The demographics of the workforce are undergoing a dramatic change. Already, 11 percent of the active workforce is over 56 years old, a percentage that will grow steadily as Baby Boomers age. In fact, between now and 2012, nearly 50 percent of the current workforce will become eligible for retirement. Organizations must prepare now for the steady departure of huge numbers of their most experienced people.

On the heels of retiring Boomers, the much less populous Generation X (now ages 25-38) will provide a shrinking pool of prime-age workers. And even with a modest increase in workforce population among Generation Y (now ages 16-24), there will simply not be enough young workers to fill the void that will be left. As a result, most organizations will face a serious shortage of workers. This is especially true of skilled workers; already, shortages in healthcare, government, education, transportation, non-profit sectors, and manufacturing have reached near-crisis levels. And, due to changing world affairs, immigration will not be a viable solution to the staffing shortages to come.

So, what can your organization do to prepare for the generational shift in the workforce?

1. Forestall the retirement of as many older workers as you possibly can. Whenever feasible, support semi-retirement through flexible work arrangements: flexible schedules, telecommuting, and flexible conditions of employment. Build giant reserve armies of retirees. Immediately begin the process of capturing and transferring the knowledge, skill, and wisdom of older workers.

2. Call upon Boomers to resume their youthful role as change leaders. Now is the time to abandon hierarchical norms, sink-or-swim management, and one-size-fits-all career paths.

3. Prepare Gen Xers for supervisory responsibility and leadership. Gen Xers are now entering their prime working years in short supply and full of attitude. Xers want status, authority, and rewards, but often resist traditional management roles. Create new paths to leadership, redesign leadership roles, and develop the new generation of leaders for those roles.

4. Accelerate the professional development of Gen Y employees. Recruit new employees at younger ages, get them up to speed faster, and trust them with important roles involving critical tasks and responsibilities. There’s no choice; there simply won’t be enough older experienced workers to get all the work done. Teach managers to coach these high-maintenance younger workers every step of the way on every single thing — from time management to customer service.

5. Be prepared to exert more pressure to get more work and better work out of fewer people. Everyone is going to have to work smarter, faster, better, and probably longer and harder too. Highly skilled, hands-on, coaching-style management will still be the key to success.

Bruce Tulgan is the author of Winning the Talent Wars, published by W.W. Norton. Bruce is the founder of RainmakerThinking, Inc., which is a research, training and consulting firm focused on the working lives of those born after 1963. Based on the pioneering employee interview research they have conducted since 1993, RainmakerThinking advises leaders and managers in a wide range of organizations on realigning recruiting, performance management, and retention practices to fit the new “free agent” career path. Visit their Web site at www.rainmakerthinking.com

© Bruce Tulgan, Rainmaker Thinking

THE BEST COMPANIES DON’T BUY BACK PEOPLE! It rarely works and within six months, the candidate is usually gone anyway. The major reason it doesn’t work is that there is no longer a trustful relationship between the employee and the employer. The feeling of loyalty, commitment, and concern for common goals just isn’t there anymore. The employee has gone out and found another job, communicating that he no longer thinks that his present situation is best for him. His loyalty and trust just aren’t there. In short, he wants a “divorce” from the business situation.

Upon resigning, this type of employee knows that he has his employer over a barrel. He knows he has policies and procedures in his head. He knows that his experience and ability can be leveraged to his advantage. Even though he may not think of it, when an effort to buy him back is made, he takes advantage of it. He has now gotten more money, title etc. for what he was doing before. In short, he has just blackmailed his employer. Each party has solved his problem for the moment. The employer has, in spite of what he might think, merely put his finger in the dike. He has put a Band Aid the mammoth wound and thinks everything is fine. The employee on an ego high knows how much his employer needs him. Now he feels great and knows that things will work out. They are both WRONG!

Once the employer thinks objectively about what he has done to keep the employee, he begins to resent it and gets angry with himself for letting the employee do that to him. He feels blackmailed, leveraged, even cheated. He realizes when his employee came in to resign, the employee fired him and his company. This employee leveraged his position and the employer gave in. Now, to the employer’s mind, the employee has the advantage. The employer is no longer in control; the employee is.

If the employer doesn’t start thinking this way immediately after he buys an employee back, he will very soon. His immediate satisfaction is short lived, especially when he thinks about the word traveling and other employees will be encouraged to do the same thing. We know of an instance when a client of ours bought back an employee who was leaving. In the final analysis, three other employees tried the same thing once they saw that it worked. By the time the third one was emphatically let go because of what he was doing, the first two became fearful and subsequently left. The employer had created his own monster by letting it start in the first place.

