Previous month:
October 2016
Next month:
December 2016

November 2016

Reserve 10% of Your Recruitment Marketing Spend in 2017 for Experimentation...

I had the opportunity to contribute to a project called the 2017 Recruitment Marketing Idea Book, sponsored and put together by Smashfly.

My entry into the mix covered the need to experiment with your recruitment marketing spend every year.  Most of us get into ruts where we rely on a single job board, Indeed, or similar service.  When you do that and aren't constantly thinking about what's next, you end up being late to emerging trends that result in better recruiting results.  People were late to Indeed, and now they're likely late to something else.

Whatever your budget is, use 10% to experiment with new sources of candidate flow.  See my full excerpt from this project below (email subscribers enable images or click through), and get the whole workbook full of ideas by clicking here.

Smashfly clip

 


What I've Learned About Perceptions of OT-Eligible Jobs In Periods of FLSA Change...

By now, most of you have heard that a federal judge issued an injunction to the FLSA laws that were going to cause most of our companies to do one of two things to a select group of employees - either increase salaries to continue to make lower level professionals eligible as exempt employees or move those employees to hourly status, making them OT eligible. FLSA

The injunction means you aren't required at this time to make the changes covered by that executive order. Of course, many of you have prepared and also communicated the changes, as Jon Hyman of Workforce.com outlines below:

Let’s say you’ve been a diligent employer and have done everything to prepare for Dec. 1. You’ve reviewed the exemption status of all of your employees. You’ve determined the group of currently exempt employees earning less than $913 per week. And, for those employees, you’ve determined which to keep at the same salary level (to be converted to salary non-exempt come Dec. 1), which to convert to hourly non-exempt (including determining the proper hourly wage), and which to keep exempt by grossing up their salaries to the $913 level. You might have even implemented a fluctuating work week for your new class of salaried exempt employees to try to control overtime costs. And, because this ruling came so late, you’ve almost certainly communicated these changes to your employees.

If you were waiting until the last possible moment to communicate the changes, you're good - you can wait and see what happens. If you have already communicated, it's more complicated.

But there's a silver lining to not making the changes or to rolling those changes back for now, even if you you have already communicated the changes.

That silver lining is this - there's a significant portion of the American employee base that was going to be moved from Salaried to Non-Exempt (hourly) that didn't want anything to do with the change.

The group that feels this way is pretty easy to spot.  Most of the time, they are the portion of your workforce that doesn't hold college degrees and started with you in an hourly role, paid their dues and then got the feeling they had arrived professionally by being promoted in to a salaried spot.  In most companies, those early exempt positions start in the 30k's and go up from there.

That group put in the work and got promoted.  Some of them worked more than 40 hours a week in those roles. Some did not. But in this segment of your employee population, not having to count hours, punch a timecard and do anything else associated with an hourly role was viewed as a great thing.

This is the group of employees that feels like they're being demoted by the change to hourly if they were impacted by the current FLSA change.  Doesn't matter if they're OT eligible. They don't want the classification change.  

Many employees view a forced move from salaried to hourly per the FLSA changes as a positive.  But a significant portion of employees view that change as a demotion, even if they have a chance to earn more. This group of employees view the salaried designation as having arrived.

Don't forget this group of employees as you figure out what to do with the now stalled FLSA changes.


Should the Work Tools We Use (Like LinkedIn) Be Clean of Politics?

There I was. Just working a little bit on a Saturday over the Thanksgiving holiday weekend. Family is in bed. I'm up, no harm, no foul.

I click over to LinkedIn for some research. LinkedIn's a work tool, after all, right?  And there she was..

Oh - good morning Mrs. Clinton. What's that? Donald Trump should come down out of his tower and speak to the American people?

Wait - aren't you supposed to be mixing up stuff like this over on Facebook?  Why LinkedIn?  And didn't you concede and we hadn't heard much more?

Notification to my smart phone hits at that exact time - Clinton team agrees to participate in Wisconsin recount.

Ahhhhhhhh. OK

Here's your screen grab. (email subscribers enable images or click through for photo)

Hillary LinkedIn

Most of us got all the divisiveness we needed from the election from our Facebook feeds.  While I know LinkedIn considers itself a news aggregator (if not provider, which is entertaining and scary all at the same time) and that Donald Trump has similar accounts - is it too much to ask that we keep direct fire stoking from any candidate off the LinkedIn Feed?  If people want to share news, fine - but the whole direct rev up the base post election?  Ugh.  

