HR Bartender is the official blog of ITM Group. It is here to provide workplace expertise. Sharlyn Lauby, the author, is president of ITM Group, Inc. ITM Group is a training company focused on developing programs to retain and engage talent in the workplace
I’ve been in this position before. Many times, as a matter of fact. It’s not fun. And frankly, it’s not right.
Hi! I work as a candidate experience coordinator, and one of my biggest pain-points is dealing with last minute cancellations from our hiring managers that create 30-60-minute gaps in the middle of a candidate interview. I always try to scramble and find a fill in or to rework the schedule, but I’d say more often than not, it’s not manageable due to their tight schedules.
In the past few months, the amount this has happened has decreased significantly (due to a couple of new policies and our killer recruiters!), but it’s still an issue. Too many times I must give a tour and then sit with the candidate to talk about company culture and essentially just kill time until the next scheduled interviewer arrives. I think it’s obvious and doesn’t shed the best light on our company. Any creative suggestions or ways we could fill this time when this does happen? Thank you!
I’m going to start by pointing out the elephant in the room. This is an organization that has a person dedicated to the candidate experience, which is a goodgreat thing. The candidate experience is important. There’s a well-known case study from Virgin Media documenting how they discovered a bad candidate experience cost the organization over $5M annually and how they turned it around. So, the candidate experience isn’t just some feel good thing. It costs organizations significant dollars when it’s not done right.
Which is why I want to point out the obvious. If your organization has someone dedicated to the candidate experience and hiring managers don’t seem to respect the candidate experience, then this needs to be addressed first and foremost. With unemployment at historic lows, organizations cannot afford to send this message. Now, there are potentially some power dynamics at play and we could speculate all day long about them. Bottom-line: there’s an underlying issue that needs to be addressed.
That be said, I do understand that sometimes emergencies happen. But I’d like to think that candidates understand that. Recruiters can explain emergencies. But if the company is facing a 30-minute emergency and asks the candidate if they can stick around, here are a few things to consider:
Train a second interviewer. I know at some point the candidate will have to meet the primary hiring manager, but in the meantime, they could meet a supervisor. Or a senior employee. Just make sure the person doing the interview has attended some kind of interview skills training.
Tour the facility. I know the reader note mentioned that they do tours to fill time. If ‘no show’ managers are a frequent occurrence, I would hold the tour until the end of the candidate’s time, so I could always move it up. Versus planning the tour and then discovering a manager isn’t available.
Move the HR interview. Speaking of juggling schedules, if this is happening on a regular basis, I would make the HR interview the one with flexibility. Again, instead of interviewing with HR and then finding out a manager needs to shift their time, I would work around the managers.
None of these solutions are ideal, but they could work. Ultimately the solution is that managers need to conduct their interviews on time. Because if they don’t, all the schedule shuffling in the world by HR isn’t going to help. And they will lose candidates.
Candidates have options. If managers don’t show up on time for interviews, it sends the message that the manager doesn’t respect the candidate’s time. That’s the issue to address.
Image captured by Sharlyn Lauby while exploring Duval Street in Key West, FL
(Editor’s Note: Today’s post is brought to you by Poster Guard® Compliance Protection, a division of HRdirect and the leading labor law poster service that gets your business up to date with all required federal, state and local labor law postings, and then keeps it that way — for an entire year. Enjoy the article!)
Last month, we discussed the labor law posting requirements for remote workers. After I published that post, it occurred to me that there are other postings organizations might not be aware of…such as employee handouts. According to Ashley Kaplan, Esquire, senior employment attorney for HRdirect, there are two distinct types of mandatory employee notifications: labor law posters and employee handouts.
And because there are two types of mandatory employee communications, it possible that organizations might overlook employee handouts thinking they’ve got it covered with labor law posters. Kaplan says, “there is some overlap with posters, so it can be confusing to employers what’s required at a federal, state and local level.” Let’s take a high-level look at mandatory employee handouts.
4 Things Every Employer Needs to Know about Mandatory Employee Handouts
In a webinar about mandatory employee handouts, Kaplan shared four key things that employers should remember when it comes to required employee communications:
Mandatory handouts are legal notifications, typically issued by government agencies. Common examples are Family and Medical Leave, Workers’ Compensation, and sexual harassment in the workplace. These notifications are required at a federal, state, and local level. In addition, government agencies might require notifications in multiple languages.
Many required handouts are distributed to employees at the time of hire during orientation. However, some handouts are “event driven”, meaning that they must be distributed at the time of the event. For instance, Family and Medical Leave notifications should be provided to the employee when they are requesting leave.
