Kaleidoscope Skill Sets the Wave of Recruiting for 2009

I'm in the midst of creating a presentation for one of the annual state HR conventions. The topic is staffing up in a down economy. That is to say, I think it will be important for companies to attract people with more dynamic and varied skill sets, and the increased pool of active job seekers may prove fertile ground for that. The mentality that I'm hearing from HR world for 2009 is rather bleak. I'd posit that the motto for 2009 could be "Do more with less."

While many employers see this as a negative (trying to attract larger skill sets with non-growing compensation plans, or requiring current employees to handle more burdens for no more pay), I think there's a better perspective.

I'd like to see recruiters influencing the mind set of the HR community in a way that says that offering people a more dynamic workplace, with greater variety of job function, is not only more fulfilling and rewarding, but ultimately better for the employee. I see it like this. Large retailers hire "managers in training" straight from college. Then they spend 3 to 6 months in all the different aspects of the business, and come out 18 months later more valuable than when they started.

All employers should see this model, though it may be a condensed version, as a positive of the evolving workforce for 2009. Thoughts?

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jason C. Blais on November 21, 2008 at 9:34am

Great clarification questions, thank you Maren. I was talking more towards your first paragraph- lateral. As an example on how to offset the costs, LL Bean recently implemented a crosstraining program to support a multi function workplace. Essentially, because of the ebb and flow of their retail industry, they could keep costs down by keeping more of the same employees, rather than laying off and rehiring throughout the year. They developed a comp plan that paid by function. If you were doing Activity A for a week or two, you were paid A, if you were on Activity B you were paid B. Not only did their turnover go down, but their number of worker's comp claims was also drastically reduced, by eliminating some longer term repetitiveness.

I guess, in my presentation, I'm looking at mid to large businesses who may be forced to cut 10 to 15% out of their marketing personnel, hr personnel, production personnel, accounting personnel etc. When making hires, it will be important for those new candidates to be able to do their job plus a portion of the missing 15% from all departments. Maybe when recruiting for an A/P clerk, it will be important to also have someone who can write in the company newsletter, or has experience with recruiting to help offset the missing 15%. Identifying functions within a company that could be filled by many hands with secondary skill sets, would lead to a different recruiting focus. IS that clear?

Maren Hogan said:

I am curious to know if you mean like constant moves within an organization at appropriate times (more lateral, less vertical) to keep the employees skill set varied and yet make them more ingrained into the culture of the company? I LOVE this idea, as it seems to solve (for larger companies) the idea that most employees leave because of their manager. Also, if you attached it to any generational issues, it would appear on the surface that a shift like that (at least in a larger company) could "extend the shelf life" of a millennial candidate. The only pushback I see is that corporations are already frustrated at the amount they spend training and might feel like this was more of an investment on their part with no guaranteed rate of return. I guess it's safer than the markets huh?

OR

Are you saying that from the start, these people should wear "more than on hat" within more than one department? I think with the current state of management, that would be very hard, as most departments rarely want to share resources or accountability, much less humans. Beyond that, Oftentimes a skill is easy enough to learn, it's the repetitive nature of it that is time consuming. So people might assume that they could handle more "on paper" than they could actually handle in a given work week or day. Obviously, this happens every day in small businesses. I think it's more possible with positions that require less of an exact steady hand and utmost consistency. I don't think the accounting procedures should be shared and juggled, but perhaps graphic design and copywriting could get mixed around.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jason C. Blais on January 19, 2009 at 1:53pm

Maren, good questions and thoughts. In fact, I think your first statement is closer. However, I'm developing this idea on a more project-based platform. That is, as workloads expand, either due to growth or reduced staff, I think a good approach is to reach deeper into your own organization to cover the work.

That is, if there are new processes in department A, first look for current employees who have untapped skills which could contribute to those new processes as a limited portion of their work schedule, rather than seeking outside help (whether that's contractors or new hires).

If there are reductions in the staff in Department A, don't simply burden the surviving employees with picking up the slack, which will assuredly create stress and resentment. Likely, the reduced staffing comes with a reduction in workloads for the department as a whole, but there will almost always still be additional work that needs to be picked up. Again, my position is that employers should look for people across the company who can contribute to any portion of that work.

Just this week, I was approached by a senior account rep in our company who was feeling bored and frustrated (which can happen when you're selling recruitment advertising in a recession), and wanted to join some of the projects that I've been developing. Those projects are primarily operational and marketing in nature, and are linked with social media. I had no idea that this person had a degree in new media, and had worked in web development prior to coming to work for us. Additionally, this person is willing to put in an extra 4 to 8 hours a week to work on these new programs because he's so engaged with them. By bringing him into the fold, and actually INCREASING his workload, we've helped him feel more appreciated and engaged with our business.

And to your point about the cost and time needed to support this, we are going to save money, even with the additional training time accounted for. Rather than bring in an additional employee to put in 30 hours a week, we're now working to build a team of 6 to 8 current employees who take on a few hours each. I believe this year will present MANY opportunities for employers to implement similar practices, and am looking forward to presenting this material. I'm very excited actually, and can't wait til May!

Thanks again for the reply in here.
jason

Maren Hogan said:

I am curious to know if you mean like constant moves within an organization at appropriate times (more lateral, less vertical) to keep the employees skill set varied and yet make them more ingrained into the culture of the company? I LOVE this idea, as it seems to solve (for larger companies) the idea that most employees leave because of their manager. Also, if you attached it to any generational issues, it would appear on the surface that a shift like that (at least in a larger company) could "extend the shelf life" of a millennial candidate. The only pushback I see is that corporations are already frustrated at the amount they spend training and might feel like this was more of an investment on their part with no guaranteed rate of return. I guess it's safer than the markets huh?

OR

Are you saying that from the start, these people should wear "more than on hat" within more than one department? I think with the current state of management, that would be very hard, as most departments rarely want to share resources or accountability, much less humans. Beyond that, Oftentimes a skill is easy enough to learn, it's the repetitive nature of it that is time consuming. So people might assume that they could handle more "on paper" than they could actually handle in a given work week or day. Obviously, this happens every day in small businesses. I think it's more possible with positions that require less of an exact steady hand and utmost consistency. I don't think the accounting procedures should be shared and juggled, but perhaps graphic design and copywriting could get mixed around.