We may be early on this topic, but we have seen candidates with personal websites. Now, I must clarify - I’m not talking about MySpace profiles. I am referring to full-fledged, personal, web domains.

My initial take on this approach is that it is rife with vanity. But I have to confess, I took some time to browse their website and learn more about them.

Now I just caught up to this MarketingProfs.com article title What’s Your Google Identity? From the article:

People are googling you and making decisions about you from what Google reveals. Whether you are an employee looking to advance in your company, a professional seeking your next marketing role, or a consultant looking to land your ideal client, you should plan on being googled. And you should prepare for it.

Later in the article, the author states you need to be “virtually visible.” Now that is a new phrase to me and one that I expect to hear more often.

Building your “personal brand” is a new way to market ones candidacy for an employment opportunity. Watch for more candidates with personal websites appearing in your sourcing activities.

If you're new here and like what you see, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

Comments(0)

We always say that interviewing is a two-way street. Both the hiring company and the candidate have to be impressed with each other to continue the process. Either one can terminate the process at any time. That being said, BusinessWeek has an interesting article dedicated to candidates titled Ask The Right Question.

The author provides a strategy to 3 styles of questions all candidates should ask in an interview:

1. Here’s My Brain Working Questions
2. My Turn Questions
3. What Happens Now? Questions

I’ll let the author lay out the strategy for the questions (which is quite well developed). One overly simplistic tip I will share from our experience - candidates should come prepared with questions. I am always amazed at how little preparation some candidates incorporate into the interview process.

This approach is magnified in sales hiring. A sales candidate who asks few questions, or worse - none, is always red flagged. Sales success revolves around qualifying which involves question-asking ability. If a sales candidate does not display any form of that ability, the assumption has to be that their abilities are lacking in this area.

Comments(0)

Sales & Marketing Management has an quick-hitter of a story titled Motivational Forces in the Workplace. I thought we could keep the motivational/rewards riff going from this morning’s post, but this article is a quick rehash of a Monster.com study.

The article is rather unremarkable except for this bullet point:

Work-life balance matters more to women. Forty-one percent of women would refuse a job offer that provided no work hours flexibility. Only 26 percent of men would do the same. Still, once on the job, work-life issues flip-flop across gender lines. Forty percent of men say their current employer is not flexible enough regarding work-family balance, while only 28 percent of women felt the same way.

Isn’t that an interesting perception by both genders? Instantly, I suspected that the women were better at qualifying the job opportunity for a fit to their preferences. It stands to reason, if you place more value in work-life balance when considering an opportunity, chances are you will make a more informed decision.

What would be interesting to know is how these percentages play amongst Generation Y. They place high value on work-life balance so I would expect the gender difference to be less pronounced.

Comments(0)

Speaking Up Helps Keep Star Workers appears in one of our local papers - the Pioneer Press. The article discusses a topic we have addressed before that many employers assume is not active in their company - job hunting.

In case you were in doubt, some stats from the article:

A recent workplace survey of 16,237 workers by Leadership IQ, a leadership training and research firm in Washington, D.C., found that nearly half the people regarded as stellar performers were actively trying to leave their current employers.

That should grab every managers’ attention. 16,237 is a large sample size and 47% are actively looking to leave.

Forty-seven percent of your most productive, most creative, most valuable workers are mailing out résumés, going on job interviews, even contemplating other offers.

We see this fact every day. We source for positions beyond just salespeople and we incorporate many traditional and non-traditional channels to locate top performers. Invariably, we do kick up some lackluster candidates and we quickly screen them out of the process. Yet, it is surprising how many strong candidates we find. As you read further into the article, an interesting trend is noted:

Only 18 percent of “slackers,” the people who spend more time trying to avoid work than actually doing any, are looking around.

The stiffs have landed on your payroll and they know they have a good thing going. In sales, these employees are easier to spot since their sales numbers are simply not there. The survival method they use is to inflate their pipeline with ghost deals that always seem to be 3 months out. Managers and owners have been known to be entranced by the huge opportunities that appear to be just around the corner for this underperforming salesperson. They stretch out the paychecks as long as possible and then land on someone else’s payroll.

We see it every day. Be wary of a salesperson with 2 year employment stints on their resume. That time period is usually the amount of time needed to smoke out a pretender who made it on to the payroll.

Back to the article with an absolute necessity for successful management:

“Fewer than 25 percent of managers actually go out and talk to their employees about what motivates them and what demotivates them,” Murphy said. “This is just a fundamental aspect of being a manager: Figure out who your best people are and what motivates them.”