Remember current employees need to be notified as well. When new notifications are required, organizations should start giving new hires those new required notifications, BUT we can’t forget about existing employees. They need to be notified about the new or changed requirements as well. Keep in mind that some government agencies will require that notifications are acknowledged (i.e. signed) by the employee.
And finally, these employee handouts are in addition toany labor law poster requirements for your workplace. Yes, this is what makes mandatory employee notifications so tricky. Kaplan pointed out that some laws require only postings, some require postings and handouts, and others only handouts. It’s important to know the requirements.
In Human Resources, Time is Money
I’ve got some good news and not-so-good news.
The good news is that some government agencies do offer free downloads of these employee handouts. In those situations, HR can simply download the document. That’s not the issue.
The not-so-good news is that there’s no government one stop shop that will tell you everything you’re required to do. According to Kaplan, there are “across the nation, more than 400 different federal and state notices that employers must distribute based on different triggering events. In a state like California, there can be up to 32 employee notices issued by up to five different agencies for compliance.”
Let me add that more often than not agencies don’t notify employers of changes. So not only do employers need to know where to look for the legal requirements, they have to regularly go back and double check to ensure they are in compliance.
One more thing. There are instances where government agencies do not offer templates or free downloads. Employers are responsible for creating the handout on their own. And I don’t have to tell you what that means. HR is responsible for everything that comes with designing the new form – researching the legal guidelines, creating the document, getting legal approvals, communicating the change, etc. Oh, and I know I don’t have to tell you (but I’ll say it anyway) that, if an organization is caught being out of compliance, they are subject to fines, penalties, and legal exposure.
But let me end this section with some more good news. You don’t have do this alone. Our friends at Poster Guard have recently introduced a new Mandatory Employee Handout service. It was developed by their legal team to help businesses comply with all of these handout requirements.
With the service, employers are provided with electronic access to current federal and state handouts, so they can print or email them to employees. Poster Guard takes care of monitoring, so organizations will always have the most up-to-date information to share with employees. AND they’ve also built some templates that you can use to create your own.
Right now, HRdirect is offering HR Bartender readers a discount to try their Mandatory Employee Handout service. Just use the code SC28549 at checkout to receive 25 percent off the Poster Guard Compliance Protection service. This applies to all three tiers of service offered and the two products they have for remote workers. But don’t delay! The code expires on December 31, 2018.
Notifying Employees is the Right Thing to Do
I understand that compliance isn’t the sexiest part of human resources. But it’s essential to the business and not just from the standpoint of avoiding fines and penalties.
Telling employees their legal rights is simply the right thing to do. The last thing organizations want is to develop a reputation for being an employer that doesn’t operate in good faith. We don’t do that with our customers and we don’t want to do it with employees. It will impact the company’s ability to hire, engage, and retain the best talent, which ultimately impacts the bottom-line.
Organizations continue to be focused on finding the best talent. Even organizations that have recently announced layoffs and reorganizations are still focused on hiring, engaging, and retaining the best talent. Any time an organization hires someone – even one person – they want that person to be the best. Then they want them to become engaged with their role and stay with the company.
I know many HR departments that are examining their current recruiting processes to see if there are places where they can become more effective and efficient. One way to do that is to think about people and process.
1) Do we have the right people involved in hiring? And have we given them the tools to be successful?
2) Are we using the right processes to source, interview, and select employees?
Here are a few of the popular posts from HR Bartender that you might find useful in evaluating your recruiting processes:
Hiring managers have a critical job. You can’t assume they can recruit just because they have a title. First, train your hiring manager on these 5 things.
IMHO, recruiting is one of the HR functions that should be evaluated regularly. Even if no one thinks there’s a problem. It’s important to keep both the processes and individual skills current. That way, organizations can stay ahead of the competition. And isn’t that what finding the best talent is all about?
Image captured by Sharlyn Lauby while exploring the streets of Las Vegas, NV
Over the past year or so, we’ve talked about using measurements like employee net promoter score (eNPS) to understand employee engagement. I don’t know if it’s directly related to it, but I’m hearing more conversation about human resources professionals being evaluated based on talent acquisition metrics. For example, recruiters being evaluated on the time it takes to reach out to a candidate.
It reminds me of the promises that organizations make to customers. We’ll deliver your pizza within 30 minutes. When I travel home, Delta airlines tells me I will get my luggage within 20 minutes. The idea being that performance promises create a positive customer experience and build brand loyalty.
