Sirona Says

What's the difference between a consultant, interim, contractor, fixed-term contractor & freelancer?

Right...... starter for ten - in the good old University Challenge style - can you describe how each of the headline 'roles' differs - a contractor, an interim, a consultant, a fixed-term contract and a freelancer?

Word of warning: this is not as easy as you first think!

Anyone in the recruitment space or anyone using LinkedIn will have seen these job titles, and probably pay little attention to definitions etc. After all, if you are one of the above, does it matter what you call yourself anyway? Well thanks to the tax man it absolutely matters!

A good friend of mine and owner of the startup Interimity, who specialise in placing senior HR and recruitment interims, decided she needed to define the roles to help her candidates and clients understand what they actually are! The outcome is (for me) the definitive guide to what they all mean - including details of role description, time frames, location, payment, IR35, AWR etc.
So here is Julia Briggs' shortened version of the Interimity Guide To Temporary Resource:

Consultant

Description

• Provider of specialist knowledge, skill or service.
• Work on their own account, providing their own equipment, insurance and services
• Normally advise rather than deliver work
• Highly knowledgeable, may be a guru or have academic background
• Experience of technical methodologies
• Unlikely to be in a management role

Use when:

• Highly specific expertise is not available in-house or an external analysis needed
• It is a discrete project with a measureable or defined outcome
• Day to day presence is not required
• Where new ideas or the latest thinking is needed
• A critical project needs to be fast tracked

Timeframe

Likely to be outcome based with a deadline or a fixed number of days over a longer period; Likely to be fixed term appointment for duration of project.

Interim

Description

• Provider of senior managerial expertise
• Normally used to deliver a strategic piece of work or to cover a senior post temporarily
• Can offer advice and deliver (i.e.: move from ‘consultancy’ mode through to implementation)

 Use when:

• Direct managerial experience is needed
• A (senior) role is vacant and needs cover
• A short to medium term senior role which is not Business as Usual needs to be done e.g.: Systems implementation
• There are long term risks or issues which cannot be resolved in-house and external expertise and hands on delivery is needed e.g.: turnaround
• Short-term access to top level management experience is needed e.g.: M&A

Timeframe

Likely to be at least 3 months and usually full time

Contractor

Description

• Provider of specialist, skill or service
• Generally provide a technical or practical skill or service
• Hands on delivery of specific tasks
• Normally responsible to manager within client organisation

 Use when:

• Specific task or project needs to delivered and required expertise is not available in-house
• Short term risks or issues to business which cannot be resolved in-house

NB – the main distinction between contractors and interims is that  ‘Contractor’ is a term more used in the IT sector for technical and/or project roles and is usually less senior than an interim role. 

Timeframe

Likely to be short term or a fixed number of days over the period of the project. 

Fixed-Term Contractor

Description

• An employment contract for a definite period or “fixed term”, agreed in advance, between a business and a worker
• Covers all levels – including ‘interim’ roles above

 Use when:

• There is a short-term need for a set period e.g. ‘seasonal’ or ‘casual’ staff taken on for a given number of months during a peak period
• A specialist employee needs to be taken on for the duration of a project
• Cover is needed during another employee's leave e.g. maternity, sabbatical

Timeframe

Likely to be mid-term, i.e. between 3 months and 2 years and for a specified number of days per week/month often full-time.

Temporary or 'Casual' Worker

Description

Temporary employees hired directly by the employer to meet business demands without permanently committing to the cost of an additional employee.

A temp may sometimes be hired through an agency instead with fees being paid to the agency.  If this is the case the agency will employ the temp directly.

A ‘temp’ often:

• Works for a limited period where the job is expected by both sides to last for only a short time
• Works at a junior level
• Temporary workers may be employed directly by the employer but more usually by employment agencies.
  • Use when:

• There is a temporary need for staff at a junior level
• To cover unexpected short term absence or a temporary influx of work (e.g.: a preplanned event)
• Following a period of business growth while determining level of long-term/permanent need
• To cover seasonal variations
• To cover short-term, clearly defined work

There are special rules covering agencies and their relationship with the end user which should be considered prior to appointing an agency worker.