Most employers will come to the conclusion that if the employee being bought back was worth what he is now being paid, he would have been paying him that to begin with. The employee is now under such scrutiny on the part of the employer his every function will be questioned and reevaluated. After the dust has settled, his employer resents what he has done and becomes evermore critical of his performance. The human flaws of the employee become more and more pronounced.

Money, Title…Temporary
The employee starts thinking about what happened. After the newness of the money, the title, and the new responsibilities wear off, he starts wondering why, if he is now worth this to his employer, wasn’t he worth that before. He begins to resent all of the things he had to do to get his deserved raise, new title, etc. Does this mean that every time he wants (or needs) a raise, he will have to go out and find another job, get an offer, then come in and leverage it again? If they really respected him, he wouldn’t have had to even consider finding a job to begin with. Most of the reasons why the candidate wanted to leave in the first place haven’t changed. The cosmetic changes were fine for a while. The money, title etc. made him more tolerant of the situation but it was just too much trouble to get those. It is the same old company that didn’t appreciate him until he was almost gone. Within six to nine months he leaves. Buy backs don’t work! Good companies just don’t attempt it.

Tony Beshara is owner and president of Babich & Associates.   Beshara has been in business since 1973, and he alone averages $2.5 – $4 million per year in billings. If you have any questions about this article, please call (214) 823-9999.

© Tony Beshara, Babich & Associates

Who Should “Screen”
It is best that a direct-hiring manager theoretically screen and read all resumes. Even though it is very difficult to thoroughly read 200 or so resumes, only a hiring manager should, because he is closer to knowing what the candidate is representing. We have seen resumes that had it not been for our experience, we would not have known what kind of business the candidate conducted. People have a tendency to think everyone knows who they work for and what they do. They will often write resumes as though all readers will be familiar with the companies they have worked for. A direct-hiring authority is going to be able to better evaluate previous companies for whom the candidate has worked.

Objectives
Objectives on a resume should be discounted for the most part, as either so specific they eliminate the candidate or so general they don’t mean anything. Some of the objectives we have seen over the years would blow you away: they range from downright ridiculous to laughable and absurd. What they really mean is: “I want to go to workl” We have seen great accountants eliminated from great opportunities because they hinted in their objective that they wanted to someday grow into a controllership position. Since the controller of the client firm was reading the resume, and wasn’t planning on going anywhere (or he felt threatend) he eliminated this candidate. Another recent candidate was eliminated from being interviewed because his objective read that he wanted to be associated with a progressive firm. The president of the firm, reading the resume, didn’t think his firm was progressive. Silly? Well, it happened. The objective on a resume has nothing to do with a candidate’s ability to perform and the job he accepts could have nothing to do with his objective. Qualifications are not related to objectives.

Generic resumes that begin with “offering 20 years of experience as…” usually don’t get read. Most of the time they are written to cover up “holes” in the times of employment. Unfortunately most of us won’t wade through the minutia to get to the facts of “who, what, when, where and why.” Lately, a popular format has been a two-page generic, cosmic description of a person’s intangible attributes followed by three or four lines of dates and places of employment. Although it’s hard to blame a candidate if he gets professional advice to do it this way, the format just doesn’t get read. People are leery, and rightly so, of anything more than plain bold facts that they can easily find, read and evaluate.

Titles
Titles should be swallowed with a big chunk of salt. They can be so misleading and for the most part are not indicative of what a person would consider. One company’s sales manager is another company’s vice president. We know firms who make all their salespeople vice presidents subscribing to the idea that their clients will be more receptive to them. Some production managers have the authority and responsibility of plant managers, while others do not. The size of a candidate’s employer will often dictate the title. Previous or present titles should have little impact on a candidate’s ability to be hired, since the scope, function, and performance of the job are what is important.

Unfortunately, we have seen, time and time again, candidates eliminated from consideration because their previous title was perceived heavier or superior to what the client company was interviewing for. Titles just don’t mean much. Job duties and responsiblities do. The key is to question and discover the scope of the person’s previous functions, and neither consider nor eliminate him because of previous titles.

