Zinger makes some incisive comments about Employee Engagement including this:
"Engagement is about achieving results that matter to all. Ensure that everyone benefits from engagement and ensure employees fully realise engagement is not a management term for ‘sucking out more discretionary effort’ from employees."
And:
"Ensure managers realise that engagement is not an extra on top of far-too-many demands. Help managers and leaders realise engagement is how we manage and lead in this decade. We engage through co-created results, conversation, collaboration, community and high quality connections."
I wonder what he'd make of the strip below from Dilbert creator, Scott Adams?
OK, so employee satisfaction and employee engagement is not the same thing - although rating satisfaction may provide a means of engaging with employees and assessing likely levels of motivation, loyalty, morale etc - I just hope that this gag doesn't resonate in your workplace.
Ironically enough, the results just aren't there yet
Haun's post is a valuable contribution to the discussion on the "Results Only Work Environment" which I mentioned in previous posts in the summer of 09 and earlier this year.
Talent inventories, recruiting trends and pivot points in this week's Three To See.
A common, yet solvable, internal mobility challenge is incisively illustrated in the Dilbert strip below - my first pick:
My next came via Jason Buss at The Talent Buzz and is the 2010 Trends in Recruiting report from LinkedIn. Referencing a survey of 1,100 in-house recruiters in six countries (Australia, Canada, India, Netherlands, UK and US), the report findings include the following suggestions:
Improving "Quality of Hire" is the most important consideration when purchasing recruiting solutions (rated by 86% of respondents)
More than 25% agreed that passive candidate recruiting is currently an important part of their sourcing mix
Pipelining and pooling talent undertaken by a majority of respondents with only 5% saying that they do not do this
Recruiters are most concerned that their competitors will achieve market advantage by using social recruiting techniques more effectively, building and nuturing a strong talent pool and investing in their employer brand
It is the "global competitive hot buttons" (slide 11 of 15) from the report that I find most interesting because of the way that it breaks down eight answers to the question "What are you most nervous your competitors might do?" by each of the six countries.
My final pick this week, The New Science of Human Capital on the HarvardBusiness YouTube Channel, has some interesting commentary from John Boudreau on how organisations should build their approach to managing talent around the "pivotal" moments, people or positions that make a difference to the execution of business strategy.
Three To See this week features posts on measuring performance, advice on posting jobs to Twitter and how to count the monetary cost of poor candidate experience.
How do you measure performance properly? That is the question wryly raised in Top Performer, from the Dilbert series by Scott Adams.
"Organizations like the Ritz-Carlton and Wal-Mart have elevated monitoring guest satisfaction to a science and know the exact dollar cost of obtaining a customer, upsetting a customer, and losing a lifelong customer. While such evaluation is common in sales and customer support functions, it is nearly unheard of in HR functions, which often interact with a significant volume of potential customers in any given year. The impact of a poor “candidate experience” is uncalculated, unreported, and not discussed, making it quite possibly one of the largest “hidden costs” facing modern organizations."
He goes on to say:
"Remember that being treated poorly during the hiring process which often ends up in being rejected will not result in a mild disappointment, but rather unhappiness bordering on anger. Individuals who once championed your organization will likely become activists against your organization for at least two years and maybe a lifetime."
Dr Sullivan then highlights 20 potential impacts of poor candidate experience and estimates the associated monetary risk:
Referral Schemes, Millenials and the Baby Boom generation in Three To See this week.
My first pick features Slyvia Ann Hewlett of the Center for Work-Life Policy in an interview on Harvard Business Publishing'sYouTube channel. In the clip Hewlett provides insight into What Motivates Gen Y and Boomer Talent:
Hewlett's explanation of why Boomer and Gen Y have more influence on the world of work than Generation X is interesting as is the description of the non-financial incentives that motivates them. Perhaps Hewlett's points help to explain Wally's offer to the Point Haired Boss in the Dilbert cartoon below:
It is a good gag but Wally also makes a good point - what can organisations do to sustain the contribution of talented Boomers?
"LinkedIn referrals are better overall then employee referrals.
The math and science of this comparison is pretty simple. Employees refer friends. LinkedIn contacts tend to refer people who do what they do for a living, because that's the type of network they build out on LinkedIn. As a result, on average, LinkedIn referrals are much higher quality that employee referrals."
