
 ...They Pulled Us Back In!”            

HRS did not initially intend to assist employers with talent acquisition, but one of our forefront successes is absolutely talent optimization. When HRS opened its doors in 1983, employment agencies and temp services were coming on strong, but we didn’t initially enter the recruitment field.

Our core services have remained:

• Talent Optimization
• Employment Law Compliance
• HR Technology
• Professional “Think Tank”
• “One-Stop Shop” or A la Carte HR


Within our third year of operations, our clients nearly begged us to form a staffing division for long-term advancement-oriented and trainable talent. Recruiting was so cumbersome until HRS invented one of the first applicant tracking systems (ATS) in the 1980’s. Employment agencies were largely populated by sales professionals rather than HR professionals, literally “selling” people into jobs which were a poor fit and then pulling the hired candidates back out to “sell” them again. Temp services were claiming NOT to be in the “placement business” as they did not want their perma-temps hired away by clients. Our highly labor-intensive employer clients needed an expert resource to expedite the process and provide an indication of trainability and long-term goals before an expensive commitment on their end. We answered the call. Employers always deployed us to develop talent and HR practices, but recruitment was a client-demanded after-thought.


Once pulled into the game, our employer clients kept quickly direct-hiring our referred candidates, and our success became our downfall in the staffing industry. We kept succeeding ourselves right out of the revenue stream, because our referred/developed talent stuck and succeeded, and there was no profitable churn for HRS. We did NOT belong in the staffing industry, and the media dubbed us “The Anti-Temp Service” for far more reasons than our comprehensive service offerings. Capturing the opportunities of our rare successes, we continued to package a total HR business model, but others pretended to emulate us… and did so poorly… creating an uphill battle for credibility. While those less risk tolerant may have rolled their eyes at our educating a new demand category, we continued to grow by referral and reputation for results. Others initially took the path of lesser resistance, and some have since attempted to follow our path. 


Why We Exited the Recruitment Industry…
• Our clients are labor-intensive, committed to top-shelf HR initiatives and are dedicated to reducing turnover. Those who validly call upon staffing services often demand opposing outcomes. 
• In a downsizing economy where retention is challenged, our differentiation was minimized, creating some brand confusion.
• With co-employment relationships in staffing, we refused to promise our employer clients risk management through contract talent. In fact, we believed this false sense of security to be risk-elevating.
• While we arguably created the first Professional Employer Organization (PEO), an onslaught of poor-quality imposters swarmed in and threatened the program integrity. As PEOs are typically assigned to risk pools, or are at least risk-rated, benefits-buying leverage for PEOs became a myth debunked.
• HRS determined to focus upon core services with target employers. We want no confusion as to whom we are and what we do!
• Talent cannot succeed without the resources of proper training, leadership, compliance, technology, fiscal prudence, vision and talent management infrastructure.


The cessation of our contract staffing operations caused immediate backlash, but we do not regret our decision. While we have no plans to resume that prior offering, the best of our own acquired skills are currently addressing the skills gap and today’s employment challenges. We recently returned to the talent acquisition forefront with an entirely new approach, focusing on our core strengths.


Why and To What Extent We’ve Returned…
• Our employer clients were largely unable to find adequate alternate resources to assist with talent sourcing and selection; we were adamantly requested to return.
• The skills gap, growing economy and lowest unemployment rate in 17 years have strained employers’ own strengths.
• Talent optimization requires validated assessment and training at the beginning of the talent lifecycle and throughout its entirety. The right people need to be properly on board. The “soft skills” have become the “hard skills.”
• HRS recruitment design consulting and Veracity assessment division has actually grown in employer reach and case study.
• Throughout our history of precision job analysis and laser-focused talent development, HRS deeper-dive job knowledge is a rare find and essential to talent onboarding.
• Emerging “right-to-work” laws directly impact HR initiatives; including team needs, HR job descriptions, scope of authority, compliance changes and opportunities to leverage. Employers must newly work in NLRA compliance beyond bargaining agreement guidelines and affecting laws.
• Employers understand what worked in past for them will not work moving forward. Change and transformation are imminent! We facilitate the transition, so our clients can keep succeeding and/or improve their success as “employers of choice.”


Celebrating Our 35th Year!

As we dive into our 35th year of commitment to the community, HRS proudly boasts that we’ve never abandoned our core focus, yet we’ve consistently adapted our methodology and paved the way. Recognized as “The Pioneers of HR Management and Research” in Fortune magazine, we continue to grow at double-digit controlled growth each year with robust shareholder dedication. While HRS did entirely cease contract labor services and contingency recruitment in 2013, our talent optimization programs are stronger than ever! We proudly answer the call with HR operations as subject matter and efficiency experts. HRS offers custom turnkey setup as either long term third-party solution or expert project design. A true blend of specialist expertise and out-task offerings, whether our project lasts 3 months or 35+ years, it’s our measurable results that continue to feed our future of relevancy! 



