Recruiting Brand 101 - Candidates Think Your Hiring Managers are L.A.M.E.

How's your recruiting brand?  Got the website, collateral for candidates, maybe even some video?  Cool!!!!

Do your hiring managers reinforce the brand you are trying to create?  Or are they lame, non-communicators destroying all the brand equity you're building in your company as an "employer of choice"?

Stop and think about this one.  A while back, I riffed that the best way to lose talent was to be slow.  Slow to call candidates back after phone screens, slow to get them in to interview after phone screens, slow to pick them up in the lobby for the interview, whatever.  Act slow and candidates start to think your company is a boring, stale, disorganized place to work.  Period.

Speed to market is still my number one driver to create candidate momentum and get a deal inked with the talent you covet.  DDI/Monster recently repackaged the same survey results and focused on ineffective hiring managers, so it's a good time to revisit the other drivers that make candidates think your workplace stinks.  Here are the top drivers of candidate dissatisfaction in the interview process from the DDI study:

"70 Percent of Job Seekers Say Aloof is Annoying. Job seekers identify a number of interviewer behaviors that adversely affect their willingness to work at the company in question. For instance, 70% of interviewees rank “acting like has no time to talk to me” as a common – and annoying– behavior of hiring managers and staffing directors. Other irritating behaviors exhibited by interviewers include:

- Withholding information about position (57%)

- Turning interview into cross-examination (51%)

- Showing up late (48%)

- Appearing unprepared for interview (47%)
- Asking questions unrelated to job skills (43%)"

This should be scary to every HR Pro, because you can spend 10-20 hours on a search, only to have your hard work destroyed by a hiring manager who considers interviewing the 10th or 11th most important task they've handled on a given day.  More important than the destruction of your personal work is the loss of the best talent available, which means you'll soon be filling the same position again.

What's the best strategy for limiting the influence of hiring managers with the personality/demeanor of a depressed, irritable Dr. Cox from Scrubs?  My favorite strategy is to rely on one or two hiring managers per department who have proven their marketing abilities in the recruiting process.

Eliminate the deadbeats from the process or pay the price... 

Pay for Performance - Your Company vs. Uncle Sam

Most people think of "Pay for Performance" and immediately frame the conversation in the following manner - the private sector does it, the Federal Government does not.   For years that's been true, although the rewards for high performers over low performers in the private sector haven't been as great as many would expect given the hype.

The lack of merit-related compensation may be changing at the Federal level.  The Washington Post reports The Pentagon is taking its first big step to break away from the government's primary pay system, sending a strong signal to Defense Department civilian workers that their salaries will increasingly hinge on job performance.

The department's change in pay strategy applies to about 110,000 civil service employees who are in the first phase of the new National Security Personnel System, known as NSPS.  The government's major pay system, the General Schedule, has traditionally passed along the pay raise set by the Congress to about 1.6 million workers in a predictable fashion each year, some would say by rewarding longevity over performance.

Here's the breakdown of how a combo of merit pay will work for those eligible/impacted within the Defense Department from the Post:

"--1.25% for a base pay increase, provided eligible employees.

--1% as a local-market supplement, provided eligible employees. It would mirror the "locality pay" provided other federal employees, and the actual amount would vary by metropolitan area.

--1.25 % for performance raises, awarded after managers have evaluated employees based on a five-level rating system. (Under NSPS, employees who have been rated as "unacceptable" in their job do not receive any raises.)

The allocation for performance raises would go into a pot of money that includes other funding streams, such as the 2.26% of the Pentagon payroll that used to go for quality step increases and promotion raises in the old system. Funds set aside for bonuses, usually 1 percent to 1.5% of payroll, also go into this pot."

With that in mind, it looks like up to 2.25% of an increase would be based on non-performance factors, with somewhere between 4.51% to 5.01% available for performance-related merit increases.  That would indicate the total range of increases for the eligible group would be 2.25% for the lowest performers, up to 7.26% for the highest performers.

Sound strong or lame?  Remember the performance-related data provided by Ann Bares at Compensation Force?  Bares cites a Mercer compensation survey of the private sector showing the highest performing employees receiving base pay increases of 5.7% in 2007, compared to 3.5% for average performers and 1.7% for the weakest performers.

With that in mind, the plan at the DOD seems valid, even stronger than market in some ways.  Here's hoping they get through the Change Management side of the transition with the plan intact and implemented in a positive fashion.

More on employee contributions for Medical Coverage....