We can provide managers with their employee’s motivational pattern and reward structure. That provides a manager with a tremendous headstart. In the end, the author is correct - it takes communication to maintain a strong employee.

And don’t assume it’s about money. When someone quits her job, 89 percent of managers assume it was over money, whereas 91 percent of the workers who quit say it was anything but, Murphy said.

Please check out the Rewards section on our website for more information about motivational factors and rewards for employees. You may just save your superstar.

Comments(0)

Ok, I had to read this abcnews.com article slowly - Need a New Job? Go On Vacation. To cut to the chase - people are using their vacation time to test drive a new career they would prefer to have. Vocation Vacation - what a great name - offers this service:

the company offers more than 75 different career experiences all while your boss thinks you’re off sunning yourself on some sandy beach.

We have encountered companies that are implementing various forms of trial-for-hire programs even amongst high end sales positions. From the company’s perspective, I think it is a great opportunity to make sure you hire the right person for your culture.

However, from the employee’s perspective, the risk is monumental. If the employee is confident about their abilities and their fit to the company, they may pursue the trial for hire program. But they are the ones with the majority of the risk. They are (most likely) walking away from their existing position without a guarantee for this new position. It may appear that the hiring company is not completely sold on their candidacy as the best option. Granted, this is true in any hiring scenario (the dreaded 90 day probation period). Yet, the hiring company in the trial-for-hire situation seems less committed to the employee whether true or not.

May I be so bold as to suggest improving your hiring odds by using a repeatable hiring process that provides more insight into an external candidate than you may possess on your current employees?

Comments(0)

We keep an eye on the sales employment ads so we are informed of trends in the market. I came across an ad that was innocuous enough in its title. Then I read the opening sentence:

This is a job in our Customer Service Department that can lead to an outside sales position at our company.

What does customer service and outside sales have to do with each other? Nothing…that is the problem. We have seen this trap before with some of our customers. The skills and aptitudes required for effective customer service are markedly different than the skills and aptitudes required for successful outside selling.

This situation is exasperated by the initial customer service path. Think of a new employee who begins as a customer service representative. They become acquainted with answering the phone, doing the customer’s bidding, checking orders and answering customer questions.

Once they have developed those abilities, the sales manager will then ask them to step into an outside sales position. There they will be asked to cold call prospects, get past gatekeepers, convince strangers to consider their solution and ask questions of the prospects. As you can see, these two positions require completely different skill sets.

Typically, you will either hire a good customer service rep who will not be a successful salesperson. Or you will hire a good salesperson who will be a terrible customer service rep. Either approach is high risk, low reward.

If you need a salesperson, hire a salesperson. And please, do not use customer service as a sales training department.

Comments(0)

CareerJournal.com again with this article - Pre-Hire Tests Aim To Stop ‘Fakers’. I like to riff on this topic often. My comment - if we could simply keep the fakers off your payroll, we would be worth our weight in gold. Along those lines, I think the most accurate pricing model for our assessments would be $500 for determining a strong candidate and $1,000 for identifying a weak candidate. I doubt that would fly, but the logic is sound.

Some excerpts:

Despite the tests’ flaws, Dr. Griffith says pre-employment tests are generally more reliable predictors of performance than an interview alone.

Generally? An understatement in my opinion. Our primary focus is in the sales hiring arena and we have yet to encounter a hiring manager who has a perfectly tuned intuition. Every sales manager we have encountered has a sales hiring horror story.

Facing the perennial challenge of hiring the right applicant, more employers have adopted prehire tests in recent years, thanks in part to the Internet making distribution cheaper and easier. About 70% of entry and midlevel jobs at big companies now include testing, says Scott Erker, a senior vice president at Development Dimensions International, a Bridgeville, Pa., human-resources consultancy.

We have seen a significant increase in assessment usage over the past 2 years especially. We offer web-based assessments which are not proctored so fake answers are an issue. The author continues in this vein:

Employers and testing companies are aware that some applicants give misleading answers. So they include questions designed to weed out fakers.

Yes we do. Our assessments provide reliability scores and verification questions.

Sherri Merbach, senior director for organizational development for Orange Lake Resorts, which sells time shares in Florida, says prehire personality tests are especially helpful in hiring salespeople. Sales applicants are usually able to make a good impression — and thus interview well…

Welcome to our world. Most of the sales hiring horror stories we hear involve a smooth-talking sales candidate who appeared strong in the interview. Once they are on the payroll, the sales manager learns that their new salesperson couldn’t close a door.

In case you couldn’t tell, we are unabashed advocates of objective assessments used in conjunction with a structured hiring process.