Jessica Ollenburg - Monday, July 10, 2017

 





Workforce Preparedness: 5 Key Skills That Can & Should Be Developed by Employers

As we address the skills gap and the need to change how we educate, the skills most lacking are those related to problem solving, work ethic, leadership, time management and organizational communications. Unless and until we can rely upon pre-employment training to develop these toolsets in our team members, employers need to absorb the burden of this development, thereby enjoying the incredible ROI on the initiative. Many are still failing to capture this incredible upside opportunity. 


As corporate educator, guest academic professor and consulting CHRO to both academic institutions and a wealth of employers realizing the outcomes of pre-employment education, I draw upon 360-degree visibility, impact and passion. 


These 5 key skills represent the most critically lacking employment skills, as well as, the most efficient means of employer resolution. These also represent the most popular and successful HRS workshops across widespread talent functions, hierarchy and lifecycle stages. 


1. Problem Solving:

There is nothing less common than sense, and few academic institutions are properly developing critical thinking. With the crazed-wave deployment of unlawful personality profiles and meaningless instruments, we’re strongly recommending talent assessment such as the SR2, pinpointing problem solving, trainability and critical thinking beyond job knowledge. Critical thinking can be taught, and many unique problem-solving styles can succeed in the workplace. Critical thinking is not necessarily a pass-fail proposition. Via proper assessment and delivery, educational bullets such as problem solving, data interpretation, metrics, cost-benefit analysis, and the Six Hats of Thinking are highly effective at identifying individual trouble spots and capturing opportunity for development.

2. Work Ethic:

While the U.S. continues to lag global competitors in average work week and appropriate recharge use of break time, productivity will equally lag. Employers have a responsibility and an opportunity in setting forth culture and expectations of the work hours, commitment and focus needed for individual and corporate success. The less committed employees are demotivating the more committed. Window-dressing engagement is not enough. As third party expert educators, we’ve realized the upside, and we need to get this message out! If work ethic factors are extrinsic, corporate education can mitigate, if not eliminate, the problem.

3. Leadership:

“Cash is King” only to the point that life’s needs can be afforded. Thereafter, employee retention, employer brand, risk management and workforce productivity all rely more heavily on proper leadership. Old-school methods of promoting the best “doers” are rightfully replaced with promoting more interested and trainable leaders, and then developing them with lifelong leader learning. Poorly trained leaders decimate success in a labor-intensive organization. Furthermore, as long as employees are willing to forego 15% compensation for a better boss, employers find a less costly and more productive win in properly selecting and developing leaders. For proper role modeling and culture, leaders must be seen embracing learning, while balancing their immediate credibility. Leader learning is best deployed as a partnership between internal and external expert trainers.

4. Time Management:

While the first component of time management might be gaining worker commitment to expand the workday, actual time management and efficiency-based routines are currently under-taught.  While lean thinking and efficient use of technology are often properly attended, time management in work flow planning, appropriate multi-tasking, prioritization, communication tactics, team meeting protocol and compartmentalization are critical to education initiatives. By teaching holistic time management, we additionally reduce energy shift and optimize quality. 

5. Organizational Communications:

Beyond the time management principles involved in crafting communications, fabulous upside is gained through proper teaching of communication mode selection, non-verbal cues, body language, time, place, audience and tone. While anti-harassment is lawfully essential to employer reasonable care, teaching acceptance of dissimilarity also delivers competitive edge, better invention and enhanced problem solving. Exceptional curriculum includes the benefits of diverse thinking, as well as, the protocol most effective with each of the 16 personality types. Today’s most popular topics also include Internal customer service and building organizational bridges. 


When teaching these 5 skills, 3 key rules are critical to learning, yet still under-attended by those employers missing the mark. These 3 simple rules include: 

1. Address unique audience learning style and aptitude, 

2. Deploy simultaneous assessment toward curriculum development and success benchmarking, and 

3. Remove fear of reprisal. 

More specifically, participative learning remains preferred by most, while auditory learning remains least effective. Pacing too fast, too slow and/or audience adaptation failures remain common pitfalls. Training from, or in the presence of, supervisors creates fear of reprisal and fear of presenting the “stupid question.” (I always remind here the only stupid question is the one not asked.) 

While employers cannot rely solely upon external expert educators, both internal and external trainers must partner for optimum learning. Roundtable workshops, facilitated by topic experts deploying Gestalt Protocol, are the fastest and most meaningful method of speed-track knowledge transfer and useful application. Live case studies are highly engaging for even those not prone to academia, and these similarly avoid distracting perception of internal bias. In our corporate education series, our own case studies are revealed in full protection of employer confidentiality and intellectual property, of course.  

We invite you to stay tuned for continuing information on this topic including steadfast findings and ever-emerging trends. Keep training!

 

Jessica Ollenburg - Friday, April 15, 2016

 





CEO Must-Knows About Employing People in 2016


For those who create jobs, a new year creates new opportunities and new threats. While we at HRS highly recommend each CEO to empower a fully functional HR initiative, we simultaneously advocate these 10 areas for highest executive support and visibility before giving up the reins. CEO to CEO… here is the drill-down!



