ERE.net

How well does your organization select and integrate talent for internal promotion? If you are like many organizations we’ve seen — not very well.

When promoting from within, do you select the person who is doing the best job in their current role? Do you promote the person you like the most, the person who has the most seniority, or the person who gives you attention and deference? It is not unusual to promote a good technical person or a good clinical person into a management position. Technology companies and healthcare organizations do this frequently.

If this is your current practice, then you are missing out on the opportunity to improve business performance. You may also be dramatically and unnecessarily increasing your cost of operations. This is hardly a good strategy in the current economy.

Look at the cost of a bad (mismatched) promotion: keep reading…

(Editor’s note: This is the sixth installment in Dr. Sullivan’s series. Here are Part 1, Part II, Part III, Part IV, and Part V.)

No matter how enthusiastic your employees are about participating in an internal movement program, they are bound to be somewhat frustrated if there aren’t a wide variety of assignments available for them to choose from. Even if you successfully excite your managers and other rotation program participants, you can’t automatically assume that they know how to identify or develop exciting assignments or rotations.

As a result, the rotation program manager needs to design a process and provide managers with a variety of suggestions and tips in order to make it easy for them to create internal movement projects, assignments, and rotations. This section highlights over 20 of the approaches that I have found to be effective in helping managers create more and better rotations. keep reading…

(Editor’s note: This is the fifth installment in Dr. Sullivan’s series. Here are Part 1, Part II, Part III., and Part IV.)

In this part of the series on job rotations and stretch assignments, I will highlight three key tools or approaches that rotation program managers can use to make an organization’s job rotation program more effective. These approaches include: 1) the critical elements of a well-designed individual job rotation; 2) tips for increasing employee participation in the program; and 3) a checklist for assessing whether your organization is a good “fit” for implementing a job rotation or stretch assignment program. keep reading…

(Editor’s note: This is the fourth installment in Dr. Sullivan’s series. Here are Part 1, Part II, and Part III. Next week, installment five of this series will address tools and tips you can use to improve your job rotation program.)

This series of articles started out listing the pain points that many organizations are experiencing today as a result of rotation-based development initiatives rooted in history and antiquated by Henry Ford’s standard.

It then progressed into program goals and key elements that characterize more modern second-generation programs under development. Last week’s installment explored the many program variations that are expanding the scope of rotation programs, making them more relevant as tools capable of addressing retention, motivation, and productivity improvement.

This week’s installment looks at emerging best practices and program metrics that can be used to assess your program’s performance.

Best Practices in Job Rotations and Internal Movement

Over the years, many firms have used job rotations in a variety of formats.

The most famous firm that has used internal movement for development is General Electric, but other firms have developed some best practices that can also provide learning.

keep reading…

(Editor’s note: This is Part III in Dr. Sullivan’s series. Here are Part 1 and Part II; next week in the conclusion to the series, look for best practices and program metrics.)

When corporate revenues are down or stagnant, talent managers typically shift their focus away from volume hiring to developing and improving existing employees.

Executives are always challenged to make the correct “buy or build” decision, but when hiring is frozen, organizations must place an increased emphasis on internal movement and job rotations to close critical gaps in talent supply and demand.

Unfortunately, many rotation programs are doomed from the start to produce mediocre results, because they employ a “one-size-fits-all” model that guarantees lower program participation rates.

As with most products and services, offering different program variations makes it more likely that your target employees will find a job rotation that fits their needs as well as the organization’s. Since the war for talent began more than a decade ago, the type of job rotation formats have expanded dramatically. It’s important to be aware of the various development opportunities available and the benefits and risks associated with each.

Here is a list of 26 different types of internal movements to consider.

Obviously, not every firm can offer employees all of these options, but it is not uncommon to develop programs that incorporate a handful.

keep reading…

Last week, Part 1 of this series introduced a number of pain points that render most corporate approaches to managing internal movement for development, retention, and talent ROI purposes ineffective.

In reality, most current approaches are relics from years of tradition, loosely defined, poorly integrated, and barely managed.

During this installment, I will build upon the goals and key elements of more effective second-generation programs discussed in Part 1 by focusing on the benefits of adopting second-generation approaches and methods to increase program participation rates. keep reading…

There is little argument that job rotations, stretch assignments, and other forms of internal movement are some of the most effective development and retention tools available. While world-class organizations aggressively manage deployment for development purposes regardless of the economic state, such programs become universally popular when economies turn sour.

When corporate revenues are down or stagnant, talent managers typically shift their focus away from volume hiring to developing and improving existing employees. Executives are always challenged to make the correct “buy or build” decision, but when hiring is frozen (the buy option), obviously the only remaining tool available to drive change in organizational capability and capacity is to “build” your current employees.

