 |
|
 |
About PIA | Employee Development & Retention | Recruitment Assessments | Human Resources Solutions | Our Clients | Sample Job Analysis | Contact |
 |
 |
|
Selection Strategies for ReOrganisation, Redeployment and RecoveryC-level vs. Non-C-Level Comparison Report Introduction In today's economy, nearly every Organisation faces pressure to reduce waste and run at peak efficiency. For many, this means eliminating positions that don't add sufficient value to the Organisation, and either eliminating or redeploying people in those roles. The climate in the Organisation becomes tense as these changes take place, and the stakes All of this is compounded by our country's new administration, which will likely propose changes in workplace regulation, making it much more difficult and costly to terminate an underperforming employee. Given the importance of this issue, our study had 4 objectives:
Research Methodology Profiles International researchers conducted a comprehensive review of Organisational design and talent management practices to identify over 50 "best practices" in the context of Organisational restructuring. We then asked several experts to rank order their top 20 best practices from this list. From this, we determined our "Top 10" best practices list. From these "Top 10" best practices we designed a brief 10-question survey to poll our clients on how well they believed their Organisations followed these practices and how well they would be prepared for a major reOrganisation and redeployment event. Our research included nearly 800 participants from multiple industries. Over 30% worked in companies with more than 500 employees, and over 50% had a director-level role or higher. This large sample enabled us to segment the response data into two groups-C-level participants and non-C-level participants-to identify trends and measure discrepancies. Our findings highlight some considerable differences between these two study groups on nearly every dimension we measured. This heightened concerns that the C-suite may be out of touch with what is actually happening on the front lines as it relates to reorganizing and redeploying talent in the midst of change. Part 1: Top 10 Selection Best Practices
Q1: We know how each job supports our company's key objectives. There is a large gap in perception between C-level executives and the managers on the front line. Organisations may be behind the curve if job designs have not changed along with the revamped plan of action. It is quite common for executives to make changes in strategy, but the message gets diluted as it gets passed down. And it takes more than just communication to truly affect strategic change. Managers and employees need to know what they need to do differently, and they need to be trained to perform their new duties. Even more, new goals should be set that align behaviours and priorities with the new directions and objectives. Q2: We consider internal candidates before opening opportunities to external candidates. This was the only question where the non-C-levels were more certain than the C-levels, but this isn't necessarily positive. We encourage our clients to always hire the best person for the job, regardless of whether he or she is an internal or external recruit. Times of change and uncertainty present unique opportunities for Organisations. The supply of talent has never been so abundant or so affordable, and it costs very little to assess and interview qualified candidates. This is especially true when you're redesigning jobs to drive efficiencies in the Organisation. Although hiring outside candidates is usually viewed as a high-risk activity, the value of an outside candidate is that she doesn't have a preconceived notion of how things were done in the past. Q3: We have objective evaluation criteria based on known outstanding performers in that job. The significant difference in perception here could highlight a training or communication issue. It is not unusual for senior executives to sponsor the purchase of competency studies or assessment instruments. But these programs need to filter down through the Organisation, and the hiring managers who will be using the tools need to be trained to realize maximum benefit for the Organisation. The data also suggests that many Organisations don't take advantage of "peak performance models" when selecting job candidates. If you want to make better hiring decisions, first identify the characteristics of top performers in the job. Then use these criteria to help you evaluate candidates for the position. This is far superior to merely "hiring with your gut". Q4: Our compensation is competitively based on current market rates for the job. This was the question that showed the largest gap in perception. The C-levels think they're paying competitive wages, but most employees vehemently disagree. This is often because the C-level looks at the employee's fully loaded costs while employees only consider their base salaries. Make sure that employees understand the full breadth of their total compensation package; base salary is usually only about 60% of this amount. It is critical to provide compensation commensurate to what employees can earn in similar positions if you want to keep your workforce motivated and to attract top talent. Organisations can compete in many areas-work environment, benefits, growth opportunities-but expecting top performers to stay with you because you offer these things is not realistic if they can earn significantly more money doing a similar job elsewhere. Q5: We apply a consistent selection process to all candidates. There is a modest difference between the two groups, but both provided an overall low score. If an Organisation answered this question as "certain," then its selection processes are considered objective and fair. Objectivity and fairness are important, not only because they're appropriate, but because legal challenges to employee selection standards are expensive and can create considerable negative PR for an Organisation. Remember when WalMart was the poster child for unfair employment practices? To their credit, they did a masterful job of cleaning up their act. The best employee selection process ensures that selection standards are job-related, validated and standardized. An ounce of prevention will definitely be worth a pound of cure in the future. Q6: We include key stakeholders in our employee selection process. There is a modest difference between the two groups and an overall low score. Key stakeholders are those affected, for better or worse, by our operations, those who have an interest in what we do, and those who influence what we do. That includes almost everyone, but a big-tent approach is profitable: Inc. Magazine reports that "Organisations with more effective hiring systems rank higher in financial performance, productivity, quality, customer satisfaction, employee satisfaction and retention." Q7: We train our interviewers in our employee selection process. Similar to question #3, the significant difference in perception here could highlight a training or communication issue. Again, senior executives commonly sponsor the purchase of hiring systems and aids, but the tools and training don't resonate as strongly with the hiring managers who will be doing most of the interviews. Once an Organisation determines that it wants structured interviews-those in which questions and tasks are chosen beforehand, and those that are designed to ensure consistency-it is imperative to train and coach the interviewers. The process is more likely to go smoothly if interviewers understand it, buy into the reasoning behind it and know what to do. The unstructured interview is weak for purposes of selecting the best candidates. Q8: We give our interviewers guidance to help them probe deeper into a candidate's suitability. Similar to question #3 and #7, the significant difference in perception here could highlight a training or communication issue. The more startling point is that interviewers are more often than not left to their own devices when it comes to interviewing and selecting the best candidate for a job. According to Leadership IQ, a firm that provides research and executive education to top companies, a study of 20,000 newly hired employees showed that "46 percent of all new hires fail within 18 months." This happens not because the new employees lack technical skills, but because they are not coachable, have the wrong temperament, are not motivated, or demonstrate other problems "that never get assessed in the interview." To catch these mismatches, screening interviewers need expert coaching to help them look beyond technical skills and ask the right follow-up questions. Q9: We conduct comprehensive reference and background checks on job candidates. This question resulted in a modest difference in perception between our two groups. Leaders might view reference and/or background checks as a bother when they "know" someone is right for a position. But employment experts estimate that almost one-third of all resumes contain false or exaggerated information. According to a Purdue University newsletter, falsified information consists mostly of expanded dates to cover employment gaps. Background checks are quick and inexpensive. And in this day and age where trust and integrity are so important to a high-performing Organisation, it seems inexcusable that anyone-especially those in the C-suite-would allow their Organisations to overlook this step. Q10: Our orientation process for newly hired people helps them become productive faster. There seems to be quite a bit of agreement on this question-both groups express a high degree of uncertainty around the Organisation's ability to accelerate the productivity of new hires. A Bersin & Associates/Randstad case study shows that productivity measures increased by 25 percent among employees who participated in an on-boarding training program. On-boarding is a process, and, like any other process, it should be well documented, strictly followed, measured, and refined for continuous improvement. This gives the employee positive momentum, increases her enthusiasm and her odds of success, and helps her make a more significant contribution to the Organisation faster. Summary of Lessons Learned: Essential actions for reOrganisation and redeployment
Summary of Lessons Learned:
Regardless of the amount of effort you put into redeploying current talent, there's no denying that outside hires can be amazing assets to your Organisation.
|
|
| Copyright Profiles International™ 2009 |