mindset blog

Guest Blog; Personality Assessments

Thu, 26 Aug 2010 08:45:00 GMT

By Ellison Bloomfield

I have never been a fan of personality assessments or profiles, I’ve found them in the past to be narrow, one sided and the cause of bias. I have worked with someone who within minutes of meeting someone would say, ‘Oh they’re an ENFJ’ (Myers-Briggs personality type) and the profiler would see them as only ENFJ from that point forwards.

I also feel that the more basic tests will be skewed by your current situation and as such should be taken as ‘point in time’ rather than a long term indication of how someone will behave in a certain situation. But my concerns aside when it comes to making effective and successful recruitment decisions the more tools you have the better your result will be. I’ve discussed the importance of predictive recruitment in a previous post and as the economy recovers and there is more competition between candidates it will become even more important for companies to be sure they are recruiting the right person.

As we’ve established by now I’m looking for The Job and I thought it would be beneficial for me to be able to narrow down what I should be looking for in a role. I asked if anyone had recommendations for a personality profile / assessment tool and received a response from Mindset Group and after as discussion with Aaron Dodd yesterday I received the links and information to go ahead with the assessment.

The assessment used by Mindset Group is called Prevue and is a bit more of an all round assessment, not just on personality preferences – e.g would you like a fly a helicopter? But also focuses on skills around;

1. Working with Numbers (Numerical Reasoning);
2. Working with Words (Language Skills); and
3. Working with Shapes (Spatial Reasoning)

In short it is a more comprehensive assessment and while I lost the ability to un-jumble words in one part of the assessment I found that the reports I received back regarding my skills, abilities and interests fit with what I believe my skills are.

In terms of the reports that you receive for this assessment there is the overall report in relation to skills, interests etc but there is also the working characteristics report which would provide an employer with an overview of:

1. Is Ms Bloomfield inclined to take risks?
2. Does she live to work or work to live?
3. Does she prefer a fixed salary or flexible income?

In case you’re wondering, I prefer to work things through but will react appropriately in a crisis, I live to work rather than work to live, and would prefer basic salary with a modest bonus or commission plan.

When it comes to making a decision about a role it is important that both the candidate and potential employer have all the information they need to be able to make the best decision. By going through this assessment it assisted me in knowing which roles I should apply for and if it was an employer conducting the assessment would provide them with an indication of how well I would fit in a role. I was able to find out what I shouldn’t operate heavy machinery and that I would be best suited in a role where I’m collaborating with people and working with data (numbers, stats or words).

A personality assessment is just one part of making a decision; it shouldn’t be relied upon for all the information and should only be used by people who understand the results. I’ve seen some pretty average personality tests in the past, but the prevue assessment is one of the tests I would be happy to use again.

The Recruitment Partnership; You get back, what you put in!

Wed, 18 Aug 2010 03:13:00 GMT

By Aaron Dodd
Operations Director

It’s my experience that in business many companies talk of being in “partnership” with their suppliers. However the reality is that almost all so-called partnerships are simply marketing spin. The relationships are usually very uneven, often with one overly dependent on the other; this will inevitably mean that one side is either being overcharged for their service or product or vice versa.

In the recruitment industry the best results for both parties without question comes from genuine business partnerships characterised by open communication, shared risk, mutual trust, fair payment for services and shared goals.

However anyone who has been in the industry for longer than six months knows that this is seldom the case. Recruitment is a competitive industry and it’s this competition that has led to rampant fee cutting that inevitably compromises service quality....especially in long term RPOs (the horror stories I’ve heard!). The contingency fee model also means that service purchasers have little to lose, supplier loyalty is minimal and supplier switching is commonplace.

Mindset endeavours to be a thought leader in the talent space and as such we attempt to form genuine partnerships with our clients. Indeed, we have even walked away from clients that don’t treat us as partners. A genuine partnership requires give and take from both sides and as such we make the following commitments to our clients;

We will work with you to define your genuine personnel needs and deliver short-listed candidates that meet those definitions in terms of skills, qualifications, experience and personality. We will not commit to a defined number of candidates as there may only be one or two that meet the specifications.
If you are not offering a package that will attract quality candidates we will tell you up front so that you can revise your person spec or your package offer. If these can’t be altered then we reserve the right to not continue with the assignment. Mindset will not take on impossible assignments!
We will keep you informed of our sourcing activities. In some cases you will have direct access to our applicant tracking system.
If the sourcing process proves to take longer than expected we will let you know a revised shortlist date.
We will meet you in person to present and discuss shortlist candidates.
If required, we will interview shortlisted candidates with you.
We will assess all shortlisted candidates after your first meetings against personality benchmarks that we will work with you to define, using our Prevue methodology.
All assessed candidates will be met with in person and the validity of the Prevue psychometric test results will be investigated in detail.
We will make verbal contact with all referees and will give you feedback on the referees’ responses.
We will make final recommendations to you on which (if any) of the shortlisted candidates should be appointed based on their assessment results, assessment interviews and reference checks. If there are reasons why a candidate should not be appointed we will tell you.
We will invoice you a pre-determined and agreed set fee for the recruitment process. Normally this will be in three parts; the first on commencement, the second on shortlist and the third on appointment.
We will work with you to put together an appropriate induction plan that will assist in the new employee to generate results faster.
We will follow up with both the employee and the client throughout their first 12 months to ensure that the needs of both parties are being met.

Partnerships are give and take. For Mindset to be able to deliver the above we also need our clients to commit to the following;

Clients will make their key personnel and the role’s stakeholders available to us so that we can develop an understanding of the people the new employee will be working with and the culture of the client’s organisation.
Clients must be prepared to pay a fair market salary (or above) for the role in question....OR be prepared to accept a lower quality candidate.
Clients must make themselves available at fairly short notice for interviews. Going on annual leave mid-process (yes, it’s happened) or being “too busy” is not acceptable in a competitive talent-short market.
If Mindset submits shortlisted candidates, we expect you to meet with them. We are recommending them for a reason and, just so we’re clear,not interviewing a candidate because you “don’t like their CV” is not a reason.
Clients will promptly return phone calls, emails etc and complete Prevue job surveys in a timely manner.
If a client does not like a proffered candidate they will give the Mindset consultant detailed reasons so that the same error is not made again. This saves both Mindset and the client’s time. Saying “I just didn’t like him (or her)” is unhelpful to say the least.
If Mindset withdraws a candidate from the pool due to a poor reference check or Prevue profile, we may recommend restarting the sourcing process. Although it’s upsetting for all parties, please recognise that Mindset will not recommend a candidate that we feel will not deliver the results. We ask that our clients respect our recommendations; that is after all what you are paying us for.
Clients will pay their invoices on or before their due dates.

If both sides of the partnership adhere to their commitments, they will find themselves effective long term employees with the least angst in the fastest possible time! Just remember, in recruitment especially, you’ll get back what you put in, and what you pay for!

Shouldn’t HR be able to recruit their own people?

Mon, 10 May 2010 21:19:00 GMT

By Aaron Dodd, Operations Director

A couple of days ago a Twitter acquaintance of mine Ellison Bloomfield posted in her blog the rhetorical question; shouldn’t an internal HR department have the skills and knowledge to be able to recruit their own people?

Good question. Even though it was rhetorical, I’m going to answer it anyway as it’s a pet topic of mine. My view is this; recruitment AND selection are very specialised competencies within the overall scope of human resources management.

Not all HR Managers will have the necessary skills, commercial knowledge or time to be able to effectively do one or both. Often, particularly with senior executive search assignments, it will also be next to impossible to carry out the assignment appropriately via internal resources. Many companies have recognised this. Some bigger blue-chip companies even have specialised external recruiters sitting full time in their offices sourcing candidates (the RPO model). Some companies have specialised Recruitment Managers sitting within their HR teams. These examples are recognition enough of the specialised nature of recruitment and selection.

So what are these specialised skills?

Dictionary.com defines recruiting as; (the activity) to engage in finding and attracting employees, new members, students, athletes, etc. This is a very broad definition, and I draw distinction between “recruitment” and “sourcing”. Sourcing is the most difficult skill to acquire within the scope of recruitment activities. I’ve always held that anyone can recruit. In the traditional sense, recruitment is about drafting an advert and getting it out there on job boards, newspapers etc, wherever it will be seen (hopefully). Using this methodology certainly has a luck component. The success or otherwise of the advert will also largely depend on the language and marketing skills of the person writing it.

This form of recruitment is also largely a passive activity as an ad is posted and then one sits back and wait for the applicants. Sourcing however, is a much more active approach that involves detailed detective work, networking, market and/or industry knowledge, intuition, guile, time and persistence. A good sourcer (or researcher as they are often known) will uncover passive candidates and other potentials who are NOT out actively looking for roles. This is executive search methodology. These are difficult to acquire skills almost always outside of the scope of generalist HR personnel. At Mindset, it is the skill of our researchers in uncovering this so-called hidden talent that has made us so successful. Our researchers are one of the reasons why we are regularly engaged by HR Managers to find talent for their organisations.

The other and most important part of the process is selection. This is the choice of candidate (if any) from the available pool of talent that has been sourced by advertising or research.

In her blog Ellison goes on to ask; how well can a recruiter with an agency really know a position? Or, for that matter the personalities of the people in the team or the style the manager wants. Again this is a good question.

A skilled and competent selection consultant (this is distinct to a recruiter) will have taken the time to meet with and understand the often multiple stakeholders in the role. They will understand the company and its business as well as the internal and external issues that the company faces in order to achieve its goals. The more assignments a consultant carries out with a client the better they will know it and the more value he or she will create for their client. Further, if a consultant is a specialist in a field, say engineering or finance, they will often always be better at determining technical skills and experience than a generalist HR practitioner.

A company is only as good as the talent it is capable of attracting and retaining. As such, a skilled and commercially astute recruitment/search and selection partner will become a vital trusted advisor to a client. Their skills in attracting talent to the organisation can often have a positive strategic impact second only to the product or service that the client actually delivers.

And that is why so many companies turn to recruiters rather than their HR personnel to find them their people; their strategic advantage.

Would You Outsource Your Career Management?

Mon, 03 May 2010 23:58:00 GMT

By Aaron Dodd, Operations Director

I’m sitting here at 11000m above the ground somewhere between Melbourne and Sydney thinking about career management. Why? You ask. Well late last week one of our consultants received within the space of an hour three emails from three different candidates attaching their CVs and asking politely for meetings with us and for their CVs to be added to our database for consideration for any current and future roles we may be trying to fill.

Nothing unusual in that, you think.

Each CV was accompanied by a 4 paragraph cover letter (email), and each was identically worded. Clearly this was no coincidence so to find out what was going on, we called that candidates and asked them.

Each candidate had engaged the services of a “Career Transition Specialist” to market them. This so-called specialist had mass emailed their CVs to a number of executive search companies including Mindset, hence the common, but lazy, cover letter. When we explained what had happened to the candidates they were dismayed, not least that each of them had parted with a not inconsiderable amount of money for these services (one of them over $10,000!).

We’ve all seen the adverts in The Age (and presumably other newspapers) advertising their services. “Access the hidden job market”, “professionally manage your career”, “looking for your next career challenge” they implore. These companies charge candidates a fee to market them to prospective employers and recruiters. Although not a new phenomenon in Australia, they seem to be gaining some traction of late. I’d be interested in seeing what performance guarantees they offer to their clients, and what ethical stance these organisations take.

Ethical recruiters should only work with one client in an industry so that there is no conflict of interest. At Mindset we have turned business away when we have been approached by a client’s competitor to also recruit for them. If one of these “Career Transition Specialists” has taken money from 3 similarly qualified candidates which one do they put forward and sell more heavily for a position? Presumably they are obligated to sell the one who had paid the highest fee, but then where does that leave the lower paying clients (candidates)?

But ultimately, I ask the question; would you outsource the management of your career to someone else? Personally I wouldn’t. To a large extent, our careers define who we are and our positions in society. From a recruiter’s perspective, we don’t want to deal with the spin these marketing companies place on their candidates. I’d rather deal directly with the candidate. Using one of the marketing companies also raises the question about how much energy they are personally prepared to exert to manage their career. For something so important, I’d want to see personal input and activity.

The mass emails we received last week, actively went against the interests of the candidates. Not least of which we now know that the well written cover letter was NOT the work of the individuals sending them. We have no personal feel for these candidates. It has also raised questions on the veracity of their CVs.

My recommendation to job seekers therefore is to manage your own careers. By all means get professional help with your CVs, they are your primary marketing document after all. But send out your own letters. Make the phone calls to the employers and recruiters yourself. Record the roles you have applied for and follow up the organisations yourself. Your own efforts and activities will be appreciated and will almost always get you what you want faster.

Clancy Of The Agency

Tue, 27 Apr 2010 23:39:00 GMT

By Aaron Dodd, Operations Director
(with apologies to Banjo Paterson)

I had written him an email which I had, for want of better
Knowledge, sent to where I met him down on Collins St, years ago,
He was recruiting when I knew him, so I sent the email to him,
Just `on spec', addressed as follows, `Clancy, of the Agency.

And an answer came directed in a style unexpected,
(And I think the same was written with an auto-response by an ATS)
'Twas his PA who wrote it, and verbatim I will quote it:
`We have received your application and will deal with it in due course'

In my wild erratic fancy visions come to me of Clancy
Reading my CV `down on Collins St’ where the Recruiters sip their lattes;
As the applications roll on in, Clancy casts his eyes upon them,
For the recruiter’s life has pleasures that others never know.

