Culture to Engage

Knocking Down Barriers to Talent

The Feb 2008 McKinsey Quarterly offers an article I find interesting. (OK, "interesting" means it makes me want to say something, usually something slightly contrary.) It's Making Talent Strategy a Priority.

Writers Guthridge, Lawson and Komm (all McKinsey folks), make good and thorough points about the several difficulties that create the challenge of finding, motivating, and retaining capable workers for companies.

Certainly, knowing the obstacles is prerequisite to getting over, under, around or through them efficiently. So it's good the McKinsey article mentions quite a few causes of the difficulties of finding and competing for the talented workers more and more in demand:

• There is an outflux of Boomers from employment in the United States.
• There is a limited influx of young people seeking employment in Western Europe.
• Finding talent is difficult...and anticipated to remain so into the future.
• Competing for talent is more difficult...ditto for the future.
• Employees in the Gen Y demographic are perceived as more difficult to work with.
• HR departments have declining impact and are able to attract fewer talented people for HR.

I am most interested (and a little dismayed) that of the three ways the authors have "extended [their] War for Talent thinking," employee engagement culture is not included. Guthridge, Lawson and Komm suggest these to offset the above difficulties:

1. Target talent at all levels, rather than just seeking the highly competent few at the "top management" level.
2. Develop a number of value propositions. I/O/W, provide a variety of "reasons to work for our company" to fit the variety of demographic, experienced, and educated candidates available.
3. Bolster the Human Resources individuals and teams in terms of focus, awareness and knowledge concerning the company's needs and business.

No mention of employee engagement, much less a culture of employee engagement. I believe leaders/managers who devote time and energy to building that culture will share their companies' victories in the "war for talent." (I'm thinking ultimately it will not even be a "war.") Here are three reasons that going to the CORE of Engagement will make a difference:

1. Engagement is adhesive. Evidence says people stick with work, people, and companies when and where they are engaged. Managers and supervisors can build a culture based on communication, opportunities, resources, and encouragement (CORE). Such a culture stimulates engagement and increases recruitment and retention of talented personnel.
2. Work is not the only engagement target. An employee does not engage only with her work, her job function. Community, industrial and professional networks, and career focus can attract the employee's interest and, ultimately, provide fields for engagement.
3. Ownership is engaging. A learning system can be part of an engaged culture's bank of resources and opportunities. This provides ownership by allowing individuals to be active, to do what will build their capabilities, and to have the engagement that inspires them and satisfies their organization.

OK, although I did take issue with what was not included in the McKinsey piece, I do recommend bookmarking (even signing in for) The McKinsey Quarterly. It provides plenty of useful information.

How to Hire a Candidate (You Want) to Stay

The cover story in the November issue of Talent Management magazine focuses on the importance of "Finding Candidates with the Right Fit" for the job. In a sidebar Manny Avramidis of the American Management Association makes this observation:

A challenge an organization faces is it never establishes a foundation--they just go out there and say, 'I need a marketing professional,' and they don't tie it in to the other pillars...that are important to make sure the person will fit into the organization.

An organization increases its chances for successful hiring when it knows what it takes for the candidate to fit the job/organization and for the job/organization to fit the candidate. Avramidis suggests hiring professionals should ask three questions (italicized). I offer comments.

Does the organization have identified corporate values?
Those values should have been identified long before the current hiring situation. Seriously, the values should be shared with the candidate, discussed with the candidate, and scenario'd for the candidate to consider and "play with." How much will that show and tell the hiring professional about the candidate's talents and the candidate's fit? My 10/21/07 posting, Expressing Value, presented how corporate values are relevant to an employee's engagement in her work and how managers can convey those values to the employee. What's said there applies to job candidates as well.

What are the core competencies most jobs would expect?
You cannot assume this "goes without saying." Assuming you and the candidate know the expected competencies makes it possible that, in time, you will not pay attention to the core competencies during the candidate search. Assuming may reduce speaking explicitly (and listening just as explicitly) to the candidate about what skills, abilities, and talents he brings to the job. The candidate should not only fit the job; the job should fit the candidate. He deserves the chance to excuse himself from possible failure by seeing up front the absence of fit. (B/T/W, a manager's core competency must be communication with his personnel.)

Is it clear into what absolute role the job candidate will fit? Does that align with the corporate vision?
The significant phrase in this pair of questions is corporate vision. It is important to know that the individual applying her specific talents to a specific job role. I believe it is just as important to know if the individual and the corporate vision meld. That means the corporate vision warrants being open discussion during the interview process. Avramidis states the candidate should be allowed to ask questions. My hope is that those questions are about more than job expectations, that they extend to Big Picture areas like corporate vision. The hiring professional does everyone good service by conducting interviews that encourage such questions.