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     o Misaligned goals and miscommunication between organizational leaders led to outdated job descriptions and noncompetitive internal training programs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

 





C-Suite Edge: Keeping HR Eye-Level, Evaluating Partners and Rewarding Top Talent for Optimum ROI

No matter the organizational headcount, C-suite executives must focus due diligence upon talent management, workforce ROI and legal compliance. For any labor intensive organization, the keys to success rely upon increased workforce productivity, astute risk management and surgically cut talent dollars. In doing so, idle time, legal costs, under-utilization and any such wasteful spending must be avoided. Expert solutions exist and are catching on quickly. Those not paying attention will be left behind.

Employment law is ever-changing and requires daily research. Beyond pure legal advice, legal compliance experts need to deploy business acumen, organizational psychology and aligned mission commitment to deliver best decision tools and implementations. Top executives are earning spectacular ROI and competitive edge by finding their own perfect internal-external partnership balance. Some are outsourcing it all, but better options exist.

The options promoted here do not involve the outsourcing of the employment relationship. For many, outsourcing employees can be counterproductive to ROI. Employees want to feel part of a team, and in today’s world of “pay without play” where some label work a “choice,” employees often deliver commitment only with reciprocity and incentive. In many environments, outsourcing employees can be an expedient method of deteriorating engagement and productivity. Keeping workforce on the payroll and outsourcing certain or all HR management, however, can be a collaborative win for the entire organization. 

Third party expert operations have long been enjoyed by employers of all sizes and cultures. Employers under 200 are eligible to partner for all HR operations. Employers of limitless size find third party partnership extremely beneficial for talent assessment, education, compliance certification and change leadership. Most employers will attain betterment through a stable, highly competent and dedicated HR team, rather than revolving part-time talent with limited versatility. Employers who embrace external experts enjoy competitive edge and visionary foresight. Top quality is accessed with keen cost control, unbiased expertise, widespread case study and flexible utilization.

As we re-evaluate the HR team, workforce headcount only matters so much. For the average employer, the optimal team is comprised of functional management plus specialists and support under the direction of a Chief HR Operating Officer (CHRO), a right hand to the CEO. CHROs can be internal or external partners. An established CHRO already succeeding is always to be treasured and protected, as premier talent is undoubtedly rare and worthy of appreciation.

When selecting a professional consultant as CHRO, employers should seek quick adaptability, C-suite proven excellence, vast third party expertise and, of course, flexible utilization for cost control.  HR practitioners for top partner firms never stop learning, growing, embracing and delivering new value. Among many other deliverables, they bridge gaps and engage workforce into the company’s mission. CHROs should facilitate a highly effective and well-aligned supporting team.

Delivering fiscal due diligence, the average cost of third party partnership is less than the average cost of internalized operations. Done well, spectacular ROI is expected year one and builds substantially in consecutive years.  Through selection of the right partner organization, the HR team stays in place, benefiting from learning curve balanced with constantly emerging fresh ideas and case studies. Access to dedicated expert talent on demand without idle time is a steadfast cost reduction and quality optimization technique. Impartial third party experts avoid bias and deliver information with enhanced credibility. Everyone wins.

In some organizations, CHRO and CFO responsibilities are merged. This yields mixed results. Merging CHRO and CFO roles can produce conflict of interest or limited perspective; however, both CHRO and CFO need a clear grasp of fiscal prudence, organizational psychology and legal compliance. Ideally, each of these practitioners is ready to deploy as needed but never underutilized. Neither role should be subservient to the other.

Some fabulous internal HR leaders exist in today’s companies, and many of them are existing or future HRS clients. They call upon preferred partners for compliance, talent assessment, education, decision tools, case studies, affirmative defense and third party expertise. Astute business leaders recognize these top performers and keep them engaged with incentive and growth. Partner organizations deliver the tools and opportunities for such growth. 