And the recruiter hath friends to twitter him, and their kindly voices tweet him
In the shuffling of the pages and the street and in its bars,
And he sees the vision splendid of the PSA extended,
And at night the wond'rous glory of the everlasting cashflow.

I am sitting in my dingy hated job, where a stingy
Ray of sunlight struggles feebly down between the buildings tall,
And the foetid air and gritty of the dusty, dirty cubicle
And the aircon vent spluttering, spreads its foulness over all

And in place of Tweetdeck chirping, I can hear the fiendish rattle
Of the tramways and the 'buses making hurry down the street,
And the language uninviting of the my downcast colleagues fighting,
Comes fitfully and faintly through the ceaseless sound of printers.

And the hurrying people daunt me, and their pallid faces haunt me
As they shoulder one another in their rush and nervous haste,
With their eager eyes and greedy, and their stunted forms and weedy,
For candidates like me have no time to grow, they have no time to waste.

And I somehow rather fancy that I'd like to change with Clancy,
Like to take a turn at recruiting where the emails come and go,
While he faced the round eternal of the CRM and the telephone
But I doubt he'd swap the office, Clancy, of `The Agency.

Life’s too Short to be a Drone.

Thu, 15 Apr 2010 08:32:00 GMT

By Aaron Dodd, Operations Director

The other day I took a call from a young HR practitioner enquiring about a position with Mindset as an HR consultant. She is a graduate with a good couple of years experience at officer level in public service and an SME. She was disillusioned with her current role feeling that it was too administrative, lacked intellectual challenge and wasn’t strategic enough. It was clear she had a real passion for HR and true belief in what good “HR” can do for a business and ultimately its bottom line.

Unfortunately we weren’t able to offer her a role, but her predicament is all too common. Many people study HR at University/TAFEs for either the wrong reason or because the profession has been misrepresented to them. After a couple of years in the “real” commercial world it dawns on them that they could well have made the wrong career choice. They then fall into one of three categories;

Those that give in to the system and become administrative drones, often becoming increasingly bitter and institutionalised over time.
Those that fight on valiantly against the forces of evil to try to effect change in their organisations and realise their dream of what HR should be for the business. Some will succeed, most won’t. Those that do succeed will go on to have stellar Director level careers. It’s a tough gig and I tip my hat to those who have beaten the system and made it.
Those that leave the profession completely.

When I talk about “the wrong reason” to go into HR, the most common ones that I hear when I ask HR people why they did it are “I love people” or “I love talking to people” or “I love helping people”. For HR to be relevant and a vital part of the commercial world these practitioners need to understand that their role is to muster their available human resources to deliver the business strategy effectively and efficiently so as to deliver the best possible bottom line for the company. HR people must remember that they are their company’s advocate NOT the staff’s.

By “misrepresentation” I mean that they have been sold a pup by academics. Many HR academics that I have met know the theory intimately, have a passion for the subject, but lack real world experience and thus have a totally deluded understanding of how HR is perceived by most decision-making business executives. They are akin to Catholic priests giving marital advice.

So why couldn’t I help out my young HR practitioner? Through no fault of her own, she simply needs more commercial experience. A successful consultant is a salesperson. It is no use having the theory and the ability to deliver if you cannot win the assignments in the first place. To be a successful salesperson selling HR consulting services requires a broad and thorough understanding of business, finance, commercial issues and strategy. Being able to engage with a Managing Director or CFO at this level so as to be able to quickly and succinctly identify their BUSINESS issues and present AND CLOSE an HR solution is paramount. Then, and only then, will your HR delivery skills come into play.

So for HR people who are looking to move into HR consulting or make yourself more relevant to the/any business, I urge you to develop your business skills and your networks (not with other HR people, but with business people). Learn to sell. Leave HR for a while. Work in other disciplines (particularly sales). Gain experience. Don’t waste your time with administration-oriented HR diplomas, study business, do an MBA.

Whatever you do, don’t take the first option. Life’s too short to be a drone.

Holding Back the Sea; Professional Bodies and Social Media

Mon, 05 Apr 2010 23:19:00 GMT

By Aaron Dodd, Operations Director

My company, Mindset or I personally are members of a number of professional bodies; the Recruitment and Consulting Services Association (RCSA), the Institute of Management Consultants (IMC), Australian Institute of Company Directors (AICD), and the Australian Human Resources Institute (AHRI) to name a few.

I have also in the past been a member of the Institute of Professional Engineers of New Zealand (IPENZ) and its Australian equivalent the IPEA. I’ve even been a member of union, the Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers of Australia (APESMA).

These institutions have a variety of missions, but at their core they strive to;

1.   Advance their respective professions through education and training
2.   Represent their professions as lobbyists to governments and other bodies
3.   Protect their members’ interests, both at personal and professional levels
4.   Provide a ‘badge of credibility’ for members, particularly those who have completed their member body’s certification courses.

Another often unstated but very important function of these bodies is to provide an avenue for professional networking and through this, employment and business opportunities. In fact a major reason why members join these bodies is for this purpose alone. Some of these organisations have attempted to involve themselves more in social media, but most have only scratched the surface. The RCSA for example seems to be non-existent in cyberspace except for its poorly functioning website. AHRI at least has a twitter profile (sort of anyway @AHRIevents).

As a result of this lack of institutionalised Web2.0 involvement informal social media networks have sprung up, particularly in the recruitment and HR sectors that I operate in. These social networks are expanding via a word of mouth (word of media?) and are free to join. The discussions and debates that flow through them are un-moderated or at least peer-moderated and many close professional relationships amongst peers and even competitors are formed. Ideas are exchanged, topics discussed (sometimes hotly). Most participants and observers will grow professionally as a result of their interaction. More formalised groups and activities are evolving from these. The forthcoming TRU events in Australia and New Zealand are prime examples. These are commercialised recruitment industry events being held, by Web 2.0 networks wholly outside the controls and auspices of the traditional controlling institutions such as the RCSA. I think this is a good thing as a wider range of views and ideas will continue to be raised and debated.

As Web2.0 moves inexorably towards so-called Society2.0, these web-based social networks and their more formalised commercial offshoots will pose a continued threat to the established old-guard institutions. I see a time (in the not too distant future) when they will either be reduced to rump formal training accreditation institutions or will be subsumed completely by a variety of ever growing, evolving, melding and splintering cyber-groups.

The current institutions are largely controlled by members of the baby boomer and Gen Y generations. To many of this era, Society 2.0 with its fluid movement, freedom of expression and direct unmodified input into debates will seem like anarchy, but in order to preserve their relevance and be part of the debate and discussions these institutions must embrace social media and engage with the groups that have and will form to satisfy needs that the establishment is not currently meeting. Ignoring it will be their ultimate demise. They will be like King Canute, trying to hold back the sea.

Don’t be Pond Scum, I beg you.

Thu, 25 Mar 2010 23:15:00 GMT

By Aaron Dodd, Operations Director of the Mindset Group

As many of you know, I am passionate about improving the standards of the executive search and recruitment industries. Recruiters by and large have a very bad name, often compared to real estate agents and used car salespeople. There is no smoke without fire, and much of the criticism is justified. Not all recruiters are suspect of course. Many are fine hard working individuals who create real value for their clients and are appreciated by their candidates. But many are not. These others are a significant part of the recruitment scene, and their antics muddy the waters and make it much harder for the good guys’ messages to get through. I have been in the industry many years and am proud to be labelled a “recruiter”, even though that label also has many negative connotations. My company’s clients know that we are not like the rest, but the reputation of recruiters as a whole makes it challenging to attract new clients, hence my attempts to lead change in the industry.

Recruiters act as an interface (or broker) between employers and candidates and so have the ability to upset both their clients and their candidates.

The most common way they upset clients is by presenting candidates that don’t reflect what their candidate is looking for. Non-exclusive contingent recruiters are most to blame for this one. It’s a daft business model that pits competing recruiters to get a backside on a seat quickly so that they can get an invoice out. The emphasis is on speed not quality. This business model is also the one most likely to upset candidates as the time pressures involved mean that most contingent recruiters have little time for candidate care.

The market will take care of agencies that upset clients as they won’t get the briefs, so generally it will unfortunately take care of itself. Businesses without clients seldom last long.

Upsetting candidates however is another matter. There is an absolute groundswell of opinion from job seekers that recruiters are lower than pond scum. The tales that I have heard continue to stagger me. In crass terms, candidates are our stock. I have never heard of an industry that treats its inventory so poorly. Farmers do not mistreat their animals as their productivity will drop and they won’t get as much for them at market. Why do so many recruiters maltreat their candidates??

This blog post was triggered by two events today. The first was a call from an unsuccessful candidate thanking me for sending him a prompt “sorry you have been unsuccessful” email. He told me that it was so unusual he had to call me. It meant closure for him and he could move on to other things. I know that one day he’ll be a Mindset client. Candidate care should be king for recruiters. I urge everyone to;

Let candidates know what your process is up front
Acknowledge all applications, communications and follow-ups
Return ALL phone calls promptly
Let candidates know how they are progressing (or not)
Let them know that they have been unsuccessful, and what will be happening with their details.

Recruiters are in an unenviable position. If recruiting for a job via a job board they may have 100 applications. They are going to have to let down 99 of them and the way they do this is key. Make no mistake. Candidates will talk to other candidates. They do it everywhere; in the pub, over the phone and via social media. As I type this, I have been alerted to a Facebook page that has a stream of comments from job seekers commenting about their social media profiles (a whole other topic!). Clients also get to hear from disgruntled candidates and will often select their agency based on this feedback. They rightly don’t want shonks representing them in the market. Candidates will also often not apply to agencies that they have had bad past experiences with and so you will limit your talent pool.

All of that is candidate neglect. The other event that sparked this blog was what could only be described as candidate abuse. I thought I’d seen it all but this was a new low for me to witness. This agency is based in Sydney. Firstly this agency appeared to be doing the right thing and was sending acknowledgement letters to its candidates via email...however after the first cursory sentence thanking them for their application, it went on;

We are implementing a programme to assist you become "healthy, wealthy and wise".

Our commitment to you is to provide you with information on hot career opportunities, and inform you of opportunities to have regular networking events, educational events and industry forums, which we hope you will find of value.

As part of this initiative, I would like to invite you to a "Property Investing through Self Managed Super Funds" provided by [Name Withheld] on the 31st of March, which we are sponsoring, and is a free event to you. (Please note that there is a limit of 100 places available, so you need to register as soon as possible to ensure a seat is allocated to you.)

Click here to register.

Please see the invitation below for details.

If you live in Sydney, we would love to see you there. If you cannot attend, please feel free to download [Name withheld]’s ebook on Property and SMSFs. Click here to download the ebook.

If you would like to chat about the opportunity and how property and SMSF's can benefit you, I will be more than happy to refer you to the team at [Name Witheld], who have agreed to provide a complimentary meeting at our offices.

This recruiter clearly treats their applicants with contempt. An industry associate commented that they must think “Why waste digital letters on these people, instead we’ll just pitch back to them, hopefully we’ll make some comms out of these loser candidates who’ve got nothing else better to do than to apply for jobs with us, so they’re not a total waste of space”.

In summary, care for your candidates. They aren’t stupid. Many are or will become quite influential. Think long term, farm and cultivate your stock for maximum return!

Social Media and Background Checks - Yes or No?

Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:02:00 GMT

By Aaron Dodd, Operations Director

There have been some feisty twitter debates raging today around the ethics, legality and morality of the use of social media to conduct background checks on candidates. The debate is quite polarised.

The “anti camp” is claiming that using social media in this way is an invasion of privacy. They claim that recruitment selection decisions should only be based on professional criteria and to exclude someone from a position because of something they said on twitter or the football club they follow is fraught with legal issues. Some say that looking at a candidate’s Facebook page (if you somehow have access to it of course) is akin to snooping.

My stance on this debate is that once someone has published something about themselves, their personal views, activities etc then it is a matter of public record. If they don’t wish it to be public then they shouldn’t post it or they should set their sites’ security settings so that only those they wish to see it can see it. Once it’s public it’s public and when it’s on the web, it’s there forever. Of course it’s up to the reader to further test the veracity of the content being looked at. Just because it’s on the web doesn’t make it true!

If it is on the public record therefore, surely it’s information that can and often will be perused to gain further insight into a potential candidate. Often this information can support their application. It can also have an adverse effect. As it is on the public record, I don’t consider it “snooping”. If one was to hack private Facebook pages etc then yes…clearly that would be snooping, and illegal. If I look up someone’s home address in the white pages, is that “snooping”?

I know that many of our clients are regularly Googling potential candidates. To think this is going to “not happen” is naïve at best. Mindset as a company has also been asked by some clients to perform Social Media audits on potential candidates. All these are are lists of publicly available searched information. Sometimes the result of the audit is “nothing exists”. When this has happened, the lack of information has certainly not hindered (or supported) the candidate.

Many commercially available applicant tracking systems now also routinely spider social media sites to give users summary pages of a candidate’s social media profile. Clearly the use of social media as another tool for selection decisions is here to stay.

Marketers have been keeping records of what individuals search for and purchase for years. Often what they know about us commercially and personally pales into insignificance compared to what can be found by Google. This information is often traded and sold. I’ve seen little comments on the ethics or privacy concerns regarding this.

