2. Figure out the delta to business and give tax credits that directly give back the money to businesses.
3, This was Tusk's logic - Citizens get most of every dollar as opposed to inefficient government services, where they might see ten cents on the dollar if they're lucky.
4. The theory is that people who need social services won't need them at $20 per hour, so tax credits become the way to force/get both sides to the table.
As a moderate, I loved the idea of this solution. Will it ever happen? Probably not - The democrats who have pushed for the increase can't deal with the thought of government losing control of increased funding, and the GOP who has traditionally hated the idea can't give up on the free market narrative to look at a solution that makes senses.
Small business owners? They'll be stuck in the middle with super high turnover and impossible recruiting challenges.
A great idea that will likely never see the light of day. That's a shame.
When you think about big companies going down over the last couple of decades, it's really about corporations thinking their positions are insurmountable and being slow to try to develop new technologies and approaches that would replace the cash cow they found themselves with.
--Internet Explorer got overtaken by Chrome
--Blockbuster got overtaken by Netflix, and at the retail level even by RedBox
--<insert your own example here - there are many>
What's interesting to me about this aspect of change is that insurmountable positions aren't always replaced by better products per se. Instead, those strong competitive positions often get leapfrogged by competitors creating new access points.
Example - Microsoft was fat and happy with IE, but Chrome leapfrogged it as the operating system became less important and less central to the user experience. Of course, Chrome was a better product as well.
Another Example - Blockbuster loved it's retail approach, but Netflix started eating into it's market share as much by the mail order DVD access point as it's pricing model. Once broadband showed up, it was done.
That's why an interview a few years ago with then Google CEO Eric Schmidt uncovered that fact that Google views Amazon - not others routinely associated with search - as the biggest threat to its search business.
We all suspected the Echo’s purpose was – at least in part – to drive more Amazon sales. And that’s exactly what’s happening, according to a new study by NPD Group. The research company found that owners of the Echo spent around 10 percent more after they bought the voice-powered smart speaker than they did before.
Data for the study came from Echo’s full term of availability, which surprisingly actually spans two years (it feels like it’s been a lot less time to me). NPD also found that about half of the online spending done by Echo owners happens at Amazon.com once they pick up a device.
It’s not a huge deal for other retailers yet because of Echo’s somewhat limited reach thus far – NPD says it estimates around 1.6 million have sold thus far. But it’s a trend that could be very good for Amazon long-term, especially as it brings the Echo Dot back to market at a new, more affordable price point.
Voice search. That's a different access point that the way we've traditionally thought about search, and Amazon was first to the mass market with the Echo. The Echo is capable of voice interaction, music playback, making to-do lists, setting alarms, streaming podcasts, playing audiobooks, and providing weather, traffic and other real time information.
You know, the stuff you use Google and your smartphone for. It can also control several smart devices using itself as a home automation hub.
To Google's credit, they've never been slow to experiment. They're doing what they can to get Google Home (their competitive answer to the Echo) launched, but it's still not here.
New access points create change that eliminate dominant positions. Will Google always be dominant in search? History tells us no.
Some of this comes down to whether you view the world as an HR person or a recruiter. I've always had to be both.
If you're a recruiter serving a client, you get paid for a higher level of service. The expectations aren't the same as your internal recruiting group, who are more conservative and risk adverse as a rule.
Say you have 3 candidates with different sets of experience and different abilities to impact the business. Assume for now - and I know it's hard for a lot of you - that protected class has nothing to do with it.
Knowing the salary that it's going to take to land each of those candidates means opportunity for a candidate. Let's say you're an up-and-comer and there are some things we like, but you don't have all the things we need. You needing 70K in salary instead of 95K can make a difference in you getting the job. And no, you won't add the same value that the more experienced candidate will provide in most circumstances. You're not as deep.
But if my client likes the potential and can save money to deploy elsewhere on their staff, that's a viable option.
For a recruiter worth their salt who has to plow through the market, having salary info specific to the candidate isn't about screwing someone. It's about making the best match possible.
The workaround is obvious. I'm going to tell them what my client can pay for their experience. Then I'm going to ask them if they'll accept the offer at that level if we get to the end of the process and they're my candidate.
And yes, males get the same treatment. Every time.
Great recruiters are like stock traders - we help clients understand whether someone's a buy or a sell based on their price.
"Today Randstad Holdings, an Amsterdam-based human resources and recruitment specialist, announced that it would acquire job hunting portal Monster Worldwide, for $429 million in cash. The deal works out to $3.40 per share in cash and is a premium on Monster’s share price at closing on Monday of $262 million."
