by Melanie London, Vault.com
The era of the social networking website is clearly upon us. An entire generation of people doesn't seem to think twice about sharing personal information and photos with the plugged-in planet. When it comes to employment, though, your willingness to share may cost you.
According to Vault.com's Social Networking Websites Survey, 44% of employers use sites like MySpace and Facebook to check out job candidates, and 39% have looked up the profile of a current employee. Profiles that reveal questionable behavior or attitudes can be harmful to job seekers, as 82% of employers say that something they perceive as negative on a profile would affect their hiring decisions. Despite these revealing statistics, only 57% of people with profiles take security measures, such as using the website's privacy controls or editing their profiles while in the midst of a job search.
As long as it's more important to you to land that dream job than to provide the world with photographic evidence of your win in last year's beer pong championship, remember these words: "This profile is set to private." If you're actively searching for a job, or if your resume is posted on an employment web site, be sure to utilize the privacy controls of any social networking sites you use.
The First Impression
Do you really want your online profile to make an impression before you can? It's becoming more and more common for hiring managers to use social networking web sites as a tool to whittle down the resume pile. If an HR exec logs on only to find coarse language and salacious shots, well, there's a good bet your resume will end up in the reject pile. Yes, it's fun to share borderline-scandalous profile content with friends, but why a potential employer? If it's NSFW ("not safe for work"), then it's NSF your non-private profile.
Personal Preferences
Revealing your affiliations and likes/dislikes can leave you open to someone else's biases. From your political party to even seemingly harmless information like your favorite movies or the last book you've read, these stated preferences could mean the difference between you and someone else getting the job. Isn't it safer to just keep this information private? You may feel that you wouldn't want to work for a company where someone would judge you based on such things, but in a close race, it may be easier for a hiring manager to align with a fellow oboe enthusiast than a candidate with whom he or she has no common interests. Get the job first; then reveal your love of Celine Dion.
Postings from Friends
Social networking site profiles are all about "friends." How many do you have? Who knows who? And what is everyone doing at every possible moment? Ask yourself, "Is it safe to let potential employers see what my friends are posting to my profile?" In high school, people judged you by who you hung out with; sad as it is, the same goes for social networking web sites.
Picture and Screen Name
So you've taken this all to heart, and you're about to set your profile to private -- great job! But don't neglect your photo and screen name. Resist the urge to choose a too-cutesy name and/or an excessively silly or revealing picture to represent yourself to the world at large. No matter how tempting it may be to call yourself Divalicious08, it doesn't exactly give off an aura of professionalism.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Monday, March 3, 2008
Moving to a Small Company Can Lead to Big Rewards
Leaving behind a brand-name firm is a growing alternative for professionals.
By SARAH E. NEEDLEMAN
The Wall Street Journal
March 3, 2008 9:14 p.m.
With the U.S. economy under duress, a growing number of experienced workers may find themselves moving away from large companies toward smaller professional firms. In recent weeks, several large employers announced plans to trim their work forces while small companies hungry for top-talent are happy to take in corporate exiles.
There is a significant upside for professionals moving from a big pond to a smaller one. Senior managers at small and midsize firms often find opportunities to take on more responsibility, earn greater recognition for successes, gain ample exposure to new practice areas and have a more direct impact on a company's bottom line.
To be sure, small firms seeking to attract big fish still have to prove they're a stable alternative that offers competitive pay, but for some, the tradeoff is worth it.
More Impact
Before joining Internet company LinkedIn Corp. in July, Patrick Crane was one of five marketing vice presidents at Yahoo!. He's now the sole vice president of marketing at LinkedIn, which has roughly 220 workers.
"At Yahoo I shook [CEO Jerry Yang's] hand twice and had maybe less than five conversations with him in four years," he says. "Now I meet with our CEO [at LinkedIn] several times a day."
That close proximity to upper management often leads to quicker action. Mr. Macdonald, the former Bristol-Myers worker, says he has the power to get things done more expeditiously at his new employer, Acorda Therapeutics Inc. in Hawthorne, N.Y. "There's less bureaucracy," he says. "Decisions are made without having to go through a number of layers of approval."
Being able to influence a company's bottom line is what led Scott Ruthfield to join WhitePages.com Inc. in April as vice president of engineering and technology. "Everybody plays a core role, so if you do a good job, you are directly contributing to way the business is going to succeed," says the former Amazon.com Inc. manager.
