Paralleling the national average wage growth, tech workers saw their pay rise 1.9 percent last year to an average of $89,450 annually, more than twice what the average U.S. worker earns.
But with 2014′s increase the lowest since 2010, there’s growing discontent in the ranks.
The annual Dice Tech Salary Survey says satisfaction with pay declined 2 percent in 2014 to 52 percent of the surveyed workers. That may not seem like much of a change, but it’s a big drop from 2012 when 57 percent expressed satisfaction with their pay.
“Tech pros are less happy with their earnings,” observed Dice President Shravan Goli, “Signaling to companies that in order to recruit and retain the best candidates, offering more will be necessary.” keep reading…
Across the U.S., employers and the agencies that help them fill jobs are feeling increasing pressure to raise pay for workers with special skills.
Although hiring in many parts of the country and for certain sectors — manufacturing being one of the more frequently mentioned — was strong the last several weeks, growth nationally was generally minimal, the Federal Reserve said in a report on economic conditions released today. The Fed’s so-called Beige Book summarizes reports from business and employment contacts in the 12 Fed districts to provide a ground level view of conditions.
Generally, the Fed districts reported that between November and late December the pace of economic growth was “modest” or “moderate.” Consumer spending increased in most districts. Retail sales gains during the busy holiday shopping season were likewise described as “generally modest year-over-year.” keep reading…
Capping the end of the strongest 12 months of U.S. job growth since well before the recession, employers added 252,000 jobs in December as the unemployment rate fell to 5.6 percent, its lowest level since June 2008.
Economists had expected a strong year-end jobs report from the U.S. Labor Department, but were predicting growth closer to about 240,000 jobs and only a slight change in November’s 5.8 percent unemployment rate.
“The economy has some momentum,” Robert Shapiro, chairman of Sonecon, an economic consultancy, told The New York Times before this morning’s report was released. “I think it’s kind of hit a stride with respect to job creation.” keep reading…
After years of asking workers to do more with less, companies in 2015 will focus on employee burnout.
“Developing policies and procedures that relieve employees’ sense of being overwhelmed at work and promote sustainable work habits will be one of the top organizational change management initiatives of 2015,” says ClearRock, a leadership development, executive coaching, and outplacement firm.
Citing worker engagement studies from Gallup and a joint study by The Energy Project and the Harvard Business Review, ClearRock says that the high number of workers who are, to some extent, disengaged – 70 percent of the workforce, according to Gallup — results in lower productivity and the spread of negativity. keep reading…
Areas where recruiting must change during 2015
If you are frustrated because your recruiting approaches are no longer producing great results, you will be happy to know that there is a logical reason behind it. I estimate that 90 percent of recruiting leaders and hiring managers have yet to realize that the power in the recruiting relationship, which for years has favored employers, has shifted over to the jobseekers.
The technical term for this change is a shift from an employer-driven market to a candidate-driven market. And The Recruiter Sentiment Survey by the MRINetwork has revealed that 83 percent of the surveyed recruiters have realized that the power has now shifted to the candidate.
Knowing the reasons for shift is less important for recruiting leaders and hiring managers than recognizing that when jobseekers hold the power in the relationship, your current array of recruiting tools and approaches will literally stop working.
Another interesting phenomenon happens after the power shifts.
Consider the possibility that thousands of STEM women are literally missing out on billions of dollars in higher salaries as a result of the recent actions by tech firms.
Everyone knows that many of the larger tech firms have recently released their employee diversity numbers.
Obviously releasing this data was a positive move that resulted in an expanded discussion around the need to increase the number of STEM women employees at tech firms. But what most analysts have missed is the realization that, almost universally, the response to this shortage of women in tech firms has been some variation of a long-term “increase-the-supply” solution. In my book, increasing the supply is code for “doesn’t increase your salary costs.” This is what would occur if every firm instead solved its shortage problem with a short-term solution. This would involve actively recruiting STEM women away from other firms, because that competition would have the effect of immediately driving up the salaries of women.
Waiting 5+ Years for the Employees You Need Wouldn’t Be the Normal Response keep reading…
Trying to sell a relocating candidate on a lower compensation than what they make today, based on a lower cost of living, is a common closing technique in our industry. However, this is a pretty common miss in recruiting, but in my experience it is also a pretty easy fix. When attempting to get candidates to commit to relocation we most often go through a version of the “Ben Franklin close” — list pros and cons and hope that there are more pros.