Invest Only into Programs Supported by Data-Driven Metrics
While HR earned its seat in the boardroom by producing undeniable results on the Income Statements and Balance Sheets, avoid the assumption that all HR professionals grasp fiscal responsibility and know-how. Dubbed “The Pioneers of HR” in a 2015 Fortune Magazine spread, HRS knows exactly how thin the landscape was in prior decades, and we promise that more are boasting accolade than actually proven.  While it’s possible to find a statistic to support any thesis you choose, be certain the statistic is valid and supports a meaningful takeaway for optimum outcome. Statistics can be developed internally or externally at the start, but should be benchmarked internally upon program commencement. 


Ensure a C-Level Eye on Key Employment Law Changes
CEO’s must have a high level knowledge of these laws before properly delegating implementation and due diligence in 2016. Especially if a Chief Human Resource Officer (CHRO) is not in place, the items which cannot disappear from C-level are: handbook policies, ERISA Section 510, HIPAA, anti-harassment, trade secrets, ACA, FLSA, social media, independent contractors and joint-employer relationships, at a minimum. Top tier execs must ask the right questions and provide adequate support and empowerment to the right leaders of these critical initiatives. 


Bring Salary and Hourly Practices into Alignment
With Department of Labor (DOL) proposed overtime changes still embattled until late 2016, a major hike in minimum salary threshold may create unlawful “ivory tower” practices where they previously didn’t exist. Become more mindful of benefits, payroll handling and policy discrepancies between exempt and non-exempt team members. Be proactive.


Engage Without Coddling
Attracting and engaging the right talent cannot be accomplished without employer branding and a precise amount of ethical bribery, in view of forecasted 2016 shifts. That being said, some novices out there are “over-coddling” and making a pure mess of things. Let’s not forget Maslow’s Hierarchy, ERG motivation theories and that truly happy workers have no reason to work at any stage other than self-indulging self-actualization. Give your employees a reason and the resources to attain corporate goals. 


Keep HR and Accounting Completely Distinctive Functions at Lateral Vision
The keys to success in HR are absolutely neither a subset nor acquired along the accounting career path. These two critical functions each earn a boardroom seat, with critical communication between, and neither gets more leverage. While the HR effort cannot succeed without fiduciary vision and ability to assess proper fiduciary talent, the accounting effort can be tremendously successful with only limited communication from HR.  In fact, too much information in the hands of the accounting team yields EEOC and HIPAA penalty risks.


Personality Tests Belong in the 1970’s, with Mood Rings
Beaten down as unlawful 40 years ago, personality tests are somehow re-emerging for those who didn’t previously see the lightbulb. Throw in ADA protected mood disorders and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and personality tests tee up some real risk. Hiring without proper assessment poses even greater risk. Behavioral assessment delivers far more lawful, meaningful and reliable findings; keeping it job-related, predictive and risk free. Best options are still Simulation Scenarios and In-Baskets. 


Create a Politics-Free Zone
Wherever you sit, divisionary tactics and heated arguments are likely to be found. The workplace is ripe for passionate political arguments that threaten. Other countries already classify politics as protected. Arguing the Bill of Rights from every angle, the U.S. has begun protecting employees against harassment and discrimination due to political affiliation. While the political forum is likely to emerge downright uncivilized for some, an opportunity exists to actually capitalize on the problem by aligning your brand as a safe haven for those who work smart, work hard and respect others. DeBono’s Six Hats of Thinking, after all, requires perspective from all sides. 


Train, Train, Train! Talent May be Easier to Develop than Find
As a guest professor serving 6+ top-ranked institutions, I promise that even the best are concerned with proper education for today’s workplace. The employer who delivers appropriate development tools gains the competitive edge and exponential return on investment. Success is contingent upon corporate training in not only operations, but also workplace behaviors, leadership, organizational communications, problem solving and legal compliance. Avoid “canned curriculum” and deploy a topic expert to deliver on-point discussion and applied Q&A. Not only is it nearly impossible to “pick the right employee off a shelf,” but employees meeting life’s basic costs are willing to give up 15% of immediate pay for development opportunity. While cash can still be king and broken promises crush credibility, consider a well-balanced approach as investment into both employee and employer.


Take HIPAA and Anti-Harassment to New Levels 
2015’s Q4 reveals new privacy crackdowns, and government fines are being wielded about. Privacy lockdowns are a “bottom-up” approach. Meaning, if you’re a CEO… be sure to know very little about employee personal and medical lives, and be certain your leaders are trained to refuse all such information except on a “need to know” basis. Knowing the wrong things about your employees can backfire just as much as knowing too little. For lawful compliance, even an HR department may need 5-7 separate files per employee depending upon the structure, and many items should never leave HR’s gatekeeping. Department managers, accountants, IT and company-wide team members need updated HIPAA training and enforced compliance -- pronto.  Hand-in-hand with HIPAA, and with interplay between, Anti-Harassment due diligence needs another escalation. With newly protected classes, increased tension and steeper penalties, the courts are busy, and the courts are expensive! 3rd party experts can provide “affirmative defense” certifications not available through internal or video-based training. 