That can also mean more ready recognition. "Every success you have in a small business is magnified by a hundred," says Dean Medley, senior vice president of recruiting at Medical Methods Inc., a staffing firm in Jacksonville, Fla., with 50 employees. "When you land a new account, it's a huge deal."
Small-company converts also mention the room to gain experience in new practice areas—or to return to the heart of a business—as another plus. "You get divorced from the nuts and bolts of operating a business when you work for large companies," says Mike Barnes, a newly hired logistics executive at Halton Co., a provider of construction equipment in Portland, Ore. Mr.
Barnes says the depth of involvement he has at his new firm has another upside: A level of job satisfaction he says he hasn't felt in a long time. Mr. Barnes also says his peers at Halton are less competitive than his former colleagues at larger firms
"People aren't climbing over each other attempting to reach the next level," he says.
That doesn't mean there aren't drawbacks to going small. For one, blunders are magnified. "When you have a setback, it's extremely painful," says Mr. Medley, who joined Medical Methods in 2004 after being laid off from Bank of America Corp.
Small businesses often have fewer support systems than large firms. "You might not have a legal team looking at everything you do," notes Mr. Rich. "There may not be a [human-resources] department." Office perks like free coffee and catered meetings might also be absent, he adds.
Recruiting Challenges
Bringing in brand-name talent can be a challenge for small companies, though. Some senior-level job hunters eschew such firms because they're typically perceived to offer less stability.
Tighter budgets mean smaller companies sometimes can't afford to pay salaries equal to those of big firms. Case in point: This year, chief financial officers at companies with $500 million or more in sales are projected to earn between $257,500 and $370,500 in average annual base pay, CFOs at firms with up to $50 million in sales are expected to receive between $91,000 and $122,250.
Many small employers provide alluring trade-offs such as shorter workweeks, less travel and work-life balance incentives including telecommuting arrangements and flexible schedules.
Employees who trek long distances to get to work at Rising Medical Solutions Inc.'s offices in Chicago and Milwaukee, for example, are given laptop computers with wireless Internet access, says Jason Beans, chief executive officer of the 115-person management-consulting firm. "They can leave at 4 (p.m.) and do work on the train," he says, adding that he plans to recruit about a dozen senior professionals this year, along with 40 others.
To be sure, some small employers eager to take advantage of the wider big-company labor pool say they're willing to compensate new hires more competitively. "If we want super stars, we have to be able to pay appropriate salaries," says Robyn Marcotte, senior vice president of talent at ePrize LLC, an interactive-promotions company. The Detroit-based 35-person firm wants to add 30 senior-level employees and 20 others by the end of next month, she says.
And, niche firms that compete with brand-names are more likely to offer salaries that are similar to big companies—and, perhaps, other ownership incentives. Tom Ryan, founder and co-chief executive officer or ICR LLC, a small financial-communications consulting firm, says he offers consultants a base salary he calls "competitive, even by Wall Street standards." Consultants also earn a percentage of their billings, "so there's no income cap," he adds. A performance-based pay model is critical for enticing top talent, notes Mr. Ryan. "Historically it's been difficult to get the right people," he explains. "You've had an incredible bull market since the tail end of the Internet bubble and the commissions these people generated have been really good." The Westport, Conn.-based firm, which services more than 200 publicly traded businesses, employs roughly 100 people and plans to add 10 more consultants this year.
Mr. Ryan's plans to bulk up may be a sign of the times for small and midsize professional firms. A recent survey of 500 firms with annual revenue ranging from $100,000 to $25 million (with average revenue between $5 and $9 million) shows that 57% plan to add workers this year, reports The Alternative Board, a small-business advisory board based in Denver.
"This is definitely a great opportunity for us to recruit talent from big companies," says Kaity Benedicto, human-resources director at Travelzoo Inc., an online media company with roughly 150 employees. "We've noticed more individuals are willing to talk to us now than ever." The New York-based firm plans to grow its staff by 40% this year, mainly with senior-level technology hires
By SARAH E. NEEDLEMAN
The Wall Street Journal
March 3, 2008 9:14 p.m.
With the U.S. economy under duress, a growing number of experienced workers may find themselves moving away from large companies toward smaller professional firms. In recent weeks, several large employers announced plans to trim their work forces while small companies hungry for top-talent are happy to take in corporate exiles.