No bigger hot-button topic than what your talent has to pay for medical coverage via employee contributions.  Here's the updated info that's been made publicly available recently to help gauge where you are at in the food chain:

---Private-Sector companies - The Kaiser Family Foundation, a health care research organization that annually tracks the cost of health insurance, reported in, an annual cost survey, that PPO coverage is the most costly option.   For family coverage, companies pay $1,008 per month under fully insured plans, with employees picking up $3,281 annually of that cost, or $126 per pay period (assumes 26 pay periods).

---Federal Government - The Washington Post reports that the government sponsors 283 different health care plans, the most popular of which are two Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans (most likely the gold-plated PPO variety). Enrollees in these plans will see their premium costs go up between 3% and 8.5% in 2008. The bi-weekly premium, for families in the standard option plan, will be $145.14, $10.84 more than this year.   About 60% of federal employees are reported to be in the BCBS network at various coverage levels (ee only, EE+1, Family).

While it's hard to get plan quality details from this top level report, it's clear that more and more companies are being more aggressive with cost sharing on the medical plan side.  Additionally, the cost share on the Federal Government side is much more aggressive than I was expecting.  More detail from the Post report shares that the Federal Government picks up about 70 percent of premium costs in its role as employer.

Interesting data - compare and contrast with the total comp value play at your company...

Dirty Little Secrets and Your EAP (Employee Assistance Program)

Want to get a bunch of HR people nodding their heads?  Make a statement about the value of the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) our companies offer, usually as part of the Life Insurance suite.  It's true, it's a great product and every once in a while we get a great chance to refer someone to it and it does some good.  Much patting on the back usually commences...

Of course, most of us don't market it hard enough.  Or anywhere close to hard enough - including me.   I have no marketing strategy other than to simply list it on my benefit marketing collateral we use in the recruiting biz.   Most of you are just like me.  I really, really need a strategy in this area to make sure people understand it's there for their confidential use...

What's got the Capitalist thinking about EAPs?  Uh...It's not my life, honest...  Nothing but a Ward Cleaver, vanilla-type existence here.  Please don't stare at me....

OK, two things actually got me thinking about our EAP.  First up, Deb at 8 Hours and a Lunch did a rocking post about the value of an EAP, which I thought was great.  Second, I was watching FUSE the other night for a fix of Alternative Rock (what did you expect from the Capitalist?  Britney Spears?), and a video came up from a band called the All-American Rejects.

The cut is called "Dirty Little Secret", which features about 30 people holding up cards detailing what makes them feel like a freak.  It's a good reminder that all of us have our issues (except of course, for Ward), and at times of weakness we might need a resource like your underutilized EAP.  Check out the video to get the flavor and think about it during the next four random conversations you have in the office...

Maybe I should get outside the box and use this video to market the EAP inside our company... 

Visionary Stuff - Inflatable Pigs In Front of Your Building....

I'm a little late to the game on this one, but I couldn't resist a belated post.  The old innovation in labor organizing?  Inflatable rats in front of buildings in NYC.  The new innovation from labor?  Inflatable Pigs!!  From FinancialWeek:

"During the past several months, labor organizers in New York City have been introducing the  “greedy pig” balloon to employers at their work sites. The 12-foot-tall balloon portrays a sneering creature decked out in a top hat and suit, chomping on a cigar.

While the giant rat, with its sharp fangs and beady eyes, has been effective in getting people’s attention, it was time for something new, said Richard Weiss, a spokesman for Construction and General Building Laborers Local 79, a New York union that helped design the pig a couple of years ago.

“We felt that it was time to spice it up,” he said."

Alrighty then... Marketing 101... When the best rational argument/benefit summary you can provide no longer resonates with the target audience, it's time for.... Shock and Awe!!!

Morty!  Attendance was down at the meeting last night.  Cue the Pig!!  And get some scab picket line participants from the temp agency while you're on the phone.

What's next?  The inflatable leech attached to the building?

The HR Blog Power Rankings - Week of 9/10/07 [sponsored by the HR Capitalist]

Good Poll Results - Oklahoma drills Miami and moves from #8 to #3 in the College Football Top 25...

Bad Poll Results - Michigan drop-kicks their first two games to App State and Oregon and drops out of the same poll....

What about the HR Blogs?

The HR Capitalist is proud to announce the HR Blog Power Rankings for the week of 9/10/07!  Rankings below reflect blog entries from August 12th to September 11th across 112 HR-related blogs.  How do we rank them?  Check out the complete Poll Methodology here...