Choose Carefully Your Automation Levels and External Partners
A well-implemented HR automation system can exceed 300% ROI through vastly improved efficiencies and turnkey statistical decision tools. While this opportunity cannot be overlooked, some are going too far and reversing the benefit. Before we dehumanize human resources, 1) safeguard ability for audience adaptation and case-by-case judgment, 2) recognize that more keystrokes do not improve efficiency, and 3) lock down intellectual property where law allows. Inasmuch as HRS is recognized by the USPTO for world-deployed HRIS automation invention, even we know the boundaries. Don’t let your payroll and HRIS companies sell you the functions at which they fail. And finally, when choosing external partners, look for those who bring track record of success and extraordinary knowledge base, rather than just shiny new things that will become yesterday’s forgotten toys. 




As experts in Organizational Development, Employment Law and HR since 1983, HRS empowers business owners and C-suite leaders with fiscally savvy performance management solutions, custom to each unique employer. HRS is available to deliver extraordinary assistance with each action item recommended herein. Representing a wealth of industries, HRS clients range 25-100,000+ employees, start-up and emerging to Fortune-ranked. Headquartered in Brookfield WI, HRS offers locations in Washington DC and Scottsdale AZ plus national satellites. For more information, contact us

This article was produced for the IBAW magazine, January 2015 edition. Link to magazine


Jessica Ollenburg - Monday, January 04, 2016

 





The Annual Performance Review: Post Mortem?

Each day, more employers abolish their annual review system. Why? Because feedback delayed an entire year is arguably worthless, accomplishes negative value, creates fear of feedback and decimates corporate resources. For the annual review to succeed, feedback must be ongoing throughout the year, and the annual review cannot produce surprises. Any employer who over-attends annual feedback and under-attends daily feedback is in critical need of realignment. As showcase employers such as Adobe, GE, Microsoft, Accenture and Deloitte have recently rejected the annual review in favor or regular conversation, they understand that performance appraisal done right is the catapult to success! 

Jack Welch’s 1980’s described “rank and yank” methodology at GE has merit, if and only if, the 10% being guillotined after one year of poor performance are 1) provided the tools to succeed along the way, and 2) damage controlled short of a full year’s underperformance. Frequent feedback by education-empowered leaders is most certainly inherent to the success blueprint. Leaders must effectively lead daily, not just annually.
 
Does Your Company’s Annual Review Deserve a Kick to the Curb?
Are leaders often late in preparing and/or delivering the annual review?
Are employees shocked by ratings and feedback?
Has your company encountered legal argument or unemployment defense because of instrument content or omission?
Is the benchmark employee flat-lining between or after reviews?
Is compensation becoming more tied to timing than merit, serving more as a COLA than a performance accolade?

Annualized reviews have become default policy due to conformity with once widespread practice and a desire to delay cumbersome, often cookie cutter, legalese documentation. HR information systems, while offering efficiency to the tech savvy, are often exacerbating the practice through irrelevant templates, impossible to align. There’s a much, much better way. Consistent with young employees’ reliance upon push-button and command control feedback through technology, a revamp of the system absolutely improves engagement and productivity for today’s and tomorrow’s workforce. Let’s keep up with the changes!


What Should the Annual Review Look Like?
A “no surprise” recap of the year’s challenges, improvements, progress against prior goals and goals/resources for the future,
A meaningful, customized instrument to facilitate progress rather than to impede progress,
Benchmark plan of forward-moving feedback, rich with self-evaluation tools made quick, accurate and easy through metrics, 
Deployment of criteria which in no way provokes and in fact reduces legal argument,
Consistent, applicable, weighted metrics which align job description, goals and compensation, 
Where collective bargaining is applicable, alignment with said agreements.

Not an exhaustive list, these are the critical starting points. Opportunities exist to deploy several evaluation formats within a single employer, as long as lawful and fair consistency exists at a department and/or job function level. 
 

Is a Great Performance Appraisal System Enough?
Yes, as long as we clarify that a great appraisal “system” cannot exist without the following:
Getting the right people in the right company seats,
Selecting, developing and continuing lifelong learning for the right leaders,
Properly deploying magnets and motivators,
Adapting to unique employee learning styles,
Understanding and appropriately addressing the unique talent intensity and interrelatedness of each company role,
Dedicating laser focus to legal, fiscal and brand risk management. 


Legislation in Employment Law Necessitates Valuable Rewrite of the Review
The earlier weight on personal attributes now produces a 6+ figure risk for employers who miss the cues for rewrite. Given the many attributes stemming from culture, religion, genetic and medical protection, we can no longer consider personality, attitude, mood, and/or any characteristic which may attach to a protected class. While many employers are still missing the point, the more savvy, such as HRS clients, are finding not only risk management but also improved productivity outcome by swapping workplace behavior ratings for personal characteristic ratings. Actionable ratings without insult and risk better pave the way to success. 

