Sustainable Talent Planning, and a New Role for Recruiters and HR

Past talent initiatives have generally not aimed at people, but at improving efficiency, managing work flows, and ensuring quality. Now, service, innovation, and relationships are seen as the enablers of increased profit as the spotlight moves away from manufacturing and production. HR has the opportunity to shine or be replaced by some other function as it is asked to ensure the availability of and quality of talent. Recruiters are central to that effort and many changes are underfoot.


Shift Your Thinking



Instead of thinking about your job as filling requisitions, or sourcing candidates, or screening people, think of it as providing talent guidance to management. Recruiters can help managers achieve their business goals by helping them determine what combination of skills and experience will make it easier for them to achieve their business goals.


You can push back on hiring managers who seem to be asking for talent that is not right for the direction the organization is headed. You will also need knowledge of the talent market and be able to speak intelligently about the availability of certain kinds of talent with numbers and facts.


Having the right frame of mind is the most important aspect of change. It will not be easy to begin thinking like a solutions provider rather than a “slot filler,” but as long as that is your goal and you periodically assess whether you are moving in the right direction, you will succeed.

Reinventing HR

I had a discussion with an esteemed colleague the other day at an HR meeting about reinventing HR in light of the current economic environment. I wonder if other HR practioners have given any thought to this since HR has for many companies taken a hugh hit both with personnel reductions and what their real value is to the business.

I think that if you are on top of your game you would be thinkning of this on a daily basis. Asking real questions about your departments' value and how the business preceives it. Think of these few things when you have that in-depth discussion with yourself, CEO, and department members:

• do they truly understand the economics of business?
• do you and they understand the new changes in healthcare and the impact on the business?
• do they really understand the business or just the basics?
• are they fully engaged with the managers they support?
• what profound improvement can they make that benefits the business?
• do you have a direct link to the CEO, I mean report to them?
• is the HR department disconnected from the daily operations?
• do you really understand talent development and process improvement?
• are they Six Sigma ceretified?
• have you off-loaded administration to a self service enviroment?

These are just a few questions you should be asking yourself and your staff. What are your thoughts on this very important subject, drop me a line at wgstevens2@gmail.com

How Well Do You Really Read?

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mtaetr in waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are, the olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. If you can raed tihs, psot it to yuor wlal. Olny 55% of plepoe can.

Intsring tohught.

Putting the 'Social' in Social Media

Paul Gillin of IDG recently surveyed 55 marketers, including many at b-to-b companies, about their satisfaction with social media tools. While the results aren't statistically valid, they yield some interesting insight on how the media landscape has changed. 

Respondents said that in 2006 their companies were using an average of less than one social media platform each. By last year, the average had swelled to more than eight. Equally interesting were the satisfaction ratings. Just two of the 55 respondents said they perceived the ROI on their social media investments to be negative, while 46 rated it somewhat or very positive.

There's both good and bad news in these trends. Businesses have clearly turned the corner in their adoption of social platforms, but the rush to join the party indicates that they may be reverting to the mass-market mentality that social marketing explicitly rejects.

The mindset of mass has been ingrained in the marketing conscience for a century. In a world in which the only efficient way to relay a message to a small number of people who cared was to bother a large number of others who didn't, big media was the only game in town.

Online media have flipped this equation. Success is now defined by the ability to establish meaningful conversations about very specific topics. Quality displaces quantity, and relationships replace messages. 

A lot of marketers are having a hard time grasping this because they spent so many years doing the opposite. They see new channels as a way to build another mass audience for the same old messages. They wear their Twitter follower count as a badge of honor. They miss the point. 

Social media are called social for a reason. They are a means to create relationships between individuals. Human resources professionals at Sodexo Worldwide have learned this. The big food service and facilities management company has all but discarded job boards in favor of Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter and a variety of conversational tools. The reason: They found that initiating conversations with applicants before moving them into the recruitment funnel improved both recruiter efficiency and candidate enthusiasm. Along the way, the volume of applications jumped 25% in two years, while recruitment ad spending dropped $300,000. 

The new challenge for b-to-b marketers will be to exploit the potential of social media to create connections between all their employees and all their constituents. This will present enormous governance issues as we begin to “media-train” entire companies instead of just a few individuals. That's a topic for future columns. For now, the challenge is to discard the old economics of mass and embrace the value of one-to-one.

