I was speaking with a group of HR folks last week, and the subject of candidate questions (when interviewing) came up. Someone said, "I only ask how much money the candidate wants, not how much they have made. That's all that matters to me." Many others agreed.
Say what??? That ranks up there as one of the more ridiculous comments we can make. To enter into a relationship with a potential employee with no idea how much money they are accustomed to making is nearly pure negligence.
First, let's get something straight: Money matters. Money always matters. It may not be the only thing, but it always, always, matters. Zig Ziglar said it best: "Anyone that says 'money doesn't matter...' well, they'll lie about other things as well."
There are a million reasons why simply asking for a desired number is a dumb way to ascertain wage needs. I'll just rattle off a few randomly, in no particular order.
The candidate heard you paid well. So, they ask for more money than they normally would, hoping for some of that largesse. Oops, priced out of your range, candidate rejected.
The candidate heard you didn't pay well. But they need a job to pay bills today, so they'll use your underpaying position as leverage for that better job 3 months from now. Lost another one...
The candidate didn't understand the role as was described. Lucky you -- she underbid it, and you got something for nothing. You are one smart cookie... wait a minute, whaddya mean 'you're leaving??' I gave you what you asked for!!
These (above) are some of the more common, intangible reasons for determining current/recent/accustomed compensation. Want something a bit more logic-based?? Ok, how's this...
The number one -- primo, primera, ultimate, top -- source for market-based salary information and data is what organziations today are paying for that position in the marketplace. In other words, you should be constantly gauging and comparing your compensation ranges internally to those in the market in which you compete.
This isn't rocket science, folks. Candidates expect to be asked, you have a duty to know, and there's no reason not to... ask the question.
The smart money says you'll be better for it.
KB
Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com
 |
 D. Kevin Berchelmann View my profile here |
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Monday, February 5, 2007
Forest for the trees...
Penelope Trunk is a freelance writer with a column in the Boston Globe, and calls herself "The Brazen Careerist." She recently wrote an article that was published on Yahoo!'s personal finance page, entitled Steer Clear of Bad Job-Hunting Advice.
The article lists 8 currently "Bad Rules" for job hunting/hunters, and includes some known HR staples such as resume misspellings, complete disclosure, etc. Then, a littany of comments follow her article, likely many of them from human resources professionals. As Penelope has given me her permission to do so, I'll list the 8 "Bad Rules" here for convenience:
Bad Rule No. 1: Draw a clear picture of yourself
A résumé is not an autobiography, it's a marketing document. So the goal is not to tell every single thing about yourself, but rather to get an interview. This is why a résumé should be a tease, not treatise.
Bad Rule No. 2: Don't be too narrow
If you're not narrow, then what are you selling? If you want to stand out, you have to stand for something. This is your unique selling proposition...
Bad Rule No. 3: Don't job-hop
BLS reports that people under 30 switch jobs every 18 months. ...who cares about loyalty? You know what it got the baby boomers? Layoffs. Job-hoppers are generally happier in their work. They have more passion for their career because their work changes before it gets boring.
Bad Rule No. 4: Don't have gaps in your résumé
This is a good piece of advice if you're going to make work the only thing in your life.
Bad Rule No. 5: Don't have typos in your résumé
I'm not recommending that you misspell words on purpose, but I am recommending that you chill out about the typos. How can you possibly send out perfect résumés every time?
Bad Rule No. 6: Honesty is most important
Résumés are marketing documents, so write yours that way. Give an employer exactly what they want without saying something false. The bottom line about honesty: Don't be more forthcoming in your own marketing materials than the marketing manager for Pop-Tarts would be in hers.
Bad Rule No. 7: Clean up your online identity
Stop stressing about the stupid stuff you posted when you were drunk (or worse, not drunk). It's out of your control.
Bad Rule No. 8: Treat a job hunt like a project and be a project manager
That's great advice if you look for a job four times in your whole life. But today, job hunting is so frequent that often there's no downtime -- not even while you start a new job.
I share these with you as a warning -- agree, disagree as a matter of personal choice. But please, please don't be the HR professional today who actually makes hiring decisions in this labor-shortage world we live in by excluding otherwise viable candidates for simple transgressions.
A misspelling is poor form, perhaps. But it isn't the end of the world. Short timeline gaps, common exaggerations that don't misstate a technical requirement, a short job tenure or two... these should not be forever auto-exclusionary. Consider the entire candidate first. Grill mercilessly, if you must, to ascertain the details you feel could be problematic. But do not simply screen out -- at the resume stage -- a candidate who seems otherwise qualified.
Just don't be a total, narrow-minded schmuck who excludes potentially qualified candidates from hiring manager review merely because of a personal quirk. Get past it, get over it, or simply ignore it. Your organziation deserves that from you.
Look to screen in during the resume phase, not out. Start with the biggest possible pool of apparently-qualified candidates before winnowing; you may find out you were about to toss out a keeper...
KB
Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com
The article lists 8 currently "Bad Rules" for job hunting/hunters, and includes some known HR staples such as resume misspellings, complete disclosure, etc. Then, a littany of comments follow her article, likely many of them from human resources professionals. As Penelope has given me her permission to do so, I'll list the 8 "Bad Rules" here for convenience:
Bad Rule No. 1: Draw a clear picture of yourself
A résumé is not an autobiography, it's a marketing document. So the goal is not to tell every single thing about yourself, but rather to get an interview. This is why a résumé should be a tease, not treatise.
