se the forums. If you want to confront, to post a commercial message, to have a one sided dialog, to preach, use the blogs. Free speech is important at RecruitingBlogs.com. Manners dictate the appropriate forum.
It seems to me that maybe these “Introduction" messages belong more properly in the Blog Posts section – by the way, doesn’t the Profiles that RBC affords each and every one of us accomplish this same thing?
I bring this up because past experience in other groups tells me these “Intros” create an unending stream of postings that create that same unending stream of notices in our mailboxes that yes, indeed another person has chosen to use the Forum to “introduce” themselves.
I’m not trying to be a wet blanket but we’re all learning protocol together. This is only a suggestion. That’s ALL it is. And yes, I understand there are some of you who will find this funny coming from me.
By the way, I think John's "suggestion" list should be posted as "de rigueur" for social networking sites.…
uture. Good thing those are just generalizations and not the entire truth.
Not to be a wet blanket, but isn't it sad? 50 years ago, what these kids did in your story would have been considered the "generalization"....the "norm" of the times. Now we jump out of our seats and hand them more money than we had originally promised. Why? Because they did what was asked of them, smiled, showed gratitude and said "thank you".
Well gosh darnit. Call me old fashioned but really, that's what should be expected.
In addition, I'd like to make a point that your first hire was an athlete. The thing that athletes have in common with success (hate to stereotype) is that they know how to endure suffering to achieve a goal. All that working out and training aint easy. Same is true for college students who get good grades. In some sense its true that good grades have no real correlation to how someone will do in the real world on the job. However, I'd take my chances with an A or B student or a proven athlete than a gamer, slacker, or social buttery fly anyway.…
slice it, a total compensation package can be much more valuable to the employee than receiving employer offered benefits. Keep in mind most companies don't offer an increase in pay equal to the cost of the benefits, if they chose not to accept the benefits. So, looking at a total comp package can really make a difference. For example: $50k base, plus company paid benefits, two weeks vacation, 12 paid holidays, 3% contribution to 401(k) vs. annual salary of $95k with no paid time off, you pay your own benefits, and contribute to your own IRA.
Ask yourself, who do you want controlling how your income is spent? You or your employer? Who would you like to pick your benefit plan, you or your employer? Some people would prefer not to disclose any medical needs/wants, future family issues, etc, and would rather not participate in the company benefit plan. Too much big brother.
People make these blanket statements based on their own prejudices. When you work in an area that was predominately union, and for a good number of years, a solid benefit package is almost a given. Throw in the last decade or longer of being downsized and losing your benefits (more than once) and you're apt to change your mind on where the control should lie.…
stion, although I am leaning towards Jerry's suggestion. People who work in recruiting tend to be motivated by money so I think this has the best odds of not only boosting production, but getting people excited about it.
As much as I hate to disagree with somebody like Maureen, I would stay away from the yelling/screaming/scare tactics. I think the Machiavellian approach of using fear as a motivational tool is a rather unsuccessful long-term system. Sure, you may shock some of the employees into increased production right now, but you'll have to constantly keep them on edge to keep things going. This will result in employees stressing out even more than they likely are already, reduced morale from the brow-beatings, and a distanced staff. There are some people who respond better to the vein-popping, high volume displays, but it won't do much to earn you many loyal followers.
Instead I would suggest setting up individual meetings with each of your staff members and actually discuss what drives them. Then set some reasonable stretch goals for each one of them. This way each person has a target that will require effort to hit, but is reasonable enough to actually reach. I think this stands to have a better success rate since it shows your willingness to put time and effort in for your staff.…
really, at least not in a black & white sense - sure, we may fall on either side of the fence more often than not, but I think we have to be careful with this subject as you can often be blanket-branded either an "angel" or a "devil". The truth is that we're all probably both from time to time - it just depends on the situation and who is doing the 'judging' per se. In fact, I like to think I'm a more 'ethical' person than 'unethical', but it all comes down to the eyes of the beholder. Being ethical in some situations is unethical in someone else's eyes and vice-versa.
That's why the ethics issue can divide so many, but it shouldn't - we all have different paradigms and different frames of reference . . . and truthfully, I believe no other issue divides our industry more than 'ethics'.
I only toss that out there because I've seen (time and time again) people get branded as "saints" or "criminals" based upon how some may perceive their answer to a given question. The Penelope Trunk issue on ERE was a much different one that illicited a great deal more flaming than this particular situation, and in fact, that's why it was put out there - to stimulate conversation and flaming in the first place. As they say, "sex sells" and the easiest way to ratings is through a little skin!
I ask all of you as my recruiting brethren and brethrenettes to withhold immediate categorization or judgment against anyone for how they answer an ethical issue given any one particular situation. One sound bite doth not a person make :)…
the strategic table" It needs to get a grip of what their purpose really is. What do they want to be famous for?
I have seen too many HR people succumb to working on lay offs and cuts in benefits etc. The challenge is what have they done to expand their business, grow it and in turn jobs!
While my statement is blanket, that is my experience, too many focusing on admin. and transactional work.
I have followed the debacle left and the remnants of “employees do not respect HR”.
I asked and that is what I found. Perception is reality. I asked many and by the way I asked HR folks and they confirm what I say.
Are all HR folks the same? Off course not, however when you get the same theme from the majority that’s what I write about.
It is also a reality that there have been many “departures” from HR e.g. Talent Management, Compensation and Benefits etc. They were all once all under HR. They are respected more I am told when they are not under the all inclusive “headline of HR.”
As I say if HR does not get it I cannot expect the recruiting-hiring manager to get it!
And so the truism of “if you always do what you have always done you will always get what you always had ” goes on. We need to break out of it and really understand what HR is REALLY all about.
Finally if HR is not about the business it does not serve any purpose. Indeed it is taking value away!…
Added by Peter Lanc at 8:54am on November 25, 2010
ates equitably and fairly?
I've interviewed many inexperienced or limited experience candidates (BTW: experience level doesn't necessarily correlate to candidates' age bracket or life phase) and it never occurred to me to make such broad generalizations about entire segments of the workforce based on a silly generational label derived from an 18-20 year span of time in which they were born.
The ridiculous stereotypes and accompanying assumptions found in "M" obsessed articles are beyond tiresome and lend no credibility to anything that should be going on in the real world. Even if this info is intended to provide guidance for handling people in their 20s, those who "learn a lot" through unpaid (or paid) internships or fresh graduates, aren't there any unique individuals among those categories containing millions of human beings that might defy the above blanket statements that appear to be presented as 'fact'?
Interviews can be daunting and difficult for many people regardless of DOB or length of time in the workforce. So, yes that should be taken into consideration, but again, for the benefit of all involved not just certain types of interviewees that someone (hooked on all things "M") thinks have special needs and deserve special needs oriented questions.
You could probably take any "M" focused article and replace that term with "people that breath air" and the same message would apply OR would be equally absurd depending on the content.