If candidates are concerned that their social media profile could compromise them in their job searches they should set their sites’ security settings appropriately. Another tip is to use a “clean” email address for their applications, i.e. one that isn’t linked to any of the social media sites (except perhaps LinkedIn). That way it’s harder for the ‘bots to find it.

The reality is that the information, accurate or not, is out there on the web now. It’s volume will only increase as more is added over time. To think it won’t be used by potential employers is naïve at best.

It’s amazing what you can uncover when you visit customers.

Thu, 28 Jan 2010 09:27:00 GMT

By Aaron Dodd
Operations Director of the Mindset Group

Today I was dismayed reading a twitter feed from a recruiter boasting that she had managed to talk her way out of meeting with a client who wanted a face-to-face with her. When I queried her she went on to boast that with technology she no longer had to even visit clients.

I have been in sales for most of my career. I first learned to sell with Pitney Bowes PLC in the UK, a truly excellent and professional sales environment that gave me a grounding and a sales ability that has subsequently seen me be successful in varied industries; office equipment, food ingredients, industrial filtration systems and lastly professional recruitment and HR services. One of the principal tenets that I learned at Pitney Bowes was to get face-to-face with your client/prospect. Doing so allows you to better develop rapport, understand their needs and close orders (it’s harder to say no to someone when they are in front of you in your office!).

I have been in the recruitment industry now for 12 years, and maximising time face-to-face with the decision maker has been a key to my and my company, Mindset’s approach. It is integral to our process;

1.   We spend significant time with key stakeholders gaining their input into the position description, key selection criteria, personality demands etc. This allows us to genuinely understand the role. Many of our clients now seek our expertise in being able to bring alternative aspects to the requirements.

2.   We present our shortlists face-to-face so that we can discuss each candidate in-depth with our clients, answer their questions and discuss their strengths and limitations.

3.   We present our Prevue assessment, reference checks and decision reports on shortlisted candidates face-to-face. We make our selection recommendations face-to-face.

What does all this client contact mean?

We develop an extremely close relationship with our clients. In competitive terms, we are almost unassailably close. Our numerous contacts often lead to discussions about other aspects of their business that Mindset can assist with. For us recruitment projects have thus led to software sales (our Performance Advantage appraisal software), leadership development programs, cultural surveys etc, not the least of which is more recruitment and selection assignments.

These discussions also lead us to better understanding of our clients’ businesses and the issues they face. Through this understanding we also do better selection work as we know their culture and market issues. Our clients also visually see the work we do and therefore appreciate the work we do and know how we earn our fees.

Let’s also not forget that visiting clients on their premises is much more fun than sitting in the office shuffling paper!

My proudly deskbound tweeter is correct in that technology more than ever makes it easier to avoid real client contact, but my experience is that avoiding client contact on the basis of “efficiency” is a very short-term approach. I urge professional consultants to get out there amongst it. New consultants to the industry, especially those establishing their own client bases should particularly heed this.

Many years ago (pre consulting) a sales rep of mine came back from a customer visit and said “Wow…it’s amazing what you can uncover when you visit customers”. That naïve statement still, and will always, hold true.

Cost-effective tips for uniting run down workers

Tue, 15 Dec 2009 23:58:00 GMT

HR Daily have provided some cost-effective tips for uniting run down workers. They explain that team-building activities to revive weary workers and boost morale don't have to be expensive and time consuming.

The simple act of listening is an important start – and costs nothing! Getting people into a room and sharing the ideas and sharing the frustration can make people realise that what they're going through is actually normal in those circumstances; that they're not the only one that is finding it frustrating or finding it hard, or who might be a bit fearful about job security or worried about job progression.

Running morale boosting team-building activities need not be expensive and a strain on the budget, but are extremely worthwhile. HR Daily has provided some great easy, cost effective suggestions:

• Run a community BBQ - Many organisations have started holding charity days, such as barbeques where workers serve food to homeless people. Employees will enjoy being taken out of the workplace for something different and are given the chance to get to know their co-workers on a different level.

• Hold whole-department Friday lunches - Although getting out of the office can be beneficial, team-building initiatives need not be off-site. The department can fund $5 to $10 a head or just arrange for the whole department to sit down and eat together.

• Start a book club – Employees elect to join and select a book to review. The fun comes in choosing an interesting location for the meeting to take place. This is a great opportunity to unite people, but it is not for everyone so it is important to take on board suggestions prior to launching.

• Activities are only limited by the imagination - so get creative!

Employers seeking to protect their assets through litigation

Wed, 09 Dec 2009 01:01:00 GMT

Wednesday’s Australian Financial Review (Workspace) and Recruiter Daily, both reported a similar story about “Employers cracking down on restraint-of-trade breaches”.

The stories were the results of recently released information from Harmer Workplace Lawyers, which discussed a sharp rise in the number of legal cases filed over the past six months as companies seek to aggressively challenge claims from outgoing employees, and stop their client base from leaving with departing employees.

“Tougher economic conditions usually result in an increase in litigation, and that is exactly what we have seen recently. During the boom times, often employers had been willing to sign ‘blank cheques’ in order to settle claims quickly, or they tended to disregard breaches of restraint of trade conditions. Now, however, they appear to be prepared to litigate more vehemently,” said Shana Schreier-Joffe, Partner at Harmers Workplace Lawyers.

The articles also discussed the expectation that 2010 will bring in a raft of workplace legal challenges from two main sources:

employers trying to protect their client base as employees depart for new positions through enforcement contractual restraint-of-trade clauses, and
employee instigated litigation for bullying, harassment and discrimination, as the new Fair Work Act comes into force from 1 January 2010.

To view the full Recruiter Daily article click here.

Go Home on Time Day – seriously not taken seriously

Fri, 04 Dec 2009 04:26:00 GMT

National ‘Go home on time day’ occurred last Wednesday (25th of November), and while the day managed to grab some great pre-event support from workers and employers, on the day it wasn’t taken so seriously.

The pre-event press – which included coverage on major Fairfax news websites including The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age and The Brisbane Times - quite clearly discussed the ‘overworked’ sentiments held by Australian workers from every industry.

And The Australia Institute, the event’s organiser, didn’t just have worker sentiment on their side. A report they released pre-event showed that on average a full time Australian employee works 70 minutes of unpaid overtime a day, which adds up to 2.14 billion hours, or $72 billion, in unpaid work every year – which equates to 6% of our economy.

Josh Fear, report co-author said, “Ultimately, managers and business owners have a responsibility to create an environment in which employees can work reasonable hours without risking their career, their health or their relationships.”

And so employees made the pledge to “Go Home On Time” on November 25th collecting a ‘leave pass’ from the site – 20,000 employees in total.

However, post-event articles which appeared on The Sydney Morning Herald and HR industry publication Human Resources Leader showed the follow-through figures don’t look quite so good.

A follow-up survey conducted the following day with 2,400 pledged participants showed that only 55% left work on time.

The most common reasons cited by the 45% who didn’t keep their promise were:

• having too much to do (68%),

• colleagues were working late (11%),

• forgot to go home on time (7%) and

• the boss made them stay late (7%).

Clearly the results show Australia hasn’t quite learned to take the concept of going home on time seriously.

Are you praising your employees?

Thu, 26 Nov 2009 05:20:00 GMT

Smart Company has reported on a new survey involving 3,053 employees that found that 62% of employees believe their managers are “Very Poor”, “Poor” or just “Satisfactory” at offering praise to their employees.

It is important to praise employees for a job well done. Managers need to make the time to recognise their people, especially in tough economic times where employees are often taking on extra responsibilities. It is essential for an employee to know their managers are supporting them and recognising their extra efforts.

52 percent of employees surveyed said that this lack of recognition will play a huge part in their decision to leave an organisation, and 28 percent would leave if they were not receiving any recognition at all.

Other key findings from the survey relating to managers include:

Managers don't know their people - two thirds of employees, across all generations are convinced their managers don't know what motivates them to be more productive, proving managers need to take the time to get to know what inspires and drives their people.
Employees lose out when recognition is up to the Manager - 70% of employees say the level of praise they receive from their manager depends on the priorities of the manager and the manager's style, and only 30 percent receive praise because it is company policy.
Praise is not frequent enough - One in five employees does not receive any praise at all or at best, it only happens once per year.
Recognition means the most from the manager - close to half of employees surveyed want to be recognised directly by their manager on a one on one basis.
This was followed by 37% who want a combination of recognition in front of their team, the entire company, one to one with the manager, and privately over email or a hand written note.

“Low-balling” Clients and how to Negate the Effects

Tue, 24 Nov 2009 04:13:00 GMT

By Aaron Dodd, Operation Director of the Mindset Group

In 23 November's Recruiter Daily Daryl Keeley, MD of specialist recruiter MACRO commented that “Low-balling” clients damage recruiters’ reputations. He is right of course, but the issue is more directly related to the contingent recruitment model.

If a recruiter is retained they are done so on a project fee basis, incorporating staged payments. The fee is negotiated up-front and is usually based on a percentage of the EXPECTED final salary package. The very act of up-front negotiation ensures that both the recruiter and the client are very aware of the salary on offer. There is no room for surprises down the track at offer time, so the low-balling scenario will not exist and the recruiter’s and client’s reputations will not be compromised. Further it commits both parties to a ‘shared risk’ model. Under the contingent model, all the risk lies with the consultant, hardly an equitable fair contract!

The other point to note is that if a client is offering a very low salary for a role and will not change their mind or their offer, why accept the assignment in the first place? If the role is going to be impossible to fill (or retain an effective candidate in) why do work that you ultimately won’t be paid for? It will make better use of time to use that non-billable time to find better new clients than to spend billable hours doing unbillable work recruiting for roles that can’t be filled due to low salary offers.

In summary therefore the Daryl Keeley’s accurate consequences of low-balling can be effectively negated with the retained model and a more selective approach to the work a recruiter actually takes on.

Inadequate leadership the real cause of the GFC?

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 01:56:00 GMT

The Human Resources Leader has reported that inadequate business models and failed leadership were major factors leading to the global financial crisis. In order to prevent this process from recurring again, questions have been raised about the fundamentals of leadership and how they must change.

What is HR’s role in changing leadership?

According to Harvard Professor Bill George and the CEO of Lloyds International David Smith, the HR department should be central in building a long-term leadership culture in a sustainable environment.

It is the human resources department’s job to build the leadership today – and for the future – he says, and to build the culture of the company. However George also says that the CEO needs to be the real chief human resources officer and that there is no substitution for face-to-face interaction.

“They should take the leadership role, they can’t just del egate this like they would to an accountant on how to keep the books,” he says. “The CEO must be the role model that he or she wants reflected in the organisation. And then that person must be out and about with the people at all levels and not just dealing with people at a board level,” says George.

Smith says that HR practitioners need to influence the discussions that take place, have lasting influence on the commercial terms of the business and be part and parcel of the top team.

“HR [practitioners], in a very sophisticated way, have tentacles into all the decisions of the business and I think that must be made clear to everybody,” says Smith.

“If one accepts the theory that the world has changed on the back of the GFC – maybe not forever, but certainly in the medium term – I think the way that we design our com pensation schemes, our incentive schemes and the way we motivate and lead people will be different. And I think that thought leadership in part should be led by our HR col leagues,” he says.

Proactive, says Smith, is an essential word in the process for HR, as is strategy. He says that the role of HR isn’t just about responding to people’s queries, but is a much more proactive role.

“It’s about taking that step forward, – thinking about where we’ve come from, thinking about where we want to go and [how to] influence leaders across all levels of the business.”

What can be done now?

Now is the best time for HR departments and executives to turn leadership on its head and make steps forward to being leaders of the future. This will not mean going back to previous practices, George says, but developing new strategies and a whole new mindset as to what it means to lead a company.

First, he says, leaders need to develop themselves as leaders and this comes from experience. He emphasises the importance of dealing with a crisis as one of the best lessons in leadership.

“There is no better test,” he says. “You can do all the simulation you want, you can do all the case studies, you can analyse how other leaders did – but there’s nothing that substitutes doing it yourself.”

George advocates that HR leaders take the top potential leaders of the future and get them involved in line assignments where they have to face a crisis and perform. He believes it is only through this that they can make mistakes and learn.

He remains adamant that all good leaders will demonstrate the ability to plan ahead while formulating policy that is positive now. “We should promote leaders who have that long-term view of the world, long-term vision and are willing to make that long term commitment and not trying to make quick-fix solutions,” he says. “If we have leaders who are just looking for a quick fix we’re going to be right back in this problem in five years.”

Lack of training will cause an increased skills shortage in 2010

Thu, 12 Nov 2009 03:59:00 GMT

HR Daily has reported on the Australian Industry Group and Deloitte National CEO Survey. The survey has found that Australian CEOs are planning to continue cutting their training budgets well into 2010 despite claims that things will soon start to pick up.

This lack of training will only exacerbate the skills shortage. Of the third of companies reporting plans to cut costs on training expenditure, one fifth expected reductions of greater than 20 per cent.

"Skills shortages continue to be a major strategic issue for business despite the downturn and its impact on employment," said Australian Industry Group chief executive Heather Ridout, in releasing the results.

More than a quarter of companies surveyed were severely affected by the economic downturn and budgets show the impact is far from over.

During the economic downturn business were forced to cut costs and this usually included employment and training budgets. As the downturn improves there will be a strong need to increase the level of training provided.