What's next? Candidate accounts on Slack? Maybe there's a play to enable a news/contributor feed within Outlook?

I'd feel the same way if it was Trump or any other candidate.  I've grown to accept it during the election cycle.  

The equivalent of crack cocaine for LinkedIn isn't the post itself - it's the 15,000 comments, which I'm sure include enough two-way bashing to last anyone a lifetime.

LinkedIn, you're better than this.  Cut the candidates - all of them - off post election.  Nobody needs it on a work tool.  It makes me want to use you less, or figure out a way to disable the "influencer" feed.

Wishful thinking, I'm sure.  

 


CAPITALIST PODCAST: The Top 5 Recruiters in the Sports World...

Great college & pro sports coaches have more in common than just expensive suits—they've all got the same recruiting chops. And those recruiting chops are the same ones that your best recruiters have.

So who are the best of the best when it comes to recruiting for sports? And what exactly makes them the best? During this brand new episode of Talent Sniper Radio (The Kinetix Podcast), I'm joined by Kinetix Recruiting Director David Bach and we take a deep dive into the top 5 recruiters of the sports world (plus some honorable mentions) and why they stand out as the best.

From Nick Saban's process to Coach Calipari's brand, get your monthly dose of recruiting tips on Talent Sniper Radio—made for recruiters, by recruiters.  We even weave into the conversation whether each coach would make a good recruiter as part of our team.

(email subscribers, enable images or click through if you don't see the easy to use podcast player below)


Here's a Quote To Make You Look Smart About The Relationship Between Technology and Jobs...

"THE FUTURE HAS ALREADY ARRIVED.  IT'S JUST NOT EVENLY DISTRIBUTED YET"

--William Gibson

Capitalist Note - This one works no matter what your politics are.  Use it to make the non-HR members of your leadership team look pedestrian compared to you. You're welcome. H/T to Steve Boese.


Could Giving Your Employees WeWork Memberships Help Your Recruiting Efforts?

All of us have recruiting challenges, often times centered around technology.  

At the same time, our employees can long for a bit more freedom - to work remotely, or even just to break the monotony of the day to day grind.. We-work-transbay-2

Of course, the employees we should seek to satisfy related to that need for freedom are often of the same ilk as the ones we have the biggest need to recruit.

What if I told you there might be a way for you to satisfy both those needs at the same time?

Microsoft is making a co-working play that looks to meet a bunch of needs at the same time:

  1. Giving remote workers a place to go from time to time.
  2. Giving office workers a place to go to mix it up.
  3. Allowing both those groups access to a potentially strong sales and recruiting source.

Stay with me. Here's more from Inc.com:

"Microsoft is dipping a toe into the coworking world by giving nearly 30% of its New York employees WeWork memberships.

The company plans to take 300 WeWork memberships -; WeWork's basic, flexible membership plan -; in two WeWork spaces in New York. Those 300 employees make up 70% of Microsoft's global marketing and sales teams in New York.

The company also has 40 employees working in a private office in an Atlanta WeWork, and will have employees working out of WeWorks in Philadelphia and Portland as well.

But the move to coworking spaces represents something of a shift for Microsoft, which has lately been redoubling its outreach to startups and developers. Donovan said Microsoft employees will now have more flexibility and mobility but will also bring them closer to the startups working out of WeWorks.

"We’re a big fan of startups," Donovan said. "We were one ourselves at the beginning, so we know what those early days were like. We’ve been lucky enough to scale as a business and become a large enterprise, but certainly Satya [Nadella] is ensuring that we retain that growth mindset and that early hunger that we had as a business."

The partnership with Microsoft also falls in line with some changes afoot at WeWorks nationwide. The company said it's seen an uptick in enterprise clients -; which it defines as large companies with more than 500 employees -; moving some of their employees to WeWork locations. The startup, which was last valued at $16.9 billion, has been "fleshing out" its offerings for bigger companies."

For the uninitiated, WeWork is an American company which provides shared workspace, community, and services for entrepreneurs, freelancers, startups and small businesses. WeWork designs and builds physical and virtual communities in which entrepreneurs share space and office services and have the opportunity to work together.