Cookie cutter solutions are abused, overused and rarely appropriate in HR. Every employer is unique across widespread criteria, including but not limited to company brand, culture, history, demographics, business model and keys to success. Accredited consultants deliver the ability to assess and tailor programs which plug into these unique paradigms. Those who devote only to a single employer at a time and/or “job hop” do not necessarily deliver the third party expertise necessary to capture success opportunities.

While the essentials are somewhat universal, today’s business leaders enjoy a healthy range of HR options. Whether enjoying premier internal talent, premier external talent or a custom blend of the two, HR is never a remedial function. The HR function should be in the hands of those who deliver extraordinary legal knowledge, fiscal due diligence, talent management, lifelong learning for leaders, policy establishment, organizational communications, conflict reduction, operational efficiency and forward thinking, to name a few. HR is an executive function which, done poorly, can decimate an organization… and when done well, delivers impactful ROI, business sustainability and critical risk management. Today’s top executives keep it eye-level and empower extraordinary partners.

 

Article by Jessica Ollenburg, HRS Chief Empowerment Officer. Summary Bio. 


Jessica Ollenburg - Monday, May 05, 2014

 





FCRA Compliance Blueprint for Employer Background Checks

The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and its effect on employment practices are finding new court scrutiny, case precedents and employer confusion. The following blueprint simplifies employer “need to know” information. 

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) enforces the FCRA. As of August 2013 the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection advises employers to perform the following steps before conducting a background criminal, court or credit check:

1) Provide the applicant or employee a written stand-alone notice, outside of the employment application, which advises of the pending background check.
2) Gain written permission from the applicant/employee which includes forward moving checks as performed.
3) Certify compliance to the company from which you are getting the applicant or employee's information. You must certify that you notified the applicant or employee and got their permission to get a consumer report, complied with all of the FCRA requirements, and will not discriminate against the applicant or employee or otherwise misuse the information, as provided by any applicable federal or state equal opportunity laws or regulations.

Thereafter, according to the Bureau:  “Before you reject a job application, reassign or terminate an employee, deny a promotion, or take any other adverse employment action based on information in a consumer report, you must give the applicant or employee:

Notice that includes a copy of the consumer report you relied on to make your decision; and
Copy of “A Summary of Your Rights Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.” 

Giving the person the notice in advance gives the person the opportunity to review the report and tell you if it is correct.

If you take an adverse action based on information in a consumer report, you must give the applicant or employee a notice of that fact – orally, in writing, or electronically. An adverse action notice tells people about their rights to see information being reported about them and to correct inaccurate information. The notice must include:

Name, address, and phone number of the consumer reporting company that supplied the report;
Statement that the company that supplied the report did not make the decision to take the unfavorable action and can't give specific reasons for it; and
Notice of the person's right to dispute the accuracy or completeness of any information the consumer reporting company furnished, and to get an additional free report from the company if the person asks for it within 60 days.”

According to the Bureau, “Employers who use ‘investigative reports’ – reports based on personal interviews concerning a person's character, general reputation, personal characteristics, and lifestyle – have additional obligations under the FCRA. These obligations include giving written notice that you may request or have requested an investigative consumer report, and giving a statement that the person has a right to request additional disclosures and a summary of the scope and substance of the report. (See 15 U.S.C. section 1681d(a),(b)).” 

Additional information is available at…
http://business.ftc.gov/documents/bus08-using-consumer-reports-what-employers-need-know

State and federal courts have recently set case law enforcing these notices and rights of appeal as related to not only agency checks, but also employment references and interviews. Several employers have found themselves embroiled in legal battle, settlements, fines and adverse publicity specifically over failure to notify candidates of their rights to be provided notice or appeal. A few of these found additional EEOC complaint by treating protected classes dissimilarly, thereby creating discrimination. 

In light of these and other risks, it becomes increasingly important to manage incoming and outgoing background check data. Employers who publish a policy denying reference checks will continue to find a demotivation and “What happens in Vegas…” attitude among staff. Employers must control information without avoidance of information.