So, it goes without saying that, if organizations want to create a positive employee experience and build employee loyalty, then measuring HR and payroll response times could be helpful. But to be fair, if organizations are going to hold HR and payroll accountable to this standard, they need to do it the right way.
Hold people accountable for things they can control. I call this the ‘turnover example’. HR cannot be held accountable for the company’s turnover. Because they don’t control all the factors that go into turnover. Yes, HR can be held accountable for human resources department turnover. But not the rest of the company. Turnover belongs to everyone.
Define a realistic standard. Once the company has established a performance standard that payroll or HR can actually accomplish, it’s important to set standards that make sense. Let’s use turnover again. Setting a goal of zero percent turnover is unrealistic. And probably not even advisable. Organizations should want a bit of turnover.
Get buy-in from impacted individuals. If establishing these standards is new for the organization, take time to chat with payroll and HR. Talk about why creating new performance standards is important. Get their buy-in. Managers should let employees know that they feel confident the new standards can be met.
Payroll is important. Through the years, I’ve talked about payroll being one of those functions that should strive for perfection. That being said, in this Time Well Spent from our friends at Kronos, payroll should be given realistic performance goals that they can meet. While no one wants to make a payroll mistake and striving for perfection might be a goal, let’s be real and admit that occasionally mistakes are going to happen.
Zero payroll mistakes might not be realistic. That doesn’t mean that payroll and HR can’t have realistic, measurable goals that directly align with the candidate and employee experience.
But employees aren’t the only ones that need to start thinking about retirement. Organizations do as well. According to Pew Research, approximately 10,000 people each day turn retirement age. That number is expected to last for at least the next decade. Now of course, not all of those people are going to leave the workforce the moment they reach retirement age. In fact, there’s some data to suggest that older workers are trying to stay in the workplace longer (whether that’s simply for the money or because they enjoy working).
My point is that organizations need to think about the growing number of people who are – at some point – going to exit the workplace. And during a period in time when recruitment is tough, it makes sense to have a deliberate strategy for keeping skilled workers. Here are five strategies that come to mind:
Reskilling. Employees need to keep their skills current with the business climate. That includes older workers. Personally, I’m not buying the comments that “older people don’t know squat about technology”. Not from the individuals or the companies they work for. It’s time for organizations to make investments in employee education and training.
Repurposing. Everyone wants to feel that they contribute to the bottom-line of the organization. That doesn’t mean that everyone needs to have career advancement goals. Translation: you don’t have to want a promotion to be valuable. Organizations need send the message that everyone can contribute value, even if their goal isn’t to move up the company ladder.
Reducing stress. Burnout and stress are real issues in today’s workplaces. Organizations are doing the right thing by creating wellness programs for employees. Let’s remember that there are some wellness issues that are the same for every age group, there will also be some unique wellness issues for older workers. For example, financial education programs could be tailored for not only saving but retirement.
Reverse mentoring. You guys know I’ve never been a big fan of the term reverse mentoring. I mean, why can’t we just call it mentoring? So, I view this one as both traditional mentoring – where an older worker can share their expertise and knowledge with others AND reverse mentoring – where they can learn from a younger worker. This is great for reskilling and repurposing.
Phased retirement. If you haven’t had a moment to read my interview with Joyce Maroney, executive director of The Workforce Institute at Kronos, I hope you’ll check it out. She shares her transition from full-time to part-time status and the support she received from Kronos along the way. Organizations have a real opportunity to create a win for everyone by supporting employees through a phased retirement plan.
As more employees start eyeing retirement and more organizations continue to struggle finding talent, it only makes sense for both sides to create some mutual wins. It can be done. But it takes open communication, transparency, and planning.
Image captured by Sharlyn Lauby while exploring Las Olas Boulevard in Fort Lauderdale, FL
A few years ago, I went to the SourceCon conference. During the event, one of the speakers asked the crowd how many people texted candidates and quite a few people raised their hand. More than I would have suspected at that time. Since then, I continue to hear more and more people talk about texting candidates. If you’re not texting candidates, you might be behind the curve in today’s competitive talent market.
Human Resource Executive published an article recently titled “Recruiting Gets Smarter with Targeted Texting”. It’s a good read about how talent acquisition professionals can use texting to target candidates. But as I was reading the article, I couldn’t help but think that HR and talent acquisition pros need to step back and think strategically about how they will use text messaging in the hiring process. Here are a few things to consider:
Create guidelines that everyone on the recruiting team will use. For example, what types of messages are appropriate to send via text? When are acceptable times to text? Texting should be considered a form of company communication. Texting messages can enhance the organization’s employment brand and candidate experience if they’re done the right way.
