By Russell Glass, CEO of Bizo

As hiring professionals, we’ve all been there. Your teams need support, but you don’t have the budget or resources to hire the desired people. Perhaps you find yourself in a hiring position, but can’t find the candidates that fit the bill. The difficulties of being a hiring manager are not characteristic of one particular industry or field. Everyone, from President Obama to the store owner next door, is faced with the difficult decisions that surround job creation and hiring.  So what do we do?

Location is Not a Barrier

As the CEO of Bizo, a fast growing company in the technology industry, I have a simple solution, “in-shoring.” Here at Bizo, we not only hire the most highly-skilled people, but we also hire them just about as fast as we can find them –wherever we can find them.  Bizo is just one of the tens of thousands of businesses that are in the same position.  We realized early on, that to successfully build our company, we needed to hire only the best people. However, hiring people solely based in the local San Francisco Bay Area was a significant limitation—and sacrificing quality talent was just not something that we were willing to do. At the same time, we didn’t feel that we could build the right tight-knit culture we wanted by off-shoring to countries like India, Belarus or other far-away lands.  The solution? Again, a simple one: use powerful, effective and inexpensive collaboration and communication technologies like Skype, Google Docs, Dropbox, instant messaging, and web conferencing to manage our company’s remote workforce and “in-shore.”

What does it mean to “in-shore”?

In-shoring is a simple idea that offers a plethora of significant benefits to everyone. At Bizo, we’ve built a culture that enables our teams to work together efficiently. By doing so, we’ve managed to:

• Build an infrastructure to hire incredible talent regardless of where they live in the country
• Lower our average cost per employee so we can hire more of them
• Establish networks around the country that fuel our ability to hire more great people

Today, our 45-person company is represented in 10 states around the country, including one person in Hawaii. It is my belief that better companies are built with a diverse foundation, and “in-shoring” has the potential to alter the landscape of this country’s job market.  If the laid-off auto worker in Detroit, the high school student in Little Rock or the former textile marketer in Greensboro, sees that there are jobs available to work for high growth Silicon Valley technology companies if they only had the right skills, they will go out and acquire those skills.

Bringing Jobs to the People

Job seekers need to believe that if they take the initiative to get new skills, there will be a job available to them.  This way, they will have the incentive to acquire the relevant skills they need to be successful.  Leading a technology company in Silicon Valley, I believe that I and others in a similar position have a responsibility to do our part to create and fill jobs in this country. This is simple economics.  If the economy thrives, we will be more successful and our children will be more successful. Ultimately, that’s why we all work in the first place, isn’t it?

With expanded education opportunities, a focus on “in-shoring” and continued innovation and next generation technologies, we can overcome the structural challenges that we face today and lead the world in high technology job creation for decades to come.

So what does “in-shoring” look like for your company?

Russell Glass is CEO of Bizo, a business-to-business marketing firm. Glass is a serial technology entrepreneur, having founded or held senior positions at four venture-backed technology companies. Other than business data, Glass’ passions include golf, anything in high def, and Duke basketball. Follow Glass on Twitter at https://twitter.com/glassruss.

While you were busy hobnobbing with Michael J. Fox, greasing up with the Thunder From Down Under or singing along with da best singer in da world at Caesar’s Palace, here’s what you might’ve missed at CareerBuilder’s booth during SHRM 2011…

The following videos feature presentations given by our recruitment experts during SHRM’s annual conference in Las Vegas this past June, and they cover everything from social media, video and mobile recruiting efforts to the wonders of data intelligence, to what CEO’s really want from HR.

See below, or check them on our YouTube channel.

Emerging Media and Your Recruitment Strategy

Here, CareerBuilder’s VP of Corporate Marketing, Jamie Womack, discusses how and why companies need to utilize social media, online and mobile platforms for recruitment right now.

Your Company in 2020

Building an integrated recruitment strategy is a much different task today than it was three years ago. Here, Jamie Womack talks about how to build a talent pipeline to fuel your company’s future growth, pulling in aspects of messaging and emerging media and compensation.

Data Not Just For Data’s Sake

Personified’s VP of Development, Abdel Tefridj, demonstrated both the need and the opportunity for business leaders to use data – and use it more efficiently – as they make critical decisions daily in an ever-changing world.

What Your CEO Wants to Know

This year was particularly exciting for CareerBuilder, as our CEO, Matt Ferguson, presented during the SHRM official sessions. Here he is at the Las Vegas Hilton, discussing a recent nationwide survey of CEOs that highlights how the CEO/HR professional relationship has evolved over the last five years.

What’d you think? Anything we didn’t cover that you’d like to see next year? Let us know!

Your hotel may whisk you off to a Cirque du Soleil show, an upgraded luxury suite or a fabulous dinner.

That phone call about your computer issues that normally passes you through four different people may shoot you directly to Susan, the manager.

Your favorite airline may send you to the new Bali resort everyone’s raving about – on their dime.

And if you’re a job candidate, the employer you’re courting may be bowled over by your credentials and hire you on the spot –

– all because of your Klout score.

What?! Yes, it’s true – not only are brands using Klout on a consumer level, but recruiters and employers are starting to use Klout scores to gauge candidates’ effectiveness or fit as a potential hire. Is Klout + recruitment a passing trend – or a permanent hiring tool? Let’s take a closer look.

What is Klout?

Klout is, according to the company’s website, “the standard for online and Internet influence.” Klout insists it isn’t about the A-Listers, because they believe every person who creates content has influence. “Our mission,” the site says, “is to help every individual understand and leverage their influence.

And in a recent Twitter chat (#kloutchat), Klout shed light on how one’s score is determined: “Score is based on how how many people you influence, how much you influence them, and how influential they are.” It’s more about reactions to the content people create — than about the content itself; about how much people take action on your content through things like retweets, “Likes,” commenting, and clicking on your links. How much of what you do online causes people to take action? That’s Klout’s bread and butter.

Klout + Recruitment

The chatter about Klout has been growing stronger. Originally, it was about individuals using it to determine their online influence among their peers. More recently, brands have gotten into the mix and have started using Klout to create perks for customers or potential customers with a high influence index, like Spotify giving Klout users early access, Virgin America giving away tickets, or hotel upgrades or restaurant table VIP. The thinking is, getting influential users to experience your products will cause them to talk about your brand on online networks and spread sentiment about your company through their online influence.

And now, Klout is seeping into the world of recruitment — and faster than we may realize. Joe Fernandez, CEO of Klout, believes that social media is becoming an increasingly important candidate asset. “A person’s comfort and ability to leverage social media is becoming, if not critical, at least a differentiator among candidates,” says Joe Fernandez, CEO of Klout, in a recent Q&A blog post with Forbes blogger Tracey John. If he’s hiring for a marketing employee and two candidates have similar education and experience, but one candidate is active on sites like Twitter, Facebook, and blogs and one is not Fernandez says, he says he will hire the one who is.

Klout can’t be the only factor in making decision on hiring, he adds – just as you wouldn’t (or shouldn’t) base college entry based on SAT or ACT scores alone. “I think in terms of understanding somebody’s ability, comfort, reach and engagement with social media – which is becoming more and more important – that Klout is the standard and a great tool for hiring.”

The CEO of Klout isn’t the only one using Klout for recruitment. In Mark Schaefer’s blog post, The Making of a Social Media Slut, he says he recently heard about four friends or co-workers making — or being on the other end of — decisions that were arrived at because of Klout scores, all within a 72-hour time period. Though we’re far from Klout and recruitment being a mainstream practice, it’s happening — and we need to take a hard look at the potential positives of such a mix, as well as the potential pitfalls.

The Good

1. Competitive advantage.
Klout plans to externally expose numbers that signify exactly how influential individuals are about particular topics, stats which they’re currently tracking behind the scenes — meaning if you have an overall score of 32, you may still have a 65 in architecture, meaning you are very influential in that particular area. With this, not only will candidates be able to show their “social capital,” but they will be able to show potential employers (or their co-workers and superiors, if currently employed) what specific topics they’re passionate and knowledgeable about.

Java programming? Creative writing? Women’s studies? Klout has the potential to give candidates a professional layer based on the content they’re putting out there and the way others interact with that content – not simply based on their interests (e.g. “Info” listings in Facebook). If you’re particularly skilled in email marketing, Klout gives you another way to show off those talents. Because of Klout’s integration with LinkedIn, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and Foursquare, and its hopes to integrate with others like Tumblr, Google+ and WordPress, there are many places in which job seekers can make their mark in particular specialties or markets, and raise their Klout scores in those areas to stand apart from their competition.