What the Best Companies Do to (Re)engage Their Employees

Engagement refers to the commitment employees feel toward their organization (eg, their willingness to recommend it to friends and family, their pride in working for it, and their intentions to remain a part of it). But it’s also about employees’ discretionary effort – their willingness to go above and beyond the call of duty or go the extra mile for the organization. Right now, as organizations need to do more with less and strive for greater efficiency, tapping into the discretionary effort of employees is more essential than ever.



While necessary, engagement alone is not sufficient for achieving maximum levels of individual and organizational effectiveness. Indeed, many organizations characterized by high levels of employee engagement still struggle with performance issues. Leaders must not only engage and motivate employees but also enable them to channel their efforts productively.

In an enabled workforce, employees are in roles that optimize their skills, abilities, and interests. Likewise, employees have the essential resources to get the job done (eg, information, technology, tools and equipment, financial support), and they are able to focus on their key responsibilities without wasting time navigating obstacles in the work environment, such as procedural restrictions and non-essential tasks.

Companies that consistently focus on people as their most important asset are likely to foster the employee engagement and employee enablement necessary to cope with economic challenges and set the stage for enhanced performance as the economy recovers. Hay study results and consulting experience show, when it comes to employee issues, a downturn is not the time to take your eye off the ball. Organizations that follow the lead of Most Admired Companies and put people first in both good times and bad times will be rewarded with employee loyalty and motivation to drive sustained performance.

7 Strategic Questions Business Media Leaders Should Be Asking

Over the last few weeks a major swathe of the quoted business media companies have been reporting their results. While I have covered some of them on this blog I have not done so from the perspective of a financial analyst. Instead, I find it fascinating to see the leadership teams of these companies present their strategy for their businesses.

Individually these results presentations tell a lot about how an individual business is shaping up. What are the threats to their traditional markets? How are they making the transition to a digital future? How strong is the management team? etc. What gets more interesting though is when you aggregate these presentations and try to distil some key themes from them.

So here I would like to pull out 7 key questions that I believe business media companies should be asking themselves if they are to prepare themselves for the years ahead:

1. What business am I in?
2. What does my company do really well?
3. In which markets do we own brands with ‘last-man standing’ advantage?
4. What is our emerging markets strategy?
5. What are we doing to move up the value chain of information in your chosen markets?
6. Is my business structured for the past or the future?
7. Can I explain my company strategy clearly, simply and believably?

Any others that you’d like to contribute? Please send me your comments to wgstevens2@gmail.com .

from Rory Browns blog

Emotional Intelligence - Test Yourself

One of the most overlooked areas in executives in their emotional intelligence. You should test yourself by going to this link: http://psychology.about.com/library/quiz/bl_eq_quiz.htm.

See how you fair.

The Top 10 Leadership Qualities

Leadership can be defined as one's ability to get others to willingly follow. Every organization needs leaders at every level. Leaders can be found and nurtured if you look for the following character traits.



A leader with vision has a clear, vivid picture of where to go, as well as a firm grasp on what success looks like and how to achieve it. But it’s not enough to have a vision; leaders must also share it and act upon it. Jack Welch, former chairman and CEO of General Electric Co., said, "Good business leaders create a vision, articulate the vision, passionately own the vision and relentlessly drive it to completion."



A leader must be able to communicate his or her vision in terms that cause followers to buy into it. He or she must communicate clearly and passionately, as passion is contagious.



A good leader must have the discipline to work toward his or her vision single-mindedly, as well as to direct his or her actions and those of the team toward the goal. Action is the mark of a leader. A leader does not suffer “analysis paralysis” but is always doing something in pursuit of the vision, inspiring others to do the same.