Let candidates opt-in. While many recruiters are using texting as a way to contact candidates, I still can’t help but think that texting is considered a very personal way to connect. And it still needs a level of permission. Ask candidates before cold-texting them. It can be perceived as a sign of respect.
Identify yourself in messages. This should go without saying, but I’m amazed at the number of people who text me and I have no idea who they are. Because their phone number doesn’t identify who they are. So, err on the side of caution and identify yourself and your organization. That way a candidate doesn’t ignore you or write back a “Who the heck is this?” response.
Be brief! Just because more people are open to texting, doesn’t mean messages should be longer. The beauty of text messaging is its brevity. Recruiters will want to learn how to send succinct messages. And if the message needs to be longer, maybe find a way to refer a candidate to a medium that’s better suited for longer messages. For example, “Can I send you an email with details?”
Use acronyms, slang, and emojis sparingly. Speaking of brevity, texting does lend itself to acronyms, emojis, etc. But we have to remember that we’re representing a company (and the company’s brand). Think about how the slang we use in our personal lives would be interpreted by candidates. In some cases, a smiley face or an LOL could be perfectly acceptable. The poop emoji…well, maybe not.
Let candidates opt-out. If we’re going to give candidates the ability to opt-in, then they should have the ability to opt-out. Maybe they’ve decided they don’t want to apply for an opening. Or that they no longer want to be considered. Organizations have to respect that and stop their communications.
Oh, and one more thing. Once the recruiting team has finalized their texting strategy, run your ideas by legal. I’m sure they would appreciate being looped in and they can make sure that nothing is left out.
I don’t have to tell anyone that the benefit of using texting in the recruiting process is people read their texts. Before they read emails. Or listen to voicemails (if people actually do that anymore…) If organizations want to reach candidates, text messaging is a very effective medium. But it has to be done properly. And in a respectful way. The company’s brand is on the line.
Image captured by Sharlyn Lauby while exploring the Wynwood Wall Art District in Miami, FL
Hi, just found your blog. I wanted to get your advice on how to respond to prospective employers regarding the reason why I left my senior position. The real truth of the matter is that we got a new boss with whom I had some integrity issues – we did not seem to see things in the same light.
After 10 years on the job, I felt it was better for me to accept the package and move on. I also signed a separation agreement. How can I explain this without trashing my former employer?
I wish I could say that there’s always one absolutely right answer in this situation. Since there are different considerations, I reached out to two respected colleagues to get their thoughts. Hannah Morgan (aka Career Sherpa) is a well-known job search, career and social media strategist. She’s the author of “The Infographic Resume” and a regular contributor at U.S. News & World Report. Recruiting Animal (and yes, that might be his real name) is the host of the wildly popular Recruiting Animal show (broadcast live every Wednesday at 12n Eastern). He’s also a professional recruiter.
When asked about the reason you’ve left a job, is it okay to mention unflattering things about a former employer? Why or why not?
[Morgan] Let’s first address the reason employers ask candidates why they left their previous jobs. Employers want to know if the candidate was forced to leave due to performance issues or was downsized due to no fault of their own. Asking this question helps employers weed out ‘potentially problem’ employees.
Since candidates are usually on their best behavior during an interview, it can be difficult to see problematic behaviors first-hand. During the interview, the employer listens for any signs that the candidate is unhireable. Employers are listening for a pattern of leaving jobs and blaming it on bad bosses or companies. If a candidate has had several jobs in a short period of time and blames bad managers, it’s likely that the problem isn’t the managers. The common denominator is the candidate and a sign of a problem employee or an employee who hasn’t learned how to evaluate future bosses.
That being said, it is never advisable to bad-mouth or mention unflattering things about a former boss, employee or company. In fact, it is unprofessional. Some might call it character assassination or slander to say negative things about other people. No matter how awful or unfairly you were treated, never divulge that information. It only makes you, the candidate, look bad.
[Animal] Recruiters hate it when a candidate bad-mouths an old boss. They say that it’s not professional. They want you to lie or obfuscate. I agree in part. You shouldn’t go into an interview and say ‘I wish that a**hole would die a painful death. He has it coming’ or ‘I wish I could be the one to pull the switch.’