Employers cannot ignore responsibilities for candidate background checks and have been held responsible for negligence by ignoring reasonable care in hiring. Additionally, bona fide occupational qualifications (BFOQs) remain legitimate hiring criteria. Employers need to conduct these checks lawfully and fairly with consideration to comprehensive risk management.  

Crafting of policies considers the staging of notice, probabilities of disqualification, hiring steps, differentiation in screening among company job descriptions and unique employer compliance strategies. HRS recommends the incorporation of full scale screening permission, most recently including job-specific Internet records research, into the crafted notice. HRS is available for custom crafting of expert policies and permission/notice forms according to unique employer needs and practices.


Jessica Ollenburg - Tuesday, August 13, 2013

 





Writing Job Descriptions for Legal Compliance and Organizational Development Results

Templates exist for best practices job descriptions.  Some templates hit the mark and others fall short.  Our article outlines the minimum goals to be attained by job description creation as well as some helpful guidelines to writing a custom description.  Rarely can an organization pull a job description "off the shelf" from another organization and apply it without essential modification.  Consider a job description model only a starting point and invest the effort into customizing the instrument to your organization and your unique job.  The exercise of doing so offers value in itself. 

For starters, let us explore the goals.  A strong job description will...

  • Serve as an effective tool for employee selection and orientation to specific position duties and evaluation criteria.
  • Establish a training checklist for new hires or incumbent job changes.
  • Provide a point-by-point quality of work itemization for performance appraisals and ongoing performance management.
  • Document position goals and performance standards.
  • Protect the firm from legal risks through written documentation of position requirements.  Establish ADA, FLSA and EEOC compliance.
  • Benchmark the position for accurate compensation scale review.
  • Facilitate a merit-based compensation system by clearly identifying distinguishing characteristics between positions and position levels.
  • Communicate recruitment parameters to safeguard the hiring process.
  • Effectively distribute workload among team members to ensure organizational “right sizing.”
  • Manage legal risks in employment law by comprehensively documenting the position requirements and performance requirements.
  • Allow team members to measure their own performances between formal performance appraisals.
  • Establish individual accountability.
  • Internally market the position to each relevant team member through controlled terminology and quick communication of the “keys to success” in the position.
  • Enhance training and thereby minimize relevant turnover.
  • Validate the need for pre-employment testing/screening toward legal risk management.
  • Protect team members not selected for promotion from failure to understand selection decisions.  Protect the company from challenged decisions.
  • Assist supervisors with the performance appraisal system by providing written reminders of the goals and expectations actually communicated to the team members.

 

Job Analysis should involve both incumbent employees and their supervisors.  Not only should the tasks and position goals be documented, but in crafting and weighting such considerations, the keys to success and risks of failure should also be considered.  The consideration and the documentation of facts are two different things.  The final product will be edited and filtered for content and purpose. As an example, we document what an employee is responsible to do to avert problems, but we do not necessarily document the potential problems themselves.

Typical categories of information include Job Title, Immediate Supervisor, FLSA Status, Mission/Summary, Essential Tasks & Responsibilities, Supervisory Responsibility, Job Requirements, Working Conditions, Physical Demands, Skills & Learning Goals, and Disclaimer of Management Ability to Modify.  Some descriptions may include Department, Pay Grade, Work Hours, Location/Site Travel and more.

When crafting language, measurable benchmarks must be present to ensure the standards are meaningful and reliable.  Legally compliant language is essential to ensure compliance and perception of compliance at every stage of employment.  Desirable behaviors should be documented in detailed description.  While some label behaviors as"soft skills," successful leadership recognizes that behaviors drive results often more than skills do.  Behaviors need to be measured both on the job and at pre-employment assessment.  The HRS Assessment Center supports just that! Owning a characteristic is not as important at appropriately deploying that characteristic when it counts.  In order to pay a bill, one needs not only to have the money but also to write the check.