Remember the nature of resumes is perceived to make a person appear as big as he can be. Unfortunately, that’s different than the purpose of interviewing, which is to discover the best candidate for a particular situation, verify his track record and successfully hire the right person.

Tony Beshara is owner and president of Babich & Associates.   Beshara has been in business since 1973, and he alone averages $2.5 – $4 million per year in billings. If you have any questions about this article, please call (214) 823-9999.

© Tony Beshara, Babich & Associates

In order to get full value (if that is possible) from resumes in the hiring process we must address some of the realities surrounding their use. First of all, they are a necessary tool in the process at hand. They are, however, only of value If they are accompanied with a face to face interview. Resumes are one dimensional. They only reveal in written form a person’s past. Since they are subjective there is no way they can be a balanced presentation of a candidate. To use them as a screening device is treacherous since there is no objective standard for them.

A wise man stated that “The only time we are perfect is when we write our resume.” Unfortunately, that seems to be the case. A recent study proved that everytime an average resume is written, one more falsehood is made or implied. For the most part, they just aren’t that reliable.

The average resume is read for 32 seconds. Recently 250 director level human resources executives from Fortune 500 companies were polled. They stated that they received 100 resumes each week. Only 5% of these resumes ever led to an interview and only 30% of the new hires first came to their attention through resumes. It is however true that 85% of these professionals use the resume during the interviewing process. Another recent study of 250 companies concluded that it takes an average of 200 resumes to fill one position if the use of resumes is the only source of finding candidates. Obviously, the use of resumes to screen candidates is a real “crapshoot” .

Who reads resumes makes a big difference in their effectiveness as a hiring tool. If an intermediary such as the personnel department is involved in the initial process, it’s important for them to be briefed in detail as to what they should look for in a resume. The recognition of certain types of companies or experiences may be of value to a hiring manager and not to the third party. The further removed from the personal need for an employee the resume reviewing person is, the less effective the resumes are.

Unfortunately, resumes are used to screen candidates out. They are used to eliminate people rather than to find out why they might be good. The result of this reality is that good candidates get eliminated for reasons that have nothing to do with their professional employment or performance. We were recently told that a candidate was being eliminated from being interviewed because the objective on his resume stated that he wanted to be associated with a growing company. Since the company he sent the resume to wasn’t growing or expanding he was eliminated. Now what does that have to do with his peformance or the company for that matter? We subsequently placed this same person with the same company. He was qualified. His objective was silly. That had nothing to do with his professionalism.

The way a person writes his resume may have nothing to do with his skill level or ability. Since most candidates don’t write resumes professionally and don’t do it everyday they are at a disadvantage. The best resume writer is not necessarily the best performer. He may market himself the best, but that doesn’t make him a good accountant, salesperson, etc. We have seen close to perfect resumes written by average (at best) professionals. We have also seen poor resumes written by extremely good people. The idea that true professionals must know how to write good resumes just isn’t valid. People that review resumes looking for mispellings, typos, etc., are going to find them. Admittedly people shouldn’t have these errors on their resume, but are we looking for professional performers or professional resumes writers? We can get lost in details, and lose sight of our whole objective. . .to find a good, competent employee.

Tony Beshara is owner and president of Babich & Associates.   Beshara has been in business since 1973, and he alone averages $2.5 – $4 million per year in billings. If you have any questions about this article, please call (214) 823-9999.

© Tony Beshara, Babich & Associates

Degrees
It is estimated that 20% of the people who say they have a degree don’t. So what is so important about that? Well nothing unless the candidate says or states in his resume that he does have one. Not that we believe a person has to have a degree. In fact, there is no good reason for most of the employers who require degrees to do so. Be that as it may. If an employer specifically asks if a person has a degree and the candidate states he does then it is revealed that he does not, this candidate just can’t he trusted. He should not he hired. Degrees should be verified as a matter of course. It’s simple to do. One just calls the college or university, speaks to the registrars office and asks them to confirm if a certain person has had a degree conferred on them. The college or university will either verify the record or say they have no record of it. They will probably tell no more than this. Schools sometimes make mistakes so checking it again especially if there is a discrepancy is of value.

The School
If the school cannot confirm the candidate has a degree when he says he does, it wouldn’t hurt to give him a chance to prove it. Colleges and universities though, are very sensitive to the position they are in. They seldom make mistakes regarding these inquiries, but there have been rare instances of crossed records of people with similar names, etc. If there is a discrepancy, let the candidate prove his position. If a discrepancy occurs notify the candidate and let him try to set the record correct. Nine out of ten times though, this will be very embarrassing for the candidate and he will eliminate himself from consideration.