There is a significant upside for professionals moving from a big pond to a smaller one. Senior managers at small and midsize firms often find opportunities to take on more responsibility, earn greater recognition for successes, gain ample exposure to new practice areas and have a more direct impact on a company's bottom line.
To be sure, small firms seeking to attract big fish still have to prove they're a stable alternative that offers competitive pay, but for some, the tradeoff is worth it.
More Impact
Before joining Internet company LinkedIn Corp. in July, Patrick Crane was one of five marketing vice presidents at Yahoo!. He's now the sole vice president of marketing at LinkedIn, which has roughly 220 workers.
"At Yahoo I shook [CEO Jerry Yang's] hand twice and had maybe less than five conversations with him in four years," he says. "Now I meet with our CEO [at LinkedIn] several times a day."
That close proximity to upper management often leads to quicker action. Mr. Macdonald, the former Bristol-Myers worker, says he has the power to get things done more expeditiously at his new employer, Acorda Therapeutics Inc. in Hawthorne, N.Y. "There's less bureaucracy," he says. "Decisions are made without having to go through a number of layers of approval."
Being able to influence a company's bottom line is what led Scott Ruthfield to join WhitePages.com Inc. in April as vice president of engineering and technology. "Everybody plays a core role, so if you do a good job, you are directly contributing to way the business is going to succeed," says the former Amazon.com Inc. manager.
That can also mean more ready recognition. "Every success you have in a small business is magnified by a hundred," says Dean Medley, senior vice president of recruiting at Medical Methods Inc., a staffing firm in Jacksonville, Fla., with 50 employees. "When you land a new account, it's a huge deal."
Small-company converts also mention the room to gain experience in new practice areas—or to return to the heart of a business—as another plus. "You get divorced from the nuts and bolts of operating a business when you work for large companies," says Mike Barnes, a newly hired logistics executive at Halton Co., a provider of construction equipment in Portland, Ore. Mr.
Barnes says the depth of involvement he has at his new firm has another upside: A level of job satisfaction he says he hasn't felt in a long time. Mr. Barnes also says his peers at Halton are less competitive than his former colleagues at larger firms
"People aren't climbing over each other attempting to reach the next level," he says.
That doesn't mean there aren't drawbacks to going small. For one, blunders are magnified. "When you have a setback, it's extremely painful," says Mr. Medley, who joined Medical Methods in 2004 after being laid off from Bank of America Corp.
Small businesses often have fewer support systems than large firms. "You might not have a legal team looking at everything you do," notes Mr. Rich. "There may not be a [human-resources] department." Office perks like free coffee and catered meetings might also be absent, he adds.
Recruiting Challenges
Bringing in brand-name talent can be a challenge for small companies, though. Some senior-level job hunters eschew such firms because they're typically perceived to offer less stability.
Tighter budgets mean smaller companies sometimes can't afford to pay salaries equal to those of big firms. Case in point: This year, chief financial officers at companies with $500 million or more in sales are projected to earn between $257,500 and $370,500 in average annual base pay, CFOs at firms with up to $50 million in sales are expected to receive between $91,000 and $122,250.
Many small employers provide alluring trade-offs such as shorter workweeks, less travel and work-life balance incentives including telecommuting arrangements and flexible schedules.
Employees who trek long distances to get to work at Rising Medical Solutions Inc.'s offices in Chicago and Milwaukee, for example, are given laptop computers with wireless Internet access, says Jason Beans, chief executive officer of the 115-person management-consulting firm. "They can leave at 4 (p.m.) and do work on the train," he says, adding that he plans to recruit about a dozen senior professionals this year, along with 40 others.
To be sure, some small employers eager to take advantage of the wider big-company labor pool say they're willing to compensate new hires more competitively. "If we want super stars, we have to be able to pay appropriate salaries," says Robyn Marcotte, senior vice president of talent at ePrize LLC, an interactive-promotions company. The Detroit-based 35-person firm wants to add 30 senior-level employees and 20 others by the end of next month, she says.