People want to have control over their online professional reputation, and Klout offers another way for them to do that. As Brian Solis pointed out in a recent Fast Company article, “People are now part of the equation and are willingly shedding their “audience” moniker and vacating the branded auditoriums of yore in favor of building their own stages, their own personal theaters.”

2. A more complete picture.
When hiring, Fernandez said, you have a limited amount of information about a candidate from which to make a decision — which is often true. Klout offers candidates a way to showcase their skills and talents and give potential employers more information about themselves, and it offers employers a way to garner more information from which they can make a fully informed hiring decision. Should Klout be the single factor used in making a hiring decision? Definitely not (and if you’re a hiring manager using only Klout to decide whom to hire, you are likely in the wrong profession). Fernandez says Klout is just one ingredient — but that the fact that someone takes time to build their personal brand and share their expertise and passions is valuable to employers. And whether you’re a recruiter or a candidate, it is important to develop your personal brand.

Just how important is this one method, though?

The Bad

As much as Klout can be a powerful tool, there are many potential issues with Klout that employers and recruiters should watch out for when considering adding it into their recruitment mix.

1. Candidate experience.  Is Klout a platinum card for recruitment? In the Klout consumer experience, some businesses are giving customers with a high Klout score perks, as mentioned above — or preferential treatment. While this has problematic possibilities (if other customers are being ignored), we are used to seeing certain customers receive better treatment based on rewards systems calculated through money spent or customer loyalty. We have accepted the consumer reward-based system, and it does incentivize many customers to increase business with a particular company and spread the word about the company and its benefits.

However, some businesses may want to treat the candidate experience in the same fashion through Klout, by giving candidates with high scores better communication throughout the the interview process, choosing to give the job to the person with a higher Klout score, or even offering them a better salary. Beyond unfairness, poor hiring decisions, and possible legal ramifications, the potential backlash from candidates in situations like this is immense — and for good reason. Picking and choosing who you provide with a great candidate experience can severely damage both your consumer and employment brands.

2. Abuse/Lack of knowledge.  Klout as a business looks at candidates’ scores when seeking new candidates, but as Fernandez says, they won’t pass on a quality candidate just because he or she has a low Klout score. But what about a hiring manager with shiny object syndrome? You know, the one so enraptured with a high Klout score (even if he or she doesn’t even know what it signifies) who does pass on a quality candidate for the less qualified candidate with Justin Bieber-like Klout score because it looks cool, or because their peers or competitors are using Klout and they think they should be, too? A buzzworthy case study does not necessarily equal a quality hire — and as you probably know, hiring the wrong candidate can cost you thousands of dollars, not to mention a lot of time and resources.

Companies need to be smart about how they use any kind of recruitment tool, and Klout is no different. It’s perhaps even more tricky, because it’s not by design a recruitment tool, but a social influence tool. Adapting it to recruitment in a way that makes sense takes good sense on the part of the person hiring, as well as a willingness to understand and continue to learn and adapt as the tool evolves.

3. Accuracy.  I don’t talk about Coldplay on social media sites. In fact, the only time I did, it was to make fun of the name of their new song (c’mon, Every Teardrop is a Waterfall?). So I scratched my head for a while, trying to figure out why Klout listed them as one of my influential topics. I finally realized that it wasn’t because of how often I talked about Coldplay, but about how other influential people interacted with my one comment. My tweet happened to be retweeted by a pretty influential user, which, I am guessing, must be why Coldplay was catapulted to the forefront of my page. Still, it doesn’t seem accurate — and if candidates are associated with topics they really don’t know much about, but recruiters don’t realize it, where does that leave us?

Klout has said that the responsibility is on users themselves to remove topics they don’t think they are influential in. I have yet to remove Coldplay from my own topics — probably because it’s not a priority. But it’s possible that when candidates know potential employers are looking at their Klout scores, they will care, and they will remove topics that aren’t relevant to them in order to make their page more accurate or to showcase the items they want employers to see first. After all, it’s up to a candidate to make sure the information on their resume, or their LinkedIn profile, or anywhere else that’s online and public, is accurate, honest, and projects the image they intend to put forth. If it isn’t, the truth will likely come out in the interview process. Candidates can try to game the system — but it’s up to those hiring to sort out fiction from fact.

Not all candidates will curate their own profile, however. This may be well and good — after all, Klout content reflects the topics candidates have talked about online that others have taken action on, which is relevant in some sense regardless — but it may also be misleading if employers are putting stock into it (or just look bad: “Oh, I see you’re an expert in planking?!”). Which leads me back to #2 — those who are hiring must be smart about using the tool.

4. Fairness.  Among Schaefer’s stories mentioned above was one about his friend who Schaefer claims is very talented but who was rejected for a job at a major ad agency because his Klout score was too low. If this is truly why the friend was rejected, it’s a huge red flag for the future of Klout and recruitment. Though social media savvy, personal brand, and online influence may be preferred or even crucial in roles directly related to communication or social media, or in industries which depend on your established contacts, why would we want to force candidates to engage online if they prefer not to?

As mentioned above, according to Klout, every individual who creates content has influence, but what about those who choose to stand on the sidelines — those who prefer to consume content rather than create, and to engage in other ways? What about the collectives, joiners, and spectators? They may write killer ad copy and have an amazing creative mind — but hate putting their personal life on the Internet. Do we fault them for that? Even if the position is for a social media manager, in which social media engagement is a necessity, do we simply look at a low score and assume they’re not great at tweeting or being a community manager? We shouldn’t.

Furthermore, for many industries, the measurement of the extent to which influential people online are driven to act upon the content you put out there just isn’t that important — or isn’t important at all. You must ask yourself what qualifications you need for a particular position, and seek the candidate who fulfills those needs. Flashy new sites will come — and some will stick around — but it’s up to recruiters and employers to put a process in place that is accurate, fair to candidates, and makes sense for their business. As Fabrice Calandro points out, employers are attracted to Klout scores, because in theory, “an employee with more online influence will help your employee branding through blog posts, Tweets, Facebook posts and LinkedIn updates because they’ll reach a broader audience.” While this may be true, it shouldn’t be the factor your hiring decision is hinged upon. Employees will vouch for you if they like you, whether it’s online or offline. “Buying” the probability of an employee boosting your brand is a losing game.

5. Relevancy.  As @NicoleInDC points out in her comment here, it’s not always real people or professional accounts who have the highest Klout scores. It’s true; anonymous parody account @chuck_facts tweets only Chuck Norris “facts,” and is influential about Microsoft Vista, Africa, and television on Klout with a score of 74, about the same score as user @acarvin, who is an identified person and a strategist at NPR. I could add more examples — fictional account @themime, who has only ever tweeted dots (hey, he’s a mime), has a Klout score of 61. Not too shabby — and according to Klout, he’s influential in Wall Street, statistics, and law — yet there’s no rational explanation as to why. If scores are similar between the real and the conjured up, with influential topic choices sometimes seeming completely off the mark, how can those in charge of hiring possibly use Klout as a serious assessment tool?

The Bigger Picture in Recruitment

Fernandez has said that Klout is just one ingredient in the hiring recipe. And, although some have expressed concern that Klout scores will one day be the only factor hiring managers are looking at, it will likely be the exception rather than the norm. Different people vary ingredients in a recipe according to their needs and personal tastes. It’s the same with hiring choices – some employers may be more concerned with education, while others are focused on specific certifications, and still others care most about years of experience in a particular field. No one recipe is the same, so the idea of Klout becoming the sole factor in a hiring decision seems unlikely (not to say that it hasn’t or won’t happen).

As in any profession, there are good hiring managers, and there are bad ones. It’s the hiring managers or recruiters who don’t know what they should be looking for who will abuse Klout — or any other tool, for that matter. People in charge of making hiring decisions must be careful to make responsible, sound and ethical decisions, based on a person’s actual ability to do the job at hand.

For some roles, social media interaction is important, but for others, it’s not important to the role whatsoever. Does a manufacturing candidate need to be active on Twitter to successfully perform his or her job? I don’t think so. We have to be realistic about our expectations of candidates – just because hiring managers may want something doesn’t mean it makes sense to get it. Developing a personal brand, however, is a smart move for all types of candidates – after all, the majority of recruiters and employers do search for candidates online to find out more about them.

Hello, Is It Good Candidates You’re Looking For?

I’m no Lionel Richie, but I think the bigger question might be, what are you looking for from candidates? Do you know — or are you simply following the latest buzz, and neglecting those candidates who really might be perfect for your open position? Klout, like social media in general, has the potential to better your business — but it’s not meant to keep the lights on.