When crafting the review, consider ratings which align with job description and meaningful criteria to the unique job. You’re one of the rare few if a universal template actually fits the purpose. Most templates can be the culprit to your leaders dreading and delaying the evaluation process. If a leader is already evaluating the criteria on a daily basis, dropping the rating into the appraisal is simple. If a leader doesn’t find the criteria naturally relevant or described in applicable terms, the blank stare and frustration will replace and likely reverse progress. 

Deploy “Appreciative Inquiry” by driving what’s going well to such an extent that it overpowers that which is going wrong. A recent HRS survey of 3000+ validates positive feedback 4 times as powerful as negative feedback. That being said, over-attending the positive without documenting need for corrective action can provoke a legal challenge for a well-intending employer. Failure to prove an employee was cognizant of substandard behavior and chose not to succeed will posture wrongful discharge claim, even beyond the obvious blemish to fairness. Balance is critical.


The Resolution
Originating in military protocol, the annual review emerged into mainstream workplaces circa 1950’s as a metric to rank, recognize and review compensation. Due to changes in leadership case study and employment law, the annual review is now under review itself. Employers continue to prototype 360 reviews and peer-to-peer bonuses. Both have their niche, but both can backfire dramatically if wielded haphazardly without precise control.  

It remains absolutely the strongest ROI to invest up front into a custom, ongoing performance management system. Relevant tailored tools and lifelong leader development safeguard time, energy and risk at every evaluation rollout. Managers should not dread or find cumbersome the evaluation process. Evaluation should be at the very core of leadership. Of more than 60 performance appraisal formats available through HRS, we still find ourselves further customizing the instruments for improved client outcomes. Without exception, the appropriate fit minimizes waste and improves outcomes for all.  It is far too often the inappropriate use of templates which has threatened the reputation and results of the review system. 

Furthermore, because leaders are entirely disposable if they don’t create better performance in those who depend upon them, it is the performance evaluation system upon which company success relies. We at HRS advocate, design and facilitate leadership development and performance management systems that position an employer for success. We deliver and we see the results!


This thought leadership article was initially produced for IBAW and subsequently licensed by request to BizStarts



Jessica Ollenburg - Saturday, November 21, 2015

 





5 Key Rules to Crafting Leader Learning

While most employers tend to finance formal classroom or seminar learning for leaders, substantial opportunity is missed when more targeted and cost-effective methods are overlooked. Embracing our 4th decade of dedicating ourselves to the understanding of cognitive function and the variety of learning methods, we offer the following 5 key rules to success. 


1. Address the 84% who prefer roundtable to classroom learning. 
Learning goals differ among individuals, as do learning styles. Audience adaptation is paramount. While kinesthetic learning outpaces auditory learning more than 2:1, classroom and/or seminar activities are less effective than hands-on and interactive learning. Top academic institutions certainly get this, and they heavily deploy group tasks, case studies and hands-on assignments as key training methodology. Classroom is the set-up to learning, but most will forget the “talking head approach” unless follow-up kinesthetic training is meaningfully deployed. 

Kinesthetic learning is preferred by most, and it consists of do-it-yourself or tactile activity. Interactive Q&A done well can address this learning style. Visual learning is the next preferred, consisting of videos, observation, pictures and graphics. Auditory learning is the least preferred learning style, consisting of lecture, listened instruction and/or audio-training. When learning style is unknown, kinesthetic or combination methods are best deployed as a default.


2. If the message isn’t delivered 3 times, don’t bother delivering it at all.
The average human mind must receive a message 3 times before long term memory is invoked. Long term memory is defined as only 20+ minutes’ duration. While we all know exceptional learners who can receive instruction once and simply get it, these learners have likely learned their own trilogy memorization techniques, such as visualization, note taking, rehearsal, role playing or others. 

Trilogy training curriculum must be deployed at least two-fold. Not only do we repeat any message 3+ times to our immediate leader learning participants, but we must also help them execute trilogy training with those they then train. All leader learning should not only consider the knowledge transfer to immediately trained leaders, but also a “train-the-trainer” approach. 


3. Preserve pride and safe harbor while training leaders.
One of the biggest mistakes is internal training of leaders where hierarchy is present in the room. Seasoned leaders, especially, shut down critical questions when either their supervisors or those whom they supervise are present. In doing so, learning assessment and learning itself both suffer dramatically. While building trust between supervisor peers requires careful protocol from the experts, a relaxed mind accelerates learning and builds supervisor teamwork in a support system beneficial well beyond the immediate training exercises. 