Job analysis questionnaires, sample job descriptions, outsource assistance and more information are available from HRS.  We wish you great success with your project!

 

  

 


Jessica Ollenburg - Monday, September 26, 2011

 





Candidate Screening by Video Technology Reveals Mixed Success

As global talent assessment experts, HRS has spent many years researching success of video technology use in screening.  We’ve reviewed dozens of platforms and learned from thousands of employers.  Recently, with the continued emergence of videoconferencing use in business, video skills gain importance.  However, screening platforms are still showing flaws.

The first major flaw lies in the difference between skills just being on camera as opposed to actually “addressing” the camera.  These two skills have little or no correlation between them.  Addressing a known audience can be far more comfortable than addressing an unknown (camera) and vice versa.  Even the company’s sales reps appear “frozen” and ill at ease in certain platform demos.   Videoconferencing typically allows the visibility of and interaction with an audience, a different dynamic altogether. As a regular speaker, I find it infinitely easier to “come alive” with dynamics when I have an engaged and participative audience.  A flat, unresponsive audience is a challenge, and often a burden, to an educator.  Entertainers sometimes enjoy that challenge, yet entertainers and educators are two different characters.  Consider the actual video skills requirements of the job, and align the screening dynamic with the job’s parameters.

The second major flaw lies in the platform’s validation.  Some platforms align with the proven concept that the best interviewers often are those who have the most practice. Sales and substance are two different concepts, and for many, these are sadly mutually exclusive.  We researched several platforms which have specifically positioned themselves to major market employers whose keys to success lie in turnover versus employee retention. Not all organizations are talent based. In fact, many large organizations rely upon “plug and play” capabilities which create sustainability without reliance upon specific talent.  The important takeaway here is to find a platform which aligns with your corporate goals for talent lifecycle. You may adopt more than one platform if you do not find an integrated solution.
 
The third major flaw is legal compliance.  While the federal and state governments are mandating appropriate timing to potentially discriminatory data collection, inappropriately deployed video screening can heighten risks of noncompliance.  Structure a program consistent, compliant and true to the job description for best protection. These are the same risks discussed in our teachings on social media use in screening.

The fourth major flaw lies in BFOQ test of reason.  Unless a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) is prominent, the screening technique is at risk.  If video skills are not necessary to the job description, do not consider video skills in the screening.  How people present in person, in writing, via telephone and via camera are all unique characteristics independent of one another.

HRS has pioneered telework principles and use of global technology for decades.  We understand the benefits and the risks. Many technology options are available, appropriate to individual job requirements.  Video may or may not be the solution, and please adopt the platform which truly represents your best interests.  We use video technology often… but selectively according to the actual job requirements and career path lifecycle.  Detailed research is available from HRS.

 


Jessica Ollenburg - Tuesday, June 14, 2011

 





Social Media Investigations May Be Essential to Hiring and Can Be Conducted Lawfully

Some attorneys will advise employers to avoid using social media as a recruitment and screening tool.  The caution is wise; however, avoidance may be impractical, and the proper use of social media can most definitely pay off.  In many cases, we consider it actually necessary. While risks of unlawful use exist and need be avoided, bona fide occupational qualifications can be investigated through proper methodology.  The following 3 rules are set forth to simplify legal compliance.

1) Timing is everything.  The EEOC is often more concerned about the timing and outcomes of collecting data than the collection of data itself.  That is, we know certain visual characteristics when we interview or videoconference a candidate, yet premature collection and use of this data is considered unlawful “profiling.” The investigation of social media after interview is typically safer than prior to interview.  A company that shows reasonable care and great diversity in demographics and advancement provides substantially stronger affirmative defense than a company with insufficient diversity and/or without reasonable care compliance. Protected characteristics are found not only in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 but also in the legal changes and state regulations emerging ongoing.
 
2) Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications (BFOQs) are still considered a lawful job requirement subject to reasonable investigation. How a candidate presents his/herself to the general public and company stakeholders is a legitimate public relations and credibility concern.   While off duty behavior may or may not be appropriate to monitor and discover as a BFOQ, how a candidate chooses to be known on the Internet as searchable by customers, co-workers, competitors, associates, vendors, investors and other stakeholders, is certainly a BFOQ.  Such a presence affects on duty performance, especially when easily detected by search engine or links to professional or company presence.  A great job description and strong company policies will validate social media investigations.
 
3) Outsource investigation and/or control consistency and chain of information.  HRS policy establishment, training and candidate investigation services are currently booming.  While we are biased that no competitor meets our standards, please know resources abound for outsourcing implementation or procedural design as risk management. If choosing to insource the effort, control documentation and custody of information. Appropriate policies and disclosures should be considered.  One size does not fit all here.  Social media usage and monitoring policies should match the company’s unique practices.  And, although the candidate may choose the “world wide web” to air private and personal information, the employer must remember to not further the information distribution except on a “need to know” basis. Use of search engines to collect data is recommended.  The method of collecting data should align with reasonable access to information by company stakeholders.

The appropriate use of social media in hiring provides cost-effective recruitment, often with cost savings or targeted candidate access impractical to ignore.  However, the very nature of recruitment via social media could grant us access to candidate social media profiles too soon. To use only social media for recruitment, in certain cases, may in itself be considered discriminatory.  Audience demographics should be considered to both control costs and to also ensure abidance with Affirmative Action Plans where they exist.

It is difficult to investigate certain social media sites, especially those of a personal rather than professional focus, without receiving information regarding age, race, nationality, military, family status, sexual orientation, religion, or some combination of the many, many lawfully protected characteristics.  Pictures, comments, links, interests and profile page data cannot be reasonably avoided. To better manage risks, we suggest directing the candidate to the company’s own application system rather than linking the recruitment response with the candidate’s social media profile.  Such a step allows the company to broadcast the recruitment via social media but to collect responses through traditional methods discouraging profiling. 

Upon reaching the correct stage and method of data collection, be certain to avoid risk of error and falsehood. Identities can be confused, and inaccurate information may be collected.  Be certain you have the correct individual, and be certain the information is true. Background check permission forms should collect necessary data to validate identity. HRS recommends and designs a sequential plan of using social media investigations lawfully, consistently, with proper timing and privacy controls toward the appropriate evaluation of BFOQs.  As an added safeguard, it is popularly recommended to involve an outside firm or an individual not participating in the employment decisions. That individual or firm should then be in position to report only on job requirements and BFOQs, thereby inherently controlling the distribution and use of data.

 

 


Jessica Ollenburg - Thursday, February 24, 2011

 





Don’t Be Fooled by Salary Negotiation Strategies Generated by the Unemployed: 6 Rules to Success

Countless unemployed individuals with plenty of time to write are emerging again with salary negotiation strategies.  While it is true that strategies should change with market conditions, in many cases, negotiation should disappear completely. While many form their viewpoint based upon experiences with one or a few employers which eventually “outplaced” them, our analysis is based upon statistical knowledge working with thousands of preferred employers plus extraordinary research concerning hundreds of thousands over three decades and adapted to present conditions.

The following is a proven 6-rule blueprint to getting the most from “employers of choice.”  Sure, there are plenty of bad bosses and exploitative companies out there who do not follow appropriate protocol. However, if you are a candidate worthy of a top employer, ignore what happens at substandard employers and subscribe to what works at top companies.

Rule #1:  Top employers offer compensation based upon compensable factors, internal/external equities and merit-based performance proven within the organization.  For top employers, the base compensation component is non-negotiable at organizational entry, except possibly at C-level. 