As Brian Solis has wisely said, “Social media will not save business, but it will challenge them to evolve, to adapt… to do better.”

Klout is another tool for candidates to showcase their experience and talents, and it’s another tool for recruiters and employers to view a snapshot of candidates through an online lens. Just how clear that lens is remains to be seen — and just how influential Klout itself is – well, time will tell.

In the meantime, tell us — would you — or have you — used Klout in your recruitment process?

The woman in the grey sweatshirt stood up in front of roughly 100 others at Borders Books’ Chicago State St. location and tearfully told Howard Schultz, CEO of Starbucks, that she’d closed her store and driven all night from her store in Ohio to see him speak in person. “It’s an honor and a privilege to be in front of you today,” she said, her voice breaking with emotion.

She, like many of us, was at Borders to see a Q&A discussion between Schultz and CBS2’s Bill Kurtis on Schultz’s new leadership memoir, Onward: How Starbucks Fought for Its Life Without Losing Its Soul (and perhaps get a book signed or a photo taken with the man who has changed the way many people think about coffee). After the woman thanked Schultz for all that he’d done for her and her employees, Kurtis asked her why it was that she drove so far to see him – why Schultz? “He’s an inspiration, and he’s honest,” she replied, as if it was the most obvious answer in the world.

It’s hard to argue with the fact that Schultz and the Starbucks brand have a die-hard following – and as I sat listening in awe to the woman who traveled all night from my beloved home state of Ohio to see Schultz and express her gratitude and devotion to Schultz and Starbucks in such a personal way, I realized I was seeing the power of the Starbucks brand in action. Here was a company that, more than most any others, had built up nearly impenetrable company and employment brands, gained a legion of loyal fans, customers and employees, and grown to a massive 16,000-store, “there’s a Starbucks on nearly every corner” giant. But, as Schultz would point out, things weren’t so rosy just a few years earlier.

Flashback to 2007

“I could sense, or small, that something wasn’t quite right,” Schultz said as he addressed the overflowing crowd of fans and curious onlookers before him. He was referring to February 2007, a time when, he said, he became concerned about what was happening at Starbucks – or rather, what wasn’t happening. Little by little, Starbucks had been losing some of the signature traits it had been founded on.

In 2000, Schultz had stepped down as CEO (or, as a Starbucks employee would write it, “ceo”– they have used lowercase job titles since their early days) and became chairman, moving away from day-to-day operations to focus on global strategy and expansion. In the years that followed, store growth accelerated and stock prices soared as sales and profits increased every single quarter – until they suddenly didn’t. By 2007, things were taking a turn for the worse. “Starbucks had begun to fail itself,” Schultz said.

Bitter times

Over time, the company had been expanding the brand beyond its core into various media like music, books, and film. In addition, every quarter, there was more intense pressure to maintain annual revenue and profit increases of at least 20 percent – an ambitious goal that Schultz admits he was complicit in promoting. Amidst battle cries of “More growth!” the team had lost sight of what the Starbucks experience was really all about. Starbucks, he pointed out in his book, has always been about so much more than coffee. “But without great coffee,” he wrote, “we have no reason to exist.”

So, on Valentine’s Day 2007, Schultz sent an email to Jim Donald, the CEO of Starbucks at that time, warning of the commoditization of Starbucks (the email was aptly titled The Commoditization of the Starbucks Experience ), hoping to unleash an honest conversation that would prompt everyone to reexamine the path they were traveling. He stressed a need to get back to Starbucks’ core and make the changes necessary to evoke “ the tradition, heritage and passion they all had for the true Starbucks experience.” Unfortunately, he said, the email leaked, and the next thing he knew it was all over the Internet – and the public was in a furor. Starbucks – and Schultz himself — received a lot of criticism for his opinions, even from Starbucks’ own employees, and as he says, it undermined what he was trying to accomplish.

Online conversations took on a life of their own, and while the company was struggling to figure out how to create balance between growth and a need to preserve what the company was really about, Schultz realized that they could no longer use their stores and website to communicate and control the conversations – the public was really in control of what was being said.  Coincidentally, soon before Schultz’s email went out, three big communication changes had occurred: a week earlier, Apple had introduced the iPhone; four months earlier, Google had bought YouTube; and five months earlier, Facebook had opened up to the public.

Times were changing, and Starbucks was forced to either change with them or get left behind.

Back to the grind(s)?

Toward the end of 2007, as the situation reached a breaking point, the board decided Schultz needed to return as CEO. So, in January 2008, he did. It wasn’t his original intention, and it wasn’t an easy decision. In addition to having to tell Donald he was taking over, he was re-immersing himself in a company that was increasingly becoming viewed as one of the poster children of the recession (i.e. “save money, don’t drink at Starbucks”); people were being encouraged to look elsewhere for coffee easier on the pocket.

As he jumped back into his role as CEO, Schultz said, he realized that the issues he’d brought up in that now-infamous email back in 2007 were even larger and deeper than he had then thought. This was through no fault of people working there, he said — it was due to the fact that Starbucks was rewarding the wrong things. Factors like speed of service were praised, rather than keeping focus on the customer and the quality of the product.

Schultz’s reaction?

On February 23, 2008, “I closed every store to retrain 115,000 people – I said we were going back to the roots of the company.” Of course, the media frenzy that ensued from this decision brought many to believe that the end of Starbucks was near – that they were no longer relevant. Schultz admits it was a bold decision to retrain every single employee. His explanation? “It was honest, it was authentic, and it was necessary.” The company lost $6 million that day. And as he said, Starbucks still had a long, long way to go in solving their mounting problems – but this was a start.

Starting over, he said, involved metaphorically asking the question of employees, What does it mean not to be a bystander? “From this point, we had to create, attract and create new customers.” Gone, he says, was the time that Starbucks could do no wrong — that the company was on a “magic carpet ride” – and that profitability and likeability would happen automatically with every move the company made. Gone was the time that Starbucks was leading the conversation — now, they had to find a way to take part in the larger conversations that were happening.

Later in 2008, one month after Wall Street’s meltdown and a few weeks before Starbucks would announce significantly reduced profits for the fourth quarter, Schultz decided to get all of the store managers together — all 11,000 of them — for a leadership conference. They’d always done the conference in Seattle, and even though nearly every major city wanted to host them, Schultz said they chose a place very much in need of assistance: New Orleans. Despite the odds, Schultz knew it had to be done, to start rebuilding trust between Starbucks and its employees and invest in Starbucks’ continuing transformation — and New Orleans was the right place to do it.  Not only did they have a week-long meeting with interactive galleries, roundtables, and panels, but they also did service in the 9th Ward and helped to rebuild some of the city’s most devastated neighborhoods.

“I’ve always loved this company,” Schultz said in Onward. “Love is why I had some back as ceo and why I feel so personally responsible for its failure and success. Yet somewhere along our journey, the love our people had for Starbucks had blurred. New Orleans had brought it back into focus, and once again our values stood in stark relief… because of everything we experienced in New Orleans, it was apparent to all of us what it meant to love something — and the responsibility that goes with it.”

Moving forward

What’s happened since Schultz and the Starbucks team took major risks to turn the Starbucks experience around? Well, instant coffee (Via), for one. And Starbucks’ performance in the Q3 of fiscal 2009 marked its first earnings growth since Q1 2008 — the company earned $152 million, compared to its loss of nearly $7 million just a year earlier. As Schultz remarked in Onward, “for the first time in a long time, I felt as if we were winning.”

In July 2009, after riding out the December 2008 choice to make 401(k) retirement plans discretionary instead of automatic in light of a weak economy, Starbucks was again able to match the 401(k) contributions of eligible employees, which, to Schultz, “would not make headlines or mean much to shareholders, but for me… was as important as anything we were able to accomplish all year.”

In fiscal 2010, Starbucks revenues increased to a record $10.7 billion, and its operating income increased to $1.4 billion, up from $562 million in fiscal 2009. What’s next for Starbucks is anyone’s guess, but as Schultz says that every company must push for self-renewal and reinvention, constantly pushing the status quo, it appears he will continue to do just that.

Q&A with Howard Schultz & Bill Kurtis

After Schultz gave his initial thoughts on Starbucks’ journey over the past few years, Schultz sat down with Kurtis to answer some questions about what the Starbucks brand really means, his ideal employee, and more.

Q:  How do you define success to your employees?