“Old school” leadership training started and ended with salesmanship training. While more than 16 effective leadership styles are profiled, a leader can only lead to the extent subordinates are willing to follow. Beyond salesmanship, therefore, substance is more important than ever. Supervisors who are transparently incorrect will lose team confidence fast. In many environments, new hires may have received more leadership training than those to whom they report. In many cases, either the talented new hire then resigns or is forced out by implying an ability to advance past the supervisor. Experts address these topics through “safe harbor” methodology.


4. When choosing a trainer, embrace that speaker and facilitator skills are reverse-correlated.
Unless a panel discussion, the act of speaking in front of hundreds or thousands most often requires an ability to disconnect from the audience and rehearse a scripted presentation. Some speakers are more of entertainers than subject masters, and while humor is engaging and promotes auditory and possibly visual learning, Q&A may suffer. These presenters most definitely have their effective place in the schemata of combination method training; however, be careful when choosing them for a rapport-building coaching role. Very few can effectively transition between the two. 

For roundtable methodology, choose a facilitator who is a subject master and assessor who can meaningfully answer unanticipated questions and tailor curriculum to learning needs. Ensure that meeting skills and Gestalt protocol are simultaneously trained as not only immediate training enhancements but also to ensure company-wide meeting effectiveness improves as well. 


5. Market leadership training as not only necessary but also an employee benefit.
The benefit component is easier to market when a third party trainer is brought in. However, every investment into the team is in fact a benefit to be boasted. Effective leadership training creates transformational leaders and improves career path and success rate for all trained and all reporting to the properly trained leaders. CEOs, newly promoted team leads, or anyone in between should find improved time management, job satisfaction and job success through effective leadership training. 

Beyond these 5 key rules, leaders need regular refreshers and self-forgiveness in re-grounding to the basics. While leadership training needs to help leaders advance, leadership training for many needs to remind leaders of the rote redundancy which the intelligent mind would prefer to move past. Adaptation is critical. Employment law, motivation, corrective action, personality styles, six-hat thinking, appreciative inquiry, situational leadership and so many more topics are integral to leadership training, yet missed by many “cookie cutter” trainers. Do not settle for less than the best!




A learning styles survey is available at AskHRS.com/learningsurvey09

As experts in Organizational Development, Employment Law and HR, HRS empowers business owners and C-suite leaders with fiscally savvy performance management solutions, custom to each unique employer. Leadership training and assessment are delivered onsite for our employer clients. Headquartered in Brookfield WI, HRS offers locations in Washington DC and Scottsdale AZ plus national satellites. 



This blog is sponsored in part by...




Jessica Ollenburg - Wednesday, June 10, 2015

 





Do “Happy” Workers Have a Reason to Excel?

When happy workers become complacent, work suffers. Simultaneously, demotivated workers are a substantial threat to business viability. A blueprint of empowerment exists.

Not long ago, many C-Suite leaders displayed skepticism when advised that ‘happy workers are productive workers.” To a limited extent, this skepticism served them well.

Per definition, motivation is a reason for behavior. The most widely accepted longstanding theories, such as Maslow and ERG, force us to question if “happy” is in fact the absence of motivation. If “happy” equates to Maslow’s self-actualization stage, why would happy workers be motivated to excel? Furthermore, is “happy” an effective measurement and business criterion?

Decades of studies have validated the pragmatic human capital approach to talent management, yet certain extremists are still peddling a “puppies and sunshine” approach to business. While “happy” workers are not necessarily a meaningful target, and are certainly not a lawful target, let’s explore a more prudent target.


Is “Happy” a Meaningful Criteria?
No astute business leader will ignore today’s five to seven-figure risk of incorporating terms like “happy” and “attitude” into performance criteria. Mood disorders are specifically protected by the EEOC, especially via the Americans with Disabilities Act and its subsequent amendments. Therefore, evaluating happiness can be discriminatory per both statutory and case law. All performance appraisal toolsets that previously carried this language are no longer safe to deploy and require recrafting. With expert guidance, updated terminology equally protective of workplace outcomes is available.  

Highbrow thinkers often characterize “happy” in the same realm of “utopia,” where “happy” exists as a non-sustainable target rather than a constant state of being. That being true, optimum productivity exists in the individual who can achieve fleeting happiness in the workplace and finds that work excellence is the path to attainment. That worker, in the proper performance management system, then repeatedly pursues the fleeting sense of “happy” through positive work behaviors, well-aligned with the organization’s goals. This assumes the worker is at socio-economic level beyond basic safety and security needs. An employee whose food and shelter are threatened may throw “happy” out the window quickly for extra money or job security. 

Today’s expert business leader recognizes that motivation cannot happen without hope and incentive. Demotivation occurs when employees are not properly rewarded for positive performance. An employee who exceeds expectations may not repeat the excellence if behavioral reinforcement is absent. Rewards, however, must be commensurate with the performance. Both extrinsic and intrinsic rewards collaborate together in a well-aligned system, refraining from impinging upon the other’s efficacy. A bonus for only adequate performance, for example, strips intrinsic motivation and creates a derailing reward system. A bonus for no performance, as today’s federal government often promotes, most certainly strips motivation and threatens productivity. 