But before you label it a good deal, consider the following:
"It is a far cry from the heady days of 2000 — when Monster, which had gone public soon after being founded in 1999 (itself the result of a merger of two early job startups), had a share price of over $91 and a market cap of nearly $8 billion. Even in 2007, when its stock was around $51, Monster was valued as high as $5.5 billion."
To really get your head around that, consider the following chart of Monster's stock (email subscribers click through, you'll want to see this one):
Let's think about that chart a little bit and try to learn from it as HR leaders. The older we get, the more we discover that nothing is forever.
Monster is the HR version of Blockbuster.
There were two very fat phases of Monster's existence - namely 2001 and 2007. At any point, Monster could have broken off some R&D funds and, in addition to pumping you for as big of a job board buy as possible, could have been thinking what the future held for them.
The future ultimately arrived in the form of Indeed, the power of SEO in directing traffic to a careers site, LinkedIn, social and a thousand niche job boards.
Monster was late to the game on a bunch of trends. I like to think of the downfall of Monster in this way - over time, Indeed redefined the job posting with their SEO model and the subsequent sponsored listings. LinkedIn obviously owned the database and even fringe players like Glassdoor made inroads by owning company reputation.
Monster protected the cash cow. To be fair, it's happened to so many companies you can't blame Monster.
But from an OD perspective? How do you not only emphasize funding R&D when times are good, but how can you make sure that R&D spend is focused on eventually killing the cash cow of your company?
Those are hard questions, but the example - near and dear to the heart of HR that Monster provides - is too good not to share.
Welcome to the early days of budget season, American HR Leaders!!
Snuggled up to the friendly Finance and Accounting pros in your organization lately? Great... Here's a little snigglet to make sure you have enough cash to fund all the hyped pay-for-performance initiatives you are cooking up in the test tube you call a laptop...
The type of budget model you have? It matters.
Duhhhhh, you say. You get the budget. Hold on there, Donald Trump, because I'm not talking about the fact you have all the salaries loaded into the budget. I'm talking about the FORMULAS the Finance quants are using underneath the names and the numbers.
The big one you need to be aware of is this - Does your comp budget model have a Turnover Factor, or do the funds vacated by positions that are vacant remain in the comp budget, available for proper use?
It matters a lot. A turnover factor projects the amount of turnover a company/division/department is going to have during the budget year, then automatically reduces payroll by the appropriate amount. The logic used when putting a turnover factor in the budget model is that those funds should be unavailable in the budget since there won't actually be PEOPLE in those jobs (for that time period).
The effect of the Turnover Factor? Your compensation budget gets a lot tighter, and you'll have a lot more variances to explain month to month. And that kind of stinks... But it's actually the right way to do it from a business perspective...
Additionally, the Turnover Factor puts a LOT of pressure on the pay-for-performance system. Have a lot of managers who have a hard time telling low-performing employees they're not doing that great with no raise or a limited increase? A turnover factor means you are dealing with a truly zero-sum game. For every dollar your manager gives to a low performer, he won't be able to give that dollar to the star.
Especially if you have a Turnover Factor - because there's no built in slush fund. Budget 4% for increases? With a Turnover Factor in play, that's exactly what you have - with your active employees. Without the TF in play, you've got some wiggle room from a budget perspective.
So give your Finance pro a pound today and learn more. As your company grows, the Turnover Factor is a way of life, but maybe you can delay it a little bit longer. Remember - you're doing it for the PEOPLE - and who could blame you for that?
Microsoft said last week that it would acquire LinkedIn in a $26.2 billion cash deal. The acquisition, by far the largest in Microsoft’s history, unites two companies in different businesses: one a big maker of software tools, the other the largest business-oriented social networking site, with more than 400 million members globally.
That's why this post from John Sumser was my favorite take on the Microsoft/LinkedIn deal. You can always count on John to get deeper than most observers. Observe and learn:
"The single largest limitation to growth for LinkedIn is the inability to monetize the real value it delivers. LinkedIn preps knowledge workers for the next meeting. It expands the individual human capacity to recall and interact with others. It shaves time off the warm up cycle in conversations. It creates multiple additional points of stickiness between people who are not so close. This is how non-mediated job hunting works.
The problem for LinkedIn and its struggling stock is that there is no hard cash in this productivity improvement. LinkedIn turned out to be the single greatest monument to PowerPoint dollars – PP$ (those savings and ROIs that only exist in the presentation justifying a large enterprise purchase.) LinkedIn increased individual efficiency in a way that must be worth trillions of PP$."