Such efforts increase the emphasis organizations must place on project deployment for skill building, mentoring, leadership development, and succession planning to ensure that the organization’s capability and capacity evolve — not deteriorate — during the downturn.

keep reading…

I am always looking for trends, new ways of doing things, or emerging practices that are changing, or at least influencing, the way we attract, source, assess, and recruit talent.

Some of them will most likely slip into history with little impact, but others will become the new way we do things.

Twitter is a recent example of an application that seemed of little practical use to recruiting until hundreds of people began to apply their creativity and developed interesting and useful ways to use Twitter for recruiting. It is being used by many organizations to announce new jobs to those potential candidates who follow them. It is used to help the recently unemployed stay connected and aware of open positions. It is used to communicate with a select group of prospective candidates or to students on a campus.

Here are three trends that I see as potentially significant. Please leave a comment letting us know what you are seeing, and what other tools, applications, or practices you think are emerging. keep reading…

The idea of redirecting recruiters toward internal movement and succession planning seems like a good one, but I’m afraid it is another dead-end recruiting street unless some basic principles are applied.

Wrong-Way Thinking

There is a common fallacy among a significant number of people that anyone can do anything: a good-looking applicant will make a high performing employee; a high performing employee will make a good manager; or, a highly skilled employee in Job A will also be a highly skilled employee in Job B.

Sorry, folks. We all know from experience this is general nonsense. Stories are legend about a top salesperson or technical whiz who failed as a manager; or, about a marketing whiz-kid who fast-tracked into the executive suite only to crash and burn on the job.

Let’s put this puppy to bed. The only time that past performance in Job A accurately predicts future performance in Job B is when both jobs are require virtually the same competencies. If Job B is different, requires more competencies or better quality ones, all bets are off. In fact, the only reliable way someone might even guess at future performance is to know the employee screwed up his or her last job.

Consider the Peter Principle. If you don’t know the term, either Google “Peter Principle” or look it up here. In short, Dr. Laurence Peter gave multiple examples of how employees tend to rise in the organization until they reach their natural level of incompetence. His message: every time that job requirements change — or an employee changes jobs — there is a strong probability that they will not be competent in the new role. Although Peter uses corporate ladder-climbing as his examples, his principles apply equally to all people holding jobs. The Peter Principle is a classic must-read for every recruiter or hiring manager.

In the next few paragraphs, I’ll explain why the Peter-Principle is alive and well.

keep reading…

During tough economic times it is essential that every corporate function become more strategic.

Cost containment is easy and is by no means strategic, but leveraging limited resources and restructuring activities to accomplish things you couldn’t do previously can be. Unfortunately, most corporate recruiting managers and many line recruiters are more reactive and incapable of looking at staffing more holistically.

Managing strategically requires recruiters to think beyond immediate requisition loads and transactional sourcing; it requires that recruiters think more proactively, and identify strategic talent opportunities.

One opportunity that routinely presents itself during economic contractions is the opportunity to trade up the caliber of talent in the organization by swapping in top talent into roles currently occupied by average or below-average talent. For socialists and poor performers this strategy seems harsh, but for anyone who has ever played a competitive sport, it makes perfect sense.

As global markets open up, competition on every front in business is becoming more cutthroat. In an era where an organization’s sustainability and innovation capability are largely tied to acquiring, developing, deploying, and motivating talent, a talent-swapping strategy could mean the difference between mediocre business performance and explosive business performance.

What Is A Talent Swapping Strategy?

The concept of talent swapping is borrowed from the professional sports industry. In sports, winning is everything, and it is a common practice for team management to externally seek out a “superior” player in a key position to replace a struggling player. When the team finds an available star, they “SWAP” or replace their struggling player. After the swap, the team still has the same number of players (no additional headcount), but has also dramatically improved its chances of winning.

When applied to the corporate world, a SWAP (Strategically Waving Average Performers) initiative proactively replaces poor performers in a key job only when an arguably/measurably better candidate has been identified and successfully recruited by the talent management function.

Factors Making Talent Swapping Possible

Talent swapping is a strategy that can be employed anytime, but it is much easier for organizations during times of economic contraction for a number of reasons, including:

keep reading…

When it comes to adding capability or additional capacity to a team, department, or organization, managers have also had to make a rather basic choice…either build the talent internally through training or buy it via recruiting.

Most firms strike a balance between buying and growing, although little if any strategic planning guides their decision. However, during tight economic times when recruiting budgets are severely restricted or even frozen, the emphasis almost always shifts dramatically toward “growing talent.”

If you are a recruiter or recruiting manager and you want to increase your impact on the business, a downturn is a signal that you should begin to focus on succession planning.

Why?

Tight economic times do not change the management demands for most organizations; in fact, decisions made during such periods will have a dramatic effect on how organizations can recover when the economy turns. So ensuring that the organization doesn’t have any critical holes in their bench for both leadership and mission-critical roles is a vital concern.