A: “’Howard Schultz is not going to serve any customers — it’s you,’ is what I tell employees.” Schultz tells store managers they are responsible for what takes place in their stores, and that “The essence of what they do every day is the difference between success and failure.”

The greatest reason for the enduring relationship Starbucks has with its people and its customers is due to the values of the company, Schultz said. “We’re not perfect; we’ve made mistakes, and we’ll make some more.” “The last 12 months has been the most successful in Starbucks’ history,” Schultz said. “However, we did not leave people behind.” Part of that decision not to leave employees behind while striving to be financially successful involved keeping 401(k), cash bonuses, and benefits. Starbucks was, after all, the first U.S. company to offer both comprehensive health care coverage as well as stock options to part-time workers.

Which leads us into another question…

Q: Why are you not willing to cut the price of coffee?

A: “We will never – and I mean never – turn our backs on our employees,” Schultz replied.  The company wasn’t willing, he added, to get cheaper coffee or cut health care benefits for each of Starbucks’ employees to cut coffee prices. The premium price is tied into having the best quality beans and treating their employees well.

——————————–

Q: What will be the future role of businesses on a macro level?

A: As social services continue to lessen in government, Schultz said businesses will have to do more to provide a safety net for people, as well as provide a safety net for people to serve their communities. Social requirements of the business world are changing, and people expect more from the businesses they patronize. People have become more cost conscious, environmentally aware, health-minded and ethically driven — and are holding businesses to higher standards. Seismic changes with social and digital media, he added, are changing the way businesses must communicate with their customers; people are making buying decisions based on companies they trust and those that align with their values.

——————————–

Q: What is the Starbucks brand?

A: Schultz admitted this was a tough question to answer, as the brand really means so many different things. Instead of spitting out a textbook definition, Schultz said he wanted to explain by telling the story of Courtney, an employee in the Queen Anne, WA store. The story goes like this: Schultz walked into a Seattle store one day, and an employee there told him he was in the wrong place, and that he really needed to get to the Queen Anne store as soon as possible. When Schultz asked him why, the employee said, “You’ll know why when you get there.”

So, Schultz got in his car and drove to the Queen Anne store – a store where a long-time employee with special needs and past behavioral issues, Courtney, worked. When he walked in, customers were laughing and chatting, and he noticed that they had thrown a birthday party for Courtney. Schultz says this was such a testament for him as to the emotional relationship between the staff and customers at Starbucks. “You can’t invent or describe it,” he said –“you just know it’s real.”

Starbucks, he added, is defined by those who wear the green apron and what they stand for.” In corporate America, there’s been such a fracturing of trust; for whatever reason, there’s a lot of cynicism and unwillingness to believe.” Consequently, people are hungry to work for a company that’s larger than themselves, he said, a company in which they can find their unique place. Many people go from job to job with bad experiences, becoming increasingly cynical, and when they start working at Starbucks, expect the experience to be the same and are in disbelief that it’s actually different – that the employees and the experience is actually for real.

——————————–

Q: Who is your ideal employee?

A: “We want people to join Starbucks who have like-minded values. We need happy people – we’re a people company that serves coffee, not the other way around,” Schultz said. He added that while Starbucks is creating organic, fair trade coffee, people come into the store for a different reason. “The human, emotional experience our people create is why customers come in – it’s more than just for a cup of coffee.”

——————————–

Q: What leadership qualities do you look for?

A: Again, Schultz stressed that like-minded values are key. He said that when he returned as CEO, he had 11 direct reports, and he asked them all the same question: “If you don’t believe we can do this, or you don’t believe in me, this isn’t going to work – we’re going to have to have a private conversation.” In the next six months, he said, nine of the 11 people left the company. He needed people who believed in the dream; who believed in the business – and that candor left him with those who did.

Schultz said that as far as employee qualities, it’s important to have:

• People who trust one another
• Those who leave their egos at the door.
• Those who understand that success needs to be shared.

And to not have: People who do a great job of managing up but not managing down.

——————————–

Q: What is Starbucks’ biggest win in the last couple of years since you came back on board?

“Instant coffee,” Schultz said without hesitation. Why? “Because we were able to bring quality to instant. Great companies and entrepreneurs have to continue to push for innovation. People thought when we added instant coffee, it was the beginning of the end. But really, we did it to prove to themselves that they could replicate the taste of brewed coffee – and we did.”

——————————–

Q: What advice would you give to someone who wants to take a leap of faith to pursue his or her dream?

A: In addition to getting a mentor, Schultz advised, “Dream big, then dream bigger. You have to put yourself in a position to win, and surround yourself with people who’ve done it before — with those with experience and the skill set to complement you.”

And from the look of things, Schultz isn’t done dreaming quite yet.

Do you ever wonder how companies like Google, Best Buy, P&G, Harrah’s, Dell, Starbucks and Sysco – to name just a few – consistently rank on Best Places to Work and Most Desirable Employers lists? It’s not just the fancy perks like free gourmet meals, stock options, on-site fitness facilities and flex schedules. (Well, not just that, anyway.)

The secret to their success is data.

These companies are able to position themselves as best places to work because they rely on data to inform all of their recruitment decisions. They gather data on everything from job seeker and employee perceptions, behaviors and desires (including even the above-mentioned ‘fancy perks’ employees want most) to industry trends and talent supply and demand. They then analyze this data to understand where to focus their recruitment efforts to get the best return on their investment.

Harrah’s, for example, used metrics to evaluate the effects of its health and wellness programs on employee engagement and the bottom line. Starbucks and Best Buy have established metrics that can precisely identify the value of a 0.1 percent increase in engagement among employees at a particular store. Sysco implemented analytics to identify which workforce factors influence employee satisfaction and how they correlated to higher revenue, lower costs, higher retention and stronger customer loyalty. The company then applied these findings to identify what actions by management will have the greatest impact on the business. Similarly, Google used talent intelligence to identify eight effective leadership behaviors, which the company now uses as criteria when considering performance reviews and staffing decisions.

Six Habits of Highly Successful Employers
The above are just a few examples of how companies rely on data to understand both current and potential employees and use this intelligence to position themselves as desirable places to work. So how can you create a similar experience with data to see bottom-line results? Consider the following key concepts that companies who successfully recruit with data get right.

1. They accept data as a crucial element of their business strategy. Gary Loveman, CEO of Harrah’s Entertainment, Inc., attributes the success of Harrah’s marketing efforts to collection and analysis of data, an effort that has permitted Harrah’s to go from “what we think to what we know.”  As my colleague Jason Lovelace noted in his post last week, companies have long used data as the basis for their marketing efforts to build their consumer brand and increase customer engagement and loyalty. Now, today’s best employers are applying the same efforts to their recruitment processes.
2. They understand that talent intelligence is an investment. Unfortunately, the data employers and recruiters need to support their hiring and recruitment decision making is often inconsistent, redundant and of poor quality. More than 75 percent of companies who participated in Taleo and Human Capital Institute’s recent Talent Intelligence Study revealed that they did not have access to the talent data they need to make important business decisions. Smart employers understand that the time and money they invest in data up front will result in a greater return and save them time and money associated with recruitment over the long haul.
3. They understand that having the right data is only half the equation. Knowing how to apply that data is the other (crucial) half. Not only do the aforementioned companies gather data on job seekers, employees and the industry overall, they go the extra mile to ensure they implement it. They understand that no matter how good their data is, if they do not use it and apply it to their recruitment efforts, it’s utterly useless.
4. They set measurable goals. As with any business strategy, you need to start with a solid goal in mind. It’s easy to get overwhelmed or confused by the sheer abundance of data out there, so having a focused goal is crucial to help you narrow your efforts and stay focused. Again, data is an investment. Part of that investment should include finding a trustworthy data expert who can help you decide which data points to focus on to meet your goals, and later help you evaluate and create a strategy around this intelligence.
5. They know that data is not one-size-fits-all. All businesses are unique and have unique needs. Again, there are data experts who specialize in helping employers understand which types of data will help them meet their own unique goals, taking into account the various factors that affect their organization and its recruitment efforts.
6. They accept that there’s always room for improvement. No matter how efficient your current process is, there is always room for improvement or enhancement. Oftentimes, employers turn a blind eye to data because they do not want to face the possibility there are challenges to their recruitment process. While ignorance may be bliss, it comes at a price. Smart employers believe there’s no such thing as “negative” data: Every piece of information data reveals an opportunity to enhance their strategy and make them even stronger as an organization.

