Canadian Management Centre's Training Blog

Generation Y Taps into Networks to Find Jobs

Appealing to job applicants of Generation Y (born between 1984 and 2001) may require employers to move beyond traditional recruiting methods, according to an April 2006 CMA Management magazine article by recruiting consultant Jeremy Miller of the LEAPJob consulting firm. Noting the generation's reputation for technological expertise, quality education and interest in achievement, Miller also points out that Gen Y individuals tend to be skeptical of the media, instead looking to their social and professional networks for information. Accordingly, employers may find it easier to reach Gen Y job-seekers through their peers who already are employees. Miller suggests that employers devise specific message content for employees to use in recruitment outreach. Access to Gen Y job-seekers also may be gained through their parents, who tend to maintain close ties with their children and participate in job searches. "To really tap into Generation Y requires a refined marketing strategy," says Miller. (CMA Management [Miller], April 2006, pp. 13-14)

Expert Foresees Greater Emphasis on Quality in HR Outsourcing

As the first wave of human resources outsourcing (HRO) matures, attention will shift from cost-savings to innovation and quality of services, predicts Scott Gildner, HR sourcing expert. A 2005 Towers Perrin study of 47 companies found that though most employers are realizing cost-reduction goals, outsourced HR services are not receiving high marks for quality: Fewer than 30% of companies polled said they experienced hoped-for levels of quality satisfaction after two years of HRO operations. Nevertheless, Gildner foresees quality improvements in the near future as the industry stabilizes and continues to minimize counterproductive practices. Companies will then be able to expand HRO services, says Gildner, into the areas of talent development, performance evaluation and benefits administration, assisted by a long list of quality-enhancing strategies, including surveys, performance reviews and e-learning options. (HRO Today [Gildner], April 2006, p. 86)

Prestigious Colleges May Not Be Any Better

"We haven't found any convincing evidence that selectivity or prestige matters" in comparing the educational quality of colleges, says University of Iowa professor Ernest T. Pascarella, one of the authors of How College Affects Students. His opinion is based on the research for the book, described by Newsweek as "an 827-page evaluation of hundreds of studies of the college experience." Pascarella also conducted a study, with Indiana University's George Kuh, that compared standards of teaching and found that "selective schools don't systematically employ better instructional approaches than less-selective schools." (Newsweek [Samuelson], August 21, 2006)

HR Benchmarking Has Drawbacks

In most cases, attempting to benchmark quality by comparing time and costs accruing to internal support or shared services is akin to comparing "apples and oranges," argues Robert S. Kaplan, Baker Foundation Professor at Harvard Business School. Benchmarking is appropriate when comparing similar, measurable processes involving the same number of multiple units, as in comparing the amount of time or costs needed to produce anything that can be commoditized, says Kaplan. But benchmarking HR services like leadership and performance management, as well as finance, IT and other support or shared services, has severe limits as it wrongly assumes that "both the quantity and quality of outputs are comparable among all participating entities." Another drawback: Benchmarking typically compares only initial program costs without taking into account variations in company strategies and resulting cross-departmental value-creation, which, in fact, may often represent a very high return on investment. (Working Knowledge [Kaplan], January 9, 2006)

“Best Companies” Invest in Employee Relations

Greater investment of time and money into HR employee relations and performance management characterizes top-ranking companies, according to a white paper released by The Benchmark Partners. Examining top scorers in Fortune magazine's 2005 annual list of "100 Best Companies to Work For," the study found that high-benchmarked firms devote 68% of HR staff time and 42% of HR budgets ($2,412 per worker) to employee relations practices and processes; technology monopolizes 11% of HR spending, exceeding the average corporate outlay by 58%. By investing just 0.02% more of their gross earnings than the average business spends on these HR issues, top Fortune-magazine companies garner more effective 24-hour HR service delivery and a much higher return on investment: a 15.61% ROI compared with the 4.79% Standard & Poor's 500 (report) ROI, as determined by a Russell Investment Group study of high-ranking Fortune companies from 1998 to 2004. (Best Practices in HR, February 18, 2006, p. 5)

Best Practices Are Seen as Way to Improve HR Initiatives

Common goals for HR initiatives in 2006 appear to center around improving the overall quality, effectiveness and efficiency of HR, and best practices are seen as the most direct route, according to a 2006 e-mail survey of more than 5,000 HR industry professionals conducted by outsourcing firm HRAmerica. When asked about the top HR/administrative goals for 2006, respondents chose "improving the overall quality of the HR function" as tops, with "finding better tools to help HR operate more effectively" ranking second and "less paperwork and administrative costs" ranking third. Other goals include "earning more recognition for the strategic value of HR," "stabilizing the workforce [to] concentrate on strategic issues" and "earning more recognition for the value of [HR's] work."