A Relaxed Mind is a Productive Mind.
More meaningful than the elusive “happy” is cognitive ability. Productivity and creative problem solving are increased when negative noise is averted. The noise of fear, anxiety and negative emotion shut down the capabilities of most, while a few might benefit from a brief adrenaline rush through sympathetic nervous system response before crashing. Where a team member believes he or she can succeed and shall receive betterment as a result, and where the negative noise is quiet, the team member is exponentially more likely to demonstrate positive work behavior. 

Quality of work life deliverables which facilitate problem solving are frequently deployed by companies who depend upon invention and creativity. Work campuses and work days designed to unlock mental energy flourish. Wellness is a powerful human asset which translates into positive corporate output. 


And the Answer Is…
The discussion of “happy” workers is not only an irritant to many business pragmatists but also lacks legal risk management and, quite frankly, lacks tangible meaning. The real discussion is about workplace productivity as defined by motivation, environment and leadership. Again, motivation is a reason, and complacency will not do. Failure to deliver proper incentive will also not do. We advocate and deliver lifelong learning for leaders, accompanied by proper crafting and delivery of performance management systems. New leaders do not instinctively know how to lead and require solid formal training, often in a kinesthetic learning environment. In any talent-intensive organization, getting the right people doing the right things is the heartbeat of success. Keeping talent management at C-level authority is critical. 


Jessica Ollenburg - Thursday, May 14, 2015

 





The Skills Gap, Pt. II: Addressing Education

Earlier this year, I wrote an article about the skills gap and the phenomenon of how workers are failing to meet the standards of U.S. employers. It’s an evolving situation. I argued the point of, “how could there be a skills gap now when we were just dismissing people for being overqualified a few years ago?” You can read more about my viewpoint here.

Recently, however, a new study came out that showed a new aspect of this problem, and it has to do with everyone’s other favorite topic: the Millennials.

According to a recent study from the Educational Testing Service (ETS), U.S. Millennials drastically lag behind the rest of the world in areas of basic job and life skills. Out of 22 different nations, the Millennials of the United States were tied for third-last in the rankings of reading and writing, and were dead last in math and number skills. Ouch.

As a millennial myself, I can speak to this – I am CONSTANTLY finding people my age who don’t know proper grammar and writing styles, and I find that, when you give the average millennial something to read, they will often miss some of the key points included. The math, however, seems to be more of a person-to-person distinction. Regardless, this study’s findings are quite alarming. (Note: These are just my personal findings – I have no study at this time to back it up. Don’t worry fellow Millennials, I am going somewhere with this).

The ETS made this statement in their report: “Millennials, who will form the backbone of this nation's future, are not poised to lift us out of this predicament; in fact, the lack of adequate skills in this population has become a challenge for us to confront.”

Let’s put this into perspective - all of this data is even more surprising when we factor into account that this generation is on track to be the most highly educated generation (in terms of average years spent in school) EVER. Let that sink in – this generation is highly under-educated, all while simultaneously dumping billions of dollars into our education system every year. So, let’s ask the question, “Where does the problem lie? With the students, or with those who are paid to arm them with these necessary skills?”

This issue can only be the result of a problem that our country, and our government, has spent years discussing: education. Our education system, as a singular entity, is failing to teach our kids these basic skills. I’d argue that we’re even teaching kids the wrong things. For example, I’d be willing to wager that the average American millennial knows more about the biological anatomy of a plant than how to write a proper business letter. Odds are, a child is probably more likely to wind up in a career in corporate America than as a botanist, wouldn’t you say? (Note: I don’t feel that every individual education institution is at fault here, but this is an overarching problem amongst the masses.)

We can talk about all the usual topics and criticisms here: how everyone writes in shorthand, the seeming over-fascination with pop culture, etc. The truth is, however, that none of these issues describe the problem itself; rather, they are only symptoms of the problem. The culture of this world has taken us to a place where we haven’t been before, and we simply don’t know how to teach people to be successful in it…as of yet.

We don’t know how to teach a young adult how to learn important life skills while also being able to utilize the vast amount of technology that’s at their disposal. Simply enough – the technology is winning and is making the average citizen dumber. We need to not only adapt our education system to teach kids the right tools, but we also need to adapt to teach kids how to perform their jobs as their predecessors would have – with a high work ethic and the right knowledge base.

So, where’s the solution? We can’t necessarily wait for Congress to get out of gridlock, especially with this being the final year of presidency for Obama. Let’s take action more quickly; let’s confront the problem ourselves. The issue is education, right? And it’s not a lack of desire to be educated, otherwise this generation wouldn’t be spending so much time and money on it. The answer, rather, is in the right education.

We have a specific call to action: an education that delivers critical information not just in classroom style, but also kinesthetically in hands-on roundtable format; an education that doesn’t require 4 years’ experience and thousands of dollars to finance; an education that delivers information to students as they work, and allows them to improve, while on the job, for a fraction of the cost. Summarized, our call to action is to deliver an education that actually sinks in (sic, is taught in a way through which students will learn more effectively), and transfers the knowledge of what employers actually want their employees to know. It’s an education that’s taught by the business world for the business world.