And, niche firms that compete with brand-names are more likely to offer salaries that are similar to big companies—and, perhaps, other ownership incentives. Tom Ryan, founder and co-chief executive officer or ICR LLC, a small financial-communications consulting firm, says he offers consultants a base salary he calls "competitive, even by Wall Street standards." Consultants also earn a percentage of their billings, "so there's no income cap," he adds. A performance-based pay model is critical for enticing top talent, notes Mr. Ryan. "Historically it's been difficult to get the right people," he explains. "You've had an incredible bull market since the tail end of the Internet bubble and the commissions these people generated have been really good." The Westport, Conn.-based firm, which services more than 200 publicly traded businesses, employs roughly 100 people and plans to add 10 more consultants this year.
Mr. Ryan's plans to bulk up may be a sign of the times for small and midsize professional firms. A recent survey of 500 firms with annual revenue ranging from $100,000 to $25 million (with average revenue between $5 and $9 million) shows that 57% plan to add workers this year, reports The Alternative Board, a small-business advisory board based in Denver.
"This is definitely a great opportunity for us to recruit talent from big companies," says Kaity Benedicto, human-resources director at Travelzoo Inc., an online media company with roughly 150 employees. "We've noticed more individuals are willing to talk to us now than ever." The New York-based firm plans to grow its staff by 40% this year, mainly with senior-level technology hires
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Four Secrets to Always Being Employable
By J.T. O'DONNELL, NATIONALLY-SYNDICATED WORKPLACE COLUMNS
Never before have Americans been as responsible for keeping themselves skilled and employable as they are today. I tell people to expect to have as many as nine different careers in their lifetime, with an average of three jobs in every one. In short, for those who don't keep a focused eye on their abilities to adapt and grow with the changing workplace, a day could come when it becomes tough to find a "good job."
How do some people always manage to be employed and on track for continued success? They follow the four secrets to staying employable.
1. Keep your definition of a "good job" reasonable.
As we progress professionally, we acquire skills and experiences that often afford us greater opportunities in terms of salary and benefits. The problem lies in making the assumption that once we are offered a larger compensation package that it becomes the starting benchmark for any job we take in the future. The result is the "golden handcuff effect" - a sense that we are held hostage by our current job because there's no place else to go.
Smart workers know each job opportunity provides criteria that must be weighed differently against our wants and needs. Staying employable means simplifying our list and planning for the day when we won't have the same level or type of perks. This keeps job options more plentiful and movement to new positions easier.
2. Use the "3x3x3 rule" to create and implement your own professional development strategy.
Forget about waiting for your annual review; smart workers take the review process into their own hands. Assess your professional strengths and weaknesses. Then build a game plan to leverage the first and minimize the second, you can identify how you plan to stay employable. I encourage individuals to follow the "3x3x3 rule" for skill development:
A. Choose three skills you want to enhance.
B. Identify three ways in which you could learn and grow each skill.
C. Articulate three examples of how you can demonstrate your enhanced skills in this area to your employer.
By taking professional development into your own hands, you remain focused and in control of your employability.
3. Be the "go-to" person for something employers need.
Like depositing into a retirement fund, employees use the early part of their careers to develop skills to accumulate professional wealth. Sadly, after a decade or so, some employees believe they've earned the right to live off of the interest accrued from their efforts. Mid-life often brings about changes in how an employee wants to allocate his or her time (ie. want more time with a spouse, family, home, hobby, etc.). Smart employees know this doesn't have to diminish the quality of the time they put into their careers. To stay employable, focus on being the "go-to" person for a particular problem, task or technique. Building subject-matter expertise in a specific area that's in demand within the workplace will create a personal insurance policy that ensures you'll always be the "go-to" employee who's in demand.
4. Create a board of advisors for your company-of-one.
Smart individuals don't do surgery on themselves, pull their own teeth or represent themselves in legal matters. They defer to professionals who have the training and expertise that gets the best results. Smart employees do the same with their careers. In an age where employees are in essence a company-of-one -- responsible for keeping the services they deliver in demand -- doesn't it make sense to seek the counsel from those who can help you make the best career decisions? Smart employees solicit the advice of individuals they feel approach career success in a manner they admire. Whether it's a relative, co-worker, former manager or even a professional career coach, seeking advice from those who know more than you will give you the perspective needed to be proactive and successful at staying employable.
Career paths are full of twists and turns; they're rarely straightforward. To avoid roadblocks, use the four secrets outlined above and you'll be able to make course corrections that will help you stay employable.