Rule #2: Top employers do not pay you for what you did for someone else, but rather what you will do for them.  Success in one environment is not necessarily transferable to another.  Top employers know this.  Top employers also know that overall organizational development is optimized by practices which favor merit advancement from within.

Rule #3: Top employers request salary histories up front not to set your pay accordingly but rather to evaluate equities and expectations before continuing the very costly pre-employment screening process. Failure to provide history when requested risks indication of unwillingness/inability to follow direction and/or indication of something to hide.

Rule #4: Salary negotiation is effective in a very limited sector. It can be effective only when handled correctly and in cases where the job description requires heavy amounts of negotiation implementation. Time, place and audience are paramount.  Don’t be the first to bring up money, and don’t wait too long after money is mentioned to reveal that your requirements are higher.  Attach compensation requests to your delivery of quantifiable results to the new employer.  “I respect that the company has valued this position based upon specific metrics and expected outcomes.  Based upon my history of success, extraordinary knowledge and my determination to succeed, I expect to deliver outcomes beyond those benchmarks.  Is there opportunity for me to share in those financial successes? Can we set my quotas higher?”

Rule #5: Attempting negotiation risks the entire deal. It expresses discontent with the company’s existing practices and with the immediate job.  Just as a counteroffer constitutes an offer rejection, negotiation of any types constitutes rejection of the “as is” opportunity. There is usually another candidate right behind you who is appreciative of the opportunity to earn rewards without staunch demands.

Rule #6: If the relationship begins with negotiation, expect that you have set the tone for continued negotiation.  Rather than being awarded what you have earned, expect that you shall need to always negotiate for it.   The best way to avoid constant negotiation with your company as an “opponent” rather than a “teammate” is to negotiate all at once a gain-sharing program with pre-determined financial rewards for the outcomes and results you facilitate.

When an offer is presented, please know that taking time to consider may risk the opportunity.  Some companies will volunteer a proposed timeframe for your decision. Many will not. It is a myth that immediate acceptance makes you look “desperate.”  Actually, failure to immediately accept makes you look “hesitant” and possibly “disinterested,” either of which can immediately sandbag the relationship. If you believe it is best to take time to consider, state your unwavering interest up front.  Consider a safe explanation of the rationale behind your decision delay.  If the screening process was thorough and involved multiple steps, you should have entered the offer stage ready to accept if offered.  Your questions should already be answered and your interest should not falter.

Company cost control, lifelong learning, succession planning and sustainability are key organizational goals.  Age discrimination can be a factor, and advancement from within is typically a preference.  Employers are reluctant to pay you for what you did for someone else, because too many over time have “rested on laurels.” Employers typically have more leverage than employees in this situation.  Know your power. Evaluate the dynamics of your specific situation and reject “cookie cutter” advice. 

 


Jessica Ollenburg - Monday, November 29, 2010

 





Being a Leader is a Trained Skillset, an Innate Talent and Definitely a Practice

Contrary to what temp services and unemployed consultants are currently blogging about, it is essential to understand that while being a leader requires consistent practice and execution, effective leadership is also both innate and learned… nature and nurture.

Make no mistake. Effective leaders need a deep understanding of the discipline, tasks and environment in which they lead.  Those who believe a management degree or diploma somehow qualifies them to lead in an unfamiliar environment are sadly mistaken, likely BS’d by their college recruiter.  Simultaneously, great implementers are not necessarily great leaders.  The most common mistake in business is empowering the wrong leadership, either promoting implementers without leadership skills or hiring great sales artists with no leadership substance. 

Good advice is hard to come by.  Bad advice is abundant.  With advancement the #1 workplace motivator, promotions from within not only best engage the whole team but allow leaders to have deep understanding of that which they lead.  Nonetheless, self-starters and independent achievers typically do not “get” the average worker and do not know without formal leadership training how to effectively motivate and modify behavior in others.  If others do not become better performers directly due to those who lead, the leaders “lift right out” as ineffective.


Jessica Ollenburg - Saturday, October 02, 2010