So, let's talk about references. Recently, I heard an HR generalist ask about references. They wanted to know:
a) If they were limited to the references provided by a candidate,
b) What to do if they could not contact someone because the candidate wouldn't give permission..., and
c) What good were references anyway since past managers and HR shops can't give out any info??
Hang on to your seats, my answers may get rough... I'm just doing some free-wheeling here, so stay with me.
Managers/HR won't give out information? Sure they can, and from my experience, usually do. I sometimes have great conversations, and make long-term acquaintances through these calls. I have friends today whom I met as I was speaking to them about a reference. Can't shut them up sometimes.
I do, however, ask candidates for references for 2 reasons:
1) To make my life easier in finding telephone numbers, and
2) To get an idea of whom they would prefer I call, versus not.
Neither of those reasons is to get permission. I will always talk to immediate supervisors for at least 5 years back. Always, whether listed as reference or not.
Did you get that part?? Whether they list as references or not.
I will honor a request -- it IS a request -- to not call a currently-employed candidate's current employer, as long as they realize I must do so either before an offer is made, or after a "contingent" offer is made. 100% of the time. No matter what the impact may be -- no current reference, no job.
Now, some opinionated rambling...
There is no legal requirement, per se, for giving/not giving references or even employment verification (for future employment).
Further, though I realize many in HR choose -- on their own -- to limit their reference responses, I believe that practice is both limiting and detrimental to both employers.
This whole "name, rank and serial number" thing began as HR managers became afraid (unjustifiably, in my mind) of saying something malicious that they could be held to later.
In playing this self-inflicted "don't tell" game, we encourage people to circumvent HR in the reference process, making operational/functional managers the go-to for adequate references.
And make no mistake -- regardless of policies, most managers WILL give references, good and bad.
I believe our organizations would be better served if we controlled the real reference information, instead of simply sticking our collective heads in the sand.
But then, that's just me...
Cheers,
KB
Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com
 |
 D. Kevin Berchelmann View my profile here |
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
I'm just sayin'...
First, that phrase for this post -- "I'm just sayin'," drives me nuts. I hate it. Now that I feel better for sharing...
A diversity consulting firm called The Novations Group, apparently surveyed a couple thousand managers, and concluded that senior managers were poor communicators. For this, they seem to want acclaim...
Survey respondents blamed senior management for (in order of survey popularity):
1. Relying too much on e-mail.
2. Assuming a single message is enough.
3. Having no feedback loop in place.
4. Messages lacking clarity.
To this, I say "hmmmm..."
Nonetheless, there is some truth here.
We all rely too much on email. Email is great for simple information/data sharing. It breaks down when we try to have conversations, include emotion, or the worst: we try to manage by email.
Walk down the hall or pick up the damned phone. Email is the worst medium on the planet for any communication requiring acknowledged understanding, purposeful dialog, or meaning other than the simple written word. There is no defined 'subtlety' in emails. And managers shouldn't use it as a proxy.
Another pox on communication occurred while we were gutting mid-management from organizations. In flattening org charts, we forgot that most on-the-ground communications with employees was done with middle managers. Today, they are either extinct or a bit harried from the evolution of their jobs.
Further, much of what we as senior leaders do has at least a modicum of confidentiality. Next thing you know, we're acting like everything we say and do is some state secret.
It ain't.
The problem, of course, is in the absence of communication, our employees fill in all the details, blanks, and relevant information themselves. From spotty knowledge, connecting rumor dots, or simply making it up as they go. None bodes well for us while trying to lead an organization in this age.
Next week, I'll post some tips and techniques for communications that, though maybe not necessarily "easy," they probably won't leave visible scars.
Until then,
KB
Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com
A diversity consulting firm called The Novations Group, apparently surveyed a couple thousand managers, and concluded that senior managers were poor communicators. For this, they seem to want acclaim...
Survey respondents blamed senior management for (in order of survey popularity):
1. Relying too much on e-mail.
2. Assuming a single message is enough.
3. Having no feedback loop in place.
4. Messages lacking clarity.
To this, I say "hmmmm..."
Nonetheless, there is some truth here.
We all rely too much on email. Email is great for simple information/data sharing. It breaks down when we try to have conversations, include emotion, or the worst: we try to manage by email.
Walk down the hall or pick up the damned phone. Email is the worst medium on the planet for any communication requiring acknowledged understanding, purposeful dialog, or meaning other than the simple written word. There is no defined 'subtlety' in emails. And managers shouldn't use it as a proxy.
Another pox on communication occurred while we were gutting mid-management from organizations. In flattening org charts, we forgot that most on-the-ground communications with employees was done with middle managers. Today, they are either extinct or a bit harried from the evolution of their jobs.
Further, much of what we as senior leaders do has at least a modicum of confidentiality. Next thing you know, we're acting like everything we say and do is some state secret.
It ain't.
The problem, of course, is in the absence of communication, our employees fill in all the details, blanks, and relevant information themselves. From spotty knowledge, connecting rumor dots, or simply making it up as they go. None bodes well for us while trying to lead an organization in this age.
Next week, I'll post some tips and techniques for communications that, though maybe not necessarily "easy," they probably won't leave visible scars.
Until then,
KB
Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Investment in Leadership
Investment in training is growing faster than any other human capital or HR-related expenditure. That's according to Mercer, a ridiculously large consulting firm connected to Marsh.
Their recent survey showed that 51% of profitable firms (there's a criteria for you) were planning on increasing their investment in Leadership and Career development in 2008. That's more than for cash-incentives, base salary increases, and even health care.
If you've been waiting for leadership development to become really popular; to make the investment decision a near no-brainer, then now's the time. In other words, everyone is doing it.
Besides just generally good for business, there's other reasons to develop your managers and leaders:
1. You're working with another small compensation increase for 2008 (see article on my website). You simply cannot afford to "buy" productivity and effectiveness. Alas, we must manage...
2. Better managers and leaders allow you to succeed in multiple areas of the business; more spending on training and less on base pay to attract, retain, and even engage a competent workforce.
3. Better management is a differentiator, higher pay is not.
4. Promotion and development opportunities are frequently cited as one of the top 3 reasons that high performers leave organizations.
So, your business will be better, key employees will stay longer, and base pay budgets don't get blown out of whack -- and we still can't understand the significance of leadership development...?
Why in heaven's name are we NOT doing it??
KB
Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com
Their recent survey showed that 51% of profitable firms (there's a criteria for you) were planning on increasing their investment in Leadership and Career development in 2008. That's more than for cash-incentives, base salary increases, and even health care.
If you've been waiting for leadership development to become really popular; to make the investment decision a near no-brainer, then now's the time. In other words, everyone is doing it.
Besides just generally good for business, there's other reasons to develop your managers and leaders:
1. You're working with another small compensation increase for 2008 (see article on my website). You simply cannot afford to "buy" productivity and effectiveness. Alas, we must manage...
2. Better managers and leaders allow you to succeed in multiple areas of the business; more spending on training and less on base pay to attract, retain, and even engage a competent workforce.
3. Better management is a differentiator, higher pay is not.
4. Promotion and development opportunities are frequently cited as one of the top 3 reasons that high performers leave organizations.
So, your business will be better, key employees will stay longer, and base pay budgets don't get blown out of whack -- and we still can't understand the significance of leadership development...?
Why in heaven's name are we NOT doing it??
KB
Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