J.T. O'Donnell, career development specialist and co-author of the nationally syndicated workplace column "J.T. & Dale Talk Jobs" distributed by King Features Syndicate.
Copyright 2008 J.T. O'Donnell
Never before have Americans been as responsible for keeping themselves skilled and employable as they are today. I tell people to expect to have as many as nine different careers in their lifetime, with an average of three jobs in every one. In short, for those who don't keep a focused eye on their abilities to adapt and grow with the changing workplace, a day could come when it becomes tough to find a "good job."
How do some people always manage to be employed and on track for continued success? They follow the four secrets to staying employable.
1. Keep your definition of a "good job" reasonable.
As we progress professionally, we acquire skills and experiences that often afford us greater opportunities in terms of salary and benefits. The problem lies in making the assumption that once we are offered a larger compensation package that it becomes the starting benchmark for any job we take in the future. The result is the "golden handcuff effect" - a sense that we are held hostage by our current job because there's no place else to go.
Smart workers know each job opportunity provides criteria that must be weighed differently against our wants and needs. Staying employable means simplifying our list and planning for the day when we won't have the same level or type of perks. This keeps job options more plentiful and movement to new positions easier.
2. Use the "3x3x3 rule" to create and implement your own professional development strategy.
Forget about waiting for your annual review; smart workers take the review process into their own hands. Assess your professional strengths and weaknesses. Then build a game plan to leverage the first and minimize the second, you can identify how you plan to stay employable. I encourage individuals to follow the "3x3x3 rule" for skill development:
A. Choose three skills you want to enhance.
B. Identify three ways in which you could learn and grow each skill.
C. Articulate three examples of how you can demonstrate your enhanced skills in this area to your employer.
By taking professional development into your own hands, you remain focused and in control of your employability.
3. Be the "go-to" person for something employers need.
Like depositing into a retirement fund, employees use the early part of their careers to develop skills to accumulate professional wealth. Sadly, after a decade or so, some employees believe they've earned the right to live off of the interest accrued from their efforts. Mid-life often brings about changes in how an employee wants to allocate his or her time (ie. want more time with a spouse, family, home, hobby, etc.). Smart employees know this doesn't have to diminish the quality of the time they put into their careers. To stay employable, focus on being the "go-to" person for a particular problem, task or technique. Building subject-matter expertise in a specific area that's in demand within the workplace will create a personal insurance policy that ensures you'll always be the "go-to" employee who's in demand.
4. Create a board of advisors for your company-of-one.
Smart individuals don't do surgery on themselves, pull their own teeth or represent themselves in legal matters. They defer to professionals who have the training and expertise that gets the best results. Smart employees do the same with their careers. In an age where employees are in essence a company-of-one -- responsible for keeping the services they deliver in demand -- doesn't it make sense to seek the counsel from those who can help you make the best career decisions? Smart employees solicit the advice of individuals they feel approach career success in a manner they admire. Whether it's a relative, co-worker, former manager or even a professional career coach, seeking advice from those who know more than you will give you the perspective needed to be proactive and successful at staying employable.
Career paths are full of twists and turns; they're rarely straightforward. To avoid roadblocks, use the four secrets outlined above and you'll be able to make course corrections that will help you stay employable.
J.T. O'Donnell, career development specialist and co-author of the nationally syndicated workplace column "J.T. & Dale Talk Jobs" distributed by King Features Syndicate.
Copyright 2008 J.T. O'Donnell
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
How to Quit Without Guilt
If you are worrying about quitting, the conventional wisdom about the subject is:
Money talks. At the entry level it says: “Easily replaced.” If you are paid a low salary, the office is not going to be disabled if you leave. If you are so important and so difficult to replace, employers can pay to hire someone quickly. If you have a good boss, your boss knew you were looking. Most people are job hunting - at least passively - all the time. It should not be news to your boss that you would quit if someone offered you a better opportunity. In a robust economy, the odds of you leaving at any moment are material, no matter how nice your boss is to you. Your company has only a reasonable amount of loyalty to you. If your company laid you off, they’d give you no more than two weeks’ notice. That’s how the work world works. Play by the rules. Give two weeks notice. The two weeks’ rule is there because once people know about an upcoming separation, the workplace dynamic changes, and the less time you have to deal with this dynamic, the more productive everyone will be. Good mentors care about you and want to see you grow. As your boss has been a good mentor to you, you owe it to him or her not to handle separation unprofessionally. If someone has been a good mentor and you have been a good “mentee,” then he or she should want the best for you.