Comments(0)

In a recent phone screen for a sales position, I asked a candidate to tell me how they believed their background fit the requirements of the position. Now mind you, the position required the candidates to listen effectively, build rapport, ask insightful questions and have excellent verbal communication skills. The candidate’s response:

Tell me what you’re looking for and I will tell you if I can do it.

Really, I didn’t need to go much further, but I did ask him a couple of other questions and received similar answers. So I ended the phone screen by stating, “That’s all the questions I have for you at this time. What questions do you have for me?” Here is the dialogue that followed:

Candidate: Is this a commission-only position or does it pay a base salary plus bonus or commission?

My Response: The position has a base salary.

Candidate: Does the position offer any benefits?

My Response: Yes, it has a full benefit package.

Candidate: Will this position work out of a corporate office or a home office?

My Response: A home office.

Candidate: Good, I like to make my own hours. I think that’s all my questions.

My Response: I want to thank you for your time today and have a nice evening.

Candidate: Thank you, you too.

The candidate was toast at this point.

Comments(0)

From CareerJournal.com’s mailbag article (emphasis mine):

Question: My son, a high-school student who has dyslexia and ADD, handles himself well in job interviews and on jobs bagging groceries or helping customers. But when he applies for part-time jobs at big store chains, he invariably flunks their online pre-employment tests. The tests take an hour or more and ask so many simple, repetitive questions that my son gets bored and just starts checking off answers randomly. Are these tests a legal way of discriminating?

– F.J., Irvine, Calif.

Answer: Such tests can be discriminatory, but proving it can be difficult. The Americans With Disabilities Act prohibits employers from using screening tests that eliminate candidates because of a disability — unless the employer can prove that the test measures qualities that are essential to performing the job, says David Fram, a director of the National Employment Law Institute, a Denver nonprofit training and education concern. If challenged, the employer would have to show that the test is necessary for screening, Mr. Fram says. In a hypothetical example, the employer might want workers who can stay focused and concentrate well despite lots of repetition.

On the other hand, if the test is merely gauging applicants’ general aptitude and is screening out your son for questionable reasons, he might be eligible for accommodations. Several conditions would have to be met. He would have to put the employer on notice that he has a disability. He would have to demonstrate that his disability qualifies him for protection under the ADA; the law sets a relatively tough standard for this. Then, your son would have to apply for an accommodation, such as permission to take the exam orally.

This topic is a tough one to deal with in that it may be that the questioner’s son simply isn’t a good fit for the position. That statement sounds harsh, but it is a truth that must be addressed (and I think the author does a good job of it).

One item that is often overlooked is that the employer is looking for the right fit for the position. As an employee, you should be pleased that the company wants to match your abilities to the position’s requirements. This approach provides a better fit for both employer and employee.

Comments(0)

This Saturday, November 11th is Veteran’s Day and I hope you will observe this holiday by remembering the sacrifices of our military men & women including their families. I would like to share a little bit of history with you regarding this day of remembrance.

June 28, 1919 - Treaty of Versailles was signed, officially ended World War I. However, fighting ceased seven months earlier for that reason, November 11, 1918 , is generally regarded as the end of the war to end all wars.

November 11, 1919 - President Wilson proclaimed the first commemoration of Armistice Day.

June 4, 1926 - United States Congress officially recognized the end of World War I when it passed a concurrent resolution.

May 13, 1938 - An Act (52 Stat. 351; 5 U. S. Code, Sec. 87a) approved making the 11th of November in each year a legal holiday.

November 11, 1953 - instead of an Armistice Day program, there was a Veterans’ Day observance. Ed Rees, of Emporia, was so impressed that he introduced a bill into the House to change the name to Veterans’ Day. After this passed, Mr. Rees wrote to all state governors and asked for their approval and cooperation in observing the changed holiday.

May 24, 1954 - The name was changed to Veterans’ Day by Act of Congress.

October 8, 1954 - President Eisenhower called on all citizens to observe the day by remembering the sacrifices of all those who fought so gallantly, and through rededication to the task of promoting an enduring peace. The President referred to the change of name to Veterans’ Day in honor of the servicemen of all America’s wars.

June 28, 1968 - The Uniforms Holiday Bill was signed. The bill intended to insure three-day weekends for Federal employees by celebrating four national holidays on Mondays: Washington’s Birthday, Memorial Day, Veterans Day, and Columbus Day.

September 20th, 1975 - President Gerald R. Ford signed Public Law 94-97 (89 Stat. 479), which returned the annual observance of Veterans Day to its original date of November 11, beginning in 1978.

Comments(0)