Professional Workshops and Individual Learning Sessions. Like other education leaders, HRS has built a long history off of delivering the necessary information needed for employees to succeed. We know what employers want and need because we represent them, and they’ve told us. We can convey this information to those who want to learn, and these Millennials WANT to learn. They WANT to be educated. They WANT to be successful. Let’s give them the tools to do so. 

HRS is proud to launch a series of professional development workshops tailored to address this specific issue. They are workshops which will teach individuals these aforementioned skills, and can do so for either an individual company or for a group of individuals. Let’s give the population the necessary skills they are spending thousands of dollars trying to obtain, but aren’t. Let’s give everyone the knowledge they need to keep a steady job. Let’s fix our workforce.

To learn more about HRS Workshops and Individual Learning Sessions for Professional Development, please contact us or visit our Workshops page for more info.

 

Please find a link to the ETS study here: http://www.ets.org/s/research/30079/index.html. It’s definitely worth a look.


Matthew Bare - Monday, April 20, 2015

 





Is The Talent Gap Overstated?

Let’s take a trip down memory lane, and recount the mindset of our society:

The year is 2009. The economy is in a massive struggle, and it is still trending downward. We see several busts, crashes, and every conceivable angle at which our financial sector could fail. Most Americans are either about to lose or have already lost a significant chunk of their life savings. Things look grim. Remember what that felt like? I’m sure you do…all too well.

It is at this time that a decree is handed out to corporate America, “Every business shall either adapt…or fail.” In order to survive during these crumbling economic times, a company had to scale back and had to become lean. Unnecessary waste and, more harshly, “unnecessary” jobs, had to be cut in order for the majority to survive and maintain their livelihoods. We all remember these times, and, chances are, most of us are still feeling the effects of these changes just a few years later.

As businesses were faced with these decisions, the ones who survived all seemed to make a common decision: just as the company had to become agile and adaptable, so did the workforce. What followed then was a decision to hire young, developable talent (a.k.a., adaptable talent). It was a smart decision; hire the young guns and develop them to be the people you will need in the future. This was not only smart because of the adaptability factor, but also because of the cost factor. Hiring a YP could be much cheaper than hiring a senior level employee.

This was such a smart decision that, as mentioned previously, numerous employers jumped on the bandwagon and made this a national trend. We saw this out of the majority of our clients here at HRS: many wanted to hire the younger, more developable, cheaper talent; it made too much sense to ignore.

Of course, the adverse effect of this was that the senior, higher trained employees became less in demand. At every turn, older workers seemed to be passed over for the younger talent. Employers no longer wanted to pay for the more experienced, more expensive talent. It wasn’t of the same value anymore, and it wasn’t as affordable (side note: this also likely explains the beginning of the YP boom, and also the analysis of the generational gap).

Our country, in unison, made the statement to a segment of our working population that all of their training, and all of their experience, was no longer valued and was no longer part of the equation to better our broken economy. Out of nowhere, U.S. workers who spent their entire career learning specific skillsets were told that they had, essentially, wasted their time. I’m sure you can understand how this would feel – or maybe this even happened to you directly.

Now, let’s fast forward to the present day: it’s 2015 and we have been in the midst of a multi-year discussion about how to fix the lack of talent and appropriate, usable knowledge base in our talent pool.

Wait…what?

What happened to those workers we passed over that had that training? What happened to hiring younger talent, and developing them ourselves? What happened to our plan?

Short answer: the knowledgeable workers have become discouraged…pun intended.

Long answer: Our economy, almost instantaneously, went from a place of choosing not to hire the senior employees, and identifying advanced skill sets as “less than preferred,” to a place where suddenly those skills don’t exist, and haven’t existed for a long time.

We went from a place of telling the experienced worker that their skills were no longer valued, to a place of telling them that they never had the skills to begin with. Talk about being discouraged…

One of either two things is happening here, Corporate America: 1) We have forgotten about the discouraged worker, and we are wondering why the young professionals don’t have the hard (or soft) skills of a seasoned professional after only a couple years, or 2) Our demand for workers’ skills is rapidly changing and outpacing our supply. We have become too ethereal and ever-changing with our ideology of the “perfect worker,” and the common population just can’t keep up with the changing trends.

Either way, Corporate America, we have grown impatient. I’m sorry to say it. We signed up for the inexperienced, developable work force. We can’t be upset now that they don’t have the skills we are looking for…when we are the ones who haven’t given it to them. Our economy spent decades’ worth of time, energy, and resources training the workers of pre-2009 to have the skills we needed. Let’s either not let that work go to waste, or acknowledge the fact that we may need a few decades (not months or single years) to embrace the change.


Let’s give our workers a break. They’re not incapable; they’re just trying to keep up.



Matthew Bare - Friday, January 30, 2015