While that might be how you feel, you can’t admit that you have a hate-on for anybody because you’re supposed to have control of your emotions. But you should be straightforward about policy differences if they were the reason for leaving.
People usually say they left for ‘philosophical differences’ but that could mean anything and it’s clearly just a dodge. If the differences you had with your old boss involve sensitive issues for your old company, you could say that you had policy differences and would prefer to discuss how you fit with the new job in the early stages of the hiring process. Leave a discussion about the details of your differences with your old employer until the new employer is serious about you as a candidate.
I remember the case of an accountant who was pressured to sign off on some creative bookkeeping by his famous, aggressive CEO and CFO. They all ended up going to jail. He should have left the company and had no fear of explaining exactly why he did so. There is no shame in it and you don’t want to work for a company that cannot appreciate that.
In this scenario, the employee talks about integrity issues with their boss. For a moment, let’s just say the boss is a jerk. It’s not really about something ethical. Is it okay to say during an interview that “the boss and I just don’t get along”? Why or why not?
[Morgan] If your boss was a jerk, that’s your opinion. And just because you didn’t get along with him or her doesn’t mean others can’t. If your boss was unethical, sexually harassed you, or did something else illegal, that’s up to HR and law enforcement to resolve. It doesn’t belong in the job interview. As unfair as it sounds, employers are more likely to side with the past employer/boss than the candidate who sounds disgruntled or unable to cope.
Rather than try and explain the ins and outs of your relationship with your jerky boss or complicated ethics violations, it’s better to gloss over that detail and stay focused on the bigger reason of why you left – more rewarding work, more relaxed work environment, better pay, more challenging career or whatever you were looking for when you decided to leave. Taking ownership of your career shows an optimistic, can-do attitude and that’s what employers want.
[Animal] Presumably, you left just because you didn’t like her personality? I don’t think that’s likely if she did everything else well. If someone has an unpleasant personality, it’s bound to be reflected in her management style and you could focus on that rather than her personality. This means that you could describe your differences as management issues rather than simply personality. If the old boss shouted at people or made inappropriate comments, you should say so. But you have to ask that the recruiter promises to keep your remarks very confidential.
You could also say that you were looking for a change of culture. When they ask what you mean, you could describe the personality, so to speak, of the kind of place you are looking for. Maybe you want to work with people who talk about the non-fiction books they are reading instead of sitcoms. Or maybe you want to work with people who are more upbeat in the mornings. You might not have to say that your boss is a low-brow drinker, who has endless family problems, and drags herself into the office looking like death warmed over every morning.
The reader didn’t ask, but let’s say the reason they left was because they were terminated. Should the candidate be 100 percent truthful about the matter (even if they don’t agree with the reason they were fired)?
[Morgan] There’s a big difference between being fired and laid off in the eyes of employers. It’s probably best not to use either term because of the negative connotation each has.
If you were laid off, use downsized, position eliminated or impacted by a reduction in force. In the reader’s question above, if there was a reduction in force and an opportunity to leave with a severance package, then the candidate can take the answer one step further and spin the situation into a positive to help ease the future employer’s mind. For example:
“After 10 years with the same company, I decided it was time for a change and took the separation package. This gave me time to reassess what I want to do next and look for my next great assignment.”
On the other hand, if an employee is fired because of something they did wrong, it’s referred to as being terminated for cause. It’s possible, during a background check, that this information can be verified. The prospective employer may ask if the ex-employee is eligible for rehire or the reason for termination. When an employee is laid off it usually means they are eligible for rehire. However, someone who was fired, would not be eligible for rehire. Since this information could be discovered, it is best to be truthful about being fired.
If a candidate was fired, they should simply state that he/she was let go or dismissed. Then the candidate can explain what they learned from being fired. This brief explanation helps the employer understand the situation and hopefully believes that it won’t happen again. For example, the response might sound like this:
“I was let go from my last job. I didn’t do my best work or make the best decisions then. But I now realize how important it is to my team and supervisor to be accountable and on time. This has taught me a valuable lesson and in my next job, I look forward to being an employee that others can rely on.”
[Animal] If you think that there are some things that reflect poorly on you that would not come out unless you, personally, reveal them then leave those things out because they would probably be insignificant details.
But if that’s not the case, then the candidate would have to acknowledge her errors and show quite clearly that she has learned her lesson. The candidate might need to be prepared to take a lesser job at a lower salary. Organizations might be willing to help individuals rebuild their reputations if they get a good deal. Example: I know a guy who was fired because he was too slow on the job. It was easy to believe because he spoke as slow as molasses in everyday conversation. He would have to admit that he realized he needed a job that did not require a lot of quick action.