Timeframe

Usually very short-term.  Will still have employment rights and benefits i.e. holiday entitlement, SSP.  Such benefits will need to be agreed with the agency through which you are hiring the temp or will have to be born by yourself if you are employment directly.  

This is an abbreviated version of Julia's excellent document. You can download a free complete copy of this definitive Interimity Guide To Temporary Resource by visiting here website here. If you are involved in any form of recruitment, HR or other areas, then I would recommend you grab a copy of this.

If you like reading this blog, then click on the orange RSS icon here and get the latest Sirona Says posts delivered to your RSS reader or your inbox the moment they come out.

7 ways to differentiate your recruitment business with your clients

 

Most people that read this blog will have experienced recruitment agencies professionally at some point in their career to date (as well as a healthy number of actual recruiters reading it!).
You will have sat on either side of the recruitment fence, so I hope you appreciate where I am coming from here in this post. Recruiters sometimes do themselves no favours with clients. Their reputation does go (well) before them in some cases, with the good and the bad being accentuated by their actions (or lack of them!)
A post I read on ERE.net today was the reason for today's post, and I have added my experiences to what the author of the article wrote about from his experience on the client side of the recruitment process.

As a recruitment company here are 7 ways to ensure you can differentiate yourselves the next time you make that sales call, have a client meeting or (if you are lucky) when you pitch for 'that' really big deal:

1. You are recruitment experts, tell them about your process: a client isn't engaging a recruitment company to do something they can’t do internally.Posting jobs on job boards is not a value-add - clients can do that (and they are more frequently). What clients don't have alot of, is the depth of recruiting process knowledge and experience a good recruiter will have. After all recruiters do it every day, whereas clients may well only recruit several times a year. Your recruitment process should be the nuts! If it isn't what makes you different to all the other recruitment hopefuls out there?
2. What is your business elevator pitch'? How do you differentiate yourself in a sentence? How are you different from the 3 sales calls the client has had that morning from other recruiters? What is going to make them give the business to you?
3. Give them honesty not b*llsh*t; This sounds such an obvious statement but to be honest WE ALL KNOW the 'wild' sales pitches that come out of the mouths of many recruiters, don't we? Fear of losing (or getting) a requirement or a contract seems to do strange things to a recruiters brain. Honesty will prevail - especially with the growing transparency of social media channels.
4. Do what you say NOT say what you do; an old adage but so true. This could be aligned to all of the above but to be honest, it is always a big criticism levied at recruiters. Too much talk - "I can do this", "I can do that" without any intention of actually doing it (or rather knowing they haven't got a cats hell chance of doing it, but it sounded good at the time!) Just practice what you preach - it's not rocket science is it?
5. Relationships not relationship; relationships are key in the recruitment industry aren't they? Clients like to build relationships with people - in fact the better the relationship, the more chance there is of securing business or solving a problem. Every time you introduce new people to accounts, or consultants leave and new ones come along, you potentially put the important client relationships at risk. Good recruitment companies will have an openness around their team and structure from the start. They don't work on an insular client approach, they look at relationships NOT relationship.
6. Knowledge is king; do you take the time to understand what your clients are trying to achieve? Have you even asked them about strategy or vision aside from 'how many people will you be recruiting this year?' Do you even do any homework, aside from looking at a website just before the meeting? When working with recruiters for clients, I always ask then what they know about the company, projects, people, etc Could you answer those questions? Do you even give a damn? 
7. Actually give a sh*t about your clients; I have left my favourite quote until last. This was said to me recently by an HR Director, when describing the level of service they were receiving from 3 out of 4 companies on their PSL, "the three agencies are household names, but quite frankly they don't give a sh*t about our business, all they worry about is how many CV's they sent me last month, whether they were relevant or not !" Do you take the time to give a sh*t about your clients?

I work with both clients and recruitment agencies and am able to see this from the two different sides. I would like to make the point that there are obviously 'poor' clients as well as 'poor' recruitment agencies, and I am certainly not trying to say otherwise.