A Lie
As much as we would like to have empathy, sympathy and want to give the benefit of the doubt to a candidate, no one can justify hiring someone who lies about the matter of having a degree. None of us can afford to hire anyone who fabricates such things. Our natural inclination is to wonder where else they may lie. There is no good excuse for this. We have seen instances where candidates have begged for mercy and convinced prospective employers it’s the only place they have lied. We do not recommend hiring such a person. They simply can’t be trusted. As a matter of course degrees should lie verified.

Unvolunteered References
No candidate is going to give as a referral, someone whom they did not like, get along with, etc. No one would volunteer references they believe will be poor or bad ones. Other than previous employers, most references we check are given to us by candidates and are obviously people who are going to say positive things.

With an amount of effort an employer can find people who know about the candidate. People that worked with him are familiar enough with him to be of value. These kind of objective references can be very valuable. Previous clients or customers of sales candidates, for instance, can give a perspective of the candidate one can’t get elsewhere. Simply asking initial references who else might have knowledge of the candidate will give one other references. These volunteered references may offer other facets of the candidate not found in traditional first line references.

Previous Bosses
These people are going to tell you the most about how an individual performs on the job. Try not to settle for checking previous employment references with anyone other than previous, immediate bosses. They will know the most. Sometimes candidates who fear a bad reference from a previous boss will claim that they can’t find their previous boss so they’ll get a previous peer or subordinate or someone they once worked with etc., to provide a reference. Don’t buy it! Make the candidate find previous bosses. Take no excuses. Don’t rely on the candidates previous employers personnel department. They are going to confirm salary, starting and ending dates, etc. Nice stuff maybe, but it’s not going to help you really hire right. Find previous direct supervisors and ask them questions that will help you not only decide to hire or not to hire the candidate but will give you direction of how to manage the person should he be hired.

Get specific answers to specific factual questions. Ask the same questions of all references. This way they can be compared and three days later one doesn’t have to rely on recollection. Patterned questions will provide an in-depth overall picture.

Tony Beshara is owner and president of Babich & Associates.   Beshara has been in business since 1973, and he alone averages $2.5 – $4 million per year in billings. If you have any questions about this article, please call (214) 823-9999.

© Tony Beshara, Babich & Associates

Do It Yourself
In the last issue we discussed that checking references needed to be done carefully since people are so concerned with litigation. What is said and what isn’t said, how questions are answered and in between the lines documents can make all the difference in the world. It is always best for a hiring manager to check references himself. Any third party, i.e., personnel, administrative assistants (yes, we’ve even seen secretaries do it) just can’t do as thorough a job.

Part of reference checking goes beyond the question of hiring the individual. Often we want to know work habits, attitudes, etc., not only to find out how they are but to also evaluate them relative to the specific job function we want accomplished. A direct manager can evaluate all these things better from a reference check if he does it himself. He can ask more direct relative questions and the answers will mean more. How a particular individual is motivated or managed can best be interpreted by a direct manager. Doing reference checks personally gives an employer a better picture of what he might be hiring.

Present Employment
Never under any circumstances check references at the present place of employment unless the candidate gets his present employer to call you. Even if the candidate tells you it is fine to check with his present employer …don’t do it! If you jeopardize a person’s job, you are opening yourself up for litigation. Candidates may think they are going to be laid off and tell you that checking with where they work is fine. Don’t run the risk!

At the risk of being pedantic, don’t check references of present employers on your own even without permission. Believe it or not we have three of four instances a year where employers check references of candidates where they are presently working. It’s stupid.. ..but it’s done. Any attorney would love to get a hold of one of these cases. No prospective employer or anyone has the right to jeopardize a person’s present job. The rationale we hear is “….the candidate put himself at risk by applying for a job. ..so if he loses his job because I checked a reference it’s his fault….” This thinking is totally ridiculous.

Check References With Factual Questions
Facts can be denied or confirmed. Even though you are trying to make personal evaluations asking personal evaluative questions like “What did you think of the candidate?” …or… “How do you feel about his personal life?” …could get you into trouble. Asking more factual questions like “Did the candidate sell his quota? “….or “The candidate says he was 75% of quota last year, is that correct?” …are factual questions that require a more factual answer.