One more thing…If you don’t agree with the reason you were fired, then you have to prepare a strong case and present it in a calm, reasonable manner. And it has to be a solid case. If you present a biased and distorted view of things by brushing aside your obvious errors, no one will consider you.
I want to extend a huge thanks to Recruiting Animal and Hannah Morgan for sharing their thoughts on this topic. These two professionals sit at different places in the hiring process and have different relationships with candidates. While their styles might be very different, their advice wasn’t.
Today’s post is one of those that I would bookmark for future reference. You know at some point, a friend, family member, or colleague is going to ask you this question.
Every time I go to the eye doctor, I’m faced with the same situation. I know there’s a big “E” at the top of the eye chart. Not because I can see it clearly, but because I’ve memorized it. I always laugh that if they changed it, then I wouldn’t be able to read anything on the chart.
Today’s Time Well Spent from our friends at Kronos reminded me of my annual eye doctor visits. Just because you can see the numbers, or you’ve memorized them, doesn’t mean you understand them. It’s important for us to gain that additional level of comprehension.
Include education in onboarding. One of the best onboarding experiences I’ve ever had included meeting with the controller to learn how to read the company’s financial documents. Not only did we discuss the documents, but he spent time talking about what the organization focuses on (i.e. the specific line items). He shared information about what took place at the monthly financial review meeting and encouraged me to participate.
Ask questions. If we don’t understand something about the financials (or any document that the company produces), then ask. In many cases, these documents are tied to our personal goals (and possibly our bonus structure). Which means the organization finds the information necessary for success. I’ve always found that if I didn’t understand the information, someone else didn’t understand it either.
Discuss reports before deciding on them. I remember going to regular finance meetings where the controller would just launch into a discussion about action steps without reviewing the documents. He assumed that everyone had read the information (which they had). But reading the information and discussing it were two different things. Once he started adding a short discussion before taking action steps, the quality of the conversation improved.
Employees at every level of the organization need data and information to successfully do their work. But seeing the information and being able to analyze it are two different things. Organizations should think about how they can build data education into onboarding, training, and regular meetings so employees are able to become better critical thinkers.
I’m a big fan of Trader Joe’s. When Mr. Bartender and I lived in South Florida, we had a Trader Joe’s but it wasn’t always convenient to stop there. Now that we live in North Florida, there’s a Trader Joe’s right down the street.
Because we’ve started going to Trader Joe’s more often, I wanted to learn a little more about the company. So, I listened to a short podcast series called “Inside Trader Joe’s”. As of today, there are nine episodes that talk about Trader Joe’s business, products, culture, employees, etc. It’s very interesting – and kinda fun.
But in the sixth episode, they talked about the future of the company and their expansion plans. Trader Joe’s CEO Dan Bane said that they hoped to open 30-35 stores per year. But he made a comment that stuck with me. He said, “We won’t open a store just because we can. We want to open a store that’s run by the right kind of people doing the right kinds of things.”
Simply put, this means that organizational growth (and dare I add business profitability) is contingent upon finding the right people at the right time using reasonable resources. This means that human resources and talent management professionals are front and center in the ability for the organization to meet its operating goals.
We talk all the time about HR having a seat at the table. Guess what? We do. Now we need to deliver.
At this year’s HR Technology Conference, I heard a speaker say that organizations can’t hire their way to growth. (My apologies, I can’t remember who said it.) But the point was that organizations can’t simply hire all the people they need from the outside to grow the business. The labor market right now doesn’t make that possible. There are more job openings than people.
In order to grow the company, it would be necessary to also develop talent from within. In addition to conducting effective external hiring.
If human resources departments aren’t thinking about their talent management strategies, now is the time to start doing that. We have to think beyond just filling requisitions. There needs to be a coordinated effort between recruiting and talent development. Managers need to be given the tools to hire, engage, and retain talent. A single program isn’t going to cut it. It’s going to take a strategy.
And that strategy needs to be long-term. Remember that well cited statistic from Pew Research that says 10,000 people a day are turning retirement age? Well, they aren’t all leaving the day they turn retirement age. But, at some point, they will leave. Which impacts the labor market.
Candidates have choices. Recruiting is getting tougher. Organizations like Trader Joe’s want to grow and expand. But as Dan Bane said, it takes people. Companies will be looking for HR to provide strategic guidance and effective talent management. The future of the company depends on it.