It's an interesting stroke by Microsoft - give employees more flexibility, remote workers a place to go, salespeople a new audience to sell from, and a place for all to recruit from.  From a corporate perspective, it reduces the need for a long term commitment to office space by outsourcing that burden.

Don't forget- sales and recruiting don't have to be direct, meaning your prospects don't have to be at WeWork - referrals from the people you meet at a co-working facility work just fine as well.

Exploring co-working seems like a smart hedge by Microsoft.  I'm betting some of you are in major markets where coworking is a thing. If so, you'd likely be early to the game from a recruiting perspective if you experimented with getting some of your key employees co-working at least one week a month.

What's that?  Scared your people might get recruited? 

They already are -I talked to them last week.  They took the interview from a cube IN YOUR OFFICE.

 


The Decline of Social Snooping On Candidates and the Rise of the High School LinkedIn Profile...

At one point, my advice for HR pros who were wondering about the ethics and legal exposure of digging around on candidate's social profiles was simple.

"Just ask what your CEO wants you to do in order to have the best line of sight on a candidate.  She probably expects you to do everything possible to fully vet and get the best candidate possible."

Translation: Don't be lazy, and don't be weak.  Social snooping is a reasonable background activity, and anyone who tells you otherwise probably isn't as connected to business results as they need to be.

So, that used to be my advice, and I guess it still is, but my approach has softened a bit for a very specific reason.  The-who-the-kids-are-alright

Candidates are more aware than ever of the risks their social accounts provide, and the younger the candidate, the less likely he/she is going to have accounts that are open to the public.

Two words: Instagram and Snapchat.

Facebook, in case you were wondering, is for the olds.  Not only are candidates more cautious than ever, but the younger candidates aren't active on Facebook nearly as much, which was the platform that created the most risk.

They are on Instagram and Snapchat, and they're increasingly protecting their accounts to the fullest extent possible.  That means you might be able to find them, but once you land at the account, it's protected. You have to request to be their friend/contact/hombre to see what they're posting.

I think social snooping has become less important for this reason.

In addition, the youngest of users are attempting to play our need to social snoop by giving us accounts that put them in the best light possible, which is smart if they have college admission or work-related goals.  LinkedIn is seeing a surge in profiles among High School students wishing to indulge admission office's need to snoop.  More from the New York Times:

"Applying for admission to many American colleges already has high school students jumping through hoops.

School transcript? Check. Recommendations? Check. Personal statement? Standardized test scores? List of accomplishments? Check. Check. Check.

Now some social media experts are advising high school seniors to go even further. They are coaching students to take control of their online personas — by creating elaborate profiles on LinkedIn, the professional network, and bringing them to the attention of college admissions officers.

“They are going to click on your profile,” says Alan Katzman, the chief executive of Social Assurity, a company that offers courses for high school students on how to shape their online images.

Last year, for instance, Mr. Katzman’s company advised a high school senior in the Washington area to create a detailed LinkedIn profile and include a link on his application to Harvard. (His mother asked that the student’s name be withheld for privacy reasons.) Soon after, LinkedIn notified the student that someone from Harvard had checked out his profile."

What's that? You're worried about the digital divide and how this plays to the have and have-nots?  Good instincts, grasshopper:

“Kids from privileged families tend to do more of those things both offline and online — joining school clubs, writing for their school newspaper, getting tutoring so their grades go up, doing SAT preparation,” says Vicky Rideout, a researcher who studies how teenagers use technology. Using LinkedIn on college applications, she says, “is yet another way for there to be a disparity between the haves and the have-nots.”

For high school students, LinkedIn is partly a defense mechanism against college admissions officers who snoop on applicants’ public Facebook and Twitter activities — without disclosing how that may affect an applicant’s chance of acceptance.

A recent study from Kaplan Test Prep of about 400 college admissions officers reported that 40 percent said they had visited applicants’ social media pages, a fourfold increase since 2008."

Social snooping feels dead to me. It was only a matter of time before high school students started playing admission offices as well as employers by giving the people what they want.

The kids, as it turns out, are alright


The GrubHub CEO Proves That Bullies Exist on Both Sides of the Aisle in This Election...