These budget cuts to training are affecting staff across the board, including senior managers.

"Under-investment in leadership training will need to be addressed if Australia is to take advantage of being one of the first economies to emerge from the downturn and attract the talent it needs to drive growth," said Deloitte Human Capital partner David Brown.

"Organisations will need to ensure they attract and retain more than their fair share of the available talent, particularly as we start to see an increase in the demand for talent in the new year."

Brown said "strong literacy and numeracy skills amongst flexible, motivated pools of talent are needed if we are to deliver on our nation's potential."

Questions raised about current HR practices in SMEs

Wed, 04 Nov 2009 04:59:00 GMT

James Thomson from Smart Company has written a great article about the findings of a survey conducted by compliance and governance firm CompliSpace. The survey shows that Australian SMEs have not done enough to understand the effects the final phase of the Fair Work Act will have on business.

The survey claims that 47% of organisations with 50-200 employees believe that management does not have a good understanding of the key changes to be introduced in the final phase of the Fair Work Act, including the introduction of the National Employment Standard and the Modern Awards.

The survey raises questions about current HR practices in SMEs.

Specifically, the survey found:

- 44% of respondents do not maintain copies of the relevant awards and/or agreements that apply to their organisation.

- 26% of respondents do not have an effective internal communication platform to provide all staff with easy access to current company policies and procedures.

- 33% of respondents do not adequately maintain an up-to-date suite of policies and procedures that deal with general conditions of employment.

The best way to protect yourself is by ensuring you have up-to-date, clear and concise paperwork including documented workplace policies and written records of staff dealings. This can be a time consuming process, if you take the time now you will avoid difficulties in the future.

A Heart-felt Thank You to Contingent Recruiters Everywhere!

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 03:11:00 GMT

By Aaron Dodd, Operations Director at The Mindset Group.

Much has been written of late about the many flaws in the contingent recruitment business model. Last week I experienced first-hand just how seriously poor the model is. Those that promulgate it and try to run their recruitment businesses with it will ultimately fail their businesses, clients and candidates. They also act as the best advertising money can’t buy for those recruiters who operate with better proven exclusive and ideally, retained models. The case story follows;

Preamble; Mindset only operates on retained exclusive recruitment and selection assignments. We will walk away from non-exclusive jobs and only work on a retained basis as we like to be paid for the work we do. The client in question has an exclusive retained services agreement with Mindset that commits them to use Mindset exclusively for all their recruitment activities for 12 months, in return for a set competitive fee structure. This is not a preferred supplier agreement but an exclusive supplier agreement. Mindset has many such agreements with its clients.

We are currently recruiting a State Manager for just such a client. Mindset has advertised the position and has also carried out a parallel search process to uncover suitable passive candidates. On Wednesday I commenced a first interview with a candidate who had responded to an advertisement. The first thing he said to me was “you should be aware that I was already interviewed for this position by another agency on Monday”. Further investigation revealed that a contingent recruiter without permission of the client had advertised the position and was interviewing candidates, telling them that he represented the client.

The client was duly forwarded a copy of the web advertisement and was rightly furious. He issued an immediate request to the contingent recruiter to immediately cease and desist all actions “on their behalf”. The MD and owner of our client is a former practicing solicitor and prior to running the business was partner in a major Melbourne law firm specialising in commercial law. He believes that the actions of this recruiter may well indeed be fraudulent as he is misrepresenting to candidates (and others) that he represents Mindset’s client.

Further it then transpired that Mindset had interviewed a candidate that we had uncovered through our search processes. This candidate had been “floated” to the local manager of our clients business a week or two earlier by the said recruiter. This local manager had met with the candidate but no offer had been made. No contract had been entered into either as the local manager does not have the authority to commit to such contracts.

The contingent recruiter then started to send threatening and unpleasant emails to our client about “his” candidates and that even if they were employed via Mindset (by no means a foregone conclusion for either) that he would be invoicing our client. The more these emails came in, the more the MD hardened his attitudes towards him and better yet, the more professional and ethical Mindset was perceived to be! Naturally the legally-trained MD wasn’t the least bit perturbed about the contingent recruiter’s threats. He was more annoyed that his time was being wasted by him.

Reading these emails it became clear to me that this contingent recruiter had assumed that ALL recruiters work with the same non-exclusive competitive model that he operates under. His thinking was so set that he was unable to conceive of an alternative way to run a recruitment business. He refused to accept the definition of “exclusive”, let alone “retained”. This recruiter also had 22 separate positions listed on a major job board. It needs to be asked; how could a client possibly get a quality service from someone with allegedly so much work on their desk already? How many of these jobs were even legitimate? Our client’s listing certainly wasn’t!

To summarise the effect that the non-exclusive contingent business model has;

Candidates are pissed off as their time is being wasted and their hopes dashed by recruiters interviewing them for jobs that they either don’t have or don’t exist.
Clients are pissed off as most MDs would prefer to select the company that represents them in the marketplace.
Clients get poor service as the clear focus is speed of getting a backside on a seat, not necessarily the right backside!
Antics such as the above give the recruitment industry a bad name, but conversely make the ethical professional ones that create real value look fantastic.

I recognise that there will be shonky operators in any industry and trust that market-forces will ultimately weed them out. However in the meantime I thank them profusely and encourage them wholeheartedly. They entrench our clients with us and drive new ones to us in their scores. Once they are with us they don’t leave!

How accountants can make recruiters’ jobs much easier

Mon, 26 Oct 2009 00:54:00 GMT

By Aaron Dodd, Operations Director, the Mindset Group

Over the last few weeks Mindset’s talent division started to receive an unusually high number of applicants from a large American medico-pharma company with a significant presence in Australia. This was unusual as this company has until recently had a high reputation for good HR practices and high staff engagement. Their employees have been hard to attract!

Our consultants started to probe deeper as to the reasons for the sudden change. It seems that with the GFC the company’s margins were being eroded so the accounting department had been asked to start clawing back money where ever it could be found. Being a listed US company, short-term quarterly reporting is paramount. Actions to make the books look better can often contradict good long-term HR policy. This was just such a case.

Mindset was given two clear examples of this;

1. Earlier in the year, high achieving salespeople, as a reward, were given the opportunity to travel to an international convention in Asia. These junkets are common in the industry. They were flown there, accommodated, entertained etc. Before they departed they were given the HR spiel about being on their best behaviour as they were representing the company etc. They travelled and had a good time. Some months later all the attendees received an invoice for Fringe Benefits Tax (FBT), and not insignificant amounts. Naturally they were all mortified. Most would not have gone had they known they’d be billed for it. Great reward huh? It turned out that the accountants had decided after the event that the FBT should be paid by the employees and not the company as would be the normal practice.

2. The head office has a gym on site that all staff can use. Some years ago for fairness it was felt that interstate staff should also have gym access, so memberships at local gyms were sourced and paid for by the company. This year, for the first time, those interstate with company-paid gym memberships got charged FBT. Naturally those head office staff with the in-house gym didn’t get the FBT bill. So much for fairness!!

Both these actions by an errant runaway accounts department have now resulted in a significantly disengaged and demotivated professional sales team, many of whom are now looking for work elsewhere. This company’s annual revenue in Australia is in the $100m+ range and by any measure is very profitable. Further the Australian business probably accounts for less than 5% of their global income so the local FBT savings are insignificant compared to the long-term damage the accounting policies and actions have caused. The costs to the business will be significant as recruiters can now easily place these staff into their competitors.

According to the applicants, the HR department seems blissfully unaware or incapable of overturning the decision. Based on this observation alone it is clear that the company’s publicised vision for HR/employee of choice is nothing but corporate doublespeak.

Two-thirds of workers disengaged, exodus looming

Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:26:00 GMT

The HR Daily have written an article explaining that nearly two in three workers are at risk of fleeing their jobs with the next 12 months. They say that there is a large proportion of the workforce with potentially itchy feet. Now that the job market shows signs of recovery, those people will feel more confident about making a move elsewhere.

"People systems" and leaders falling short
The HR Daily article follows the release of Organisational Effectiveness and Employee Engagement, a Right Management report based on a survey of nearly 29,000 workers from around the world.

It reveals that fewer than one in two employees believe they work in an organisation with the "people systems" and leaders capable of driving the "right behaviours", and only 54 per cent think their company has a "positive culture".

In Australia, some 36 per cent of workers are "committed to making the organisation a success", compared to 11 per cent in Japan, 43 per cent in New Zealand and 44 per cent in the US.

The transport, storage and communication sector has the lowest engagement levels (at 30%), followed by manufacturing (32%) and the retail trade (33%).

Mining has the highest engagement rates (48%), followed, at a distant second, by finance, insurance and business services (38%).

Tellingly, the survey also reveals a strong relationship between high levels of disengagement and low levels of perceived customer satisfaction, making it particularly difficult for employers to execute or achieve "steady business results".

Employers must strive to "engage and delight"
Employers must continuously "search for new and better ways to engage employees" and "delight customers and stakeholders", the report states.

But business leaders "have a long way to go to align and engage their employees to their strategy".

According to Beattie, engagement levels in Australia have been steadily declining over the last four years (from 38.1% in 2005 to 35.7% in December 2008).

"This decline in engagement isn't surprising, given the sense of dislocation during the global financial crisis," she says.

"However, it is concerning. Research has consistently shown that employee engagement is powerfully linked to a range of success factors, including productivity, customer satisfaction and staff retention.

"Employers battling their way out of the downturn really need to get it right. When the economy is tight... companies are even more dependent on the discretionary effort of their people; they need them to do more than simply turn up."

According to the report, engagement - or the degree of employee/organisational alignment - is driven by the skill, alacrity and support of leaders, customer relationships, training investment and competitive pay.

Achieving a truly engaged workforce, it says, hinges on "investing in the selection and development of capable leaders, employees' learning and development and getting reward systems right".

Employers must strive for "a 'fit for purpose' organisational structure where people understand what is expected of them and what they are accountable for".

This, in turn, should create a positive workplace culture, it says, in which the "systems, symbols and behaviours that leaders and other employees are exposed to" are aligned with the business strategy.

The economics of the talent shortage and what employers need to do NOW

Fri, 09 Oct 2009 05:10:00 GMT

By Aaron Dodd, Operations Director of the Mindset Group

Prior to the GFC we saw articles almost daily on the so-called talent shortage. Such clichéd headlines as “Winning the War for Talent” were commonplace. My own company, Mindset used them as did everyone else. These headlines and articles have subsided of late but the talent shortage is still there. It's like a wild beast hibernating; waiting for the thaw - which will be here sooner than most Australians think. In fact, many would argue that it’s waking now as the extra cold metaphorical winter we've just experienced comes to an end.

Apart from the shortage of growth capital that the GFC has induced, the biggest threat to corporate growth in Australia (indeed the Western world) is the shortage of talent. The only reason the headlines have subsided is that the demand side of the economic equation has dropped. The supply side has not moved.

So what has caused this talent shortage?

The populations of Western economies, such as Australia, are aging. As more of the population retire and leave the workforce, we have relatively fewer productive members remaining in it.
The dwindling labour supply is increasingly less qualified. In Australia this is the result of decades of financial neglect of the country's schools, TAFEs and universities. Both Labor and Liberal parties have been guilty of this, although under John Howard, the issue became noticeably worse with a corresponding increase in expensive private school enrollments as desperate aspirational parents attempted to provide their kids with an education supposedly better than the States' systems (although often not).
The increasing affluence of Australian society has meant that most people are wealthier. Many formerly working-class families are now economically classed as “middle-class” although most would not realise or acknowledge it. What this has meant is that their children now have different career expectations and are now no longer interested in the sorts of labour-intensive jobs their parents may well have been happy to accept at their age.

What is the effect of the talent shortage?

Like any economic equation the shortage of talent has put pressure on its cost; i.e. wages have increased relative to their productive merit. This has in turn put pressure on the prices of services and manufactured goods. In numerous cases it has become more cost effective to manufacture goods in talent rich, low-cost countries such as China and India. Even services are now often outsourced to call-centres in India, the Philippines and others.
If a business cannot pay more for its staff, find more productive ways of utilising their people or relocate then it is likely to be in serious financial trouble in the medium-term. As we move out of the effects of the GFC, there will be a significant period of employment turmoil within Australia. Many unhappy employees who were biding their time will start actively looking for alternative employment. Adding to this, as employer confidence returns they will start seeking more employees to help them grow their businesses...i.e. the demand side of the equation will rise again increasing the gap between the static supply side and the rising demand side still further.

As an employer, what can you do?

Proactivebusinesses are focusing on their existing staff NOW. They are putting in place whatever measures they can to retain their staff and minimise the losses they expect from the coming turmoil. My company Mindset, has been active with numerous clients determining staff engagement levels, coaching managers to be better motivational leaders and putting in place effective performance management, feed-back and feed-forward systems.
Other businesses are utilising Mindset's talent-mapping processes to effectively understand and develop relationships with the key people in their sector so that when they need those people they can simply tap them on the shoulder and draw them into their businesses with minimal fuss and expense.
Many organisations are reviewing their relationships with their recruitment suppliers. They are re-establishing relationships so that when the need comes they can speed up the briefing process. Most companies are now looking for relationships with highly consultative recruitment suppliers recognising that traditional transactional contingent recruiters offer little value, especially when the going gets tough and they have to find candidates from outside the industry or from alternative more innovative sources.

