Ethics

Yet Another Example of Incompetence…

So we have a client who came close to a hire, but since they put the date of hire off for two months for some reason, the person found something else to do.  They got a bunch of resumes, went through a bunch of interviews, and decided on that guy, and he left.  Now they’ve got another guy they want to hire… but they’re not going to.  My manager just asked me to find this moron manager someone else because, “He wants a comparison first.”  Oh, and he “totally understands” where this manager is coming from, because apparently the previous five people he interviewed no longer exist and count as viable ‘comparisons.’

This is the kind of shit that gets recruiters a bad name.  First off, this company has a shit reputation as an employer.  What’s more, from all indications their turnover is high.  Further still, the ‘process’ they have demands interviewees report directly to security upon reaching the site and giving the name of the person they’re to meet with, but under no circumstances are they to say they’re there for a job interview.  Why?  Because, according to the manager, “Rumors spread real fast,” there.

You couldn’t raise more red flags that this is NOT a company you want as a client, and that this place is pure poison to work at.  And yet, like a good Sales! person, my manager is going after this hire, no matter how much pointless time and money it wastes, no matter how many people’s lives get fucked so this moron incompetent manager can have his ‘comparison,’ it doesn’t matter.  All that matters is the fee.  And of course my choice is work on this or basically find another job.

I swear I have to get out of this shitfuck industry or find the one in a trillion company that actually has some common sense and ethics so I don’t have this kind of shit landing on my desk ever other minute.

Advertisements

A Recruiter.com Article I Commented On

There’s an article here at Recruiter.com that I decided to comment on.  Here’s the comment:

“‘It’s weird that we haven’t built any tools for team leaders at all,’ Buckingham says. ‘We have none – not even a few good ones. We have zero.'”

Team leaders themselves are employees, and at the root of this disengagement problem is the fact that companies do not actually value their employees. That’s why they don’t have the tools they need. Companies say they value their employees, they give lip service to doing so, but this value is not reflected in their actual actions; pay offered, benefits offered, work-life balance, having skilled managers, and opportunities for development and advancement. You have to actually have all those things to get people engaged, not just mention them in a speech every now an then but never deliver. Rhetoric is not enough, we are in the information age where reality trumps Sales! oriented rhetoric of promises with no follow through, and people can increasingly see through the BS on a shorter and shorter time scale. It takes them far less time these days to realize their CEO is full of crap.

As long as companies fail to deliver on the things that will create engagement, they can measure it all they want and it won’t get better. As mentioned in the article, you can’t make a pig fatter by weighing it more often. So, the message to companies who want to increase engagement should be, pull your heads out of your posteriors and start taking actions that will increase engagement instead of endlessly fussing about it, but not doing anything about it. Most will do nothing, because increasing engagement will mean addressing and valuing employees’ concerns which may not seem immediately tied to bottom line improvements, because few if any companies tally the cost of disengagement and factor that into their financial judgements. But, it’s an easy start.

Step one, examine your salary structure and make sure people are making market wages, perhaps pay more if you think you need to compensate for things you can’t deliver, perhaps a bit less because of other perks you do offer, but there can’t be a massive disparity between your pay and the market mean, or you’re screwed.

Step two, examine your benefits and again, make sure they are on part with the market. This is an area where you can make a big dent because while time off is not very costly to offer, it makes a huge difference in people’s lives. Examine your health plans, time off plans, and work hours, and make sure they are all reasonable from an employee’s perspective. Try adhering to it yourself, and if you can’t do so without availing yourself of the perks of ‘flexibility’ offered to higher-ups, how the hell do you expect them to live on it? If people are working significantly more than 40 hours a week on a consistent basis, find out why and put a stop to it, or they will burn out and turnover, plain and simple. If your vacation plan is the standard plan of Go To Hell, Get Back To Work, revise it. Talk to a few brokers and see if you can get better health coverage if that’s a factor as well, it’s not hard.

Step three, start looking at your existing employees as resources and start considering advancement and succession planning. The institutional knowledge they have is often priceless, so capitalize on it and actually try to retain them proactively instead of waiting for their resignations and then wondering what happened. This can dramatically cut recruitment costs by shifting the need to back filling more basic positions. Always exhaust the internal pool of all possibilities before hiring outside.

These are not hard, and if done would correct most companies’ engagement problems. In many cases they’re not even costly, and yet companies still refuse to do them. That is an indicator of how much they actually care about engagement. In simpler terms, they don’t care, or it would be dealt with already.

New Year, Usual Shit

This past Friday I had a request from one of our clients for interview availability for two candidates.  Dutifully, I got availability from both for Monday and Tuesday, and of course never heard back from the client.  We all left for the weekend, I sent emails to both candidates saying that since we didn’t hear back to consider Monday off, and we’d aim to schedule something for Tuesday when Monday came around.  And of course the client emails my account manager at 10:30 PM on Friday wanting to set up interviews for early Monday.

To be frank, it’s this level of incompetence that is destroying the US landscape.  The assumption that people don’t have lives and are on call 24/7 has got to fucking stop.  Back in the sixties and seventies if you couldn’t get your job done in 40 hours, or for some reason insisted on working 70 hour weeks, people wondered what the fuck was wrong with you.  You were considered either inefficient, because it shouldn’t take 70 hours to do the job, or you were considered weird as fuck for not having enough of a life such that you could work 70 hours a damn week.  In Germany this is still the norm.  However, here in the US, ever since the silicon valley boom where the 40 hour work week was supplanted by the 70 hour work week thanks to a bunch of borderline Asperger’s types having nothing else they wanted to do but fuck around with circuit boards, that’s now considered ‘the norm’ in the US.