Bottom line: Data without context is meaningless.
Perhaps Jonathan Rosenberg, Google’s very own SVP product manager, said it best when he wrote, “Data is the sword of the 21^st century. Those who wield it well, the Samurai.”  Getting the competitive advantage in today’s market isn’t just about having the strongest data (or the sharpest sword, if you will), but knowing how to use it as well. After all, data is only as strong as what you do with it. And those employers who understand this concept will have a competitive advantage – both now and in the longer term – when it comes to attracting and retaining their greatest business asset: their employees.

Will Emmons is an Area Vice President at CareerBuilder, LLC, where he is responsible for sales strategies and revenue growth within CareerBuilder’s Enterprise Sales, Strategic Accounts Group, and Integral Accounts Group.

Exclusive webcast: Join CareerBuilder’s Area Vice Presidents Will Emmons and Jason Lovelace on Thursday, June 23 for Data Not Just for Data’s Sake, wherein they discuss adapting to the ever-changing recruitment landscape.  Learn more or register here.

Content strategist Mike Loukides recently wrote, “The future belongs to the companies who figure out how to collect and use data successfully.”

While he may have been referring to marketing data, he could easily have been referring to recruitment. After all, recruitment essentially is just another form of marketing. Why do advertisers create focus groups? Administer surveys? Study consumers? They take the time to gather information on their consumers, analyze it, and use it to inform their marketing strategy and ultimately keep them ahead of the competition in the eyes of their target audience.

When it comes to recruiting, the importance of data to inform key decisions is no different. It is crucial that hiring managers and recruiters understand their target audience – who they are, what they value, how they approach their job search – in order to ensure they are reaching this audience with the right messages, at the right times and through the right channels.

Gone are the days when recruiters and hiring managers could get away with simply putting a job ad in a local paper, hoping people apply. Today, recruitment – that is, the efforts that attract, engage and retain the highest quality of employees – requires a strategy, and the key to that strategy is data.

And with more job seeker and employee data available than ever, employers today have no good reason not to use data to inform their recruiting efforts. In fact, ignoring this data is downright detrimental to their organizations, considering that the competition for attracting and retaining the best talent is more intense than ever.  Today’s savviest employers are already using data as part of their recruitment strategy, and the trend is only increasing; those who are not quick to embrace data will simply fall behind.

Data 101
Perhaps I should back up a bit, though. When I refer to ‘data,’ I’m referring to the years of research gathered from various job seeker, employee and employer surveys and tracking tools – all of which enable employers to make the most informed decisions around how to best grow their organization.

Still skeptical about the power and importance of data? Try me. No matter how baffling, how complicated or how seemingly obscure, there is almost no question regarding your recruitment process data cannot help you answer.  Even questions you didn’t know you had may be answered through data analysis. Take the following:

• Employment brand: What are the messages I’m sending to candidates? Does the way I perceive my corporate culture differ from the way others perceive it? How can I change this? What messages do I need to send to attract the candidates I want? Data can inform the way you communicate your message about your employer brand and prove yourself as an employer of choice – enabling you to better attract and retain top talent.
• Talent drain: Which companies do my employees typically leave to come work for me? Where do they go when they leave? Is there a pattern here? Am I targeting the right candidates? Who am I competing with for candidates? What do they offer that I don’t, and can I change this?
• Supply and demand: Where are my ideal candidates located? Which area of the country? Do I need to consider non-local candidates and offer relocation services? How can I convince qualified local talent to stay and work for me?
• Relocation: Are job seekers willing to relocate? Are workers of a certain age or education level more likely to relocate than others? Are certain areas of the country more attractive to job seekers than others?
• Compensation: Is the salary I offer competitive? Does it prevent candidates from applying to my organization? How does it compare to current trends in terms of industry, location and company size?
• Diversity: How can I attract a diverse set of workers? What do job seekers with various skills, experience and educational backgrounds seek in a potential employer? What are the messages I need to communicate to attract these different groups? What can I offer at my organization to promote and implement diversity?
• Applicant drop-off: Am I attracting the right candidates, but losing them during the application process? Is there a way I can simplify the application process to ensure candidates complete the application process? What prevents people from applying to my positions?

And that doesn’t even scratch the surface…

There is so much power in recruitment data as far as what you can find out about job seekers, employees, and, ultimately, your own organization, it’s nearly impossible to justify not using it as part of your recruitment process. While the idea of implementing data into your recruitment strategy may seem overwhelming, it will ultimately save more time and money than ever once you see all the possibilities data intelligence opens up for you. Even better: you will continue to reap the rewards long after you’ve put your strategy in place.

If it helps, think of it this way: In the simplest of terms, the question you’re ultimately answering is, “How can I most efficiently attract and retain the talent who will help my organization grow?”

Otherwise, if you’re not using data, it’s all just guesswork.

Jason Lovelace is an Area Vice President at CareerBuilder, LLC, where he is responsible for sales strategies and revenue growth for companies ranging from Fortune 1,000 companies to midsized businesses throughout the U.S.

Join CareerBuilder’s Area Vice Presidents Jason Lovelace and Will Emmons on Thursday, June 23 for Data Not Just for Data’s Sake, an exclusive webcast about adapting to the ever-changing recruitment landscape. More information about the webcast and details on how to register will be posted soon.

On this 100th (!) International Women’s Day, when women all over the world are celebrating the countless accomplishments of women or being honored themselves, I thought it would be fitting to share results of The White House’s just-released report all about women, called Women in America: Indicators of Social and Economic Well-Being. It was prepared for the White House Council on Women and Girls — a council created in 2009 by President Obama to “enhance, support, and coordinate the efforts of existing programs for women and girls.”

A report nearly 50 years in the making

This is the first Federal report that focuses on the progress of women in the U.S. since John F. Kennedy’s Presidential Commission on the Status of Women issued 1963′s Peterson Report, which primarily focused on workplace discrimination and issues of workplace inequality — and which helped lead to the Equal Pay Act.

Fast forward from 1963 to 2011 — how have things changed?

Why women’s issues are important (and not just for women)

President Obama himself has stated that the social and economic issues facing women are not just women’s issues; many of these issues can end up affecting entire families.  The report gives a picture of women in America today by focusing on five areas: demographic and family changes, education, employment, health, and crime. Although I’d like to share findings on education and employment specifically, it’s worth perusing the report (PDF) for yourself to get a better sense of how various gender comparisons all fit together in the big picture. Women have achieved so much — and this report reflects that. Unfortunately, in some areas, there is still much progress to be made. Let’s take a closer look.

Women and Education

When it comes to educational achievement in particular over the last few decades, women have made huge strides. This holds true across racial and ethnic groups, and, in some cases, the educational achievements of women have significantly outpaced those of men over the last 40 years.

Highlights:

• Perhaps not surprisingly, high school education rates of women have substantially increased. Between 1970 and 2009, the percentage of women with at least a high school education rose from 59 percent (about the same as men) to about 87 percent (slightly more than men).
• Over the years, we’ve seen a huge surge in the number of women who have paved out careers for themselves and embarked upon that institute of higher learning known as college. The percentage of women ages 25-34 with at least a college degree has more than tripled since 1968, and women earned about 57 percent of all college degrees given in 2007-2008.
• In 2008, women accounted for 59 percent of graduate school enrollment.
• When it comes to doctoral degrees, the tables have completely turned in the past decade alone. In 1998, more doctoral degrees were conferred to men than to women. A decade later, it’s the opposite.

The science and tech gap

While women do earn the majority of degrees overall, they earn fewer degrees than men in science and technology. In the college level of engineering and computer sciences, women possess fewer than 20 percent of degrees earned. The good news is that the lack of women in these fields has not gone unnoticed; women in the tech field, for instance, are banding together and starting conferences, investing money and resources, and engaging in professional networking. These efforts aren’t without criticism, though — some believe that instead making efforts to differentiate themselves, women in these types of fields should be integrating themselves more forcefully into male-dominated events and circles. What do you think?

Women and the Workplace

Over the past several decades, women’s role in the workplace has changed dramatically. But where are women currently excelling – and where are we falling short? Let’s take a look.