For maximum strategic impact these actions need to start NOW. For a confidential discussion on how Mindset's transformation, talent and technology divisions can work together to deliver an integrated approach to delivering solutions to your business's forthcoming recruitment and retention challenges, please contact us.

How would an iSnack2.0 selection decision affect your business?

Thu, 01 Oct 2009 03:19:00 GMT

By Aaron Dodd, Operation Director of the Mindset Group

This week has seen us witness the hilarious and ongoing Kraft iSnack2.0 marketing debacle. Although no longer Australian owned, the Vegemite brand is an icon in Australia and New Zealand. Like any icon brand, it takes a brave marketer to try and change it. The only comparative episode I can think of was the global “new’ Coca Cola of few years back. This was met with such significant public uproar that Coke eventually dropped the “new” Coke and reverted back to Coke “Classic”. Arguably iSnack2.0 is a new product, it hasn’t replaced Vegemite, but the icon brand has been seriously compromised. It’s not a lethal blow, but the brand will carry some scars for some time yet. After only 4 days Kraft have now announced that the brand will change as Australians don’t like it! How many millions has this cost Kraft? A 30sec advert in the middle of the AFL Grand Final was selling for over $120,000 alone.

What has made this worse for Kraft, is the publicity leading up to the new name launch during the AFL Grand Final (one of the biggest TV viewing events in Australia each year). For months we have seen the product on our Supermarket shelves with label marked “name me”. A competition has been running to source name ideas. According to Kraft they have had over 48,000 suggestions from 35,000 different people, with 16,000 unique suggestions. So from this, the best they could come up with was iSnack2.0.

So how does something like this happen? Kraft has a large consumer marketing team, probably well paid, well qualified and experienced. In my experience when situations such as this arise, it’s usually due to one or both of the following;

1. Groupthink (according to Wikipedia) is a type of thought exhibited by group members who try to minimise conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analysing, and evaluating ideas. This can occur most commonly if the dominant team member likes an idea and is surrounded by position-security team members (“yes men or women”). Anecdotally there has been a rise in groupthink occurrence during the GFC as team members can be more reluctant to challenge the status quo or their Manager.

2. A lack of external perspective. Creative marketers need to be constantly stimulated by the world and people around them. They need to have their finger on the pulse of their target demographics and come up with product and campaigns that will grab their demographics’ attention. If a marketer is so out of touch that they make a decision based on their gut feel and personal preference, then it is likely to be out of touch with reality and fail

No doubt Kraft had some sort of external Marketing advice. Did that external advice have the acuity, confidence and independence to challenge the selection of the iSnack2.0 brand? If so was the advice heeded, or was it ignored? We will probably never know.

Mindset’s consulting business prides itself on its ability and willingness to challenge the established ways of doing something in a client organisation. After all when a consultant is engaged, you are seeking their external perspective and ability to bring something new to the table. A good consultant will break down Groupthink and throw new ideas into the mix.

Whether it’s recruiting a new team member, establishing new leadership paradigms or aligning individual performance with corporate goals, each of these can often be better achieved by bringing in an external consultant.

Recruitment and selection is especially prone to Groupthink when handled internally. How often have I heard the common refrain “we want another Roger” (or Bill or Diane etc)? A critical analysis of the position may in fact reveal a very different type of person is now required in the role. In fact the reason good old Roger left was that the role’s critical demands had changed quite markedly over time and the role no longer suited him. Mindset’s consultative transformational recruitment approach can and will uncover these anomalies and allow you to make better selection decisions.

Contact Mindset next time you need to make a critical strategic HR decision. How costly would an iSnack2.0 selection decision be to your business? Probably many times more than the investment you would make with the Mindset Group.

Can Your Business Win a Premiership?

Mon, 28 Sep 2009 00:10:00 GMT

By Aaron Dodd, Operations Director at the Mindset Group

On the weekend I watched the AFL Grand Final and witnessed probably two of the greatest AFL teams in history battle out an exciting tight contested game. Neither team deserved to lose, Geelong prevailed in the end. St Kilda’s leaders will use the loss as a motivator for next and subsequent years.

Many parallels can be drawn between successful sports teams and businesses (teams of people as well). A quick review of the two teams leads to some interesting (though not unexpected) conclusions.

Both clubs have recruited and selected well. Without the raw talent, no amount of excellent coaching will transform it. This is a fundamental precondition for any successful organisation. In the business world, there has been much criticism of recruiters of late. In my opinion, much of it is justified. However, specialist, consultative recruiters have continued to do well and be in demand throughout the financial crisis. This is because they create genuine value for their clients. In the AFL football world, most clubs recognise that sourcing talent is a critical skill that they may not have in-house. These clubs routinely use external talent scouts (the code’s equivalent of recruiters) to spot talent in the junior leagues, remote leagues (e.g. the NTFL and even Gaelic Football in Ireland). Not only do these scouts (recruiters) identify the talent, they then facilitate bringing the individual to the respective club. All AFL clubs will acknowledge that good talent scouts can make the difference to their clubs’ successes. It is no different in the business world, and let’s face it, AFL clubs are big business.

Once the talent is sourced, success is then determined by club leadership and coaching. St Kilda is arguably one of the least successful clubs in the competition’s history having famously only ever won one premiership (by a single point) in 1966. Although I’m a Kangaroos supporter, most of my local family are passionate St Kilda tragics so I have some insight into the club. It is a club renowned for management instability and dubious Machiavellian internal politics. For decades, club members have watched their beloved club tear itself apart from the inside. Lack of success on-field has inevitably followed. Only in the last few years has management/leadership stability finally come to the club and with that success has followed. A key lesson to be learned therefore is strong, stable, consistent focused leadership. The club has devised a strategic plan and the management team, functioning as a team, has delivered it. Success has followed. Geelong similarly has had a stable successful leadership team that has now delivered them two premierships in three years. For success therefore, businesses must have stable, consistent and proactive leadership with a defined plan for success.

And finally, one of the keys for delivering on-field success for all AFL clubs is performance management. Every player is meticulously measured and tracked. Many wear miniature GPS units on the field to track how far they run, where they run etc. Each player is constantly measured on dozens of KPIs; fitness, skin-fold tests, handling-errors, teamwork, skills, time-keeping, tackle-counts, goals, to name but a few. Each player knows their individual KPIs and also recognises that if they don’t meet them they could be dropped. Equally, if they do meet them, they will be rewarded with more game time, better contracts etc.

In summary therefore, like football, your business will be successful if you recruit and select well (don’t hesitate to use outside advice from competent consultative recruiters if it helps to get even a marginally better result). Ensure your business has a stable cohesive and focused leadership team and make sure you scrupulously measure what you actually do (both company and individuals).

The Mindset Group, can assist with all three areas; recruitment and selection, leadership development and performance management. Contact us for a confidential discussion on how we can help your organisation win a premiership.

Perhaps it’s them not us? Generation Y may have it right?

Wed, 23 Sep 2009 00:31:00 GMT

By Aaron Dodd, Operations Director at the Mindset Group.

Much has been written of late about the “personality” of so-called Generation Y. They are a much maligned generation. My generation (X) seems to see them as disloyal, lacking in perseverance, short attention spans, seeking instant gratification etc. From an HR perspective there has been much written about how to attract, motivate and retain them in the workforce. Before the GFC these articles were everywhere. We see them less now, but the perceived issue will return as Western economies recover.

I sit on my son’s High School curriculum committee as a parent representative. There are student representatives also on the committee. The young adults I have met there are well-spoken, hard-working and have a strong moral sense to them. They show respect to their teachers and peers alike. Clearly many of the negative comments about Generation Y as a whole are stereotypes. However like many stereotypes, there is a grain of truth to them.

It is true that Generation Y tend not to have the ingrained company loyalty that my generation have. They are more forthright and blunt in their statements if they disagree with a policy or management decision. Generation Y is also much more likely to make an employment decision (or unemployment decision) based on environmental concerns or fit with organisational culture. In short if they don’t like how they or their peers are treated or the way their employer treats their community or the environment they will leave.

Many Generation Y do not suffer from affluenza the way my generation does. They are not motivated by the big McMansions, the European car in the drive and the overseas holidays. As many of my Generation X friends, peers and colleagues mid-life crises can attest, money doesn’t make you happy.

I argue that perhaps it’s we who are wrong? Misguided loyalty means many of us have worked for years for long hours for poor pay in crappy conditions on the promise that one day we’ll get that promotion and that the company will always look after us. This is a notion that must be cast away. The fact that Generation Ys have the confidence to look us in the eye and say “No I’m not putting up with this” is the correct attitude. Generation Y’s focus on the environment; in fact their focus on fixing the mess that my generation’s afflueza created is laudable.

So as employers, before we write off Generation Y, perhaps we should take a long hard look at our values, how we treat our employees and the effect that our businesses and lifestyles have on those around us. All of us will probably be found wanting in some areas. One thing is for sure, Generation Y may not have our lifestyle, but they and their families and communities will likely be richer for it.

Leadership commitment

Wed, 16 Sep 2009 02:45:00 GMT

HR Daily have written an article explaining that the brands of top-performing companies are characterised by an emphasis on the experience of employees instead of customers.

The article explains that the “best employers” are differentiated from other employers in five key ways, one of these areas is leadership.

Leadership commitment
Leadership commitment is the fundamental starting point for high-engagement employers, David Clarke says. "This commitment is not about saying the right things, but exhibiting behaviours and making decisions that clearly signal people are their greatest asset."

The behaviour of leaders needs to demonstrate that developing and retaining strong talent is a critical element of business success, he says, "but their role goes beyond this. Leaders in 'best employer' organisations play a pivotal role in defining and championing the organisation's values and building a culture and an environment that values people".

Leaders, he says, set the tone through their openness, involvement and leadership style. "While they instil a strong sense of accountability, they also make a commitment to growing and stretching their people."

Clarke notes that while senior leadership is generally ranked in the top five most important engagement drivers during stable times, it ranks in the top two during times of change.

"Clearly, in the current economic environment, it is critical for leaders to demonstrate their commitment to the people in their organisation, and ensure that this message is effectively cascaded to managers."

A new way of dealing with recruiters? I don’t think so.

Wed, 09 Sep 2009 05:20:00 GMT

Atlassian are a Sydney-based, enterprise software company. They provide products to over 15,000 customers in 113 countries. They are currently recruiting 32 engineers for their Sydney office.

Atlassian have set specific rules for recruiters who want to work with them. Calling them Bounty Hunters and they've set the following recruiting rules:

Rule 1: You can't empty your candidate database into our inbox.
The first time you send us candidates, you can only submit a maximum of 4 candidates (across a 5 month period).

Rule 2: Great candidate, means a great relationship
Make sure that these candidates are awesome. If one (or more) of these 4 candidates is hired, you are eligible to submit more candidates and become our recruitment partner.

Rule 3: Unsuitable candidates, sorry mate!
If none of these candidates you put forward is good enough, then we must unfortunately part ways.

More information can be found on the atlassian website.

Our response to this is:

Mindset's talent division operates with a different process and methodology to most. Mindset takes a long term consultative partnership approach with its clients to ensure that the role is scoped in its entirety using our High Performance Role Clarity (HPRC) Definition process.

This takes in not just skills, qualifications and experiences but also maps out the ideal personality profile for that particular role at that point in time. The HPRC takes into account the multiple and often conflicting requirements of the role’s various stakeholders.

Once the role is scoped Mindset then goes through a comprehensive talent sourcing exercise so that we then have a pool of candidates to select from. Mindset then works with its clients through a structured screening interview, assessment, debrief and reference checking process to be able to make a final recommendation to our clients.

The HPRC, our process, the assessment etc all create significant value for our clients, not least of which is that they end up with a candidate who will deliver the required results in a shorter ramp-up time and with an excellent fit for the company culture, and a much longer “guarantee” period. However to deliver this result, a Mindset consultant must also do significantly more than a conventional “flick & stick” recruiter and as a result we have to charge more for our services, and only a retained basis.

Throughout the GFC our recruitment volumes have increased as a result of this focus on creating client value. Mindset has been recruiting new consultants to keep up with the volume of work while others have been shedding staff.

Our take on Atlassian is that it is an approach that will work to screen out the vast bulk of contingency recruiters who add little value to their clients’ businesses. However, the Atlassian approach also takes little account of innovative more-value added recruitment and selection approaches. It tars the whole industry with the same brush.

Mindset won’t participate as 1) the fees aren’t worth our efforts and 2) Atlassian probably wouldn’t appreciate the value of our approach and therefore be prepared to pay what our service is worth....and hey, we’re cool with that! Some companies just aren’t ready for us.

Where HR can add the most value

Wed, 26 Aug 2009 01:32:00 GMT

The HR leader and Libby Sartain have reported that CEO’s now rank HR as one of the functions that adds the most value to their organisation. CEO’s commented that people issues, such as finding and keeping the right talent and building a high-performance culture, are at the top of the corporate strategic agenda as keys to sustainable competitive advantage. By focusing on HR you can easily add value to any organisation.

Where HR can add the most value
Start the culture conversation at all levels. One way to accomplish this is to conduct a cultural assessment or audit of your organisation through employee surveys, focus groups or interviews. Review your organisational history, leadership styles, HR programming and industry practices to determine what currently drives and reinforces the culture. Finally, what is your customer experience? What cultural elements are obvious to customers? Is culture aligned with business strategy? Where are the disconnects? What needs to change? This can be the basis for healthy discussion at team meetings and employee chat sessions.