The article by Matt Lowney  on ERE that provided me with the starting point for this post is really worth reading. If you are in-house recruiter I just know you are just going to be saying 'yes' to most of the post!

Have I missed anything here? Is there anything you would add?

 

If you like reading this blog, then click on the orange RSS icon here and get the latest Sirona Says posts delivered to your RSS reader or your inbox the moment they come out.

 

Is this an alternative to paying recruitment agency fees to recruit talent?

 

Recruiting talented people is a HUGE challenge as we all know. Not only have you first got to identify and find these people, but you have also got to attract them to your company with an appealing proposition. This talent will no doubt be working already in a good role/good company, so it may not be as simple as just offering loads more cash (although that obviously helps!).

This is a conversation I was having with one of my clients yesterday, and fortunately we are able to build both interesting physical incentives AND an exciting proposition into their talent acquisition strategy. But is it something you would consider? Would you even dare to break the mould?

Take a look at what a US based tech company called SONAR are doing to try and attract talent to their company. They have realised that paying recruitment fees (retainers or straight contingency) is not incentivising the recruiters to find this 'hard to find' talent, so they have opted for a new approach.

This is the 'gift package' they now offer ALL NEW hires when they join Sonar:

•    A Zero Gravity Experience (not a simulator)
•    A “Round The World” flight ticket
•    1 year supply of scotch (Evening consumption only!)
•    Hang Gliding trip
•    Sky Diving trip
•    Surfing lessons
•    1 Ticket to SXSW and any big data conference
•    1 year gym membership
•    A night’s stay at the Waldorf Astoria
•    New wardrobe from uniqlo
•    Makerbot 3D Printer
•    64GB iPad 2
•    High-def video projector

And (according to their founder Brett Martin) they will still have the 'equity discussion' at the same time!!

I just want you to think about this for a moment....................

This isn't so mad after all.

As an organisation recruiting staff, you would be happy to shell out maybe £5-10,000 on a mid-range hire or maybe £2-3000 on the same level referral payment. Now just add up most of the above - something similar or maybe even less. But doesn't look so much more? 
Just think of the publicity and interest you could create around your opportunities and brand? [This would mean you would need an online recruitment system (ATS) that was fit for purpose though, to facilitate this!!]

Anyway, maybe this isn't such a mad idea after all? You don't have to do it all -  maybe an iPad for every new employee (paid for out of the recruitment fee budget) might just be a start to differentiate yourselves?

What do you think? Would you consider doing this at your company?

If you like reading this blog, then click on the orange RSS icon here and get the latest Sirona Says posts delivered to your RSS reader or your inbox the moment they come out.

Talent warehouses, recruitment communities and chocolate talent pools

 

Over the last month I have been doing a-l-o-t of writing. I had been commissioned to write a business report book looking at social media in recruitment and the reality of it in the workplace.As part of the process, there was obviously much reading and research.
It surprised me at how much it takes over ALL your time, but at least it is now with my editor and publisher for them to take my words and produce the book itself! <phew!>

One area that caused me some deep consideration is the subject of candidate databases. While I do have a strong opinion on them and where they will end up, a blog post I read this week by one of the world's top sourcing specialists, Glen Cathey, got me thinking again............... and in the opposite direction to where I was going with my thinking!!

In short here is a quick precis of my thoughts:

1. Most candidate databases might as well be full of chocolate and marshmallows for all the good they do! The clients keep filling them up with loads of candidates applying for their jobs - never to be touched again. No emails, no searching and certainly a waste of time.
Many have recruitment software that is limiting their management of their database, most have people in charge of recruitment that (to be fair) just don't understand the worth of what they have. And if they even have a clue of the worth of their database, then they have no idea what to do about it! {Apologies to the few that do >> you really are the exceptions :) ]

2. Some people call these Talent Pools. As per No.1 - as useful as a pool of liquid chocolate!
Different name but same outcome.

Caveat: there is absolutely nothing wrong with these in the recruitment process at all, as long as they are recognised as what they are. They are a list of people that at some stage have shown interest in working for your company (or via your recruitment agency). They are not a community/network/talent hub or whatever some people call them!

So where is it all going?