• Integrity is the integration of outward actions and inner values. A person of integrity is the same on the outside and on the inside. Such an individual can be trusted because he or she never veers from inner values, even when it might be expeditious to do so. A leader must have the trust of followers and therefore must display integrity. Honest dealings, predictable reactions, well-controlled emotions, and an absence of tantrums and harsh outbursts are all signs of integrity. A leader who is centered in integrity will be more approachable by followers.
• Dedication means spending whatever time or energy is necessary to accomplish the task at hand. A leader inspires dedication by example, doing whatever it takes to complete the next step toward the vision. By setting an excellent example, leaders can show followers that there are no nine-to-five jobs on the team, only opportunities to achieve something great.
• Magnanimity means giving credit where it is due. A magnanimous leader ensures that credit for successes is spread as widely as possible throughout the company. Conversely, a good leader takes personal responsibility for failures. This sort of reverse magnanimity helps other people feel good about themselves and draws the team closer together. To spread the fame and take the blame is a hallmark of effective leadership.
• Leaders with humility recognize that they are no better or worse than other members of the team. A humble leader is not self-effacing but rather tries to elevate everyone. Leaders with humility also understand that their status does not make them a god. Mahatma Gandhi is a role model for Indian leaders, and he pursued a “follower-centric” leadership role.
• Openness means being able to listen to new ideas, even if they do not conform to the usual way of thinking. Good leaders are able to suspend judgment while listening to others’ ideas, as well as accept new ways of doing things that someone else thought of. Openness builds mutual respect and trust between leaders and followers, and it also keeps the team well supplied with new ideas that can further its vision.
• Creativity is the ability to think differently, to get outside of the box that constrains solutions. Creativity gives leaders the ability to see things that others have not seen and thus lead followers in new directions. The most important question that a leader can ask is, “What if … ?” Possibly the worst thing a leader can say is, “I know this is a dumb question ... ”
• Fairness means dealing with others consistently and justly. A leader must check all the facts and hear everyone out before passing judgment. He or she must avoid leaping to conclusions based on incomplete evidence. When people feel they that are being treated fairly, they reward a leader with loyalty and dedication.
• Assertiveness is not the same as aggressiveness. Rather, it is the ability to clearly state what one expects so that there will be no misunderstandings. A leader must be assertive to get the desired results. Along with assertiveness comes the responsibility to clearly understand what followers expect from their leader.
• A sense of humor is vital to relieve tension and boredom, as well as to defuse hostility. Effective leaders know how to use humor to energize followers. Humor is a form of power that provides some control over the work environment. And simply put, humor fosters good camaraderie.

Intrinsic traits such as intelligence, good looks, height and so on are not necessary to become a leader. Anyone can cultivate the proper leadership traits. So, can you define the leadership traits your managers and CEO have against these qualities?


By David Hakala on March 19, 2008 The Help

 

Coming Soon to Your Business: A Leadership Crisis

Worried about your next generation of leaders?



You’re not alone. According to a new survey about leadership skills from Pearson and Executive Development Associates Inc. (EDA), 57% of business executives said their leadership talent pipeline was the same or weaker today than it was two years ago. Seventy-five percent said increasing bench strength will be their top business priority for the next two to three years. Is this too little too effort?

When asked what skills were needed to assume executive positions within the next three to five years, respondents cited strategic thinking, leading change, the ability to create a vision and engage others around it, the ability to inspire, and the ability to understand how the total enterprise works. But the respondents also agreed these were the very skills lacking in their current talent pool.


The right successor must have just the right blend of personality, time and experience. And with a more complex and faster changing marketplace destined to be our future, the ability to deal with ambiguity and paradox is paramount. This combination requires innate talent plus development. Creating this competency can take years and many people just are not equipped to ascend to the role. And others who have the skills and experience aren’t willing to give up their personal and family lives in exchange for a promotion and title. What motivated the Baby Boomers doesn’t motivate Gen X and Gen Y.

In addition to lack of skills, a leadership shortage is all but a done deal. When the Baby Boomers finally decide to slow down or retire, pure demographics will stall the succession. Gen X, the succeeding generation, is little more than half the size of the Boomers. And many Gen X and Gen Y are putting family before careers.



One more glitch: while three to five years may not be enough time to develop the next generation of leaders, it might also be too long in a competitive market. Many talented Gen X are tired of waiting for the Boomers to get out of the way. As the economy is rebounding, job offers will start coming in. It is already happening. Competitors and emerging companies are scouring the job market for talent and your next leader could be their target.

Source: Workforce Trends

Did You Communicate Your Profit Goals

I just finished Ram Charan's book "Profitable Growth" and found as I have with his other books profound wisdom in the art of leadership communication. Although I communicated to my staff over the years the revenue and profit expectations of the company each year I know for a fact other senior managers did not.

