ResolutionsRTK

‘Take a chance on me...’
Why it’s the right time for ‘risky’ recruitment strategies

To retain your best and brightest employees in the current economic climate,
Tom Pietkiewicz argues employers must be prepared to take a risk.

A backdrop of rising confidence

When considering the best recruitment and retention strategies for the current economic post-GFC Australian labour market, two distinct and powerful psychological shifts can be observed. During the GFC and immediately afterwards, with the reality of recession being faced in many parts of the world, most employees were just happy to keep their job. The data shows that turnover dropped significantly at this time, and managers and HR professionals began focusing on reducing costs in line with their organisations’ tightening budgets. More recently, a sense has emerged that while we may not be out of the woods yet, the good times are slowly coming back. And so those who were perhaps ready but delayed leaving for a new role or challenge may now be back on the market. The latest research from Australian Human Resources Institute (AHRI) research puts the average turnover figure at 18.5%; a rise in recruitment activity has naturally accompanied this. With the cost of current turnover estimated to be $20 billion to the Australian economy, many mangers are quite rightly looking for solutions.

Why are employees leaving?

The most common reasons trotted out by HR professionals to account for turnover are leadership, morale and culture. While this may be true, this time employees do appear to be more focused on career needs. The stagnation of employee movement post-GFC, combined with rising confidence, has transformed into a stampede to secure better career opportunities. Recent research and exit interview data clearly list career needs as right at the top of reasons for employees departing an organisation, yet the AHRI research finds that only two thirds of organisations offer any type of individualised career programs.

Unfamiliarity breeds contempt

Many of the interventions that I have seen include offering career counselling, more direct career planning, and an increase in training and development activities, such as offering employees courses and skill development. This is a good sign, but can be perceived as tokenistic and impersonal. To retain your best and brightest, managers should become genuinely interested in employees and their futures, instead of simply looking at people as filling particular functions in their teams. For example, rather than looking at a person’s skills and abilities (the resume scan), shift your view to an individual’s qualities and traits that can be applied across roles and functions as the person grows through an organisation. To do this successfully requires expertise and planning, having recently observed a number of clumsy and difficult internal transfers and promotions. Indeed, it often surprises me how few organisations have mastered how to embed and fully utilise their talent pools, through succession and performance management systems that link into role structures and job family maps that can facilitate learning, development and career growth. Those that do will have an economic edge over their more conventional competitors, now and in coming times.

The problem with ‘flying in’ the talent

A little like American celebrities hosting the Australian Logies, a pattern I often observe is bringing skills in for a particular role. In other words, recruiting someone who has already had a number of years experience doing what the vacant role requires. This approach is problematic for a number of reasons. Firstly you are hiring someone who is leaving a similar role to do the same thing at your organisation. Before you know it, they have reached the limit of their talent and ability, and potential value add. Or worse, they quickly stagnate, and try looking again elsewhere. Secondly, this approach can also be problematic for retention. This person might be already ready to start looking for the next challenge and just ‘treading water’ until they do.

Take a risk on the right person for the role

I have often found it difficult to convince clients that they should take a risk and recruit talent that can move up into the vacant role and grow. It seems easier for recruiters to provide the ready ‘product’. And to be fair, this is often what is expected from recruiters: a candidate who most completely fulfils the role requirements, who interviews well for the current role, who can recount examples of experience in all the areas outlined in the PD. In such cases it is essential to discuss and map career pathways as soon as the person is hired to ensure longevity.

I have a colleague who describes ‘winning’ a role within his organisation that he was, as he puts it, “Completely under qualified for!” He admits that this may have been partly due to seemingly unsophisticated recruitment practices at the time. However, because he felt lucky to move up to the role, he has worked extra hard and has developed the required skills and partook in courses to grow into the function. This employee stayed in the role for many years and is highly regarded in the organisation. “There is no way I would have been hired if this was now,” he further suggests. The question is why not? Our so-called sophisticated and complex recruitment processes have now made it more difficult or almost impossible to promote talent into roles. In my opinion this is a tragedy!

What measures can you take to identify the right risk?

Psychometric testing, assessment and competency based interviewing can assist in measuring potential for roles. However much more than this, organisations need to adopt a learning culture and take a chance on people who might not be completely experienced or qualified for a role. Managers should ask themselves which skills and abilities are essential and which can be developed in the role. Is there someone in the organisation who can step in? Have we been developing this person anticipating this move? Simply picking someone from an identical role elsewhere is not often the best strategy. Great recruitment decisions are lateral, not literal.

Career and development programs should be individualised. I personally like to start with a career tool that allows an individual to explore interests, values, needs, skills and so on. After a report and some self-reflection, a conversation can then be more targeted. These tools are widely available and range vastly in usefulness and price, but it’s the subsequent conversations and actions that provide the most value. Employers who truly value their talent should be open and willing to act on such career discussions and plans, even if this might mean development or training costs or even losing the employee to another area or department. Only then will the employee feel that the organisation values and takes care of their career needs.

More importantly however, these career discussions and interventions can be quite practical and can inject a healthy dose of realism into the process. The employee, after a careful assessment of their skills and abilities, might recognise that to get ‘that’ management role, there is a set of skills and abilities that they will need to first develop over time. Other times an employee might be happy to remain in a function and given targeted secondment opportunities, projects, more responsibilities or an increased level of authority. In many cases this can assist managers with their own workload.

Whatever the result, actively demonstrating an interest in your employees’ career needs cultivates a rare competitive edge for employers in the current labour market.