Develop a business case for cultural change. Why is the change needed? How will desired changes in culture support the business strategy?

Work with the senior leadership team to determine the desired culture. Core values, desired behaviours and shared vision are essential for a positive culture change effort to succeed. Every leader must embrace the need to change, or it won’t happen. Senior leaders must make new behaviours their way of life to reinforce desired change.

Develop an agenda or action plan for enhancing the culture or bringing about change. Start with the highest priorities and work on the toughest issues. For your culture to become self replicating, the way things are done will have to reinforce the core values and the culture.

Communicate what needs to change and why. Solicit input from people. Once the needed changes and process for change is defined, tell people what is expected. What are the rewards for changing, and the consequences for more of the same.

Change the organisational structure to enable change. Find new ways to accomplish work tasks. Use teams for one-time projects. Broaden roles and responsibilities.

Acquire talent based on cultural fit. Identify the characteristics of people who exhibit those behaviours that you’ve identified as desirable. The people who fit and thrive in your culture will perpetuate that culture in everything they do. If you have to choose between the candidate who has better skills or knowledge but doesn’t fit, and a candidate who is slightly less qualified but fits culturally, choose the slightly less qualified person and provide the necessary training or on-the-job experience. Get rid of those who don’t fit in the culture.

Redesign your on-boarding process. Make sure that every new hire knows what it will take to fit in, and understands the cultural imperatives. Talk about the ways of working that lead to success and those that will derail careers. Create legendary stories of successes and failures.

Create cultural messages. Be sure that every meeting, every training program, every communication to people includes cultural messaging and reinforces the values, mission, traditions and practices.

Involve everyone. Southwest Airlines has a culture committee, but there are many ways to get people involved. Try focus groups around topics. Form cross functional teams. Call random groups of employees together for monthly breakfast or lunch meetings. Engage the help and support of a group of passionate, committed people to identify cultural disconnects and recommend remedies.

Build an internal brand that supports the external brand. Make a promise to deliver a consistent employee experience. Be sure that your employees know the differentiating elements in their experience in the organisation that will enhance their work lives and careers. Begin to create an employer of choice reputation internally and externally.

Recognise and reward results. Your recognition and rewards should support the culture that you are working to reinforce.

Cultivate leaders who promote your culture. Develop excellent leaders who will propel the culture down the ranks. Identify high potential leaders and promote them. Invest in leadership development programs. Be sure content reinforces cultural messages. Keep the good ones, and get rid of those who are unable to pass the culture on.

Make it interesting and fun. Create contests, activities that enhance the culture. Decorate the office in inspiring ways. Celebrations and events can reinforce the message.

Use HR tools. Something as mundane as the annual benefits enrolment can be a source of key cultural messages. Every training class should reinforce the basic behaviours and values that reinforce the culture. Performance review forms should measure cultural fit, as well as, job performance.

No one should be locked out of the efforts to build a high-performance culture. Culture has to become the DNA that forms the building blocks over everything else. So the entire organisation must have a role in keeping it alive. Work with corporate communications, advertising, and marketing to capture the culture messages and tout these internally and externally. Let product management see that new product development manifests the cultural values in the way it responds to the marketplace demand for quality and service. Work with your legal department to demonstrate the company culture by developing ethical standards and a code of conduct that is not just in compliance but also the right thing to do.

And remember that no, one department can force corporate culture on to the rest of the company. You must achieve buy-in from everyone, from the CEO all the way down. This way you play it safe and also to win!

Human Resources Leadership in Difficult Economic Times

Wed, 19 Aug 2009 01:46:00 GMT

Human Resources IQ has written an article claiming that the current economic situation is creating difficulties for human resources leaders.

The economic challenges that we are facing are creating a difficult environment for human resources leaders. Many companies are simultaneously experiencing surplus and scarcity of talent and are struggling to find the right human resources delivery models, the right labor and organizational structure and solutions for attracting and retaining key talent. In recent years, a distinct trend has emerged. More companies are selecting human resources leaders who do not come from traditional human resources backgrounds. An unscientific look at recent changes in human resources leadership shows that nearly two in five human resources leaders have come from outside the human resources function in the past five years versus pervious trends of one in 10. Reasons cited by corporations are many, including:

An increasing need to get the people part of the business right
Concern over the ability of traditional human resources leaders to understand the company and deliver business-oriented solutions
“Human Resources Transformation” initiatives that are too slow to deliver results
An inability of human resources to get costs under control
A lack of robust people analytics

The emerging model is to place a strong operations leader in the top human resources spot and surround him or her with the appropriate experts who have deep functional knowledge. Operations leaders tend to have demonstrated strong people management skills in their roles and are seen as strong people managers. The expectation is that these leaders can model the behaviors of good managers and better balance business needs with more traditional human resources concerns. In addition, there is a strong focus on operational leaders who have led business transformation efforts and have a strong grasp of metrics and cost-cutting. Their mandate is often to simultaneously make human resources more efficient and effective with a strong focus on improving business results.

This trend has been enabled by a number of changes in the vendor marketplace, including the evolution of both the human resources outsourcing and human resources systems markets. Companies have more and more options for getting core human resources services and technology delivered and can find others to do many of the transactional activities. This allows these operational leaders to leverage their external relationships while focusing on the most strategic human resources priorities for the business. In addition, having the right staff with the appropriate expertise is critical to making these leaders successful.

Read the full article.

Adverse action most concern for employers

Wed, 12 Aug 2009 03:50:00 GMT

HR leader explains the new discrimination law powers of the Fair Work Ombudson should cause concern amongst employers.

The recent changes to the Federal Disability Discrimination Act should not be employers’ greatest concern. The impact of the new discrimination law powers of the Fair Work Ombudsman are of more significance, according to Jane Seymour of Justitia Lawyers & Consultants.

Although the changes to the Disability Discrimination Act, which came into effect on 5 August, will affect employers, Seymour said the newly introduced right of employees to make a discrimination complaint to the Fair Work Ombudsman should cause employers more concern.

“The recent changes to the Federal disability legislation do change the detail of the law, but not so significantly that employers can either relax or, on the other hand, have to significantly tighten their practice,” said Seymour.

She said what should be of more concern for employers is potential prosecution by the Fair Work Ombudsman for taking discriminatory “adverse action” – where employees can make a direct complaint to the Fair Work Ombudsman in relation to disability (and other types of ) discrimination.

“This adds a much greater risk for the employer who puts a foot wrong in the area of disability,” said Seymour. “Employers could face investigation, prosecution and potentially a penalty of up to $33,000 for each breach.”

Since 1 July the Fair Work Ombudsman can start legal proceedings against an employer found to be discriminating against an employee.

The recent changes to the Disability Discrimination Act include the introduction of an explicit obligation to provide “reasonable adjustments” and extending the availability of the “inherent requirements” and “unjustifiable hardship” defences.

“One of the main changes is that the onus of proof has shifted from the employee to the employer,” said Seymour.

Leadership Today

Thu, 06 Aug 2009 06:47:00 GMT

Professor Susen Varghese from SIES College of Management Studies shares her views on leadership in today’s modern society and how to ensure leadership is effective.

Peter F Drucker once said “Leaders grow, they are not made”
Leadership today has become a very multi meaning term. Professionals from various disciplines have defined ‘Leadership’ in different ways. Paradigm shifts in the cultures of organisations and the consistent parallel and horizontal development of companies have raised the need to look at leadership in a new angle.

A strong company is the one that has leaders spread all across the company, not just at the top. The business world today needs both good leaders and good managers. However, because of the rapid change occurring in the industry today, a company needs far more leaders, not more managers.

Appointing the right Leader
Time after time again, businesses put the wrong person in charge. Unintentionally, they reward a "don't rock the boat" mentality. Conformity and status quo are the first steps leading down the staircase of a business disaster. Good leaders develop through a never ending process of self-study, education, training, and experience.

As correctly quoted by Ray Croc “The quality of a leader is reflected in the standards they set for themselves”. Effective leadership arises out of groups, organisations and communities that have built trust, and learned to collaborate and make decisions and solve problems constructively.

Successful Leadership
True leadership is about taking people to a place they wouldn't go to by themselves. Good leaders don't merely supervise; they create a sense of purpose and direction for those they lead.

Organisations can only build great leaders in an environment that nurtures and supports that development. If they don’t have such an environment, they need to change their culture to create one. But organizations cannot change their culture without good leadership.

Leaders need to "be present" and being literally; physically present is the fundamental meaning of that term. We're always surprised at how many leaders we encounter who spend most their time in their offices or on "executive row."

They seldom show themselves to those they lead. It has been over twenty years that the groundbreaking book ‘In Search of Excellence’ pointed out the virtues of "Management by Walking Around." Mayor Giuliani certainly demonstrated the wisdom of that practice.

But being present means more than just physical presence, important as that is. It means being present in the moment - focused totally and completely on what is happening right here and right now. It means, when you're with people, giving them your full attention, so that they will feel recognized and motivated. When you're not present to the people you lead, it weakens their willingness to commit.

Being present also means being flexible, able to deal spontaneously with rapid change. Think of being present as a focused but flexible dance with the world in which the leader can instantly change step or tempo as the music changes.

Using effective leadership to avoid Employee burnout and high staff turnover
Good leadership is also instrumental in avoiding employee burnout and reducing staff turnover. James Bradley lately pointed out that “Burnout is no longer the acknowledged domain of the highly pressured lawyer or doctor, but a condition that can hit anyone at any time in their career if they are faced with high productivity expectations in a hostile and unsupportive environment”. The key then, is a business philosophy that values its people and invests to nourish and support development through professional training, coaching and mentoring. Problems only arise when this is not set in place as a positive encouraging mechanism, but instead is used as a whip by ill-equipped management. It needs to inspire people, raise morale and restore a sense of purpose and self-worth, naturally leading to best performance.

As Natalie Calvert, MD, Calcom Group points out “Positivity and optimism in the workplace encourage tolerance and balanced judgement, and inspirational leadership enables access to those positive qualities that build our self-respect and contentment - the ultimate preventative medicine for burnout”.

Tips to achieve effective leadership
Thus, the ‘leader today’ requires to stick to certain must do’s in order to be effective, successful and sustaining in this ever changing corporate governance. These essentials can be listed as:-

01. Being there.

02. Always remember, Communication is the key.

03. Instilling optimism while staying grounded to reality.

04. Tell the hard truths.

05. Minimize status differences and insist on courtesy and mutual respect.

06. Master conflict. Deal with anger in small doses and engage dissidents.

07. Take care of yourself: Maintain your stamina and let go of guilt.

08. Reinforce the team message constantly.

09. Find something to celebrate and something to laugh about.

10. Have the courage to take big risks, and more.

11. Foster a spirit of tenacious creativity. Never give up—there’s always another move.

Global Mindset Survey Results May 2009

Wed, 29 Jul 2009 05:37:00 GMT

rogenSi have released their May survey results aiming to help organisations understand the impact of the financial crisis on the mindset of the global workforce.

Introduction
There can be no doubt that the financial crisis of the last 12 months has impacted on the mindset of the global workforce. This survey specifically focused on the mindset of exceptional performance. This is not to deny the critical importance of knowledge, skills and process, but it is ultimately the mindset of team members that drives their energy and resourcefulness.

A significant challenge leaders currently face is to deliver exceptional results in a very difficult climate, whilst simultaneously maintaining employee engagement and morale. Whether their focus and concerns are at the survival end or the accelerated growth end of the performance spectrum, these times provide needs and opportunities like few before.

The study revealed:
    • Employees believe in themselves, but not necessarily the leadership;
    • There are mixed levels of ‘change readiness’ across age groups; and,
    • Client facing sales teams have been the most impacted by the current challenges.

These findings are a clear ‘call-to-action’ for global leaders. Employees report high levels of self-belief, but are experiencing equally high levels of disengagement. Obviously, left unchecked this will progressively impact on business performance. Leaders need to creatively connect with and inspire their people at a deeper and more meaningful level.

Overview of the results
According to the authors, leaders must "harness" this positive employee self-belief - before it wanes - by "engaging their people more creatively and purposefully".

They must "connect with and inspire" workers at "a deeper and more meaningful level".

And "time is of the essence", they say. Leaders must "radically change the level and nature of their connection with their teams". "Incremental improvements in leadership connection and impact are unlikely to be sufficient to even maintain the motivational status quo."

Leaders, they say, must:

    * communicate the business plan to all employees, and keep talking to them to ensure they understand, accept and are committed to the strategy;
    * emphasise the process of how success will be achieved, and de-emphasise results. Results are a manifestation of many factors, including those that can't be controlled. "Put the focus on what we can control and commit to execution excellence";
    * measure the behavioural expectations of employees, and provide regular feedback on the achievement of these standards;
    * use the power of the team by looking for opportunities to involve employees in the planning, execution and celebration of goals;
    * link business-specific issues to general motivation and emotional wellbeing; and
    * provide employees with meaningful, rewarding and challenging work. "People want to know they are making a difference and feel recognised for their achievements."

In short, leaders must continue to apply the same strategies required in "good times" to drive "exceptional performance", but deliver "more" of them and "with a higher level of quality", the authors say.

To continue reading Global Mindset Survey Results May 2009

Psychological contract with workers key to success in era of change

Tue, 21 Jul 2009 05:30:00 GMT

HR Daily discusses the importance of forming successful employer/employee relationships.