In the book, Charan explicitly says that for the comapny to reach its targets it needs every employee engaged in the goal. I know for a fact that this was one of my company's flaws. It really never communicated from the top what was expected, we only heard when we did not make our goals in quarterly meetings.

If you are a true HR leader, you should make sure your CEO is on the same page as Charan expresses. Get everyone involved from the get go and that is how you achieve your goals. All are on a positive slope.

Why Do People Hate HR - A Sobering View

I thought I would revisit this sobering question since all I have been preaching over the last 2 years is how HR should be a strategic business partner and be at the table with the CEO. In addition in my discussions with many HR professionals out of work this issue really comes to light when they have to deal with HR departments when applying for work. Well here is an excerpt from an August 2005 Fast Company article that may open your eyes wide even today (click on the link for the complete article). The issue has not gone away.

In a knowledge economy, companies with the best talent win. And finding, nurturing, and developing that talent should be one of the most important tasks in a corporation. So why does human resources do such a bad job -- and how can we fix it?

Well, here's a rockin' party: a gathering of several hundred midlevel human-resources executives in Las Vegas. (Yo, Wayne Newton! How's the 401(k)?) They are here, ensconced for two days at faux-glam Caesars Palace, to confer on "strategic HR leadership," a conceit that sounds, to the lay observer, at once frightening and self-contradictory. If not plain laughable.

Because let's face it: After close to 20 years of hopeful rhetoric about becoming "strategic partners" with a "seat at the table" where the business decisions that matter are made, most human-resources professionals aren't nearly there. They have no seat, and the table is locked inside a conference room to which they have no key. HR people are, for most practical purposes, neither strategic nor leaders.

I don't care for Las Vegas. And if it's not clear already, I don't like HR, either, which is why I'm here. The human-resources trade long ago proved itself, at best, a necessary evil -- and at worst, a dark bureaucratic force that blindly enforces nonsensical rules, resists creativity, and impedes constructive change. HR is the corporate function with the greatest potential -- the key driver, in theory, of business performance -- and also the one that most consistently underdelivers. And I am here to find out why.

Why are annual performance appraisals so time-consuming -- and so routinely useless? Why is HR so often a henchman for the chief financial officer, finding ever-more ingenious ways to cut benefits and hack at payroll? Why do its communications -- when we can understand them at all -- so often flout reality? Why are so many people processes duplicative and wasteful, creating a forest of paperwork for every minor transaction? And why does HR insist on sameness as a proxy for equity?

It's no wonder that we hate HR. In a 2005 survey by consultancy Hay Group, just 40% of employees commended their companies for retaining high-quality workers. Just 41% agreed that performance evaluations were fair. Only 58% rated their job training as favorable. Most said they had few opportunities for advancement -- and that they didn't know, in any case, what was required to move up. Most telling, only about half of workers below the manager level believed their companies took a genuine interest in their well-being.

So here is why again:

1. HR people aren't the sharpest tacks in the box. "HR doesn't tend to hire a lot of independent thinkers or people who stand up as moral compasses," says Garold L. Markle, a longtime human-resources executive at Exxon and Shell Offshore who now runs his own consultancy.
2. HR pursues efficiency in lieu of value. Why? Because it's easier -- and easier to measure.
3. The corner office doesn't get HR (and vice versa).
4. HR isn't working for you. Want to know why you go through that asinine performance appraisal every year, really? Markle, who admits to having administered countless numbers of them over the years, is pleased to confirm your suspicions. Companies, he says "are doing it to protect themselves against their own employees,"

The problem, if you're an HR person, is this: The tasks companies are outsourcing -- the administrivia -- tend to be what you're good at. And what's left isn't exactly your strong suit. Human resources is crippled by what Jay Jamrog, executive director of the Human Resource Institute, calls "educated incapacity: You're smart, and you know the way you're working today isn't going to hold 10 years from now. But you can't move to that level. You're stuck."


That's where human resources is today. Stuck. "This is a unique organization in the company," says USC's Boudreau. "It discovers things about the business through the lens of people and talent. That's an opportunity for competitive advantage." In most companies, that opportunity is utterly wasted.And that's why I don't like HR.