Bad Rule No. 2: Don't be too narrow
If you're not narrow, then what are you selling? If you want to stand out, you have to stand for something. This is your unique selling proposition...
Bad Rule No. 3: Don't job-hop
BLS reports that people under 30 switch jobs every 18 months. ...who cares about loyalty? You know what it got the baby boomers? Layoffs. Job-hoppers are generally happier in their work. They have more passion for their career because their work changes before it gets boring.
Bad Rule No. 4: Don't have gaps in your résumé
This is a good piece of advice if you're going to make work the only thing in your life.
Bad Rule No. 5: Don't have typos in your résumé
I'm not recommending that you misspell words on purpose, but I am recommending that you chill out about the typos. How can you possibly send out perfect résumés every time?
Bad Rule No. 6: Honesty is most important
Résumés are marketing documents, so write yours that way. Give an employer exactly what they want without saying something false. The bottom line about honesty: Don't be more forthcoming in your own marketing materials than the marketing manager for Pop-Tarts would be in hers.
Bad Rule No. 7: Clean up your online identity
Stop stressing about the stupid stuff you posted when you were drunk (or worse, not drunk). It's out of your control.
Bad Rule No. 8: Treat a job hunt like a project and be a project manager
That's great advice if you look for a job four times in your whole life. But today, job hunting is so frequent that often there's no downtime -- not even while you start a new job.
I share these with you as a warning -- agree, disagree as a matter of personal choice. But please, please don't be the HR professional today who actually makes hiring decisions in this labor-shortage world we live in by excluding otherwise viable candidates for simple transgressions.
A misspelling is poor form, perhaps. But it isn't the end of the world. Short timeline gaps, common exaggerations that don't misstate a technical requirement, a short job tenure or two... these should not be forever auto-exclusionary. Consider the entire candidate first. Grill mercilessly, if you must, to ascertain the details you feel could be problematic. But do not simply screen out -- at the resume stage -- a candidate who seems otherwise qualified.
Just don't be a total, narrow-minded schmuck who excludes potentially qualified candidates from hiring manager review merely because of a personal quirk. Get past it, get over it, or simply ignore it. Your organziation deserves that from you.
Look to screen in during the resume phase, not out. Start with the biggest possible pool of apparently-qualified candidates before winnowing; you may find out you were about to toss out a keeper...
KB
Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com
Sunday, February 4, 2007
Never wrong doesn't necessarily mean always right
So, I'm watching an old movie this weeked, "In Harm's Way." It's about a U.S. naval Captain (John Wayne) who has his career derailed after the attack on Pearl Harbor. After an interminable time as a desk-jockey doing little important, the Navy realizes they need this guy to go out and win battles.
Enter Admiral Nimitz, played by Henry Fonda. He invites all the muckety-mucks to a men's-only dinner and cigar party (my kind of place), where he gives Wayne his official promotion to Rear Admiral, effectively acknowledging the Navy's error.
Nimitz says, "The Navy, we all know, is never wrong, though sometimes it's a little weak on being right."
Feel free to substitute your, my, or any of a number of other names for "The Navy" above. Sometimes we forget that doing the short-term "right" is not always the same thing as doing the right thing. In other words, sometimes we're a little weak on being right.
Now, typically when people -- ok, ok, "consultants" -- use an example like this, the conversation goes in an expected, typical direction. I'd like to use a different example.
For instance, a top sales guy is unable to complete various required reports in a timely manner. Someone (usually HR) convinces us that we need to "be consistent;" if we discipline others for this egregious -- nearly heinous -- act, we are summarily forced to do the same thing with this top sales performer.
I say that's a load of bunk. Absolute, positive, cowardly crap.
And it is cowardly.
Take the courage... use it, find it, or make it, to NOT fall victim to being a little weak on being right. Do the right thing, even if (maybe even particularly if) it seems unfair to average or mediocre performers. Worry about the high-performing sales guy in question; spend zero time being concerned about all those others who only wish you would treat so deferentially.
After all, who can argue with Admiral Nimitz??
KB
Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com
Enter Admiral Nimitz, played by Henry Fonda. He invites all the muckety-mucks to a men's-only dinner and cigar party (my kind of place), where he gives Wayne his official promotion to Rear Admiral, effectively acknowledging the Navy's error.
Nimitz says, "The Navy, we all know, is never wrong, though sometimes it's a little weak on being right."
Feel free to substitute your, my, or any of a number of other names for "The Navy" above. Sometimes we forget that doing the short-term "right" is not always the same thing as doing the right thing. In other words, sometimes we're a little weak on being right.
Now, typically when people -- ok, ok, "consultants" -- use an example like this, the conversation goes in an expected, typical direction. I'd like to use a different example.
For instance, a top sales guy is unable to complete various required reports in a timely manner. Someone (usually HR) convinces us that we need to "be consistent;" if we discipline others for this egregious -- nearly heinous -- act, we are summarily forced to do the same thing with this top sales performer.
I say that's a load of bunk. Absolute, positive, cowardly crap.
And it is cowardly.
Take the courage... use it, find it, or make it, to NOT fall victim to being a little weak on being right. Do the right thing, even if (maybe even particularly if) it seems unfair to average or mediocre performers. Worry about the high-performing sales guy in question; spend zero time being concerned about all those others who only wish you would treat so deferentially.
After all, who can argue with Admiral Nimitz??
KB
Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