3. Interaction and two-way communication is, in my opinion, where evolution needs to take place with regards to these 'collections' of candidates.
The encouragement of dialogue and reverse discussion (i.e. candidates asking questions and interacting) needs to happen. There needs to be a way of engaging the talent that have shown an interest in working for your company.
Talent communities, recruitment communities, online communities or whatever you want to call them, are going to be the way forward for creating engaged prospective talent for the future.They may be small or large, but will have to be interactive in nature (and will probably need to be on different platforms (other than some of the ATS's) to be truly effective.

And for those of you that say that talent communities are just a bunch of more fluffy marshmallows, take a look at the 1000's of LinkedIn groups (as an example).
What do you think they are then? A business focused network (LinkedIn) that has groups of like minded people discussing subjects that are relevent to them. They are engaged with, and have an affinity for their niche - whether it be 100 or 1000 strong. Maybe not all talent communities by name, but in practice they are focused groups of similar talent engaging with each other

Then came the blog post by Glen.

4. Talent Warehouses. Glen's take is with regards to data. The more there is the better - but (and this is the key) - they are within secure talent data warehouses. Own the data and you own the access to the talent.
Glen's angle is that, just like business intelligence professionals and data miners, there will be an evolution in recruitment towards these skills. It is an interesting concept and maybe one that the huge global employers will consider adopting, building more skilled and able recruitment teams.


But hasn't social media and the proliferation of social networks and online databases done some of this work already? The likes of LinkedIn and Xing and Hi5 have all got millions of potential candidates sitting there. I haven't even mentioned the likes of Facebook, Twitter and other social sites, as potential people sources (note I didn't say candidate sources).

There is so much conjecture, conversation and debate around this whole subject currently, it does make for interesting discussions.

All I know is that, for me, job seekers are crying out for engagement. They are fed up with populating recruitment databases for no gain.

My stake is firmly in the ground for community-led recruitment and resourcing going foward.

Engage the talent and you shall reap the benefits in the future.
Carry on just building your database and all you are doing is creating the worlds biggest walnut whip!!

Image credit Flickr

If you like reading this blog, then click on the orange RSS icon here and get the latest Sirona Says posts delivered to your RSS reader or your inbox the moment they come out.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why good people sourcers are like pure gold dust [including a superb Prezzi]

 

If you think you know anything about recruitment, could you tell me about the art of sourcing? I mean, do you actually know how (good) recruitment sourcers do their job to find all those great candidates that you (as the recruiter) could only dream of finding?

I like to think that I have pretty good at candidate sourcing over the years, filling many assignments with 'how did you find them?' candidates. But when I see the level of detail that some of the true experts go into on searching, I am sometimes left open-mouthed!

There is a role in the recruitment life cycle that is one of the most important, yet massively undervalued. Without good candidates, any recruitment process would be fundamentally flawed, wouldn't it? So why is it then the majority of companies - agency and client side - fail to recognise the skills of sourcers?

My simple response is that most people (recruiters included) don't understand the complexity of finding people through different methods - some simple searches, many complicated searches and lateral thinking and logic searches.

If that is you, then take a few minutes out and watch this Prezzi presentation by top recruiter Julia Stone. To say it is brilliant, is really a massive understatement. She takes you through the types of mindset and thinking that good sourcers use to find people. [If you haven't seen a prezzi before, you are in for a surprise ]

 

Sourcing Solo on Prezi

If you want to make sure you are following some of the best sourcers in the business, then you won't get much better than following these three:

1. Glen Cathey - aka @GlenCathey - he writes a blog called Boolean Blackbelt, which has candidate searching tips and tricks that will blow your mind away. A sourcing genius who is happy to share his skill (Heck, even LinkedIn read his blog!)
2. Irina Shamaeva - aka @braingain - she is a previous sourcecon pre-conference challenge winner, and is truly an expert on everything boolean. Like Glen she shares many of her tricks and knowledge with everyone on her blog Boolean Strings.
3. Katharine Robinson - aka @thesourceress - she is the current Grand Master Sourcer - no easy feat, I have to say! Like Glen and Irina, Katharine is a boolean expert, but has the uncanny skill of being super lateral in her work, who looks at different web sites and tools in a different way to source candidates. She blogs at Sourcerss.co.uk, and as above she shares some great tips.
   