In an era of constant change, an employer's capacity to adapt, succeed or survive hinges on the quality of employer/employee relationships, or the "psychological contract", according to a corporate psychologist.

"The psychological contract defines the 'essence' of the employment relationship," says Colin Beames in his book, Transforming Organisational Human Capital.

"It serves to bind individuals and organisations together and regulate their behaviour, making possible the achievement of organisational goals."

And it's a "powerful determinant", he says, of the behaviour and attitudes of workers.

"The quality of these employer/employee relationships... significantly impacts on both performance and retention."

Employees, Beames says, are more willing to accept change - such as downsizing, restructuring or the implementation of new initiatives - if their relationships with their employers are "healthy".

How the psychological contract is formed
Every relationship has a psychological contract, Beames says.

In business, he says, it can be defined as the set of expectations - based on stated or implied promises and understandings - that operate between employers and their staff. It is neither a written nor legal document, but "nevertheless 'real'".

The contract is established from the moment the organisation "promotes itself" (in a job advertisement, for instance) and develops progressively through every phase of the employment relationship, Beames says.

It is formed through what is written (from job ads through to HR policies), said or unsaid (by managers and colleagues), implied and observed, and is influenced by:

the salary package;
other financial and non-financial benefits;
job security and career development;
recognition of ontribution;
workplace safety;
the resources and training provided;
managerial support; and
promotion opportunities.

The "health" of the psychological contract, Beames says, depends on the employee's perception of the "delivery of the deal".

If they feel that their expectations aren't being met, he says, they're likely to become disengaged.

The cost of getting it wrong
Beames notes that while employers can increase the job satisfaction and engagement of workers by making and keeping promises, they can't be expected to fulfil every expectation.

There must be a "trade-off", or balance, he says, between meeting employee expectations and achieving business goals.

It is essential, therefore, that the psychological contract, or workforce strategy, is consciously linked to the business strategy, he says. A failure to do so can lead to excessive turnover.

For example, if the psychological contract places too much emphasis on remuneration based on short-term performance in an industry that relies on the development of long-term client relationships, those relationships will suffer and output will be restricted.

If employee salaries are stymied as a result, Beames says, talented workers are likely to leave and pursue other opportunities.

But even if workers manage to achieve outstanding results in these circumstances there is still a big chance they'll flee, he notes.

When a psychological contract is built almost entirely on short-term economic factors, he says, attachment tends to be tenuous.

Recruitment phase critical
The responsibility for managing the psychological contract is spread between executives, HR personnel and line managers, Beames says.

How they engage with the recruitment process, he says, is particularly critical.

"It is important that candidates are moved... from one part of the recruitment and selection process to the next, without them uncoupling or disengaging," he says.

Managers, he says, must maintain intermittent contact with recruits and provide them with regular debriefs and updates.

"The goal is to unite parties into a longer term relationship," he says. "However, the relationship is fragile in these early stages, and simple violations of the script or conventions are sufficient to terminate it."

The new Fair Work Act

Tue, 14 Jul 2009 06:02:00 GMT

by Don Holley, Managing Director

I attended a breakfast this week hosted by the CEO Institute and sponsored by Harmers Workplace Lawyers . Harmers Managing Partner, Joydeep Hor gave an excellent presentation about the ramifications of the move from Work Choices to the Fair Work Act which has been law for just over a week.

One of the panellists Schon Condon from Condon and Associates made a very interesting comment – in his view “employing people was no longer a game for amateurs”. Well put I thought!

Under the new legislation there are key issues employers need to know and understand, and luckily we have been working with our clients on most of these already.

Review your Industrial Risk profile. Whilst this only affects some of our clients, employers can no longer ignore unions. In some situations employers could simply by pass the union and negotiate with the workers directly. Fair Work Australia can enforce “Bargaining Orders” on the employer and even intervene and impose an agreement if the parties can’t reach agreement. This is no doubt a risk for some businesses and perhaps a change in approach is required.

Small business is now smaller. Unfair dismissal parameters have moved from applying to businesses over 100 people to a revised term of small businesses – 15 people.

There will also be more scrutiny and potential exposure on redundancies with the onus of proof on employers as to the validity. This really increases the importance of a good performance management process with good quality records kept. For those of our clients who use our Performance Advantage software, you know how important that this is and the facility is there to keep performance records. I suggest that you reinforce this with your managers.

Also the base wage where the unfair dismissal legislation no longer applies is now above $108,300 per annum.

All clients are encouraged to have their employment agreements revised to make sure they comply with the new legislation before 1 Jan 2010 when the Employer Safety net elapses. Let me or one of the consultants know if you need help with this. We can arrange this for you.

In terms of recruitment practices, Mindset supports equal employment and anti-discrimination legislation and it is highly likely that companies will come under more the scrutiny. It was almost impossible for a prospective employee to prove that they were discriminated against in the recruitment process, now an ombudsman appointed by the Fair Work commission can step in and decide on the matter. This reinforces the importance that appropriate training be given to line managers and that you use a reputable and professional recruitment agency to source your Talent.

It is therefore never been more important to understand the views and opinions of your people, and be on the front foot of potential issues down the track.

In a recent example, a manufacturing organisation recently completed our FREE Leadership Survey were able to pinpoint specific areas of risk which was negotiations with the Union. Understand your risk before it becomes a problem is essential.

An aggressive and defensive management style also increases the risk of legal issues as well as the cultural problems it causes. Perhaps it is a good time to identify these managers and help them to use alternative methods to manage their teams.

Particularly where technical skill, industry knowledge is important to a managers role, assisting with the managers development with a structured program aims at improving self insight, communication skills and personal management will likely be more cost effective than dealing with staff turnover and legal’s headaches.

Succession Planning for Strategic Success

Wed, 08 Jul 2009 02:37:00 GMT

Don Holley, Managing Director of Mindset has written an article explaining the importance of succession planning.

The idea of succession planning in the workplace has been around for hundreds of years. Think about Queen Elizabeth, for instance, who succeeded her father as the Commonwealth monarch after his death.

Like the royal succession that has happened for centuries, succession planning is all about being ready for the future; having a plan in place once the next step must be taken. As a society we have been conditioned to expect this to happen, for example when there is a government leadership reshuffle a new Prime Minister is named at the same time the outgoing Prime Minister stands down.

However unlike the monarchy, today’s succession planning not only focuses on replacing talent, but also on developing the talent who will fulfil the organisation’s long-term goals. This is relevant to all levels of the organisation, not just at the top. Succession plans should be put in place for team leader, management and executive roles.

The current economic crisis means some industries have staff freezes, so it’s important have a workplace strategy in place when the market picks up. Labour is currently more abundant, however the right talent might not be available as there is still a skills shortage in some sectors, such as engineering. This is where future planning is imperative to long-term success.

Good leadership is necessary to an organisation’s success and the current skills shortages mean companies are doing all they can to hold on to talented leaders when they find them. Companies are identifying critical jobs, pinpointing gaps in their talent pool and developing staff or recruiting to ensure the jobs are filled.

A good succession planning system will be proactive and have the employee firmly in the picture, by giving them the opportunity to assess their progress and outline opportunities needed to develop their talent further. Individual development plans are created for each ‘star’, matched to their interests and forecasted development within the company. Effective succession management is a strategic tool for attracting and retaining great staff.

Successful talent development includes mentoring, coaching, job rotation, special assignments that prepare employees for the role ahead, education (formal, in-house and web-based) and feedback opportunities. For example, computer giant Dell focuses much of its development activity on its top talent and holds business unit leaders accountable for their development.

Like in any successful operation, succession planning systems must be continually refined and adjusted for the greatest returns. Feedback from employees, technological and economic climate changes and what the competition is doing, should all be taken into account when tweaking the plan.

Tips on succession planning:
• Make the plan uncomplicated so it is consistent and objective throughout all departments and office locations;
• Balance the need to fill vacancies with opportunities for key talent to develop;
• Outline the skills, values, behaviour and attitudes required for each role;
• Have more than one person groomed for succession so there is at choice when the role needs to be filled.

While succession planning is a key component to an organisation’s continued success, there are also some points to be considered so the system runs smoothly and does not become political. When outlining talent gaps that need to be filled, be careful not to clone existing managers and don’t overlook quiet achievers in favour of employees who stand out.

It is also important to keep morale of other employees who are not on the ‘star’ list high, so they don’t become disillusioned and demotivated. New staff could be seen as a threat or an opportunity to existing employees, so it is up to the organisation’s leadership to create mechanisms for cooperation, effective team building and communication to ensure a continued culture of growth exists.

The perfect performance review

Mon, 22 Jun 2009 06:23:00 GMT

Leon Gettler of Smart Company discusses the Perfect Performance Review.

Traditionally, performance appraisals have been regarded as critical for managing careers and keeping employees in line with business objectives. Now with the Government's unfair dismissal changes dismantling WorkChoices, the performance appraisal can also be a critical tool in protecting your business from unfair dismissal claims.

Under the new industrial relations laws, businesses with fewer than 15 employees can sack a worker within 12 months of hiring them without redress, as long as they follow a small business fair dismissal code. For businesses employing more than 15, it is six months.

Additionally, the legislation removes the previous exemption from unfair dismissal relating to "genuine operational reasons" and replaces it with a narrower and more prescriptive defence of "genuine redundancy".

The code will require an employer to provide one warning, either verbal or written. Employers will also have to provide an employee with a reasonable opportunity to respond and improve their behaviour or conduct prior to termination of employment.

Lawyers say that whether or not an employer gave a verbal warning to an employee is likely to be a contentious issue where they are trying to defend themselves by referring back to the code.

And that is where the performance appraisal can be important. While performance appraisals are not usually the time to give warnings, they could provide companies with the documentation that could prevent a big payout.

Matthew Robinson, a partner at FCB Workplace Lawyers, says performance appraisals will become critical for demonstrating poor performance and showing genuine redundancy. "It's going to be important for all businesses making redundancies to have performance appraisals to distinguish between employees,'' Robinson says.

"Giving frank and fearless feedback will be important for all businesses to avoid unfair dismissals."

Preparing for the review
The trouble is most organisations are bad at performance appraisals. According to an Australian Human Resources Institute survey of more than 1600 HR professionals last year, four out of five respondents said that performance management processes in their organisations were either ineffective or somewhat ineffective. Nearly four in five respondents rated the skill level of managers giving the appraisals as average or poor.

So what steps should companies take to make performance appraisals deliver results, both for the business and the employee?

What should a performance review cover?
The managing director of employee award programs specialists, Trésor, Karen Rowell, says performance appraisals need to link the employee's day to day performance with the organisation's wider goals. Ideally, they should highlight areas that need developing, recognise and reward them for their recent performance, address issues such as promotions, transfers and succession planning and identify problem areas that might need improving.

The performance appraisal, however, should not be used as a star chamber. "The performance management system should be used as a positive tool to assess performance at a set point in time, with the view to addressing any developmental needs such as growth opportunities or improvements that are needed in a non-threatening and collaborative manner," Rowell says. "It should not be used, or, rather misused, as an opportunity to intimidate."

"It's all about setting the right tone, ensuring that the system is used in a positive manner and not as a rap over the knuckles. Employees should not feel frightened or worried about their performance appraisal. They should see it as an opportunity to have an open, supportive and constructive discussion about their strengths and weaknesses, with the view to developing strategies for improvement and development.

"Also, make sure that employees can see the value in participating in performance appraisals by focussing on the positive outcomes. That is, opportunities for promotions or transfers, extra training and development opportunities, higher salary or benefits such as time off or flexible working arrangements"

The structure of a good review
To get the most out of a performance appraisal, companies need to structure it properly.
Work needs to be done before and after. In the period leading up to the interview, the parties have to agree on key performance indicators and how they are measured and relevant information from many sources needs to be collected.

During the review, key performance indicators need to be identified first, appropriate ways of measuring performance need to be established and relevant performance data needs to be collected.

After the appraisal, the company needs to follow through on what has been discussed. Whether the parties have agreed on further measures, such as training, a transfer or mentoring, the managers need to ensure it is implemented. They also need to keep collecting information on how things are tracking.

The aim is to prevent surprises.
"If managers are leaving that and expecting their employees to just get on with it, at the end of the 12 months, it's going to come at a shock and will be difficult to manage. The ideal situation a management team should get into is that at the 12 month review, it's just going over what they already know."

She says a lot of companies now save time by using online performance management systems that already have the KPIs and competencies in place. Using these systems, employers can put down their thoughts before the appraisal on how things are going. "You spend 10 or 15 minutes sitting in front of the computer and then an hour or half an hour with the employee developing a plan for the next 12 months,'' she says.

Read the full article.

Mindset can help your organisation with performance management. Accurate performance appraisal is easy and accurate using Mindset’s web-based (or server based) Performance Advantage. Performance Apprasial software solution. It forms the foundation for a complete Performance Management System, enabling managers to review performance and plan for future performance in one easy-to use application. For more information contact us.

Love Helping People? Don’t Go Into HR

Tue, 16 Jun 2009 04:27:00 GMT

Lance Haun from Your HR Guy has written an article for people considering a career in HR. He says if you Love Helping People? Don’t Go Into HR.

Let’s get something straight: you definitely have to have empathy for people in this position and enjoy the challenges of working with different people in difficult situations. When you are laying off people with families, bills and good company loyalty, I don’t think you can react any other way.