I’ve recruited all over the world, and oftentimes when we are looking to differentiate one place from another, the concept of “cost of living” bubbles up high on the list either as a pro or a con. Emerging or developing markets, as well as rural markets often point to this as a great reason to move there and plant your stake in their community. It sounds good. Who wouldn’t want a lower cost of living? However, most often it’s used by organizations in those markets to try and hire talent that would command a higher market price elsewhere in a fashion that drives their compensation down to the new location’s cost of living index. This, my friends, is a classic logical fallacy. keep reading…
If you’re a funded startup, in a turnaround, experiencing an uptick in growth, going through an acquisition, or on the cusp of something new that will change your business dramatically — hiring visionary people who can lead your company through growth can be a major challenge. When I worked at a well-known fashion company, the business planned to open 500 new stores within two years. I was tasked with hiring an inventory manager who could handle the current workload while making sure this person would be able to triple their workflow and amount of responsibility in the near future. Then and since I’ve worked for Seven Step, I have often had to figure out how to get people to trust me and inspire them to take a journey with a growing company that is more promise than anything else.
Here is what I’ve learned. keep reading…
Private sector employers added 208,000 jobs in November, the seventh time this year that job growth has topped 200,000.
The report from HR services and payroll process ADP says that every one of the broad industry groups it tracks added jobs, with small businesses growing the fastest. Businesses with fewer than 50 employees created 101,000 new jobs. Employers with more than 500 workers contributed 42,000 new jobs.
“November continued to show solid job growth above 200,000,” said Carlos Rodriguez, ADP president and CEO. “Small businesses continued to drive job gains adding almost half the total for the month.”
Economists, however, were forecasting even stronger growth. Surveys put their expectations at an average of about 220,000 for the month. Bloomberg’s survey of 47 economists had predictions ranging from as little as 190,000 to as much as 262,000, with the average at 222,000. keep reading…
It can be tempting to dismiss the glowing praise of those who work at great employers in technology and other fields flush with cash. After all, what’s not to like about free smoothie stations, unlimited time off, Cadillac health plans, and other accoutrements of organizations that seem to spare no expense in attracting talent? But dig deeper, and you’ll find that some of the most valued policies at companies with satisfied employees aren’t necessarily about money. Here are a few worthwhile perks for HR professionals to consider, regardless of their industry or resources for employee benefits.
Reports from the Federal Reserve say shortages of skilled workers in a variety of trades are showing up here and there across the U.S., putting upward pressure on pay.
Employers are having to pay more to attract workers in construction and manufacturing in several parts of the U.S. In parts of the Midwest, mid-Atlantic region, and the Northern Plains states, transportation workers are seeing somewhat higher pay. And in New York the number of workers quitting to take higher paying jobs is on the rise.
That shortages of some professionals exist is nothing new. Last week Dice reported that unemployment among tech professionals had fallen to an average 2.7 percent in the third quarter. And SHRM’s LINE Report for October said its measure of recruiting difficulty has been going up for seven months straight.
But the Fed’s October 15th “Beige Book” notes that “Most Districts reported that some employers had difficulty finding qualified workers for certain positions.” (The nation is divided into 12 federal reserve districts.) keep reading…
Sometimes recruiters think that if they get the most money for the candidate, then the candidate will accept. But it’s not all about money, but more about making the candidate feel like they have a say in the hiring process and addressing their financial needs. keep reading…
In 30 years, I have yet to see a retention bonus retain, let alone motivate, anyone. – Kate D’ Camp, former VP of HR at Cisco
Let’s face it: only a few people voluntarily spend any time thinking about the use of employee retention bonuses (ERBs). I wouldn’t either, except for the fact that a majority of major firms use them instead of much more effective retention approaches. The use of retention bonuses is at an all-time high but I wonder why, because they’re expensive and only occasionally do work. In my over 20 years of work as a thought leader and practitioner in retention, I have been unable to find any credible corporate data that even comes close to demonstrating the effectiveness of retention bonuses.
The major flaws of employee retention bonuses fall into three categories, which include:
- ERBs are evil because they are a form of “paid servitude,” where you buy rather than earn employee loyalty.
- ERBs don’t actually work in a time when turnover rates have gone up 45 percent.
- ERBs have many negative unintended consequences that unintentionally create damage.