The short version the methodology is that I have my Google Reader set up to read all 112 blogs for the period in question.  Using the star feature, I identify the entries I would recommend to my HR colleagues.  The more recommendations, the higher the power ranking and the poll position. 

See what rants and riffs spurred my recommendation here...

In our opinion, the top 25 and those also receiving votes represent the best of the HR/Human Capital Blogs.  Thanks to all listed here for your commitment to HR/Human Capital community!

1.(Tie) Compensation Force (Power Rating- 8, Last Poll - #1)
1.(Tie) KnowHR Blog (Power Rating- 8, Last Poll - #16)
3.   Pennsylvania Employment Lawyer & Attorney (Power Rating- 6, Last Poll - #3)
4.   8 hours & a lunch (Power Rating- 5, Last Poll - #5)
5.   Trizle (Power Rating- 5, Last Poll - #24)
6.   The Business of Management - John Hollon (Power Rating- 5, Last Poll - #6)
7.   Knowledge Infuser (Power Rating- 5, Last Poll - #25)
8.   Fortify Your Oasis (Power Rating- 5, Last Poll - #9)
9.   Incentive Intelligence (Power Rating- 5, Last Poll - #19)
10. Jon Ingham's (HCM) Blog (Power Rating- 5, Last Poll - #14)
11. Jim Stroud 2.0 (Power Rating- 5, Last Poll - #15)
12. Execupundit (Power Rating- 5, Last Poll - NR)
13. Evil HR Lady (Power Rating- 5, Last Poll - #11)
14. The Career Revolution (Power Rating- 4, Last Poll - #13)
15. HR Thoughts (Power Rating- 4, Last Poll - #4)
16. All Things Workplace (Power Rating- 4, Last Poll - #23)
17. Three Star Leadership - Wally Bock (Power Rating- 3, Last Poll - #7)
18. systematicHR (Power Rating- 3, Last Poll - #2)
19. Ask a Manager (Power Rating- 2, Last Poll - #8)
20. The Human Capitalist  (Power Rating- 2, Last Poll - #10) 
21. Taleo Blog (Power Rating- 2, Last Poll - #17)
22. Employee Evolution (Power Rating- 2, Last Poll - #12)
23. The Work Clinic (Power Rating- 2, Last Poll - #25) 
24. McArthur's Rant (Power Rating- 2, Last Poll - #22)
25. The Future of Work Weblog  (Power Rating- 2, Last Poll - NR)

Also Receiving Votes: XpertHR > Homepage, Suits In The Workplace, Brazen Careerist, JibberJobber, Evil HRIS Guy, People Signals, SittingXLegged, Employee Handbooks, cheezehead, Race in the Workplace,  Stanley Bing, Complete Potential, Gruntled Employees, Donald H Taylor, My Global Career

On Probation/Not Eligible For Poll - The HR Capitalist (Please Read Anyway!!!)

See the game by game results here....

Employees Pay Average of $3,281 Annually for Family Healthcare Premiums

How much do I have to pay?  I know you've heard that question before.  Whether you are recruiting, budgeting or getting cold-called by a benefits vendor, everyone wants to know what your plan costs.

Of course, simply stating what your health care plan costs employees per paycheck doesn't speak to the quality of the plan, or the coverage it provides.  Most parties seem less interested in the quality question - they simply want to know what it costs.

A new survey is out, conducted by the the Kaiser Family Foundation, a health care research organization that annually tracks the cost of health insurance.  Many of the more than 3,000 companies surveyed said they planned to make significant changes to their health plans and benefits, and nearly half said they were very or somewhat likely to raise premiums.  From the survey:

"This year, premiums reached an average of $12,106 for a family of four, with workers paying, on average, $3,281 of that. Premiums to cover a single person cost $4,479, with employees paying $694. The portions both families and single people pay in premiums has nearly doubled since 2001.

The companies reported that premiums for families increased 6.1 percent, on average. That's the lowest growth rate since 1999, when premiums rose 5.3 percent and cost an average of $2,196 for individuals and $5,791 for families. Health care premiums rose 7.7 percent last year, when individuals paid an average of $4,242 and families paid $11,480."

The good news is that premium increases seem to be under control.  The bad news is that the survey doesn't really control for the quality of the plan, meaning the results are hard to draw firm conclusions from.  If items like co-pays and co-insurance are on the rise, then the true cost increase may be higher than 6.1%.  It's a quality thing.

