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:
"The recency bias error occurs when an assessor (i.e. recruiter, hiring manager, etc.) is overly affected by information that was presented later (more recently) rather than earlier in any given selection process. In contrast, the primacy bias error occurs when an assessor’s selection is made based on information that was presented earlier (primary information) rather than later in a process. And although the effects appear symmetrically opposing, the research shows that they occur because of different reasons, and that their implications can differ drastically. They are not equal but opposite."
He goes on to say that:
"The body of research points to two process models on how decisions are made in the interview process. The first we will describe is the step-by-step (SbS) decision-making model, and the second is the end-of sequence (EoS) decision-making model. We call those models response modes."
My third pick is Jon Ingham's post to Human Capital League: Developing New Talent Management Strategies for 2010. In the post Ingham shares the highlights of two recent pieces of research; IRS Employment Review’s HR roles and responsibilities: the 2010 IRS survey and PWC's 13th Annual Global CEO Survey and provides some interesting anecdotes and stats such as this from PWC: "78% (of CEO's) plan to changes their talent management strategies in the wake of the financial crisis" .
PWC asserts that: "CEOs have begun to reshape not only their strategies, but also their capabilities. It takes strategic flexibility to address risk at a deeper level. And it takes organisational agility to respond to volatility. That doesn’t mean CEOs will become risk averse; rather, they may become more deliberate in examining alternatives, formulating a Plan B, and ensuring they can execute on it"
Ingham himself opines:
"I’m not sure HR appreciates the scale of the challenge (or the opportunity). CEOs want you to make a difference, if you’ve got the ambition and imagination to do this!
The change isn’t all about restructuring and engagement. CEOs want to increase investment in talent management, but they want to manage talent differently too."
"Our old reality focused on the individual. Our "New Normal" focuses on the 'network', or the collection of individuals, as well as what flows between them. Where the "War for Talent" is dying, "War for the Network" is emerging."
I was a little concerned when Letourneau introduced Newtons' 2nd Law, "Force equals Mass times Acceleration" (F = MA), as a means of explaining the thesis (Physics has never been one of my strengths) but it proved to be a useful device:
"Let's say Force (F) correlates to the ability to get things done. Mass (M) correlates to "Human Capital", while Acceleration (A) speaks to "Social Capital", or the ability to quickly mobilize the network.
Let's look at 3 candidates:
"Candidate A (M = 8, A = 4). F = MA, or F = 8x4 = 32.
Candidate B (M = 5, A = 7). F = MA, or F = 5x7 = 35.
Candidate C (M = 7, A = 5). F = MA, or F = 7x5 = 35."
I think its a helpful contribution to the conversation that some in the HCM community, such as Jon Ingham, have been engaged in.
Libby Sartain posted Academic Evidence: Layoffs Are Bad For Business! to the Brand for Talent blog. In the post Sartain shares recent work by Jeff Pfeffer, a professor of organisational behaviour, whose research indicates that:
Layoffs do not reduce costs
Layoffs do not raise a company's stock price
Layoffs do not increase productivity
Layoffs do not increase profits
Companies do not permanently get rid of the employees
Layoffs do nothing to strengthen the organization
Sartain adds an observation of her own: "Layoffs weaken an organization's employer and consumer brand." Interesting opinions - I wonder how they compare with the recent experiences of many HR pros?
Social and economic data, next-generation strategic factors and social media policy in this week's Three To Read.
My first pick comes is Hans Rosling's recent talk for TED entitled Let My Dataset Change Your Mindset. Rosling is currently with the US State Department and has shared his fascinating work on socio-economic modelling in several TED talks - great material for anyone involved in strategic workforce planning.
Staying with strategic concerns, on Harvard Business Publishing, Umair Haque posted Apple's Next Revolution - And What You Can Learn From It. I think Haque offers some interesting thoughts on next-generation strategic factors:
Markets, networks and communities as engines of disruption
Context is king
21st century economics = acceleration
My final pick comes from Jennifer Van Grove who posted 3 Great Social Media Policies to Steal From on Mashable. This is a very useful post with links to actual policies from real organisations:
Brian Chappell of Ignite Social Media shared geographic, demographic and traffic data from the 2009 Social Network Analysis Report's look at more than forty social networks. The data is displayed in a series of easy to understand charts with brief analysis on each of the social networks included in the report - useful information for anyone using 'social' for talent acquisition.
Staying with social, if you are thinking about using social media for pre-employment background checks then Steve Bruce's post to the HR Daily Advisor blog; Background Checks on Myspace - Dangerous or Due Dilligence is worth reading - not least for some of the sensational examples of what employers have found when conducting internet searches.
I hope that you enjoy this weeks Three To Read - if you'd like more, please see what else I've bookmarked at http://delicious.com/craigendicott.