I am sure I will really alienate some of my peers with this post but after many years of preaching strategy most HR departments are still stuck in the mud based on the above.


Keith H. Hammonds is Fast Company's deputy editor.

So What Do Leaders Do in Business That Sets Them Apart?

The question I am sure every employee asks is "what makes him a great leader and not me?". Well I know that I asked myself that question when assessing people I have worked for over my career. Well, I think Jack Welch has said it best in his book "Winning". I have always been a fan of Welch and have read all his books and even was a stockholder of GE for many years. In his latest book, "Winning", I think he really articulates what leaders do and after re-reading this book for a 2nd time it finally hit home. So, what leadership knowledge has Jack imparted upon us, here are his eight key points:

1. leaders relentlessly upgrade their team, constantly assessing their progress and evaluating them along the way
2. leaders make sure people breath the vision set, not just see it
3. leaders get into people's skin, through positive energy and optimism
4. leaders establish trust and credit. There is transparency and candor with their style
5. leaders have the courage to make unpopular decisions
6. leaders probe and question how things are done to see additional opportunity or new methodology
7. leaders inspire risk taking
8. leaders celebrate

As I look back on the people who lead the companies I have worked for I can name a few who follow these important guidelines and style of management.  You know who you are, see my blog post on August 6, 2008. 
Also ask yourself does your CEO possess these qualities and if not how does your business rank against the competition. 

Social Networkers Still Love E-Mail

With reports of young people abandoning e-mail to communicate via social networks, Facebook developing its own full-featured Webmail system and predictions that in a few years even business users will have exchanged traditional e-mail for social sites, it would appear that the success of social networks was hurting e-mail usage.



Based on data from customer relationship marketing agency Merkle, time spent with personal e-mail as of fall 2009 was even with the prior year. Nearly three-quarters of respondents spent at least 20 minutes a week e-mailing friends and family.

Merkle also found that social network users check their inboxes more frequently than those who shun social sites.


Merkle noted several reasons for the increased e-mail usage among social users, including demographics and that social site notifications are often sent to traditional inboxes.



Those inboxes, in most cases, are the same ones marketers are trying to reach. A strong majority of social network users surveyed said they used the same e-mail address for their social activities as they gave for permission e-mail marketing campaigns. As networked users check on their updates avidly, they are also putting themselves in the reach of e-mail marketers.

“There is no doubt that social media sites, such as Facebook, YouTube and Twitter, have grown in popularity across demographics,” said Lori Connolly, director of research and analytics at Merkle, in a statement. “Yet, we are seeing consistent social use of the email channel, as well as evidence to support the idea that social networking and email use are actually more related than previously thought.”



Keep up on the latest digital trends. Learn more about an eMarketer Total Access subscription today.

Are You #2 in Your Company? If Not Ask Yourself Why

I am re-reading "Winning" by Jack Welch and again was reminded of how lucky I have been in my HR career. Since 1978, when I worked for Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, I have had the great opportunity to work for CEO's that saw HR was a key player on their team. I remember my first meeting with Willard Sweetser, my first boss in New Jersey, when he asked my how much I knew about business and not HR. We sat and discussed our views for about 3 hours when he finally said, "you move into my office with me" you are my #2 person on this job.  That has been my joy and luck over the years working for CEOs, them viewing HR as their right hand and left hand along with the CFO from NJ to Oak Ridge, TN, to Boston, to LA, to GA.

Jack Welch was asked at a meeting in Mexico how he viewed HR and his answer was swift and direct, "without a doubt, the head of HR should be the second most important person in any organization". With an audience of 5,000, he asked how many CEO's in their company viewed HR that way. Well, about 50 hands went up and Welch was astounded but not surprised since it has been his experience when he asks that question during his speaking tours.

If you are not the number 2 in your organization you have to ask these three questions as to why:

1. can your CEO/senior management team quantify your impact on the organization?
2. have you gotten relegated to administrivia, a catch all for programs, benefits and the like
3. are you twisted up in palace/organizational intrigue?

If so, you need to re-think how to quantify, delegate, and pass on politics. So where do you stand? Then after you ask yourself that question read Jack Welch's book and you will find out many answers to your question. It is a great read for HR practicioners.