As tools for improving HR's overall quality, 74% of respondents are seeking information on best practices. Both print sources and online sources are used for this kind of information. Others are interested in improving the quality of HR via employee morale and culture (66%). (Top HR Trends in 2006 [HRAmerica], 2006, pp. 4, 7-8)

How Do HR Professionals Spend Their Days

Performance management, recruitment, change management and policy development are job functions that take up most of an HR professional's day and are among those considered most strategic, according to a survey of 1,400 HR professionals by Personnel Today. More than one-third of respondents selected each of those responsibilities as consuming the majority of their day-to-day time. The following table presents the percentage of respondents indicating that various HR functions kept them busy most of the day, as well as the percentage of respondents selecting that function as the most strategic.

HR Functions That Take Most of an HR Professional's Daily Time
Versus Those That Are Most Strategic

HR Function Percentage of Respondents Saying Function Takes Up Most Time Percentage of Respondents Saying Function Is Most Strategic Performance management 38% 52% Recruitment/sourcing 37 38 Change management 36 80 Policy/procedure development 34 50 Discipline/grievances 29 10 Training 18 33 Pay/benefits/rewards 15 47 Job evaluation/benchmarking 8 26 Retention 7 32 Occupational health 7 9 Succession planning 6 55 Employer branding 4 33

Source: Personnel Today/Richmond Events
(Personnel Today [Dempsey], May 16, 2006, pp. 22, 24)

HR Managers Have One of the Best Jobs

If you're a human resource manager, you've got one of the top 10 best jobs in America, according to the "50 Best Jobs in America" list released by Money Magazine and Salary.com in April 2006. Criteria included growth and pay as well as level of stress and other factors. The attraction to HR management centered around the mission of the job: to "make work more rewarding for workers" and to "help shape corporate culture and strategy." The turn-offs included "fighting the 'fluffy HR' stereotype" and "firing people." The job of HR manager was fourth on the list, right behind software engineer, college professor and financial adviser and just ahead of physician assistant, market research analyst, computer IT analyst, real estate appraiser, pharmacist and psychologist. (Human Resource Executive [Freedman], June 2, 2006, p. 15)

By Getting Personal Firms Can Recruit More Effectively

Even organizations that are challenged to compete financially with competitors' big recruiting budgets can find ways to attract high-caliber talent, writes Dr. John Sullivan in Workforce Management. Sullivan suggests that corporate recruiters approach top-performing employees one-on-one and informally to ask about their acquaintances. Inquiring about the most skilled person (at the type of job to be filled) in such a manner often elicits a response to which the employee attaches no expectation of payment or other reward, he says. Contacting a high-performing employee's references to ask about other professionals they may recommend is another of Sullivan's cost-free recommendations. When it's time to appeal to a promising candidate, he suggests a personal phone call from the company CEO. A CEO's invitation to join the team results in success very frequently, Sullivan says, simply because so few organizations take time to personalize their hiring process or to make candidates feel wanted by senior leaders. (Workforce Management [Sullivan], June 26, 2006, p. 66)

Recruitment Retention and Strategic Planning Are HR Priorities

Recruitment/retention, strategic planning and cost containment are among HR's top priorities for 2007, according to preliminary results from The Bureau of National Affairs' HR Department Benchmarks and Analysis 2006 Draft. The survey of U.S. employers reported that 38% of respondents selected issues related to recruitment or retention as their top priority for 2007. Another 19% chose strategic planning and management, which included such issues as talent management, succession planning and measurement. Cost containment, especially for benefits, was noted as the top priority for 14% of respondents, and 22% noted other priorities for 2007, including regulatory compliance and productivity/quality improvements. (HR Department Benchmarks and Analysis 2006 Draft [Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.], 2006, Ch. 5, pp. 4-5)