Highlights:

• The earnings gap between women and men has narrowed over the years – but it’s still there. Among full-time wage and salary workers, women’s weekly earnings as a percent of men’s have increased from 62 percent in 1979 to 80 percent in 2009.
• Although we’ve seen older persons either staying in or going back into the work force since the 2008 recession, according to the report, the labor force participation rate of persons ages 55 and older began to rise in 1996 for both women and men, but that pace has slowed in recent years.
• Speaking of the recession — during the past four recessions, the unemployment rate among women rose less than the rate for men. This can be attributed to men’s concentration in more cyclically sensitive occupations, like manufacturing production and construction, compared to women’s concentration in more rapidly growing fields like health care.
• Women are considerably more likely to work year round than they were in past decades. In 2009, 75 percent of women worked year round, up from 51 percent in 1968.
• In May 2004, about 30 percent of wage and salary workers reported having flexible schedules that allowed them to vary their work hours to some degree. (That’s likely increased since then, with the larger focus on flexible scheduling that’s developed). What exactly the flexible schedules entailed, the report didn’t say, and it would be interesting to find out percentages of employees working from home or exploring other alternative scheduling with their employers now that 7 years have passed.

So, what do the findings tell us?

Well, as we’ve seen above, women have accomplished a great deal in the realms of education and employment since the 1960s — or even the 1990s. Yet, on average, women still earn less pay than that of men, and few women are venturing into the fields of science and technology. But the fact that this report leaves out legal issues of inequality which were the main focus of the Peterson Report of 1963 is a huge difference in itself, in only 47 years’ time. In addition, this report lays bare the findings that women are not equal in the aforementioned areas — but are there explanations involved that have more to do with lifestyle and culture than with unfair business practices?

And as author and history teacher Stephanie Coontz points out in her article on CNN International, the 1963 report cataloged the once-common practice of establishing quotas on how many women were admitted to educational institutions or sought-after jobs — an issue which has, at least in theory, gone away. Yes, discrimination against women still exists, and yes, some institutions’ or individuals’ mentalities may still be back in 1963. But this White House report chronicles just how big of a leap we’ve taken forward in such a short time.

How far do you think women have come when it comes to the workplace? Have you witnessed many of these changes over the years? Let us know in the comments!

Want to get involved with International Women’s Day? Find events here.

Just a couple of years ago, the world watched as Wall Street began to rapidly unravel, and we continued to watch as the weeks and months to follow showed further signs of trouble and revealed cracks in our economy that many of us hadn’t the slightest idea existed. When what we were going through was finally officially labeled as a recession, many employers had already thinned out staff levels, cut back budgets, and slashed benefits. Consequently, businesses were forced to “do more with less” (you know, that phrase you’ve heard 1,000,001 times by now.)

No money, no problems?

Faced with fewer resources, many companies decided to roll up their sleeves, get creative, and find new and inexpensive ways to communicate with their clients and job candidates. Some of those inexpensive ways of communicating included Web-based tools like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube, and they were really starting to take off. Not surprisingly, many human resources professionals were suddenly tasked with taking them on, in addition to all their other responsibilities.

Without proper methods of tracking candidates found through sites like Facebook and Twitter, however, HR managers and recruiters were spinning their wheels and wasting a lot of valuable time. In fact, according to a recent CareerBuilder study, 60 percent of recruiter time was being wasted on non-value-added activities, the majority of recruiters weren’t measuring ROI, and candidate tracking was often only 25 percent accurate due to ATS limitations. Executives were expecting HR to perform miracles through social media — and it wasn’t happening.

While HR was focused on time and cost to hire candidates, business executives were stressing the need to convert HR data to business intelligence.

Now what?

CareerBuilder realized companies needed a solution that accomplished both parties’ objectives — and soon after, Talent Network was born.

Okay, but what is it, exactly?

Talent Network, a custom career site that helps employers build their own pipeline of talent,  enables employers to connect the dots of all the things they are doing to attract job seekers, engage interested candidates, and measure the success of their efforts. Let’s break it down:

Awareness

Talent Network builds awareness for your jobs through five key areas:

1. Social — Add a link to your Talent Network on social sites all over the Web, including Facebook (via CareerBuilder’s Work@ employee referral system) and Twitter.
2. SEO — Turn your internal job terms that may be abbreviated, vague or full of company lingo into title descriptions that job seekers instantly understand, and in turn, show up in more search engine results for job seekers looking for your open position.
3. Mobile — Your Talent Network site is mobile-enabled, giving you instant reach to people searching for jobs on their mobile devices. Tap into a market with explosive growth.
4. Career Site – Get a designed, hosted and supported career site, drive your target candidates there, and track your progress.
5. Job Distribution —CareerBuilder’s partnerships with sites like Indeed.com help you gain strong referral links to your jobs.

Engagement

Interact with candidates who have expressed interest in your business or open positions and give them a more satisfying experience.

• With the click of a button that exists on sites all over the Web, potential employees can arrive at and join your talent network, stay keyed into your available job opportunities, and get personalized alerts with jobs at your company that most match their interests and experience.
• Capture job seekers’ information before they leave your site, welcome them to your community, and start connecting with them on a deeper level.
• Send members of your network tailored job recommendations and customized messages. You can even send automated communications when you need to get a broad message out to many people at once.

Measurement
Quality measurement matters. Drive informed business decisions with accurate and in-depth information about your Talent Network’s search traffic, job interactions, and candidate conversions; in other words, gain the most insight available about members of your network.

A Better Way

How does Talent Network solve some of the biggest recruitment and business challenges companies are facing? Let’s take a look:

Old way: Potential candidates are gone before you can get them to take any action on your website.
Talent Network: Encourage visitors to leave a footprint before leaving your website.

Old way: You’re missing out on job search traffic because your jobs are hidden behind your ATS.
Talent Network: Expose and search engine-optimize your jobs, driving relevant candidates to your job openings.

Old way: Your recruiters keep contacts in their own databases, which creates a lot of one-off lists.
Talent Network: Keep all recruiters’ candidate contacts in one location.

Old way: You know who your target candidates are, but you’re struggling to reach them.
Talent Network: Take advantage of the custom SEO landing pages developed exclusively for your organization, and get in front of those elusive candidates.

Old way: You’re not really sure where your website traffic is coming from.
Talent Network: Get detailed, helpful insight into where your visitors are coming from, as well as what they’re doing once they get there.

Still have questions? Learn more about Talent Network:

Watch a short video or view product demos

Visit the Talent Network page

Read the press release

Feel free to post comments and questions here as well, and we will do our best to answer them.

Workplace Flexibility — It’s Not a Trend

More and more businesses are talking about the importance of workplace flexibility in today’s society – and the White House even dedicated a recent forum solely to the topic. As the forum stressed, we need a 21st century workplace to meet the demands of a 21st century work force. A report by the President’s Council of Economic Advisors found that more flexibility in the workplace leads to happier employees, more family time, and higher employee retention and productivity – as well as more competitive and profitable workplaces.

One of the more interesting discussions in The Hiring Site’s contest history recently unfolded around the very idea of workplace flexibility, as we asked all of you the following question for our May contest (and gave away some cool stuff — congrats to our winners!):

“Do you think a results-only work environment would work at your company? Why or why not?”

You were all more than a bit divided on the subject; opinions ranged from “This would NOT be a good environment at ANY company!” to “Yes! Thinking outside the box is what keeps America growing.” I’ve rounded up some of the highlights below (you can read the full list of comments here).

“I think ROWE is a fantastic way of boosting employee morale and engagement, and it can be used as a “perk” for some employees (it works for me!)” –PJ

—————————–

“It’s a good concept for companies without strict production deadlines.” –Donna

—————————–

“I think that the staff on my team would enjoy this freedom. I even believe some of them may produce the results in order to have the freedom. I do also believe that I need some one here 8-5 to take care of clients who have that expectation of us. It’s a great concept, but I’m not sure how I can make the logistics work in my 5 man team.” –Stacy

—————————–

“While I think this would be a great concept in several work environments; the concept would not work in our setting; we are in the business of providing 24/7 care to our patients. The level of staffing that is needed depends on the number of patient we have to take care and the level of the care that each patient requires.” –Lara

—————————–

“I think the best part of a ROWE would be the work life balance that it creates. As a working mom I can imagine how helpful and ideal a ROWE would be.” –Bernadette

—————————–

“In the field of corrections, this is not possible. You cannot monitor an inmate population from the grocery store. There is also no quantitative way to measure remote job performance… Most people are not able to handle the organizational issues and self-motivating actions this would require.” –KCI

“We treat all our colleagues as adults and they all manage their own time. We have no handbook. We have no time clock. All but one of our people work from a home office or on client sites. We do not track how much time is spent in either place (except for billing purposes.) Our turnover is basically zero in the last several years – not just in HR District Office, but in Higbee Associates as a whole.” –Lynn

—————————–

“I love the concept! Unfortunately, I don’t think it would work in our business, which is retail. We might be able to use it for back-office/administrative functions, but I believe there has to be some face time in order to foster teamwork.” –Lise