LinkedIn's stock dived from 250 to 100 in 4 months as the market started holding it accountable for results in the absence of earnings. As REO Speedwagon once said, I believe it's time for me to fly.
To John's point, the things that make LinkedIn most valuable are the ones that are impossible to monetize on their own. But they are things that the right strategic (as well as giant) partner could justify monetizing as part of a deal.
LinkedIn did what they had to do. Can Microsoft find a way to monetize the real value of LinkedIn? It's hard to say, but finding ways to unlock the value of LinkedIn that John alludes to - perhaps across the Office product line and the CRM business - might be the best chance to print those vapor dollars.
After all, a dollar of retention is cheaper than a dollar of new revenue.
Damn - This presidential cycle is rough. You don't trust Hillary and are scared to death of Trump.
Then your fringe friends post on Facebook and espouse the benefits of Bernie - are are actively having a wake for America. You want to respond..but...
Don't do it, my moderate (on either side of the fence) friends. Instead, contribute to the commentary with what you know - how to build teams, do organizational planning and recruit great people.
Give them this - it looks like Trump can't win. Not because he's a <insert hot take here>, but because he doesn't have to the team to get it done and if he doesn't have the team now, he can't get the ground attack in place to get it done in November. More via this chart from the Washington Post:
You and I both know what that chart means from an HR/Talent/Recruiting perspective. In order to convert fence-sitters, you need worker bees on the payroll. Trump not only doesn't have them, but he won't be able to get it done in time.
That chart alone means Hillary is your next president, and the Donald is tracking towards a very lucrative book deal and new reality show on FX.
Film at 11 - you can't build an organization overnight.
Yes, that Zillow. You love the app. You love cutting out the middleman of real estate.
But inside that business, they're a company with their own share of issues - just like you.
For example, Zillow raided a competitor for executive talent. Non-competes and related IP policies be damned. How's that working out for them? Not great, but better than a few weeks ago. More from The Seattle Times:
"Zillow, the Seattle online real-estate information company, will pay $130 million to settle a lawsuit alleging that two executives it hired from rival Move Inc. stole trade secrets.
The settlement, disclosed in securities filings Monday, ends more than two years of litigation and removes the threat of a much larger financial blow to Zillow, the largest consumer real-estate web portal.
Silicon Valley-based Move, which is owned by News Corp., said it was seeking as much as $1.8 billion in damages.
The lawsuit stems from Zillow’s hiring of two ex-Move executives in 2014. Move sued Zillow less than two weeks after Errol Samuelson joined the Seattle firm as chief industry-development officer. Move filed a separate suit after another executive, Curt Beardsley, followed Samuelson.
Much of the attention in the dispute turned to Zillow’s July 2014 acquisition of rival Trulia, a $2.5 billion deal that created a giant in the business of online home-price information and advertising. Move’s Realtor.com and its other websites compete in that field.
Move said in a lawsuit that Zillow used confidential information from Samuelson to inform its acquisition of Trulia. Zillow denied that, saying it had been trying on its own to buy its rival since 2006.
The subsequent legal wrangling, and public comments by executives at both companies, had the rivals poised for a potentially nasty trial, which was set to start this month.
The deal stops Zillow’s expensive flow of legal bills. The company said it spent $15.7 million on its court battle with Move during the first three months of 2016. At the time, the company projected costs related to the suit to rise to between $18 million and $20 million during the current quarter."
Of course, there's other details to this one, like one of the execs wiping his laptop clean when the legal challenge came. Check this out:
"Zillow executives accused of destroying evidence in a $2 billion trade-theft case offered up a grab bag of reasons for deleting e-mails, smashing a hard drive and wiping their computers clean.
During a key court hearing this week, Errol Samuelson, a top Zillow exec accused of stealing confidential information from Move Inc., said he deleted documents because he didn’t want anyone to know his medical history — specifically, that he could be at risk of developing a rare and terminal hereditary health condition.
Samuelson, who was on the stand Wednesday, said his work computer held other personal health and financial details that he didn’t want others to know.
Beardsley destroyed a hard drive once connected to Move’s internal network by smashing it against a wall. Frustration motivated the incident, he testified.
My friend Tim Sackett had an interesting post up last week, describing his experience at college scholarships, tuition breaks and admissions as a white family with a son holding a 4.0 GPA and a 30+ ACT.