   Side Note on the Sourcecon GrandMaster Challenge: The first contest happened in 2007 and consisted of three pre-conference challenges and an on-site challenge. Mike Notaro is technically the very first challenge winner, followed by Suzy Tonini and Jeremy Langhans. Mike won the first Grand Master Sourcing Challenge. He also won the on-site challenge the next year. Other participants in 2008 were Julia Stone, Shannon Myers, and Joshua Kahn. In 2010, the participants were Lisa Offutt, Irina Shamaeva, Katharine Robinson, and Mike Notaro. Katharine won that challenge.

There are of course loads of other good sourcers out there in the recruitment world, and many are part of Sourcecon - the sourcers 'magic circle' (only joking about the magic part - although it does seem like magic sometimes). Maybe you have even got one or two working for your company >> if you have, look after them, they are like gold dust!

If you are happy top share some other top sourcers you know, feel free - it is great to recognise others.

Image credit: Treehugger.com.

If you like reading this blog, then click on the orange RSS icon here and get the latest Sirona Says posts delivered to your RSS reader or your inbox the moment they come out.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The one BIG mistake that every company is making with their candidate recruitment

 

There is so much written and spoken about social recruiting and social media for businesses, there is a danger of over complication of the essence of understanding what the whole experience should be.

There is a phrase I use a lot when talking to clients about recruitment, social recruiting or using social media in recruitment. It is a mistake every company makes and which (for me) is the no.1 thing they need (but often fail) to do:

Look back at yourself through the eyes of your candidates.

What does the candidate experience when they start interacting with your brand? It could be your career site, your website, your Twitter profile, your Facebook page, your LinkedIn profile or even just an email or phone call they receive from you.
Have you ever even considered what the experience is for a candidate for any of the above? When was the last time you even bothered to consider what the candidates see when interacting with your brand?

As we move more into the social recruiting sphere (and don't think you can avoid it for long), the transparent nature of social media becomes ever more obvious. With the ability for people to instantly share (on all of the social networks) information on companies - both good and bad - the need to consider what the candidates are experiencing is truly paramount.

If you are recruiting graduates or young people, then look at the content you are presenting from their perspective. If you are of a different generation, get one of your employees who fit that demographic to review it.
If you are recruiting more experienced people, and you don't fit that same skill profile, again get one of your employees with relevant experience to check the content, to see if what you have produced resonates with them. This sounds so simple doesn't it, but I know from experience that the majority of companies don't even consider what the candidates see!
There still seems to be an element of brand arrogance in the market when it comes to companies believing people want to work for 'their' brand, because they are who they are. >>Wake up and smell the coffee -  those days are quickly disappearing!!

Whether you are producing a new website, new career site, a new blog or even a new Facebook page, you absolutely (with no exceptions either) need to put the audience first. Think of who you are trying to reach out to. Then target the content accordingly to that audience.

You have such a small window to get the persons attention (maybe just 10 -15 seconds, according to some web experts), that you just have to get it right immediately.

So, remember, look back at yourself through the eyes of your candidates. Grab a coffee and go an do it today........ I think you will be a little shocked at what you see!

If you like reading this blog, then click on the orange RSS icon here and get the latest Sirona Says posts delivered to your RSS reader or your inbox the moment they come out.

You do use LinkedIn to recruit don't you? You are completely bonkers if you don't!

 

You may or may not realise it yet but simply having a profile on LinkedIn (and usually a poor one to boot!) simply cannot be defined as 'using LinkedIn to recruit'! I have sat with many many recruiters over the last six months who firmly believe they are using LinkedIn as an effective recruiting tool.
Yet, when drilled down, they make few placements, have very poor personal profile pages (is yours 100% complete for example?) and have very few connections. They get very few people contacting them through LinkedIn and ultimately they make no effort to expand their own network. You won't be surprised to hear that many don't therefore make many placements via this platform.
>>>>>> Instead they log in to their favourite job board and spend loads of money to search the huge databases of Monster, TotalJobs or Jobsite (as well as posting all their jobs at the same time!)