There's a long history of company executives trying to manipulate the thoughts and actions of their employees.  In the 2008 and 2012 elections, many conservative founders/CEOs made formal email pleas to their employee bases asking them to consider voting against Obama, primarily because the specter of Obamacare was thought to be a poison pill of cost that was going to tie up cash and make it harder to run the businesses in question.

In addition, one of the biggest false positives in hiring is selecting people just like you.

Well, post election 2016, with Donald Trump getting ready to move into the White House, we have the best of both worlds - a liberal CEO who's not only giving his opinion, but asking people who don't agree with him to leave the company.

Because you know, we're best when everyone thinks like we do.

The founder/CEO is Matt Maloney of Grubhub, a company that lists 500-1000 employees on Linkedin and $400 million plus in Revenue in 2016.  You probably heard about his letter last week.  

Here's Maloney's full e-mail to employees, shared via GrubHub press release, so you can judge his intentions for yourself:

SUBJECT: So... that happened... what's next?

I'm still trying to reconcile my own worldview with the overwhelming message that was delivered last night. Clearly there are a lot of people angry and scared as the antithesis of every modern presidential candidate won and will be our next president.

While demeaning, insulting and ridiculing minorities, immigrants and the physically/mentally disabled worked for Mr. Trump, I want to be clear that this behavior - and these views, have no place at Grubhub. Had he worked here, many of his comments would have resulted in his immediate termination. 

We have worked for years cultivating a culture of support and inclusiveness. I firmly believe that we must bring together different perspectives to continue innovating - including all genders, races, ethnicities and sexual, cultural or ideological preferences. We are better, faster and stronger together. 

Further I absolutely reject the nationalist, anti-immigrant and hateful politics of Donald Trump and will work to shield our community from this movement as best as I can. As we all try to understand what this vote means to us, I want to affirm to anyone on our team that is scared or feels personally exposed, that I and everyone else here at Grubhub will fight for your dignity and your right to make a better life for yourself and your family here in the United States. 

If you do not agree with this statement then please reply to this email with your resignation because you have no place here. We do not tolerate hateful attitudes on our team.I want to repeat what Hillary said this morning, that the new administration deserves our open minds and a chance to lead, but never stop believing that the fight for what's right is worth it. 

Stay strong, Matt

If that letter proves anything, it's that bullies exist on both sides of the aisle.  Trump? Bully. Conservative, religious right GOP that got overrun in 2008?  Bullies.  Liberal left leaders who make statements like the one listed above?

Bullies. 

Maloney's statement is just an extension of a problem that led to the biggest upset in election history.  The GOP had a troubled candidate. The Democrats in power as well as many around you were quick to judge anyone who didn't automatically say they were voting for Clinton.

If you're not voting for Clinton you must be a racist, bigot or _____ (fill in the blank).  The same thing was going around back in the glory days of the religious right with a modified narrative.

What can you learn from a leadership perspective from the election and this note? When you're a manager of people at any level, you're there to lead everyone, not just the people who agree with your worldview.

And that usually means more listening than talking.  

Maloney? He's more about talking than leading.  And he just one-upped every conservative founder who directly asked their people to consider who they were voting for as a small business person.  

Most of those people didn't tell employees to leave (although the implication was that Obamacare could cost each company jobs). Maloney did. #weakness

PS - for someone lecturing about inclusion, that's a lot of white people/honkies/Caucasians pictured when Grubhub was listed on the stock market in 2014.  That picture appears below (email subscribers click through for picture - it's worth it).  #thingsthatmakeyougohmmmmm 

Grubhub stock exchange

 

 


Dear Netflix: Did I Miss a Memo About EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS? (caps intended)

I wish I had a easy way to play audio when you opened posts, because if I did, you'd get the "liberal media' sound bite with this post.

"Liberal Media."  Probably more the point, "Liberal People on Social Media."

The topic of this one is pretty simple. There's a difference between non-compete clauses for at-will Netflix-fox-logos-780x439 employees and non-competes that are provisions in full-fledged Employment Contracts.  People don't seem to get that, especially when they're waxing poetic on social media.

Here's the set up from Fortune:

"A nasty spat between 21st Century Fox and Netflix over employee poaching took a new twist on Wednesday, as the streaming giant filed a counter-lawsuit that accuses the studio of using illegal non-compete clauses and creating “involuntary servitude” among workers.