Reasons For Leaving Previous Employers
These are very important issues to consider about a candidate. They will tell you a number of things. First of all, whatever a candidate says about his last employers he will say about you. Secondly his reasons for leaving you won’t be much different than why he left the previous ones. If his reasons for leaving are vague like “…no opportunity for advancement, …philosophical differences with the boss. …redirection of the company, …personality conflicts….” they need to be clarified in detail and verified in reference checking. Nebulous reasons for leaving a company are a bad sign, watch for them carefully.

Spouses
Who we marry is the nicest compliment we have ….(for better or for worse). The spouse of candidates will give you a picture of the kind of person you are interviewing better than 10,000 questions. Many companies at mid level positions and above invite spouses to a dinner interview. There are many good reasons for doing this, but it is one of the best reference checks an employer can do. Just seeing how people interacts with others in the presence of their spouse will reveal a facet of their personality you won’t get any other way.

There is no reason that interviewing the spouse needs to be limited to mid or upper level positions. It can be done on any level. There are residual aspects of this practice. One is to get the support of the spouse. If the candidate is hired he or she is more likely to do a better job because the spouse is not only behind the person but they can identify with the people the employee works for and with. The second aspect of this practice reveals just how committed the spouse is to the prospective employee’s job or career. We’ve seen instances where a spouse’s career was so important to the family the prospective employee’s job was no-where near a priority. This may be fine for them, but would not be good for the company contemplating the candidate.

Tony Beshara is owner and president of Babich & Associates.   Beshara has been in business since 1973, and he alone averages $2.5 – $4 million per year in billings. If you have any questions about this article, please call (214) 823-9999.

© Tony Beshara, Babich & Associates

RECOGNIZE that reference checking can be treacherous, dubious, questionable, etc. Mere recognition of the fact that checking references isn’t as effective as it used to be gives one an advantage. Just knowing that the fear of litigation by saying the wrong thing is in the mind and heart of whomever gives a reference, forces a prospective employer to understand better both what he hears and doesn’t hear. Being aware of the care that references must be given forces a prospective employer to only rely on them to a limited extent.

Interview Factually
Along with other things, an employer should interview candidates knowing that facts can be verified; feelings, “chemistry, ” etc., can’t. Here is another reason to give a patterned interview (as discussed in another HIRING LINE). “Chemistry,” compatibility, etc., make the real difference in hiring someone, but documental questions of fact are verifiable. Exact starting and ending dates of employment, starting and ending titles, exact number of people supervised, exact duties and responsibilities, exact figures of budgetary responsibilities, etc., can all possibly be verified by a previous employer. It’s hard for people to lie about facts. Either a person’s title was controller or it wasn’t. A sales person either hit 110% of quota or 50% of quota. These are factual questions that should be asked and verified. The more factual questions and information can be, the better off an interviewer is. Asking a previous employer if a candidate was a good employee can too easily get a non-answer response. Asking a previous employer a question like: “Our candidate states that he was 97% of quota when he left, is this correct?” Illicits a black and white clear cut yes or no. Getting factual information in the interviewing process gives an employer facts to verify.

Credit Reports
This is an excellent way to see if a person has their personal house in order. Most of us would agree that we handle our business affairs no differently than our personal affairs. As one expert put it: “the executive with a messy garage will have a hard time straightening up the corporation”. Serious credit problems will usually indicate serious personal problems. Serious personal problems will usually indicate serious professional problems. Direct personal references have to be careful in what they say. Credit reports, however, are factual. You must however, GET PERMISSION FROM A CANDIDATE to check his credit. There are forms available that a candidate must sign giving you permission for his credit to be checked. BE CAREFUL! There are some states that limit how a credit check can be used and who can perform one. Get legal advise before instigating such a practice! Membership in a credit bureau will facilitate such credit reports. Credit reports will usually tell you how a prospective employee will handle the company’s money, …no differently than his own. Having said all this, however, we encourage employers to use the results of a credit report with prudence. The level of job, function, etc., will dictate how much of an impact a credit report should have on the decision to hire someone. Extenuating circumstances like long term unemployment or long term illness of a family member will sometimes negatively impact a person’s credit when normally they would have no difficulties.

Driving Record & Arrest Record
There are service bureaus that provide during, arrest and credit records on any individual. With a candidates permission this information ought to be a must. What you do with the information you get is up to you. Remember that no one “runs” their business life any differently than they “run” their business life.