—————————–

“On the surface this appears to be a creative way to bridge the gap between generations and work place expectations.” –Kim

—————————–

“It is pretty hard to mentor someone that is not around on a consistent basis. This will undermine the relationship and make it harder to give feedback.” –Denise

—————————–

“Working set amounts of hours is really not about results, but about doing something because it is supposed to be done this way. If people could be more tied to the outcome of their work then more people would be happier with their careers. Its a great idea whose time may come down the road.” –Noelle

—————————–

“It sounds fantastic and I would love to be able to do it! But, I think that we (Americans) are used to a certain mindset in the workplace and that is the harder (usually more hours) you work the better employee you are. It would be hard to change that mindset in all of your employees and this could in turn create some resentment.” –Jen

—————————–

“Unfortunately adopting such a paradigm shift in culture would possibly cripple an organization who still follows workflows and corporate driven goal setting they built decades ago. Many newcomers are all for it and working smarter is. Not looked at as valuable as sitting at your desk looking busy from 9-5. Anyone else’s company still in a time warp?” –Steve

—————————–

“The flexibility to manage your time as you need would create less stress in a job and in life. In turn this makes you more productive. More productive means more money, and money is always the bottom line.” –Brad

—————————–

“The ROWE concept is a great one but measures would have to be in place to ensure excellent service. Customers want/need (pay) to have access to their vendors so making sure the correct results are delivered would be a challenge. It really requires drilling down to the specific results the organization wants to achieve and being able to understand what your customers want/need/are willing to accept. Companies would also need to have technology and communication (practices) infrastructures that would support the diversity of schedules and patterns brought on by this approach.” –Charles

—————————–

“I think more companies need to expand their thinking and rewards structure, sometimes money isn’t really the bottom line and quality of life is much more appealing.” –Gytahnna

—————————–

Your Biggest Concerns

From what I gathered in your comments, many of the concerns or challenges you expressed in your comments regarding ROWE boil down to physical presence and time elements — the need for employees to be physically in the office and during certain times, whether for meetings, teamwork building, customers, last-minute projects, ongoing deadlines, the ability to mentor, the desire to keep an eye on employees’ progress, or something else. The founders of ROWE have detailed answers to many of the same questions and concerns you have all expressed — you can determine whether or not their answers satisfy you.

ROWE — Who’s Doing It?

Some of you also asked at which companies ROWE was currently in place. Companies like Best Buy, Gap Outlet, Girl Scouts of San Gorgonio Council, and Fairview Health Services’ (their IT department) have adapted a results-only work environment. You can read about one employee’s ROWE experience here.

And as for the concern that with ROWE, employees won’t show up for meetings, answer calls, or meet deadlines, Eric Severson, VP of HR for Gap Inc., says, “That just doesn’t happen. People need feedback on projects and will come to meetings to get sign-offs. Some people still work 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. every day, and that’s fine. ROWE is your choice.”

ROWE or not, workplaces are constantly changing — and we enjoy discussing those changes with you. Any additional thoughts about ROWE?

Be the hero and surprise your team with three months of breakfast treats from Wolferman’s, or singlehandedly caffeinate your employees for all of Q3 2010 with a 3-month Dunkin’ Donuts coffee subscription. And even if you don’t win either of those, you have a chance to win your own copy of “Why Works Sucks and How to Fix It.”

Entering is Easy:

Simply answer the question, “Do you think a results-only work environment would work at your company? Why or why not?” in the comments below — and you’ll automatically be entered to win!

What’s ROWE all about? Read on to find out — and then enter to win for your chance at free swag!

What’s ROWE?

At a SXSW Interactive panel this past March, I listened to the founders of the ROWE (Results-Only Work Environment) movement, Cali Ressler and Jody Thompson, speak. After hearing more about ROWE and the well-known companies who had successfully adapted a results-only work environment, I was intrigued — and like many others, I had a lot of questions.

The concept of ROWE is, at its face, simple. People should have control of their own time — not the companies for which they work. In a results-only environment, the only thing that matters is results – not how many hours you’re at the office.

• As an employee, you own your time 24/7.
• Unlimited PTO as long as the work gets done.
• Go to the grocery store on a Tuesday at 10 a.m. if you need to.
• No more mandatory meetings.
• No more permission-granting from your employer, but instead, performance guiding.
• Employees are trusted with their time.

As Ressler and Thompson say, “Work isn’t a place you go — it’s a thing you do.” They are quick to stress that ROWE is not the same as flex time, telecommuting, job sharing, or employees to work from home a couple of days per week — those options, they say, are not enough.

From www.gorowe.com:

In a results-only company or department, employees can do whatever they want whenever they want, as long as the work gets done.  You make the decisions about what you do and where you do it, every minute of every day.

Here’s a video explaining ROWE, featuring employers who have adapted it:

The CEO of Girl Scouts of San Gorgonia Council, who pioneered ROWE for the organization when she came on board as CEO, recently wrote an article about her take on ROWE and workplace flexibility.

The Benefits?

According to stats on Ressler and Thompson’s website:

• ROWE teams report an average increase of 35% in productivity by eliminating waste from systems and processes, which increases employee capacity.
• ROWE teams also experience up to a 90% decrease in voluntary turnover rates.

Other benefits:

• Talent retention and attraction — Ressler and Thompson argue that companies in a results-only environment have a competitive advantage, as many candidates willing to be paid less money and have more freedom rather than work in a company with a traditional structure and more money.
• Optimization of space — Employees are working remotely much of the time.
• Elimination of wasteful processes — Employees will not be wasting a company’s time, money, and resources.

Challenges?

This may all sound too good to be true — so in our follow-up post, we’ll address some of the challenges companies who choose this route face, as well as some of your proposed challenges.

As employees of companies of all sizes (or as candidates looking for your next job), we at The Hiring Site want to get your thoughts. If nothing else, with work/life lines blurring more and more and more workers demanding (or at least requesting) flexibility and freedom in the workplace, it’s an interesting concept to start discussing.

How to Enter:
Simply answer this question in the comments below: “Do you think a results-only work environment would work at your company? Why or why not?”

Once you submit your answer, you’ll automatically be entered to win.

What Can you Win?

• One of you will win a 3-month breakfast club subscription for your team
• Two of you will win a 3-month Dunkin’ Donuts coffee subscription (that’s 2 lbs./month of regular or decaf, whole bean or ground, however you want it!)
• Four of you will win a copy of “Why Work Sucks and How to Fix It” by Cali Ressler and Jody Thompson.

Contest Details:
Entries will be accepted from 12:00 a.m. CST on Monday, May 17, 2010 until 11:59 p.m. CST on Friday, May 21, 2010.  Each account may only submit one answer for consideration; subsequent entries will not be considered. Spam responses will not be considered. The winner will be picked at random and notified via e-mail the week of May 24, 2010. Please read the full list of official contest rules and regulations.

Just answer this question: “Do you think a results-only work environment would work at your company? Why or why not?”

Want to hear more about ROWE? Listen to Ressler and Thompson on NPR, in a three-part story about result-only work environments.

As a former Super Nintendo addict enthusiast, I was both excited and surprised to come across this recent Go magazine article about the growing number of companies using interactive software and video games as employee training and development tools.

Excited, of course, because it seems like a cool, fun way to engage employees (and brought back fond memories of watching Mario hop around in a Frog suit)…But also surprised by just how many companies are embracing this trend: A reported 70 percent of major domestic employers used these ”serious games” to train employees in 2008, according to the Entertainment Software Association.  That figure is estimated to increase to 80 percent by 2013.

It’s encouraging to see employers move away from more traditional training methods like white papers, PowerPoint presentations and training calls - many of which seem as if they were designed to be tuned out (apologies if this is news to anyone) – and toward more engaging methods.  According to the article, those who use these training techniques say that video games help employees build business skills by putting them in situations that require critical thinking and decision making. 

Not to mention that being able to interact through computer simulation programs helps employees retain complicated information better than they would using other, more traditional training techniques.

Of course, the obvious downsides to using video gaming techniques to train is that the time and cost spent setting up and designing the customized software could be significant, depending on the complexity of the project.  And then there’s the not-so-minor fact that simulations can’t completely replace actual human interaction…But none of this is to say this technology doesn’t hold value (so long as its viewed as a supplement to, and not a replacement for, real world training) – and many will argue that the business benefits ultimately outweigh the costs.