The allegations, filed in Los Angeles state court, come one month after Fox sued Netflix for poaching two of its program development executives.

According to Netflix, the studio violates California law by using clauses in its employment contract that bar them from working for competitors, and by reserving the right to extend these contracts indefinitely.

A spokesperson for Fox challenged the Netflix claims and claimed the contracts are legal.

“As Netflix expressly acknowledges, California law fully recognizes that fixed-term employment agreements are valid and enforceable,” said the spokesperson in an email statement. “These employment contracts are sought by many employees in the media industry because they guarantee tangible benefits. We look forward to vindicating our rights in Court.”

That's a pretty factual account.  Fox sued Netflix for poaching it's execs and Netflix went on the offensive and started talking about illegal non-compete clauses and creating “involuntary servitude” among workers.  The story got shared, with a lot of the folks in my social networks waxing poetic about how non-compete clauses are bad and Fox was wrong.

I mean, damn...

They're either ignoring or missed the fact that these executives aren't like normal people who signed non-competes and remained at-will employees. The executives in question from Fox had full employment contracts, which guaranteed them compensation for long periods of time if Fox decided to let them go.

This is why we can't have nice things. People take liberal and conservative stances without reading the articles that are shared via social.  If you saw non-complete and ranted without understanding there was an employment contract involved and now get it, that's cool.  We're good.  If you're still of the opinion that non-competes are invalid even when employment contracts holding huge payouts for separations are involved..  well, I don't even know what to do with you.

Netflix poached the execs. They read the employment contracts and thought they could beat them in California. Of special interest is the reference they make to Fox "reserving the right to extend those contracts indefinitely", which sounds like an evergreen feature that would allow a judge to void the employment contract based on the fact there wasn't a fixed term.

Those are technical details, and if Fox overreached with that, the employment contract might get overturned.  

But if you think non-completes as part of employment contracts with payouts for termination aren't valid...I don't even know who you are anymore...


The Darwinian Nature of Candidates Seeking Remote Work...

We've noticed something interesting on the recruiting trail at Kinetix.

We're a recruiting company and from time to time, we seek to fill remote-based positions, both for ourselves and our clients.  That's not unusual, because I'm sure a lot of you have remote-based roles you have to fill.

What's interesting is the way people talk about the expectations of a remote-based role when they're interviewing

Remote workers who are great hires have likely worked remotely and understand the true reality - working remotely means a lot of times you work harder than you do in the office. Homer remote The day slips away from you and you suddenly have been sitting at your desk for 9 hours without moving.  It can be productive, but there's no natural stop time.

Of course, the other side of the reality is that remote roles can provide some flexibility related to your personal life.  If you have to pick up a kid during the work day, you can likely get that done, but that doesn't mean your work day is over, or even that you're not working in the car while you're traveling to the pick up.

Here's what we've noticed on the recruiting trail related to remote candidates. There's something Darwinian going on related to the way people talk about working for home, and what they do once they're granted home-based work.  Observations:

  1. There's a class of employees who talk about remote-based work in terms of what it can do for them. They espouse the benefits for their life - they can do laundry! They can pick up their daughter!  They say these things to the recruiter... Um hmm..
  2. Then there's a class of employees who never talk about what remote work can do for them personally.  They might be thinking that in the back of their mind, but they'll never say it.
  3. When you hear these two classes of employees talk, you can expect that the behavior transfers past the interview - It's actually how they''ll approach work when they're in the job. When you call #1, you'll get voice mail more often than you do with #2.  

That's why I think a great interview technique is to float some questions about why someone would want to work remote, then shut the hell up.  Just let them talk and work through it.  

They don't need your help. Darwin was all about adaptations, and you'll see these adaptations alive and well on the recruiting trail for remote-based work.  

Both classes of employees love the benefits of working at home.

But you should never hire a remote-worker who hasn't evolved enough to NOT talk about all the things they're going to do with that flexibility.  They haven't evolved and they're not ready for the responsibility.  If they lead with the benefits for them personally rather than the benefits for them professionally, you're likely to be disappointed with the results.

The real players?  They never let you know that they're doing laundry or gong to a dance recital... They just do it, knowing that they're going to deliver more performance than they could in the office.