Tony Beshara is owner and president of Babich & Associates.   Beshara has been in business since 1973, and he alone averages $2.5 – $4 million per year in billings. If you have any questions about this article, please call (214) 823-9999.

© Tony Beshara, Babich & Associates

Increasing the odds of offer acceptance saves time money and effort.

Reality is that, on average, only 50%, of professional job offers made without the use of a professional recruiter or placement firm are accepted. Ninety four percent of the offers Babich and Associates get for their candidates are accepted. The reasons for this drastic difference are simple, but very significant.

First of all a good experienced recruiting firm and we emphasize experienced, has just that. …EXPERIENCE. This experience causes us to know how to keep the hiring process on track. Our advantage is since we have been here since 1952, we have just plain interviewed more candidates than most any company ever did. Each of us averages physically interviewing and screening four candidates a day. We work with hundreds of current search opportunities at any one time and, over the years, have filled and worked with thousands of positions.

Perspective
We have experienced so much, our PERSPECTIVE is just better and deeper than any average tenured manager. This perspective and experience gives us a significant advantage in finding qualified candidates. Our data base provides a quick assess to thousands of candidates at any one time. Our experience allows us to quickly identify not only quality candidates but allows us to qualify the job opportunity in relation to those candidates. The fact is that the function of screening. Interviewing, and hiring is an infrequent occurrence at most firms. It is the essence of our business. Practice makes perfect. Since we do it every day we know how to do it better. Since we know how to put into the right perspective both candidates and opportunities and since our volume of each is so great we rarely have one of the offers our candidate receive turned down. There is no success like success. We know how to find the right candidates for the right job. ..and get them to take it. Most businesses simply can’t have this perspective. Most searches, without the use of a recruiter, take 3 to 4 times longer than they should. Attention to the search and hiring process just elongates because it gets lost in the priorities of other aspects of business. Although it is a very important part of a managers duties. It normally just doesn’t get the attention it needs to simply because there is no one helping. I.e., pushing the process along. Without the use of a professional placement person the communications between candidate and prospective employer usually diminishes over the long period of time between interview and hiring. Benign neglect takes it’s toll and because there has been so little communication, the “warm” emotional feelings have grown cold and the candidate assumes all the negatives he can and turns the job down.

Listening Objectively
A good experienced placement professional not only keeps the lines of communication open, but he hears all of the issues necessary to keep the deal alive. He expresses the needs and concerns for both parties in an open unthreatened manner. We add an objective perspective to the whole process. Since we hear and see all of the aspects of the particular process from all of the parties, we keep the communication going when they would normally be misunderstood or be cut off. This is because the hiring process IS our highest priority. Like a lawyer who has to know law better than those he practices for, we have to know search and hiring better than our clients.

The experienced placement professional keeps the relationship between candidate and employer from becoming adversarial. Because hiring and finding a job is such a risky emotionally stressful function for candidates and employers, we see situations that would fall apart simply because of fear, stress, risk, misunderstanding, miscommunication, assumption, poor interviewing techniques, poor listening techniques, and, of course, human error. Not only do we keep most of these mistakes from happening, but we know how to salvage it when it does happen.

Results
In short, 94% of the offers that are extended thru the use of our service are accepted because our EXPERIENCE and PERSPECTIVE allows us to get the right type of candidate for the right type of position. We keep the process on track by keeping the lines of communication open. We cut the normal interviewing, hiring process time in more than half. We make sure that both candidate and employer expose each other to their best and essential business sides. We make sure the process is good for everyone. By giving to others what they want, we get what we want.

Tony Beshara is owner and president of Babich & Associates.   Beshara has been in business since 1973, and he alone averages $2.5 – $4 million per year in billings. If you have any questions about this article, please call (214) 823-9999.

© Tony Beshara, Babich & Associates

So often, we hear that firms don’t want to pay a fee. We understand. None of us likes paying a lawyer or a doctor or an accountant… unless they do for us what we can’t. You see, we CAN do our own legal work, our own medical work, and our own auditing and reporting. We don’t because we are in other businesses, providing goods and services. We don’t have the TIME to go to law school, medical, or accounting school, so we pay for the expertise of someone else in these areas.