But, it is not that simple. Leaving a job is as difficult as saying good-bye to your loved ones. Getting into a job is tough but quitting one is tougher.
Nearly everyone fears the thought of quitting a job. Not because we are not sure of getting a better opportunity, but because we just don't want to step out of the comfort zone and the uncertainty that causes. Most importantly, we do not want to hurt the feelings of managers and coworkers who invested in our success.
It is normal to contemplate missing the people you will leave behind by accepting a new job, and feel that you are letting them down somehow. Consider, however, that work is essentially an economic relationship, not a social one, so people have to do what's best for them. It works both ways, managers who lay off employees, feel the same way, even as they do what they know is right for the organization. In truth, your employer will survive without you. They survived before you were there and they will survive after. If making a move to a new position is the best thing for you, by all means tender your resignation in a compassionate and professional manner, giving appropriate notice.
The main reason people quit jobs is to better their career. Who could feel guilty about providing better for themselves and their family? You have to do for yourself, before you can do for others. Guilt is lessened when you realize that you would be inclined to do what is best for your loved ones before your employer, regardless of the quality of these work relationships.
When people leave jobs under normal career-progression circumstances (not when the threat of termination is present or because of extreme job dissatisfaction), most feel guilty and worry about “leaving in the lurch” managers and coworkers held in high regard. In contrast, after resigning is actually done and a little time has passed, the majority report that these feelings lessen as thoughts about the new position bring about excitement and positivity, characterized by certainty or acceptance.
When it comes to making tough decision about quitting, above all, you must know what you love and what you are good at. The ideal job is one that enables you to channel your best talents into what you best love doing. While that seems like a simple and obvious truth, it's not easy to implement. It requires effort. Perhaps that is why most of us prefer to compromise and settle for something that is “acceptable,” rather than take the less trodden path to seek out and accept the kind of job would most make us happy, where our passions and strengths are put to best and rewarding use.
Remember: Nothing worth doing is ever easy. If you want less than 100% job satisfaction, you don't need to take action. But if you want more, there's no shortcut. Self-awareness is the first step—realize that by receiving a viable job offer, your job-seeking activities is a statement of proof that your current job satisfaction is in serious question—consciously or unconsciously. The next step is to be courageous and quit, you have contributed to your employer commensurately with how you have been compensated—you can feel good about parting ways amicably, knowing that you are going forward in all fairness and good standing.
Monday, January 28, 2008
How Much Does it Really Cost to Hire - or not to Hire?
In a recent article in 'The Interbiznet Bugler', it is stated that the Saratoga Institute, often seen as the ultimate source of HR thinking, typically describes "cost per hire" as the sum of administrative costs and expenses, and Infomart-USA, a hiring practices auditing company, estimates the national average at about $4,400. They consider the elements of cost per hire to be the following:
- Advertising
- Agency fees
- Employment fairs
- Employment office salary expense
- Employment office facility expense
- Estimate of time spent in training
- Recruiter travel expense
- Internal recruiter expense
- Internal recruiter labor expense
- Referral Bonus
- Recruiting & Training expense
- Uniforms
The means used to calculate the administrative cost per hire is deeply understated. So what is the real cost per hire - or more importantly, per not hiring?
Opportunity Costs
The cost of a hire is the money lost because the hire wasn't made. Well recognized in MBA programs and broadly understood throughout the rest of the organization, the simple concept is "opportunity costs."
At its most basic, the opportunity cost associated with a particular hire is the productive revenue lost because the hire wasn't made. Here's an easy way to get your arms around the real cost per hire in your organization.
- Take the annual sales of your company (or division) and divide it by the number of employees. This is the annual revenue per employee.
- Divide that number by 250 to get the daily revenue per employee.
- Multiply daily revenue per employee by the number of days it takes to hire an employee.
- If you want, add the dollars spent by the Recruiting Department (it's a minor fraction).
This is the real cost per hire. Generally it's 5 to 10 times the administrative costs.