How To Pick A Good Fight

Peace and harmony are overrated. Though conflict-free teamwork is often held up as the be-all and end-all of organizational life, it actually can be the worst thing to ever happen to a company. Look at Lehman Brothers. When Dick Fuld took over, he transformed a notoriously contentious workplace into one of Wall Street's most harmonious firms. But his efforts backfired - directors and managers became too agreeable, afraid to rock the boat by pointing out that the firm was heading into a crisis. Research shows that the single greatest predictor of poor company performance is complacency, which is why every organization needs a healthy dose of dissent. Not all kinds of conflict are productive, of course - companies need to find the right balance of alignment and competition and make sure that people's energies are pointed in a positive direction. In this article, two seasoned business advisers lay down ground rules for the right kinds of fights. First, the stakes must be worthwhile: The issue should involve a noble purpose or create noticeable - preferably game-changing - value. Next, good fights focus on the future; they're never about placing blame for the past. And it's critical for leaders to keep fights sportsmanlike, allow informal give-and-take in the trenches, and help soften the blow for the losing parties.

for full text click on the link from HSB

Marketers to Shift Budgets to Social, Search and Mobile

Indianapolis—Marketers plan to increase their online marketing budgets by an average of 17% this year, drawing money away from traditional channels such as TV, print and radio advertising, according to a new report from e-mail marketing company ExactTarget and Internet market research company Econsultancy.



According to the companies' "Marketing Budgets 2010: Effectiveness, Measurement and Allocation," two-thirds of marketers are planning to increase their investment in social media, even though less than 20% say they can effectively measure their return on that spending.

In addition, search marketing will get a big boost—64% of companies plan to increase budgets for search-engine optimization (organic search), while 51% will increase spending on paid search. And 56% plan to increase their budgets for mobile marketing.



The online study of 1,000 marketers was conducted last month.

from the Daily News Alert
Christopher Hosford ,Story posted: February 12, 2010 - 12:24 pm EDT

Are You At the Table Yet?

Earlier this week I attended the HR Executive Roundtable Group meeting which I co-founded at ARRIS. The speaker was Joel Koblenz from the Koblenz Group in Atlanta who talked about what CEOs want from HR leaders and what they expect. Joel's discussion to the group was "a view from the top". The topic was timely and on target based on what we currently are seeing in the economy and industry. 


It reminded me of a post I put up last July so I thought I would repost it again since the points that Joel touched on were what I wrote about last year.  In addition, Joel mentioned 2 other key points that I failed to bring up in that previous post:

• meeting with your CEO weekly to calculate the HR strategy against the current business strategy
• making sure that you understand the business from the ground up, not just what you produce and who are your key competitors.

In addition, all successful corporations use HR strategically, not just to manage administration and other mundane HR tasks. CEOs are interested in growth, profits, innovation, and the ability to retain customers. HR is at a key position to help the CEO attain all of these objectives. To do this your time in the HR leadership role should consist of the following:

• discussing talent, retention, and talent development and pipeline candidates;
• compensation and competitive intersections of market and attaining the best talent;
• benefits, maintaining a competitive package and harnessing costs, especially health and 401K and pensions;
• identifying integration acquisitions quickly;
• anticipating critical business events and regulatory issues;
• guiding and maintaining a daily interaction with the CEO and key business leaders;
• understanding the dynamics of the economy and how they impact the business;
• and finally enabling growth drivers at the employee and business levels.

Are you doing these key functions on a daily basis? Let me know your thoughts.

One Ambivalent Economy + Many Cautious Employers = One Difficult Job Market

For those looking for work these days, job security may be a stubbornly elusive goal.

More than seven million jobs have been lost during this recession, and so far, few have come back. When jobs do return, say experts, many will be temporary, contract or short-term. Risk-averse employers seeking cost savings and flexibility will outsource whatever they can to smaller firms or independent contractors before hiring full-time employees. That means job seekers will have to be more flexible, willing to take short-term assignments or relocate to places where jobs are plentiful. In the days ahead, fewer Americans will be hired by large corporations, and more will have to work at small companies, in guilds of contractors or through self-employment.

In many respects, none of these changes are new.