A recruiting fee is no different. Companies can do their own recruiting i.e., researching the market for qualified candidates, soliciting of these qualified candidates, interviewing and hiring. They can do this without a professional recruiter or a fee. Most companies, however, never calculate the economics of the TIME involved and LOST in the recruiting of qualified candidates. The major reason for this is that the process is underestimated time wise. Most people perceive that when they need to fill a position (without a recruiter), they will run an ad, talk to friends, interview a few candidates, and then hire one. They estimate it to take a period of 2 or 3 weeks until it happens. They never consider that the first offer may be rejected and they will have to start all over.

Time is Money
In reality, without the use of a recruiter, it takes an average of 10 to 11 weeks to identify a qualified candidate to fill a search, even before an offer is made. Without the use of a recruiter approximately, 50% of the initial offers made are rejected, and the search has to start all over. Since so much time has elapsed from the beginning of the search, most of the other qualified candidates are either gone or are no longer interested. So the search really does start all over… from scratch!

A recent study by an experienced expert in the recruiting profession has statistically documented that a $60,000 executive spends $12,355 of his company’s money to locate a qualified candidate at a $40,000 level (without the use of a recruiter). That’s just to locate the candidate. Since 50% of those types of initial offers are rejected, this figure may even be higher, possibly double. It takes approximately 67.8 hours to review 200 resumes resulting from an ad, prescreen 100 resumes, pre-qualify 30 resumes after deleting 70, delete 15 of the ones left and complete reference checks on those. A $60,000 manager has a net worth of $144 per hour to his firm. The 67.9 hours at a net worth of $144 comes to $9763. This is an initial investment even before interviewing any candidates.

If five candidates are being considered, another eighteen hours will be spent in interviewing, eliminating and re-interviewing the finalists. The total investment so far, then is $12,355 PLUS the cost of the ad. Since without the use of a recruiter, 59% of all initial offers are rejected, there is still a high probability that one would have to start, if not all over, at least at “square” two.

Over the last two years, it has taken us an average of 17 days to successfully complete a search with a hire. It comes as a surprise, but the average time to successfully hire a candidate without a recruiter is around 77 days. Now in most cases, someone has to do the work of the person not hired yet. A $40,000 professional is worth $96 an hour to his or her company. Someone has to do the work of the person not there. That extra 60 days it takes to find a successful candidate (without a recruiter) COSTS money ($768 to be exact). So now we have $12,355 plus the cost of advertising, plus $768 per day that “someone” has to cover the work (that is another $46,080).

The recruitment fee for a $40,000 executive at Babich & Associates is $12,000. Not only is this a sizable savings, but also the probability of the initial offer being accepted is twice as great.

The Real Savings
In addition to all of the savings, a recruiter saves money on down time. Over the past 2 years, the average search through Babich & Associates took 2-1/2 weeks to complete. By using a recruiter, the initial time devoted to running ads or collecting resumes was eliminated since we constantly work current candidates. Approximately 94% of the offers made thru a recruiter are accepted (we discuss the reasons for this in another issue of Hiring Line) and there is little risk of the search having to start over. If things go wrong, i.e., the primary candidate takes another job, the position specifications change slightly, etc., the professional recruiter is in a much better position to react quickly and the time of the “start over” process is shortened drastically.

The economics of paying or not paying a recruiting fee are clear. If a firm can keep from paying a fee, while getting the same quality of candidates in an efficient timely fashion and successfully hire one, they should not consider the use of a recruiter. However, it is a rare instance that a successful search cannot be more efficient in TIME, MONEY and EFFORT by the paying of a fee to an experienced recruiting firm.

Tony Beshara is owner and president of Babich & Associates.   Beshara has been in business since 1973, and he alone averages $2.5 – $4 million per year in billings. If you have any questions about this article, please call (214) 823-9999.

© Tony Beshara, Babich & Associates

When was the last time you reviewed your employee handbook to be certain it accurately reflects your current policies and procedures and the current law — or do you even have one? Aside from the value that an employee handbook provides in communicating your company’s business philosophy and direction to your employees in a consistent fashion, when correctly written it provides you, the employer, with a level of protection for very little cost and effort.

Handbooks have become a critical part of a growing number of employment lawsuits. Having a properly drafted handbook can provide assistance — even a shield — to help an employer reduce the potential for employee claims. It can defeat actions such as those for breach of contract, wrongful termination, and claims brought before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the state and/or local Human Rights Commission.