Here's the data you can use.  As you would expect, family coverage is the most costly option, with companies paying $1,008 per month under fully insured plans.  Employees pick up $3,281 annually of that cost, or $126 per pay period (assumes 26 pay periods).  That gives you a nice barometer on the market as you shop medical coverage, and also illustrates what employees can expect to pay out of paychecks for their health care.  How do you stack up? 

Incentive Intelligence and the Wisdom of Incentives...

Incentive Intelligence has a great post on when to use recognition and when to use incentives.  Here's the advice in a nutshell:

"Recognize what you don't want to change.  Create an incentive around things you think will change."

Great insight from a credible expert focused on this single niche area of your practice.  The post is well-worth the read, so check it out here....

"Big Boned" 101 - Why You Will Have Your BMI Memorized in the Next 5 Years...

Michael Moore, resident blogger at The Pennsylvania Employment Law Blog (A capitalist favorite and a top 5 HR blog in the Power Rankings) has been busy running down the 411 on Body Mass Index, also known as your BMI.  For those of you who don't know, BMI is a function of height and weight (BMI calculator).   The Center for Disease Control classifies a person who has a BMI of less than 18.5 as underweight; normal is 18.5-24.9; overweight is 25-29.9; obese is over 30; and extremely obese is over 40. Among the nuggets from the "other" Michael Moore:

"Other than being incorrectly labeled "overweight" or "obese", why should we care whether BMI is a accurate health status predictor? BMI is fast becoming the legal standard for determining whether someone is "obese" and therefore a "health risk". With this label comes a whole host of employment and benefit consequences:

• Cost of and Eligibility for Certain Employee Benefits

Individual insurance policies for life, disability and medical insurance almost universally use underwriting procedures that take into account BMI as a basis for determining insurability and premium.  A survey by the Texas Office of Public Insurance Counsel found that insurance company individual health plan underwriting guidelines used BMI as a basis to deny coverage, charge a higher premium, and offer less coverage. The California Insurance Commission has made comments alerting consumers about BMI as a basis for insurance denial.

Some group health plans are community rated and not subject to medical underwriting. These plans calculate premium based on the expected claims of the community not the individual employer group.  Other group health insurance programs can be subject to medical underwriting in which BMI analysis and other factors will be used to price the coverage for the group.  An employer with  a compliment of employees with potential for high claims (including high BMI) will face higher premiums or denial. Likewise, self-insured medical plans that utilize stop loss coverage may undergo medical underwriting where BMI will be factored into the rate for reinsurance.."

If all that's too heavy for you (no pun intended), check out MM's breakdown of collective BMI across PA-area pro sports teams:

BMI BOWL

TEAM	Average  BMI	% Roster with BMI  >   30
Philadelphia Eagles	32.77	62.96%
Pittsburgh Steelers	31.84	56.7%
Pittsburgh Pirates	27.30	9.67%
Philadelphia Phillies	27.16	3.1%
Philadelphia Flyers	26.82	0%
Pittsburgh Penguins	26.58	4.5%
Philadelphia 76ers	24.51	0%
Detroit Shock (WNBA)	23.26	0%
1996 U.S. Olympic Women's Gymnastics	18.79	0%

Looks like the Offensive and Defensive lineman are at risk.  Would be interesting to see what the average expected lifespan of a NFL lineman is.  I'm guessing with that type of BMI for a long period of time, it's well below average.

Like Willie once sang (or was it Don Meridith?) "Mommas, don't let your babies grow up to be Left Tackles".....

The Jerk Hall of Fame - "The Customer Hoarder"

Sometimes there is a method to the madness.  Or a hostage.....

Companies can come up with multiple rationalizations for keeping Jerks in the workplace.  Some are real reasons, other are flimsy excuses not to confront.  Among the real reasons companies rationalize keeping Jerks around? The Customer Hoarder.  Who is this individual?  Read on:

The Customer Hoarder owns your most important customers: A specialized form of the knowledge hoarder, this "customer hoarder" has been allowed over time to carve out a position as the sole individual responsible for talking to your customers, often the most important ones. Most commonly seen in sales and support functions, the managers at your company will often avoid confrontation with this flavor of jerk so they can make it through the next month or quarter.

I once knew a customer hoarder so focused on controlling access to preferred customers that he/she refused to share a existing customer list with new sales reps.  The solution if the new sales reps needed to contact an existing customer?  The hoarder farmed out the necessary name and number, one contact at a time as needed.  They also gave it verbally, refusing to email or write it down.

That's control and customer hoarding at its best.  The only way to unseat this flavor of workplace jerk?  Makes sales quota dependent on hunting new business, not collecting orders off of exiting customers...