No Longer Just a Training Tool…
In addition to helping companies develop employees’ business skills, more companies are utilizing video games in their recruiting and branding efforts as well. Here are a few examples:

• Candidate Attraction: The MITRE Corporation, for example, enables job seekers to download a 3D video game that gives players a better understanding of the company’s campus, how the interview process works, and view examples of company projects. Similarly, staffing firm Kelly Services has a virtual community in Second Life that gives job seekers an interactive experience to see what it’s like to work for Kelly, create buzz and differentiate Kelly from its competitors. In August 2009, the U.S. Army opened its Experience Center at a Philadelphia shopping mall, where potential recruits can play military videogames and learn about military bases and career options in an interactive way – helping the Army meet and exceed its recruiting and retention goals.
• Employee Engagement: Kansas City-based benefits provider Assurant launched the gaming suite, “It’s Your Business,” in 2007 with the goal of helping employees better understand the business in order to boost sales. What it ended up with was increased employee engagement and knowledge retention.  Today, employees are even more involved in the project, as they are the source of input for developing new training games.
• Employee Retention: In efforts to help employees relieve stress, refocus and (most importantly) avoid burnout, companies are increasingly relying on video games – turning their ordinary break rooms into game zones.  At the offices of the Chicago-based tee shirt company Threadless, taking a break to play a little Guitar Hero is an everyday occurrence for employees. And recently, Phoenix-based Multi-Systems, Inc. gave its employees a $10,000 budget to design a game room for them to unwind in, as a thank you for making various pay and benefits sacrifices the previous year. 

Where does your company fall among these other companies and their efforts? Does your company use interactive programs to engage current or potential employees? If so, feel free to share your experience in the comments section below…

The year is almost over, which of course means it’s time for a completely unprecedented, unexpected-in-every-way “top 10 of 2009” list…

Here, I give you my list of the 10 biggest trends we saw this year in the world of workforce management.  (Notice anything I missed? Let me know in the comments section below!)

1. Social Media Specialists made their way to corporate America. Recognizing the value in using social media as both a branding and recruiting tool, companies like Comcast, General Motors and JetBlue Airways,  began hiring professionals specifically for the sake of managing and monitoring their social media sites.  (Even Britney Spears got in on the action.) 
2. Internships made a comeback…in various forms. In the tightened economy, internship positions became more competitive among job seekers– as well as an attractive alternative for employers looking for cheap labor and a way to “test” new employees before hiring them full-time. One position that stood out was Pizza Hut’s “Twintern,” an intern responsible for posting updates on – and monitoring – the company’s Twitter account. The experiment turned out to be a success on both ends – come fall, Pizza Hut offered the twintern a full-time position. Similarly, 2009 also saw the rise of virtual internships made possible through improving technology and the growth of social media, and enabling employers to expand their pool of candidates while saving money on office overhead. 
3. Older workers were forced to rethink retirement. Nearly 60 percent of workers aged 65 and older reported that they were postponing retirement due to financial strains, according to a March 2009 CareerBuilder survey. While employers may be worried over how they will manage this aging workforce, multigenerational workforces are actually an asset to employers; they simply need to be “proactive in devising new strategies to harness and harmonize the multigenerational workforce,” advises BusinessWeek’s Roselyn Feinsod.
4.  “Qwittered” entered the American lexicon…joining the prestigious ranks “Facebook fired.” Stories abounded this year of employees getting reprimanded for posting inappropriate comments or – as we saw in this year’s most infamous case - videos on online social media sites. Even celebrities were not immune to this trend, as ESPN’s Sports Guy recently found out.  What can we learn from these stories? For one thing, having a well-thought out and clearly stated social media policy in place can eliminate these sorts of incidents. Make sure employees are aware of the policy and that what they say can be grounds for punishment. (For tips on creating a social media policy, check out Sharlyn Lauby’s excellent post on 10 Must-Haves for Your Social Media Policy)
5. Medical cost-cutting efforts got more creative. As health care costs soared, businesses began looking for ways to reduce medical coverage expenses with a new sense of urgency. Whole Foods, for instance, began offering workers incentives for losing weight and improving their overall health to ultimately reduce medical coverage costs; while other employers started expanding their employee assistance program offerings to include counseling – a less expensive alternative to therapy obtained through company medical coverage… Then of course there were those companies making the case for legalizing medical marijuana, saying the move could save them money on drug costs.
6. Thursday became the new Friday. Taking a cue from Utah’s institution of a four-day workweek for state workers, employers nationwide began to follow suit – hoping to generate the same benefits Utah saw as a result of its experiment.  Not only did the state successfully reduce energy and help workers save money on commuting costs, as it had hoped, but workers took fewer sick days and state services improved, as well. 
7. Women made workplace history. As layoffs hit men at a disproportionate rate, the ratio of women to men in the workforce evened out. As of September, women held half of the nation’s jobs – for the first time in our nation’s history.
8. Sex at the office became a hot(ter?) topic: While sex in the workplace is nothing new, the debate – both in the media and at the water cooler – over if and when it’s ever okay reignited after David Letterman admitted to having an affair with a “Late Night” staffer – and gained even more steam when two other, high profile sex-in-the-workplace stories surfaced soon after. (Regardless of where you stand on the issue, it’s always good to have a refresher on the rules regarding sex in the workplace.) 
9. Year-end bonuses, gifts and holiday parties disappeared. No surprises here: Fewer businesses planned office parties this year – whether due to budget concerns, or out of mindfulness of the hardships clients and employees’ families are experiencing. In the spirit of the season, however, some employers are organizing company-wide charitable events as an alternative. As is the case with holiday parties, the economy is also preventing many businesses from offering the typical year-end gifts or grant bonuses…but that doesn’t mean they’re not trying to appease their employees and clients with alternative gifts, such as car washes, choice parking spots and complimentary breakfasts.  
10. Office personal space became scarcer. In efforts to trim costs and boost productivity, many employers nationwide began reducing per-employee office space – from removing cubicle walls to create open floor plans, to eliminating assigned workspaces for employees who spend a lot of time away from their desks. Despite employers’ good intentions, however, some employees are finding that the closer quarters disrupt their work flow and increase tensions, according to the Wall Street Journal. (The lesson? Know your audience: While some people may thrive in tighter quarters, it can be distracting to others. Help your employees by giving them the option to work remotely or make sure you arrange the office in a way that maximizes the available space.)

What trends did you notice popping up this year? (And what do you anticipate we’ll see more or less of in 2010?)

Calling all recruiters and hiring managers:  Keep warm this winter season (or at least listen to good tunes in the cold) with a brand new 4G iPod Shuffle or CareerBuilder Full-Zip Fleece! Read on to find out how and enter.

Very few spaces exist in which there is a lack of competition for consumer dollars — and the same is true of the competition for talent. It’s not just job seekers who are competing for a job, Trump-style, either — your business is, in fact, competing for candidates all the time. Competition for quality employees is fierce in our current economy, and it’s necessary for companies to consider unique perspectives and find original — or at least noticeable –- ways to identify their ideal candidates. Everyone from small business owners to President Obama is brainstorming ways to get more innovative about job creation. How does that creativity and innovation extend into recruitment — namely, how do you find creative, yet cost-effective ways to connect with the candidates you want?

Do you know who you compete with for top talent in your industry? You may be surprised to find out that you are actually competing for candidates not only in your own industry pool, but in several other industries as well. Many companies are reaching further than before to widen their pool of candidates, and on the flip side, many candidates are exploring new fields and types of positions. Have you thought about what other industries might find your ideal talent appealing? If so, what exactly are you doing to snag the candidates you really want?

Share your thoughts with us, and you could win a 4G iPod Shuffle or a CareerBuilder Full-Zip Fleece! (Two 4G iPod Shuffles and two CareerBuilder Full-Zip Fleeces are up for grabs.)

How to Enter:
Simply answer this question in the comments section below: “How does your company sell itself to ensure you win over your ideal candidates?” Once you submit your answer, you’ll automatically be entered to win a 4GB iPod Shuffle or CareerBuilder Full-Zip Fleece (There are four prizes total; two people will win an iPod Shuffle and two people will win a CareerBuilder Full-Zip Fleece.).

Contest Details:
Entries will be accepted from 12 a.m. CST on Monday, December 7, 2009 until 11:59 p.m. CST on Friday, December 11, 2009.  Each account may only submit one answer for consideration; subsequent entries will not be considered. Spam responses will not be considered. The winner will be picked at random and notified via e-mail the week of December 14, 2009. Please read the full list of official contest rules and regulations.

How does your company sell itself to ensure you win over your ideal candidates?