"My middle son is about to make his college choice. He’s got some great schools that have accepted him. He has some great ones that did not. His dream school was Duke. He also really liked Northwestern, Dartmouth, and UCLA. He has a 4.05 GPA on a 4.0 scale (honors classes give you additional GPA) and a 31 on his ACT (97th percentile of all kids taking this test). He had the grades and test scores to get into all of those schools.
What he didn’t have was something else.
What is the something else?
He didn’t come for a poor family. He didn’t come from a rich family. He wasn’t a minority. He doesn’t have some supernatural skill, like shooting a basketball. He isn’t in a wheelchair. He isn’t from another country.
He’s just this normal Midwestern kid from a middle-class family who is a super involved student-athlete, student government officer, award-winning chamber choir member, teaches swimming lessons to children, etc., etc., etc."
The comments are as interesting to read as Tim’s post – so read those as well.
I’ve got two sons that will follow Tim’s into a similar world – kids with dreams. Some of those dreams will undoubtedly be crushed in similar fashion to Tim’s kids. That’s the bad news.
The good news? Welcome to “Camp Suck It Up”. It’s a school that Tim knows well – I can tell you that as his friend. Don’t get me wrong – he’s got a great life, but like all of us, he’s out there grinding on a daily basis. One of the reasons I think I’m fairly chill about bad stuff happening is that I get rejected in the business world on a weekly – if not daily basis.
My only source of comfort for Tim – and anyone else of any color, gender or nationality – is that after your second job in the workplace, it really doesn’t matter where you went to school.
In my first job out of college, I was a dumpster fire. I followed the rules, was compliant and good at times, but I wasn’t as ready for prime time as I would be a few short years later.
By my second job, I was starting to figure it out. By the time I took my third job, no one cared where I went to undergraduate. I was valued based on what I had done and the potential people could see in me.
It sucks that Tim’s son won’t potentially end up where he wanted. But, if he kicks ass in the workplace early, it won’t matter 4 years after he’s done.
That’s the reality for anyone of any race, gender or nationality these days. Go get the hell kicked out of you in jobs one and two. Learn and get better.
Emerge in job three with a portfolio of work that shows you’re a smart kid who gets things done and can learn on the fly. Then you'll win. I'm betting all the Sacketts make that leap.
"The best thing about America is that anyone with a good idea can start a company. The worst thing about America is a lot of them do..."
Let me explain that comment a bit. You have entrepreneurial people in your company and your life. Some of you best people think they are destined to start their own business, even if their Behavioral profiles tell them (and you) that would result in the life equivalent of a dumpster fire.
Not everyone is cut out to do their own thing. In fact, most aren't.
Combine that reality with the fact that entrepreneurial life in American is uber-competitive, and you've got the prospect of wrecked lives and retirement accounts.
This study is based on around 3300 employers around the world, most in the U.S. To put that into perspective, there are over 200,000 employers in the U.S. alone with over 100 employees.
I use 100 employees, because once you get to that magic 100 employee number, usually at that point we see companies begin to purchase their first real HR technology – HR System of Record and an ATS. So, it’s a pretty limited sample, but better than anything else you’ll find, plus, it’s a good list of a possible 70 ATSs to take a look at. Also, realize, and I don’t have an exact number, but I would be there are well over 500 ATS systems on the market right now.
A lot of your best employees think they need to go start a company. This study shows the freak show of competition that exists in America. Here's the market share of the top companies that represent the tip of the spear when it comes to 500+ ATS providers:
Kenexa – Brassring
PeopleFluent (Formerly PeopleClick)
The point here is that unless your employees have a truly novel idea which they can combine with access to capital, they basically have a very limited shot at being successful in starting a business. True, this is one snapshot, but capital flows to areas of existing and potential need via the efficiency of the marketplace. Most segments any high potential employee is looking at to start a business will look like this.
If the segment doesn't look like this, you have to question whether theres' a market for the product/service in question.
So let's do some math. Let's say you're HireRabbit with .04% market share. Most of the players downstream in this market are going to be SasS companies with limited barriers for customers to get started. Let's be generous and say HireRabbit is going to get 5K in revenue per customer. Do the math based on Tim's numbers (200,000 companies) X .04% and you get a customer list of 800 clients. Do the math and that's annual revenue of $4M.
Then remember this is a company that is well into the top quartile of 500 ATS companies. Your employee has a great idea to start an ATS - a better way to do applicant tracking. Is the dream this level? Probably not. What's market share look like in quartile 2? Quartile 3?
Most other ideas enter into similar markets related to competition. They have to, or the idea is generally not viable.
If you're coaching your star on the math related to starting their own company, you might want to share this.
Of course, it's America. They can do their own thing. #AmericaHeckYeah