My response is simple.................................YOU ARE COMPLETELY BONKERS!!

LinkedIn is a resource you have to use if you want to find some of the best people out there. LinkedIn have been really working hard over the last six months to add functionality to the platform for recruiters. While a good number of these are aimed at the (paid for) recruiter licences, which can be too rich for some companies, the fact that 1 million new candidates are joining LinkedIn every 10 days should get your recruiter juices flowing (if not, then go and retrain as a hairdresser or florist - they will be more worthing of your motivation levels!)
You don't have to have the expensive recruiter licences (although they will help), because the search functionality for finding people and following (and tracking) company activity is brilliant. Did I not say that LinkedIn is FREE?

So why are you not using it properly?.............YOU ARE COMPLETELY BONKERS!!

If you are some of the recruiters using it well, then you are in a minority (quite unbelievable really), and I hope that you are influencing others around you with your actions.

Here is a statement that I cannot believe many recruiters actually understand:

Using LinkedIn effectively will help you reduce your recruitment costs.

You do want to reduce your costs don't you? Or is your company happy to keep shelling out for job boards and agency spend (if you are a corporate that is) ad infinitum?

Still need convincing? Watch these short videos from Logitech and Ebay and see how much they have got out of LinkedIn from a recruitment perspective.

 

Now if you also factor in other social networking tools like Google and Facebook (as well as Google of course), and you really do have the start of your own social recruiting strategy.

If you are still new to LinkedIn or you haven't connected to me yet - feel free to join my network on LinkedIn.  I have a short beginners guide to LinkedIn pdf I am happy to share with you (if you need it of course)

So are are going to make the effort and either try LinkedIn for the first time? Or are you going to take this 'gentle' reminder as the kick up the a*se you needed?

[Picture credit: the awesome Dizzy Rascal]

Footnote: Before I get various job boards having a moan - I am not advocating never using job boards, all I am saying is to use them when needed - which is not all the time!! They should not be a recruiters 'default setting!'

If you like reading this blog, then click on the orange RSS icon here and get the latest Sirona Says posts delivered to your RSS reader or your inbox the moment they come out.

The Candidate and Company Recruitment Disconnect

 

 


 Only one word to add to this image on behalf of candidates and recruiters everywhere - FRUSTRATION!

If you like reading this blog, then click on the orange RSS icon here and get the latest Sirona Says posts delivered to your RSS reader or your inbox the moment they come out.

 

 

 

The recruitment reality check: Your employees are leaving sometime soon!

Are you one of those companies who like sticking your fingers in your ears, while singing 'la la la' out loud. hoping that it won't happen to you? Come on, you know you are!
After all, all your staff are happy, you have a great employer brand and everything is 'nice and dandy' with your employees, right?

WRONG!

You need to order in some of the reality check cookies and start munching away quickly. Whatever you think you are as an employer and however loyal you think your employees are........... think again - we have entered a very interesting recruitment phase at the moment, that doesn't appear too often.

Some economists would probably call it, 'post recessionary recruitmentism' or some other 'over-clever' mumbo jumbo .................. for me it much simpler. I just call it recruitment reality.

We are coming out of recession (well most places are, anyway) , M&A (Mergers and Acquisitions) activity is buoyant again and there is (finally) talk of large hiring strategies again. Things are already changing fast with regards to candidate availability, as recruitment markets are quickly picking up again - most recruitment agencies have been seeing a surge in demand for candidates now for the last few months. For many it is the busiest they have been for the last 2-3 years.