Some of the aspects that should be considered when writing or revising an employee handbook are the following:

- ‘At Will’ Employment

Unless you are prepared to have a contractual relationship with your employees, it is imperative that you clearly and prominently confirm in your handbook that all employees are employed ‘at will.’ In addition, you should state specifically who is able to alter this arrangement and that any alteration must be in writing and signed by the company’s authorized representative. This means that there are no duration guarantees and that only certain parties (e.g., the president and/or the vice president) can enter into a contract that says otherwise. The ‘at will’ confirmation should appear prominently at the beginning of the handbook and again on the acknowledgement signature page (see below). Please check your local state laws to be certain that ‘at will’ employment is recognized (e.g., in California it is not).

- Disciplinary Policy and Termination Provisions

Do you have a set disciplinary policy which indicates what steps will be taken if there is the need for disciplinary action? Do you specifically list what will be done and in what order — for example: 1) Verbal warning, 2) Written warning, 3) Suspension, 4) Termination? What happens if you determine that you just don’t like the person’s attitude and you want to terminate him/her after a verbal warning? Have you reserved the right to do so under your policy or are you required to go through all four steps before termination? Many handbooks do not make it clear that the disciplinary steps are only guidelines and, thus, don’t reserve the employer’s right to skip any or all of the steps. What does yours say? If you are an ‘at will’ employer, does the way that your handbook is written erode your rights? How about the list of reasons for disciplinary action that is included in your handbook? Is it stated that the list provides examples only and make it clear that it is not a definitive list?

- Leave Policies

Leave policies need to be carefully planned and well written. If your company is subject to the Family Medical Leave Act (‘FMLA’), you need to be certain that your handbook covers at least what the law requires. You may want to require that paid leave (i.e., accrued vacation and sick time) be used as part of this policy. There are restrictions, but generally you can require sick time to be used, and under certain circumstances you can require vacation time to be used as part of the time taken for Family Medical Leave. Requiring the use of accrued time as part of Family Medical Leave prevents tacking of time (e.g., 12 weeks of Family Medical Leave followed by sick leave followed by vacation leave) all while you are maintaining the employee’s position and benefits for his/her eventual return. Is your policy written to ensure Family Medical Leave time is taken once in each calendar year — or on a 12-month basis rather than on a calendar year? This is also an important point, as it prevents tacking of two 12-week periods taken in consecutive calendar years. If you are not subject to the FMLA, then you may write your own policy — just be consistent for all illnesses/diseases and pregnancy.

- ADA

There is also the potential for discrimination claims to arise under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Having a well-written policy and accurately defined job descriptions can avoid some liability traps. When was the last time your job descriptions were reviewed? Do you have them? There are other ADA compliance pitfalls, some of which need to be addressed in your handbook.

- Harassment Claims

A stated harassment policy and a procedure for filing and investigating complaints can, according to United States Supreme Court cases, provide an employer with a defense against hostile environment sexual harassment claims and certain other discrimination claims. Communicating the policy to your employees and managers is critical to its use as a prophylactic. An employer is always strictly liable for quid pro quo sexual harassment claims (when an employee suffers a tangible employment action as a result of refusing a supervisor’s sexual demands). However, it may be possible to avoid liability in hostile work environment claims if the company shows it took reasonable care to prevent and correct any harassing conduct and the employee failed to follow or take advantage of any preventative or corrective opportunities.

In addition, it is important that the company can also show that it thoroughly investigates sexual harassment complaints, takes appropriate action if warranted, and insures that there is no retaliation taken for making a complaint.

- Acknowledgement and Receipt

There should always be an acknowledgement signature page that contains not only the ‘at will’ disclaimer, if applicable, but also contains language clearly stating that the policies and procedures included in the handbook are guidelines and are subject to change or elimination at the employer’s sole discretion. Wouldn’t it be horrible to find out that you have an employee who decides to sue you for a change to your sick, vacation, personal leave, or medical insurance policy because you did not clearly state that these are not contractual guarantees but policies that you, the employer, have the right to amend or eliminate? It’s certainly not an issue that you would like to litigate.

Oftentimes, a small amount of care can make all the difference in whether your policies are a help or a hindrance. If your policies are poorly written, do not reflect your ‘real’ practices, or lack flexibility, you may be better off without a handbook. However, a properly drafted employee handbook may be the most significant, albeit inexpensive, protection you can provide your company. Therefore, if you have one, follow it, and perform regular care and maintenance to keep it current and effective.

The contents of this article should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information purposes only, and you are urged to consult a lawyer concerning your own situation and any specific legal questions you may have.