When you are helping a person figure out their payouts and beneficiaries for their life insurance because they have terminal cancer, you have to have the right personality and mindset going into the situation. When you are dealing with some of the more sensitive employee relations areas (discrimination, harassment, etc…), having the right approach can be the difference between success and failure.

I don’t know if “Fuzzy Wuzzy HR” (you know, all of the team building, cry on my shoulder, let’s hold hands and sing kum-ba-ya HR philosophies) was ever very successful but it certainly is going the way of the dinosaurs now. Businesses want savvy, business smart HR people that can also relate to the human side of our profession while still keeping the business solvent. It is a balancing act but businesses are demanding that more emphasis be placed on the business end of things.

The problem? People that love helping people (but are less skilled in other areas of HR) are being pushed out of the profession. What businesses are deciding is that you get a person who may be more skilled in HR but less skilled on the people side and perhaps you can prevent some of the instances where you actually need that super high emotional IQ person. If you can avoid layoffs due to better planning or you can offer better training to managers because you have higher skilled HR people, you can feel better about dropping the people person.

Of course, that doesn’t mean that having a high emotional IQ precludes you from having great HR analytic and leadership skills. In fact, the best HR people I know are strong in all of those areas. But I know that many of those people wouldn’t necessarily say their people skills are the biggest part as to why they are successful.

For people who are considering HR and love helping people, learn about HR and see if anything else intrigues you about the profession. If you are coming up short on that analysis, there are a lot of other ways you can help people in corporate America or elsewhere.

How to emerge from the GFC as a leading employer

Wed, 10 Jun 2009 23:35:00 GMT

HR Daily has published an article about how to emerge from the GFC as a leading employer and how important authenticity, integrity, transparency and substance is for your company.

Executive bonuses will tumble and "people factors" come to the fore as leading employers emerge from the global financial crisis, according to a new book on organisational change.

"One of the impacts of the GFC has been the investor angst and community outrage concerning the payment of obscene bonuses to some executives," says corporate psychologist Colin Beames in Transforming Organisational Human Capital (ISBN 9780980644203).

"People are now no longer in the mood to tolerate hypocrisy, lack of transparency and actions that promote blatant self-interest.

"The pendulum is shifting back in favour of authenticity, integrity, transparency and 'substance' over 'spin'."

In a post-GFC world, Beames says, the shareholder will no longer be king.

Performance standards that push for risk-taking and expediency will be discouraged, he says, and the fixation on short-term profits will necessarily diminish as stakeholders are forced to adopt a more sustainable perspective.

"Investors will come to realise that it is the less tangible and constantly evolving people factors that are increasingly the drivers of value and the developers of competitive capacity."

People management, accordingly, will become a core operational process - as opposed to a support function - as talent emerges as the key corporate asset, Beames says.

Employers restructuring - or leaping into the fire

According to Beames, the current economic climate provides CEOs and executives with a perfect opportunity to restructure, outsource non-core activities and discard unsustainable business models or unprofitable products and services.

"It provides them with legitimacy for change and possibly the pursuit of new opportunities."

Some employers, however, have leapt from the frying pan into the fire, Beames says, with impulsive and uncoordinated responses to the downturn, including:

the slash and burn approach to labour cost-cutting, in which employees in more critical, specialist or core roles are let go as the result of an arbitrary percentage decrease;
indiscriminate outsourcing, resulting in the loss of relationship capital (between the company and its clients), critical skills, intellectual property and "coal face" control;
ad hoc employee-benefit cuts, such as the axing of flexible work arrangements, which lead to disengagement;
recruitment freezes, resulting in the neglect of critical roles or a drop in performance due to the redeployment of unsuitable people; and
the "peanut butter" (or spread evenly) approach to salary cuts, encouraging high performers to seek employment elsewhere.

The crisis, Beames says, has left an "indelible footprint" on the corporate culture, and employers must play by a new set of rules.

He says the age of "short termism", or get-rich-quick schemes, is over, and that sustainability will hinge on assessing and mitigating risk and more stringent corporate governance.

The "cult" of the CEO - which Beames describes as "a simplistic and convenient perspective where the CEO's impact on an organisation's success is accorded more weight than it deserves" - will be replaced by a focus on the team, and compensation systems will be overhauled so that executive pay is aligned with sustainable profits.

The current debate over proposed legislation to limit extravagant remuneration practices (such as excessive executive termination payments, see related article) is "clear evidence of the winds of change", he says.

The future of management

The traditional work of management will be performed less by managers as employers transform post-crisis, Beames says.

"It will be pushed out more to the periphery and embedded in systems via technology," he says.

"Decision making will be more peer-based with power based on competence, and less on authority vested in organisational structures."

Managers will have to earn authority, he says.

HR managers and other leaders must employ a more collaborative, transparent, and respectful approach in order to motivate staff.

"The hope is that more enlightened approaches to managing people will be adopted," Beames says.

"Irrespective of their status, one universal should prevail - that of treating all employees with honesty and respect."

It's Tough at the Top

Fri, 17 Apr 2009 05:50:00 GMT

Leonardo Di Vinci once said "the biggest deception a man can suffer is from his own opinion”. Your own Mindset as the leaders of your organisations during these challenging times its critical. What you do and say has the greatest impact on the psyche of your organisation.

Adapting to rapid change may not be easy for you and it certainly isn’t for the great majority of your staff. Any change management guru will tell you that a “burning platform” or a “sense of urgency” is often a prerequisite for any large scale change. Whilst I think with the GFC there can be no doubt that for some, things will never be the same, knee jerk reactions will come back to bite many people when things turn around. In an interview with the US Financial Times, Jack Welch stated, "On the face of it, shareholder value is the dumbest idea in the world. Shareholder value is a result, not a strategy ... your main constituencies are your employees, your customers and your products."

Far too many of companies, with good people and good motives, obsess about pleasing share-market and taking actions that may well reduce their stock's value two to three years out. This quarterly reporting obsession is having a detrimental effect on the long term planning and competency building that builds sustainable results into a business. They have slashed budgets on many longer-term strategies, such as research and development, talent retention and development, even preventive maintenance on their equipment.

All of it with the noble aim of improving margins and getting a short-term increase in share value. And then something like the GFC comes along and share prices have plummeted drastically leaving many to think, “ what on earth we were thinking”. Instead of spending so much time worrying about the analysts, why not spend that time talking to your other key stakeholders, your employees and customers.

You might just find out that your cost-cutting measures have led to employee disengagement and a loss in brand equity. This is the main reason behind offering our staff engagement survey for Free. It has never been so important that leaders really understand what is going on with the Mindset of their people.

When ‘nice-to-have’ becomes ‘must-have’...

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 03:14:00 GMT

No matter how you view the current financial crisis or its causes there is no doubt that almost every business in Australia will be changed forever by the impact of the ‘credit crunch’. We have reached the end of a long period of sustained economic growth in which ‘growth at all costs’ became the mantra of business.

Business and consumer confidence is low. It’s likely that we are entering a period of little or no growth, in which the ‘correction’ in the markets and financial systems will see business face new, more demanding challenges than ever before.

The best leaders don’t look for excuses, they look for answers.

The pressure on business now means that it’s no longer possible to accept mediocrity from anyone. Organisations that were able to accept lower performance standards as long as the business continued to grow are now searching for solutions to problems that were previously hidden. And businesses that have allowed themselves to grow fat are looking for ways to improve productivity and reduce waste before they become ‘the Biggest Loser’.

Many programs that were once considered ‘nice to have’ are becoming ‘must-haves’:

Performance Management and Appraisal systems that were once seen as a low priority or as ‘part of our Quality Assurance program’ are becoming an essential to companies who have recognised the value of systems that promote communication and accountability, while enabling managers to measure and reward performance improvement.

Leadership Development Programs that equip current and future leaders with the skills they need to manage the organisation through the tough times ahead are becoming increasingly popular. Astute business owners and leaders recognise that cutting back on development efforts will leave their organisation at the mercy of the market when the economy picks back up. They will end up paying more for outside talent if they don’t develop their bench strength now.

Talent Management Systems that identify and encourage top performers are becoming an essential part of of business’ strategy. Succession planning remains a priority, with employee retention a key to protecting your business as your competitors become more desperate for the good staff they need to maintain or increase their own businesses.

The choices you make today must take into account both short- and long-term objectives. The immediate goals of controlling costs, minimising waste and increasing productivity need to be balanced against the long-term needs of your business as it emerges from the current crisis into the next period of economic growth.

Think about your Performance Management System and your Development Programs in terms of ROI. Will they give you the long-term return that you need? If not, what can you do to increase their effectiveness?

What do you think? Are the challenges facing your business now different to what they were? How are your priorities changing?

Let us know in the comments below and, as always, we’d love to hear your feedback.

Become a Communication Ninja

Sat, 28 Feb 2009 11:52:00 GMT

Great leaders understand the need to change their communication styles to ensure their message remains consistent, fair and effective.

Mindset have developed model that ensures communication is effective and at the same time improves relationships and enhances the manager’s leadership position.

Too often we hear from employees that their managers are inconsistent, that they are ‘either hot or cold’, and that the employees ‘never know where they stand’. Managers complain that their employees don’t listen, or that they just go on doing what they’ve always done.

Mindset's four-level model encourages managers to pitch their message at exactly the right level to ensure that the person receiving the message clearly and consistently understands the manager's intent. It also helps the manager communicate the urgency or level of importance of the message and leaves the recipient in no doubt where he or she stands.

The Right Way

The right way to build trust in communication is to carefully adapt your communication style to the message, the situation, and the person with whom you are communicating.

Level 1 - ‘Let’s do this together...’

Good leaders know that the easy way to get people to do what you want them to is to spend lots of time at Level 1 - ‘let’s do this together’. Effective leaders work co-operatively with their employees, encouraging, leading by example and clarifying expectations when necessary.

Level 2 - ‘I need you to...’

But leaders know that there are also times when they need to be more directive - when time is short, for example, or when it’s important to be very specific. An example might be ‘I need you to get back to this client now...’

Level 3: ‘I told you to...’

And what happens when things go wrong? Leaders need to ensure clarity and mustn’t be afraid to be completely candid when communicating with their employees. It’s no good beating around the bush, when things don’t work out the way you expected you need to look the employee in the eye and say ‘I told you to...’.

Level 4: ‘If you don’t...’

And if the employee simply doesn’t want to do what you ask? Then it’s time to go to Level 4 - ‘If you don’t...’ makes it very clear that you have reached the end of the line. Make sure this isn’t an empty threat, however, by never threatening anything that you are not prepared to do (or capable of doing). And when you do get the result you want always remember to reward the employee by going straight back to Level 1!

Follow the Levels - Back to Level 1

The key here is to understand that there are four distinct levels - the employee needs to be given time to comply at each level before the leader ‘escalates’ to the next level.

And at the first opportunity the leader has to go straight back to Level 1 - no nagging and no grudges!

The employee needs to learn that the leader’s preferred way of working is ‘let’s do this together...’ but he’s not afraid to go to Level 4 ‘if you don’t...’ if necessary.

As soon as the leaders gets the result (a change in behaviour or attitude) that he’s looking for it’s time to go straight back to level 1. Until the next time he needs to go to Level 2.

Isn’t This inconsistent?

The secret is to apply each level consistently - so the employee learns that a consistent level of ‘incorrect’ behaviour will attract a consistent level of communication from the leader, and that the leader want’s to consistently communicate at Level 1.

Another secret is to spend progressively less time at the higher levels, as the diagram shows. Don’t be afraid to go to Level 4, but when you do, communicate your point, get the change in behaviour you need and then drop straight back to Level 1.

The Wrong Way

There are lots of wrong ways to communicate, as this model helps to illustrate:

The screecher: have you worked with a manager who spent all of his time at Level 4? They only way these people seem to know how to communicate is with threats and bluster - ‘if you don’t...’.

When they do drop in to Level 1 it comes across as so cheesy and insincere their employees are relieved when they go back to Level 4!

Bi-Polar Bill: these are the people who jump straight from Level 1 to Level 4 to Level 1 to Level 4 to...

Their employees don’t know where they stand from day to day - and sometimes from hour to hour. These leaders are often very unsure of themselves and how to communicate to ‘get the job done’. One minute they’re your best mate - ‘let’s do this together...’ - and the next they’re frantic - ‘if you don’t...’

Practice Your Communication Ninja Skills

Like most skills effective communication needs practice. Reflect on the way you relate to the people around you. Look for feedback cues that show you how people perceive your communication. Practice communicating at Level 1 for as much time as you can, slowly escalating only when necessary, and when you do escalate your communication style, be consistent in your approach and return to Level 1 as soon as you can.

Your View?

Have you worked for a manager with great communication skills? Or one who fit our alternative models? Can you see how using this model could improve your own communication and relationships with your employees?

We’d like to hear about your experience. Let us know using the Comments link below.

Welcome to Mindset!

Fri, 27 Feb 2009 01:01:00 GMT

Welcome to Mindset!!!

From today we have changed our name to Mindset.

So why Mindset?

We believe that Mindset symbolises our expanded range of capabilities which means you will get the same coaching and mentoring programs, complete and partial out-sourced human-resources solutions, support in major change programs such as mergers and acquisitions and much more.

You’ll notice our new brand and fresh new image on all of our mailings, advertising and promotional materials. It’s still the same great company, just with a new name.