Using an outside recruiter to fast-track hiring of sales talent is good business as it costs far less than not hiring and is an investment in your organization’s growth. When economic times are challenging, sales-focused employees are the resource best leveraged to protect market share—in a shrinking market, taking share away from your competitors is priority one, superseding cost containment measures. Fielding sales talent is an initial success that lays the groundwork for achieving growth objectives. Tapping into a network of industry sales professionals puts growth-minded managers on the offensive.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Should Sales Run the Company?
This question keeps coming up, so I’m going to answer it. Let’s start with the basics:
The only reason a for-profit business exists is to make profitable sales.
Read that last sentence three times, because there’s an entire MBA’s worth of business wisdom in it. If you believe that statement is true, then the follow must also be true:
In a for-profit business, every job has a single purpose — to help profitable sales take place.
Therefore, the value of EVERY activity inside EVERY for-profit business can be assessed by two criteria:
The only reason a for-profit business exists is to make profitable sales.
Read that last sentence three times, because there’s an entire MBA’s worth of business wisdom in it. If you believe that statement is true, then the follow must also be true:
In a for-profit business, every job has a single purpose — to help profitable sales take place.
Therefore, the value of EVERY activity inside EVERY for-profit business can be assessed by two criteria:
- Does it generate qualified leads, resulting in more sales, thereby increasing revenue?
- Does it reduce the cost of sales or cost of goods, thereby making the average sale more profitable?
Considering all of the above, the four major “non-sales” functions can therefore be defined as follows:
Marketing — Every marketing activity should either attract new customers (generate qualified leads) or make it easier for sales to close business (reduce the cost of sales.) For example, a direct mail campaign is wasted money unless it attracts new customers, thereby potentially increasing revenue. Similarly, a “branding” exercise is stupid and pointless unless it creates credibility that makes it easier for sales to close business, thereby reducing the cost of sales.
Development — Every activity that’s funded should be to design new products and services that existing and future customers want, thereby making it easier to attract new customers, thereby increasing the revenue stream. New ideas that results in products and services that can’t be sold or that nobody wants to buy is wasted effort.
Operations — Every activity should be focused on delivering high quality products and services that attract new customers, while reducing costs. While those costs aren’t traditionally counted as a “cost of sales”, they are really the same thing, because both cost of sales and cost of goods are only meaningful concepts if a sale actually takes place.
Management — Despite all the blah-blah-blah about “leadership,” in the end a CEO’s only important jobs are to 1) sell the company to the public as a spokesperson, and 2) make sure that every other department in the company serves the needs of the Sales group. And don’t try to tell me that the CEO has an important job representing the company to investors. What investors want are more revenue and more profit.
Does this mean that the Sales group should be performing all these functions? The answer is no. Not because they couldn’t do it, but because it’s a waste of selling talent. People who can sell — really sell — have got no business pushing pencils in the back office.
Instead, the Sales group should be telling these other groups what they must do, at least in a general sense, in order to ensure that profitable sales continue to happen. More importantly, all activity in all those groups must be measured and compensated based upon whether those profitable sales eventually take place.
So let’s restate the question:
Q: Should the Sales function drive the entire company?
A: Absolutely.
Excerpted from an article by By Geoffrey James
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Don't be Slow, be Strategic in Hiring Talent
Why is it taking longer than ever to find, and land, revenue-generating professionals with the skills and talents to drive results? In a recent hiring survey, more than two-thirds of the respondents said they expect their companies to be bringing on new revenue-generating staff additions within the next 12 months, and 88% said their employers were experiencing a skills shortage.
The demand is there, but where are the candidates? Only 9% of revenue-generating workers polled said that they’re actively looking for a job, and 63% reported feeling secure or very secure in their current position.
Even when candidates are available, a lack of preparation by hiring managers or a disconnect between business drivers and internal processes can compromise company performance.
For any industry which is currently facing talent shortages in revenue-generating positions, the pertinent question remains: does the time-to-hire make a difference to the quality of talent being inducted into an organization?
Recruitment experts agree that the hiring time is critical for finding the right candidate. The reason is obvious. Often because of undue time lags between identification of candidates and making the selection, a good candidate may lose interest in that specific role and take up another opportunity.
SPEED (or the lack thereof) is a strategic factor in the competition for talent. When talent acquisition is an organizational strength, you start by overwhelming candidates with responsiveness.
Here are the spots in the recruiting process where the need to manage speed is critical:
1. Solicit candidates only when you have the time to and interest in screening them. For prospects that fit your general position requirements, set the initial step within 48-hours of submission.