Maybe the lack of data proving the effectiveness of retention bonuses is not such a big surprise, because almost nothing in corporate retention is data-driven. There is also no data to prove the effectiveness of most other common “retention resource wasters” like improving benefits for all, engagement efforts to improve retention, or offering a coach/mentor or profit-sharing. Despite their lack of supporting evidence, the use of retention bonuses has doubled since 2010 (according to a recent WorldatWork survey). If you are a corporate manager or a talent management professional who is considering offering retention bonuses, review the following 25 ugly reasons thoroughly before you act. In my book, they rank at the very bottom as the least effective commonly used retention tool.
The Top 25 Reasons Why Retention Bonuses Don’t Work keep reading…
The Holy Grail in recruiting has always been the passive candidate: someone not actively searching for a job.
A LinkedIn survey of 18,000 full-time employees across all industries and 26 countries found what attracts these people. The results aren’t particularly shocking: passive candidates want more money. Either that, or they want a better work/life balance or a greater opportunity for advancement.
But the survey revealed more than just that. It also showed the surprising number of workers who consider themselves passive candidates, what active applicants want, and what motivates people to change jobs the least.
Some recruiting tactics are actually doing more harm than good, reducing the organization’s candidate pool and tarnishing its reputation in the process.
Check if your organization’s recruitment department follows any of these pervasive behaviors setting the wrong standards: keep reading…
Before you decide the grass is greener in agency recruiting, consult the Money Talks survey from Bullhorn. Released this morning, it shows agency recruiters on average earned $74,000 last year.
Some earned much more. Those who work primarily in contingent recruiting averaged $96,000. There’s no doubt that’s a goodly sum. Just keep in mind that a contingent recruiter earns zero unless the candidate they submit is hired, accepts the job, and keeps it usually for at least 90 days. keep reading…
A candidate from a well-known benchmark firm dropped out of our search for a General Manager position because the hiring manager took a week to respond to his interest. He said…
It’s not like I need their job. If it takes them a week to respond to a resume like mine for a job of this importance, they’re not the kind of company I want to work for. I move fast, and I can already see that my style wouldn’t fit their culture. –Wind River Associates
As a corporate recruiting leader, know that in a highly competitive college marketplace, there may be nothing that damages corporate recruiting results more than slow hiring.
Many firms now go the first step and track some variation of the “time-to-fill” metric. But despite that metric, not only are firms still almost universally guilty of painfully slow hiring, but to compound the problem, few recruiting leaders truly understand the many negative business and recruiting impacts that result from slow hiring. I estimate that the impact at most corporations exceeds tens of millions of dollars each year. And the dollar loss from this factor may be as much as 10 times higher than losses resulting from low recruiting efficiency related to the more popular “cost-per-hire” metric.
It’s not enough to be conscious and aware of slow hiring. Identify and then quantify in dollars each of the negative impacts of slow hiring, so that everyone from the CEO on down will support the streamlining of the process. After several decades of work on “speed hiring,” I have put together an extensive list of the negative consequences associated with taking too long to hire. The top 12 most damaging factors are listed below.
The Top 12 Reasons Why “Slow Hiring” Damages Recruiting and Your Business Results keep reading…
A case that has the potential to cost staffing companies — and, in turn, their clients — hundreds of millions of dollars is headed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The justices agreed to hear a FLSA suit against Amazon’s temp worker provider Integrity Staffing Solutions over whether workers should be paid for the time they spend going through company security on their way home.
Two former employees provided by Integrity who worked at Amazon’s two Nevada warehouses sued the retailer’s staffing firm demanding to be paid for the 20-25 minutes it routinely takes them to clear the daily security check. Because the case was filed as a class action, it could affect many or most of the estimated 38,000 temps at Amazon’s three dozen U.S. warehouses and distribution centers. keep reading…
In professional sports, almost everyone readily agrees that a top-performing athlete is worth their weight in gold. That value is clearly reflected in their compensation, where for example a top-performing NFL quarterback can get paid 10 times more than the third-string quarterback on the same team. The value of adding a LeBron James, Peyton Manning, or Lionel Messi to your team can easily exceed hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue. The same is true in entertainment, where adding the right actor to a film or rock star to a concert can easily double the gross over an unknown performer.
Unfortunately in the corporate world, the HR function has failed to come up with a credible method for quantifying the “performance differential” between an average employee and a top performer in the same job. And as a result of not having this economic justification, executives have all too often been reluctant to fund the leading-edge recruiting, retention, and management processes that are required in order to successfully attract and retain these highly desirable top performers and innovators. In last week’s article, I demonstrated how to calculate the negative costs associated with hiring and keeping weak performers, and in this companion article, I highlight how to calculate the performance multiplier of top performers.
Calculating the Performance Multiplier of a Top Performer keep reading…