And, of course, this will reopen my employer’s repeated ‘requests’ I put work email on my private phone.  Because, of course, they want you to be available twenty four hours a day, seven days a week, but won’t provide you the tools or infrastructure to make that possible of course.  Oh no, use your own stuff which you pay for to do that, of course.  And since the ATS system we use is a relic from the 90s with no web access, it wouldn’t even really matter if I had access to email because at most I’d have past emails from the candidates, but no access to alternate contact info, unless of course I doubled up and created my own damn database from scratch in Excel to store information – twice – which is already in the work database but not accessible because it’s an antique piece of shit.

In world were people have no boundaries and more and more people are these lifeless fucks with no families or friends to spend time with, so they insist on making work their life instead of letting work support their life, it’s getting harder and harder to be a normal damn person.

I am preemptively posting this here since somewhere critical comments tend to disappear or not get posted on Recruiter.com.  I have no idea if this is on purpose or just a glitch in their Disqus implementation, or if authors control their own comments and differ in what they allow, but I’ll always double post from now on because I hate typing these things out and then losing them.  This weekend I plan on writing a more detailed response to the Good Corporate Citizenship article from a while back.  The below is a response to this more recent article on how passive candidates should behave.

The difference is, the passive candidate has a lot more leverage than the active candidate, as it is clear that an employer needs to lure the passive candidate away from a job they are already comfortable with.

This is actually incorrect. All positions have a budget, and usually a salary cap associated with them, and this is not an official budget or cap, but that which is dictated by the capital return based on the company’s ability to utilize a person. A passive candidate has a little more negotiating power than an active candidate, or so it’s assumed, but at the end of the day there will be opportunity cost for every extra dollar invested in any particular hire’s salary, and pulling a super star passive candidate doesn’t necessarily benefit your business when you have to pay significantly more for them. This squeezes the ROI for the position, and that’s assuming you can actually utilize them to their full potential. Most companies can’t, because most companies are managed in an average to poor manner. In essence it’s like buying a Lamborgini for your daily commute over winding roads through stop and go traffic. You’ll pay more initiall, and use a ton more gas, and while the Lambo is great for open road driving, its gearbox sucks in actual traffic. Its performance is hindered due to the circumstances under which it is being used. The same goes for superstar candidates.

Another analogy would be to look at your company as a production line, and to consider where the rate limitation is. If the up-line is only producing 10 widgets an hour, and has no real hope of exceeding that, then you’re wasting money on any down-line equipment with a much greater capacity. Now, there may be plans to upgrade the line, but in terms of a workforce that’s a long haul, and most companies are not making that investment these days, at least that I’ve observed. All told, the supposed higher productivity of a ‘passive’ candidate is only of use to you if you can utilize them to their full potential, and every dollar you spend to get them above and beyond what you would have paid for an active candidate squeezes your ROI and demands that you utilize them at a higher potential to get the return you need. Earning 10% on a 60K candidate means 6K profit. Earning 5% on a 100K candidate means 5K, and half the actual margin. Spending more doesn’t mean you get more when it comes to investment. Most companies aren’t Lamborgini companies, as such, they should probably get the Honda model. The margin is actually better, and the profit higher, on a more appropriately utilized employee than one with massive potential thrown into a mediocre situation.

I would also pose these questions, regarding Katherine’s hypothetical experience. If her current company really does value her, why are they not offering a comparable salary? Why did they not proactively raise her rate to what she could get from a competitor in an proactive bid to keep her? Would her company show her as much loyalty should she come into health problems and go on FMLA, or require off time? Or, more to the point, would they should such loyalty should their bottom line start to indicate her salary should be cut, or her entire position scrapped, not due to her performance but to the company’s own lack lust performance, more appropriately laid at the feet of her managers? While Katherine’s hypothetical current employer seems wonderful and may in fact demonstrate loyalty, most real world companies will ditch you in a second if keeping you meant sacrificing a fraction of a percent to their bottom line. A job is a mutua exchange, that’s all. The employer gets a work product they want more than the salary they pay, the employee gets a salary worth more to them that what they produced or the time it takes to produce it. Neither one owes the other anything, and in the real world the only people who do usually show loyalty are the employees, not the employers, whose loyalty is first and foremost to their profit above and beyond their employees by such a wide margin it may as well not exist.

Companies are not guided by ethics, but by profit. So should employees be guided. Keith Halperin is right, and employees should act like CEOs, and companies should stop bitching and moaning about loyalty which they never reciprocate on, and start treating and paying people well from the get go if they want to retain them, instead of only addressing the issue when they’re already leaving. The sad truth is that companies that act like Katherine’s hypothetical employer are so rare they may as well not exist. As a practical reality employees should not strain themselves to do the right or ethical thing by employers who will never spare a thought for doing the same by them. Employers have enough of an edge in the market without employees giving them even more based on one-sided assumptions of loyalty and ethics which they will never see returned to them.

Employees should get as much money and perks as they can, and then ditch their employers in a heart beat when they’ve made a prudent judgement they can get more, because their employers will do exactly that to them. Tit for tat, employees treating employers as badly as employers have historically treated employees is the only way the labor market will ever balance itself. As long as employers see their employees as disposable, employees should reciprocate.