"The future looks like the past only more so," says Wharton management professor Peter Cappelli. "What happens as a result of these big downturns is that the trends already underway just get speeded up." For example, the percentage of the labor force over 55 years old has grown in the past few years as the baby boom generation aged and decided to work longer. The financial crisis magnified that trend as more boomers delayed retirement in response to their plummeting 401(k)s. In other cases, companies that were planning to trim workers did so quickly instead of gradually. Sectors that were already shrinking shrunk faster. More jobs moved overseas. Ailing businesses failed instead of hanging on.

For job seekers, it won't be easy to figure out where to go next. In its 10-year employment outlook, The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics projects that 96% of job growth between now and 2018 will come from service-providing industries, the top sectors being professional and business services and health care and social assistance. Cappelli says such long-term projections aren't worth much to job seekers, however, because people adapt to them the same way investors react to a stock tip -- by flooding the market. "Everyone says there are jobs in health care, but nursing schools have been at capacity for quite a while," Cappelli notes. Likewise, the financial and construction industries are in the doldrums now, but when they recover, they might roar back. "Things flip around as quickly [in the job market] as in the investment industry, but individuals can't flip their careers around so quickly," he adds.

For large companies, the answer probably won't include many full-time positions for college graduates. "My studies show that year after year after year, large employers aren't adding jobs; they're just replacing jobs," says Phillip Gardner, director of the Collegiate Employment Research Institute at Michigan State University. "The most buoyant part, the most consistently positive part of college hiring has been small employers." According to the Institute's latest Recruiting Trends survey, large companies (those with more than 4,000 employees) plan to decrease hiring by 3% in 2010, and mid-sized companies (those with 500 to 4,000 employees) expect to decrease hiring by 11%. However, small companies (with 100 to 499 employees) expect to increase hiring by 15%, and fast-growth companies (from 9 to 100 people) by 26%. These companies span a range of sectors. If small companies are able to get enough credit to keep business going, they could drive job recovery, Gardner says. "We don't have any white knight sector out there like we have had in past recessions. This is going to be an army of ants -- small diverse companies requiring college graduates. They are going to pop up all over the place."

In the meantime, job seekers are taking what they can get, even if it's temporary. Patricia Rose, director of career services at the University of Pennsylvania, notes that 3% of the university's 2009 graduating class took internships, temporary positions or part-time jobs that weren't guaranteed to continue, up from 1% in 2008. Rose believes students have shown more interest in fellowships and short-term opportunities, such as Teach For America, in part because they want a meaningful experience, in part because can't find traditional full-time jobs. Short-term jobs "were not created in response to the recession, but they have become more attractive during the recession because students are considering more options," Rose says.

What is your company doing about hiring temp workers verses fulltime?

Have We Seen the Last of Paid Content? Free Content?

Two recent events have rocked the publishing world. First, The New York Times, which many regard as the newspaper of record in the U.S., said it would abandon the practice of providing free online content and start charging regular readers beginning in 2011. And second, Apple's much-hyped tablet -- the iPad -- made its appearance. What implications will the Times' decision have for newspaper publishers and other providers of free online content? How will the iPad re-define what a book means, as well as how it is produced, marketed and delivered? 


What are your thoughts on this? 

Most Common Theme of HR Strategy

Human capital is increasingly being seen as an issue of strategic significance in the industry today. It is this aspect of competition that provides most decisive elements of business advantage for a company by way of market responsiveness, process and technology innovation or enhancing customer experience.



A company can maximize the benefits from its human assets, when it is able to align and achieve congruence between individual and organizational goals. The challenge for HR experts in the organization lies in bringing about high degree of alignment so that the contribution of people in each and every activity along the value chain becomes a key differentiator in the industry.

High levels of performance and competence of people definitely provide a company edge over its competitors, but the second part of challenge for a HR professional lies in making this advantage sustainable over a period of time. This in effect means that people contribute effectively to fulfill the organizational goals – both now and in future.



Putting the two challenges together takes us to the core of most generic HR strategy pursued across the industries. The HR professionals responsible for crafting HR strategy should focus on gaining highest levels of commitment from the people towards organizational goals and at the same time building loyalty among the people for the organization. This then is most common and yet the most challenging theme of HR strategy today.

What are your thoughts on this topic?