So what is going to happen?Here are my five 

1. It's hemorrhage time (go on sing it to MC Hammers famous song - you know you want to!). Candidate attrition has been still running at just over 18% on average  during the recession. This would mean that you would lose one in five of your workforce this year. BUT, realistically this could double if not treble over the next 12 months, as candidates start sticking their heads above the parapet again.  - Yes! Many companies will have staff turnover rates of well over 50% in the next 12 months!!!  What are you going to do about it then?  Are you ready to replace half your workforce? Where are you going to find them from? When was the last time you looked at your career site? You need to have a recruitment strategy in place (NOW!) just to maintain your existing workforce levels.
2. Past employers will return like Great White sharks. Remember they couldn't get rid of their employees quick enough two years ago could they?  You snapped up some great catches then, didn't you? Well, now they are leaner and meaner and ready to come hunting for your staff. And don't think your employees won't consider going back, they will for the right package - the recession has taught them to forget about loyalty (unfortunately) and focus on themselves and their own needs (perceived or real). You won't know anything about it until they are gone!
3. Recruitment agencies are also sniffing for blood. A fact of employment life is that your good staff WILL be getting calls from recruiters, looking to prise them from your company. Ignore this fact at your peril - a good recruiter is like a pitbull - once they have the teeth into your employees, they just simply won't let go, until they get what they want - your staff!
4. Thanks to social media it has made it even easier to find your employees!! To be fair, it has never been easier to find candidates, what with LinkedIn, Twitter, Blogs and of course Google. Obviously 'finding' candidates isn't recruiting them, and that is a whole different ballgame! But, they are there waiting to be found, and there is nothing you as an employer you can do to stop that happening.
5. Finally, what about all the 'regular ordinary workers' - your company's lifeblood -  out there, that are unhappy in their work? There are many! During the recession, they just keep their heads down, grateful for continued employment. Now the grass is looking greener again. They have started to realise that there are more jobs out in the marketplace again. They are starting to actually look for jobs again! >>> Now this is a BIG problem. These are the workers who you BELIEVE to be your loyal subjects, and happy in their work. When was the last time you said (about them) "they won't leave, they are like part of the furniture here" to a colleague? Don't say I didn't warn you - they WILL be walking out the door sometime soon!!

Now you may feel I am being a little over dramatic here - I just wish I was. I am having these conversations with companies every day - they are seeing their staff leave EVERY day, and yes they can counter offer, but that is only temporary. I read a survey last month that said 84% of all employees expect (or want) to change jobs in the next 12 months - now that is scary stuff!
Employee engagement, employer brand and (dare I say it) salary package reviews are all areas of focus at the moment, but is it too late for your company?

If you like reading this blog, then click on the orange RSS icon here and get the latest Sirona Says posts delivered to your RSS reader or your inbox the moment they come out.

Is this the ultimate talent acquisition strategy?

We all know the world of sports is a rule to itself when it comes to employment law and contracts. Today I want to ask your opinion on what I see as a very worrying trend at one Football Club, that is either unethical, unfair or just good business sense in the world of talent acquisition.

The Scenario: The football team in question is Manchester City, of The Premier League in the UK.They are owned by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan and literally have unlimited wealth (£Trillions) at their disposal.
Over the course of of the last 12 months they have been buying many of the top talent (footballers) from clubs around the world paying huge sums of money in transfer fees and player wages to acquire them.
They have assembled a first team squad of over 50 top quality players that would get into most of their competitors teams.

The Rules: The Premier League, this year brought in squad size caps, limiting a squad of players at any Premier League club to only 25 players for the season (with changes only allowed to be made in January).

The Problem for the Employer: Talent management - keeping the talented players happy that don't get selected for the final 25 player squad. After all, all they want to do is play football, right?

The Solution (as Manchester City see it): They loan out all these talented individuals (that haven't made the 25 player cut) to other companies (Football Clubs) to ensure they stay plying their trade (football) and keeping fit - all the time paying their exorbitant wages as well at the same time!!
BUT, they control where the players go - and they certainly WON'T let them go to any of their competition in the Premier League (which is understandable).

THE BIG QUESTION

Is is right, morally or ethically, to 'buy up' all the talent available in a marketplace just to restrict your competitors getting access to it, just because you have the wealth to do it? OR, is it a good business decision that should be applauded accordingly?

What do you think? Are Manchester City demonstrating the ultimate in a talent acquisition strategy, designed to reach their goal of reaching the top ?

If you like reading this blog, then click on the orange RSS icon here and get the latest Sirona Says posts delivered to your RSS reader or your inbox the moment they come out.