2. Organize process steps to fast-track internal bottlenecks. Once the initial screen is completed and you decide to move the candidate to the next stage—momentum is on your side! Plot steps to the final interview and schedule these all at once, within 24-hours of the initial step.
Example: if the initial step is a telephone screen, and the final step is an interview with the senior manager; but in-between there is an interview with 1) the hiring manager, 2) a peer, and 3) a next-level manager—book set times for all of the 3 “middle steps” in this example, within 2-days of each other. You can always cancel if the candidate proves to be less than anticipated, but you cannot regain lost time between steps tying to schedule “on the fly” as the process unfolds.
3. Manage expectations as you move to the offer stage. Give timely and honest feedback to, or about, candidates following each step. Ideally, you want to do a blitz round of interviews and get to the final stage shortly thereafter. If there is any holdup in the process, you have to sell the candidate on the company and the fact that you still love them as the right fit for the job in question.
4. Anticipate administrative and/or organizational requirements to get to the offer stage. Don’t wait until after the final interview to initiate administrivia like reference checks, pre-employment screenings, approval forms, offer letter/new hire paperwork turnaround, etc. At the same time you schedule the final interview, start the organizational wheels turning to ensure a minimal lag time before you can make a firm offer.
Interested candidates are a perishable resource – start the process too soon or have a delay after a phone interview or a face-to-face meeting, and you have problems. Candidates start having confidence issues in you as an employer of choice, and even if you eventually hire them, the delays can cost you negotiation leverage as you go through the offer stage.
Learn how to juggle the timing needs of the company and the candidate in the hiring process, and you'll get better talent than you deserve.
The demand is there, but where are the candidates? Only 9% of revenue-generating workers polled said that they’re actively looking for a job, and 63% reported feeling secure or very secure in their current position.
Even when candidates are available, a lack of preparation by hiring managers or a disconnect between business drivers and internal processes can compromise company performance.
For any industry which is currently facing talent shortages in revenue-generating positions, the pertinent question remains: does the time-to-hire make a difference to the quality of talent being inducted into an organization?
Recruitment experts agree that the hiring time is critical for finding the right candidate. The reason is obvious. Often because of undue time lags between identification of candidates and making the selection, a good candidate may lose interest in that specific role and take up another opportunity.
SPEED (or the lack thereof) is a strategic factor in the competition for talent. When talent acquisition is an organizational strength, you start by overwhelming candidates with responsiveness.
Here are the spots in the recruiting process where the need to manage speed is critical:
1. Solicit candidates only when you have the time to and interest in screening them. For prospects that fit your general position requirements, set the initial step within 48-hours of submission.
2. Organize process steps to fast-track internal bottlenecks. Once the initial screen is completed and you decide to move the candidate to the next stage—momentum is on your side! Plot steps to the final interview and schedule these all at once, within 24-hours of the initial step.
Example: if the initial step is a telephone screen, and the final step is an interview with the senior manager; but in-between there is an interview with 1) the hiring manager, 2) a peer, and 3) a next-level manager—book set times for all of the 3 “middle steps” in this example, within 2-days of each other. You can always cancel if the candidate proves to be less than anticipated, but you cannot regain lost time between steps tying to schedule “on the fly” as the process unfolds.
3. Manage expectations as you move to the offer stage. Give timely and honest feedback to, or about, candidates following each step. Ideally, you want to do a blitz round of interviews and get to the final stage shortly thereafter. If there is any holdup in the process, you have to sell the candidate on the company and the fact that you still love them as the right fit for the job in question.
4. Anticipate administrative and/or organizational requirements to get to the offer stage. Don’t wait until after the final interview to initiate administrivia like reference checks, pre-employment screenings, approval forms, offer letter/new hire paperwork turnaround, etc. At the same time you schedule the final interview, start the organizational wheels turning to ensure a minimal lag time before you can make a firm offer.
Interested candidates are a perishable resource – start the process too soon or have a delay after a phone interview or a face-to-face meeting, and you have problems. Candidates start having confidence issues in you as an employer of choice, and even if you eventually hire them, the delays can cost you negotiation leverage as you go through the offer stage.
Learn how to juggle the timing needs of the company and the candidate in the hiring process, and you'll get better talent than you deserve.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
