engagement

Serving the Candidate as a Customer

by
Black Salmon/Shutterstock

As humans, it is natural to have certain reactions when we meet a new person. These reactions shape our perception of the other person. They also determine whether or not we want to continue to engage with that other person. If the experience with the other person is positive, we enjoy our mutual interactions and look forward to extending the time we spend with each other. If the experience of engagement is negative, most of us look forward to cutting off the time spent with that other person as quickly as we can.

With this in mind, the recruitment role taken on by the human resources practitioner can make or break a candidate’s job-seeking fortunes. As recruiters, we may find ourselves reacting to a particular candidate based on our own individual and personal perspectives. If the personal reaction is positive, the recruitment process with that candidate continues. If the reaction is negative, the process with that candidate stops. Either way, our responses as recruiters, in this type of approach, are based on our own self-interests and are not in support of the best interests of the organization that we must represent. The results from this type of approach are not good: the business interests of the organization are not met; the valid interests of the job-seeking candidate are not met; and the legitimate interests of meeting our human resources’ legal, ethical, and professional obligations are not met.

In order to meet the legitimate interests of the business and recruitment process, viewing the candidate as a customer can provide assistance in shaping the recruiter’s frame of reference. A customer service approach for the recruiter is explored in this article posted by HRD magazine.

As noted in the article, when the recruiter is able to use a customer service-based approach, the candidate and the recruiter both experience a better process. The result may be the same in that the candidate is not the successful choice for the organization; however, the credibility of the hiring process and its results are not put at risk when the recruiter has done their job by serving in the best interests of others.

Discussion Questions:

  1. If you experienced ‘ghosting’ by a recruiter during a job application process as a candidate, what impressions were you left with of the recruiter and the company you wanted to join? Would you re-apply as a candidate in the future?
  2. From an HR perspective, how can you monitor and adapt your personal reactions (positive or negative) during the recruitment process in order to maintain objectivity and reduce recruitment risks?
  3. In your opinion, what is the value of using a customer service-based approach for job candidates? Explain your rationale.

How to Get Employees to Stay

by

(Christian Chan/Shutterstock)

Employee retention keeps many HR professionals up at night. You can just hear the echoing murmurs throughout HR conference rooms across the country as turnover rates go up in this tight labour market. Many of them ponder these thoughts:

  • How do you keep employees from leaving?
  • What will make them stay?
  • Retention is the key, someone will always say

However, is retention really the key? Perhaps our language around employee turnover is wrong. Let us look at the definition of the word retention:

“The continued possession, use, or control of something.”

Now, let’s put that in the HR context and the perspective of building a relationship with the employee:

  • the continued possession of employees
  • the use of employees
  • the control of employees.

It makes one ponder how employees interpret the meaning of retention. Would you want to be retained by your employer, let alone be considered a controlled possession?

Is retention the key? Or perhaps it’s time to move our language forward.

MEC, an outdoor supply retailer, has always been an innovative company right from its foundational roots of being a cooperative.  MEC applies a forward thinking concept of employee retention. Here is a quote from Nahal Yousefian, chief people experience officer at MEC:

“The philosophy we’re taking here at MEC is that the approach to talent retention is already outdated.”

What does she mean talent retention is outdated?  What is MEC replacing it with? MEC is replacing the controlling concept of retention with the concept that the employees’ talent should be generated and that will create an environment where employees will want to stay.  This seems to make complete intuitive sense.

There are also surveys that support this concept transition; here are some current statistics about retention according to a Hays study:

  • 43% of employees are actively looking for other career opportunities and
  • 71% of employees are willing to take a pay cut for their ideal role

In addition, LinkedIn has discovered that 93% of employees would opt to stay in their role if their employer invested in their careers.

Think about these numbers for a minute: Almost 100% of employees will stay if the employer will develop them, and almost 75% are willing to take a pay cut to leave their current employment.

It may be time for HR professionals to put the controlling language of employee retention to bed and truly be a workplace where employees want to stay. All it may take is a true relationship-building commitment of employee development.

Discussion Questions

  • Research several organization that have low turnover rates.  Once that list is generated, identify what are the factors that may influence their success.
  • Identify what are the most beneficial training and development activities employers can implement to create an environment where employees want to stay employed

Paying the Price

by

microicon/Shutterstock

When is the last time you had to ask for a pay increase? For many Canadian workers, approaching their employer to ask for more money is not high on the list of job-related things they enjoy doing. While there are many valid reasons that an employee might have for requesting a pay increase, there is no guarantee that the response from the employer will be one that meets the needs of that request.

A recent study by the American-based PayScale compensation software firm, offers an uncomfortable set of findings based on a wide-reading survey exploring issues around pay raise requests.

Click here to access the summary of PayScale’s survey.

The results of this survey are analyzed in a corresponding article posted recently by Harvard Business Review.

Click here to read the article.

From a compensation management perspective, some key messages emerge about the connections between constructive/pro-active compensation strategies versus negative/negligent compensation approaches and their direct links to employee retention. Unsurprisingly, the survey provides statistical evidence showing that when an employee is denied a wage increase, there is a high probability that the employee will be on the path to exit from that employer.

While the survey and the results are based on American companies, they show an alarming connection between race, gender, and the denial of pay increases—this contrasts with much lower rates of pay-increase denial for white males. As Canadians and as pro-active Human Resources practitioners, we must take these statistical results seriously and consider them in relation to our own workplaces to ensure that our compensation practices, especially as they relate to race and gender, do not follow the same statistical paths.

Good compensation planning must be neutral, pro-active, and fair so that Canadian workers can focus on the things they do enjoy doing.

 

Discussion Questions:

  1. Based on your own experience as an employee, what would you do if your request for a pay increase was rejected by your employer?
  2. From the perspective of an HR professional, develop a script for supervisors/managers to use when telling employees why they will not be receiving the wage increase they have asked for.
  3. Identify three positive and three negative aspects of a differentiated compensation system (wage increases granted or denied based on individual requests).
  4. Identify and explain three key compensation methodologies that can be used to ensure an objective, fair, and pro-active approach to individual wage requests.