It is not uncommon for every employee to be asked to “do a little more” during hard times, which makes this a great time to develop talent using on-the-job projects. By speeding up “internal movement” and leveraging stretch assignments, managers can ensure that the right leadership and mission-critical talent is developed and ready to assume key roles that either open up as a result of turnover, retirement, or business growth.

If you see a slowdown coming in hiring volume, now’s the time to shift your focus toward succession planning.

What is Succession Planning?

Organizations use succession planning to help mitigate the risk of a vacancy occurring in key management and leadership roles that could impact the organization’s ability to perform.

In more strategic organizations, the scope of succession planning is expanded to include high-impact and mission-critical roles throughout the organization.

The activity looks at talent within (and in a few rare cases outside the organization) that can be developed to step into key roles on a timeline consistent with an anticipated vacancy. In essence, it looks to develop key players who can sit on the bench until needed. Positions with two or more possible replacements in development are considered to have a strong “bench strength,” while those with only one or none have little or no bench strength.

Why Tap Recruiters for Succession Planning?

While development for roles covered by the succession plan can include traditional training, more and more organizations are adopting a development approach that relies heavily on coordinating the acquisition of new skills or capabilities via rotations through roles that enable on-the-job learning and mastery of those key skills.

As product lifecycles have gotten shorter, so too has the timeframe with which organizations can develop talent. A few years ago, a manager in development may have had to sit in a role for 48 months in order to experience a full product cycle, but today that experience may only require a 10-14 month stint.

Given the changes in workforce demographics, global competition, mergers and acquisition volume, and technology, the act of developing through rapid redeployment has become a profoundly popular topic among senior leaders.

keep reading…

This week:

• Non-compete clauses
• “Color tests”
• Internal recruiting
• Resume search/software tool
• Working from home
• Job board debate

keep reading…

I first met John Williams when I went to work for a large financial services firm. He had been at the company for over a decade and was a top performer.

Whenever I mentioned his name, many would respond, “Oh, John! He’s always helped me out when I had a problem.” Or, “He’s one of the best-connected people I know in the company. If you need something, he’ll know where to go to get it.”

He was smart, helpful, and connected, and that’s the formula we all preach about how to succeed.

Yet, John languished in a dead-end job that was 80% clerical. He was passed over for promotions and new opportunities because everyone assumed he was happy where he was and he never sought new positions. He did not manage up well, nor did he want to. He was hoping that he might be recognized for his skills and abilities.

While some might say he lacked ambition, what John really suffered from was a lack of self-confidence and an equal lack of encouragement. I worked with him and his boss, and we eventually found a position with more responsibility where he thrived. He sought out mentors from his network and he learned the key elements of the job in weeks. In the past, whenever we hired an outsider person for this type of job it took months for them to fully understand the intricacies of the job and who to go to for advice.

keep reading…

The employees you already have are a prime source for the positions you have to fill. As the shortage of experienced, skilled talent becomes even greater, organizations that have developed solid internal recruiting practices and policies will be better off than those that haven’t. Your current workforce is a “diamond mind” of skills, corporate culture, and loyalty. By tapping into them as a source for open positions, organizations achieve greater loyalty, lower turnover, improved productivity and profits. Yet, very few organizations that I work with have effective, modern internal transfer and promotion policies. There are many reasons for this. One of the major reasons is that they have little information about the current workforce. Even though ERP and HRIS systems can usually accommodate storing and allowing a search for employees’ education, experience, and skills, very few organizations have input this data. Therefore, employees have to raise their hands if they are interested, and recruiters or hiring managers have no way to search for passive internal candidates.

The other major hurdle is that HR policies that were written in a time when labor and skills were abundant, and turnover low. These policies are often restrictive and discourage employees from moving. In fact, I was at a company a few days ago where employees are not allowed to apply for jobs that are posted on the Internet unless they have an okay from their manager and have been in their current position for at least six months! Surprisingly, most of the HR staff saw no problem with this practice and were even supportive of it, despite the fact that there are no similar constraints on an employee looking outside the organization for a position. What they have done, in effect, is create a disadvantage for themselves for no discernable reason other than a belief that “this is what should be.”

Unfortunately, we live in a real world where the market rules. HR has to be responsive to that market or lose good employees who most likely would have stayed if they could have made a move. Today, more than ever, employees are investors in our organizations and they can choose whether or not they share their expertise and skills with us. Each employee has a built-in return on investment meter that is constantly sampling the atmosphere and deciding if she is gaining or losing from a continuing association with their organization. As long as the employee feels that they are gaining skills and are being stimulated, they don’t look for different jobs and they contribute to the best of their ability within the system. But whenever the balance shifts even slightly, employees become vulnerable to any offer that may present itself. That is why having managers who have a history of good employee loyalty and low turnover are so valuable. Internal Recruiting I define several types of internal recruiting:

• Active: When an employee chooses to look for a new position

keep reading…