Recruitment Survey

Guest Writer

The survey, involving more than 450 employers, found that 53% used social networking sites to research job candidates, while a further 12% plan to do so. Close to 43% of employers said what they had viewed on social networking sites had resulted in them not hiring the candidate. The top reasons were: <ul style="text-align: justify;"> <li>Candidate lied about qualifications - (38%)</li> <li>Candidate displayed poor communication skills - (31%)</li> <li>Candidate used discriminatory comments - (13%)</li> <li>Candidate posted content about their use of drink or drugs - (10%)</li> <li>Candidate uploaded provocative or inappropriate photographs or information - (9%)</li> <li>Candidate bad-mouthed their previous employer, colleagues or clients - (9%)</li> <li>Candidate shared confidential information from workplace - (8%)</li> </ul> Half of employers said they had found content on social networking sites that caused them to hire the candidate. The top reasons were: <ul style="text-align: justify;"> <li>Profile substantiated candidate's professional qualifications - (61%)</li> <li>Candidate displayed good communication skills - (41%)</li> <li>Candidate seemed well-rounded - (37%)</li> <li>Profile gave a good feel for the candidate's personality and fit - (28%)</li> <li>Candidate was perceived as creative - (24%)</li> <li>Candidate gave off a professional image - (22%)</li> <li>Candidate had received awards and accolades - (15%)</li> <li>Contacts had posted good references about the candidate - (15%)</li> </ul> This information came from a survey by <a title="blocked::http://www.careerbuilder.co.uk/UK/Default.aspx" href="http://www.careerbuilder.co.uk/UK/Default.aspx">CareerBuilder.co.uk.</a>

2010-03-11T00:00:00Z

261 recruitment_survey

Most employers now use social networking sites to screen candidates, with almost half claiming that what they had seen on such sites had caused them to hesitate over hiring a candidate. Recruitment Survey

2010-03-11T07:13:41Z

Barry Urquhart

The immediate consequence can be a reduction of business and customer loss or an elimination of such in the short term. Overall, the outcome and newly applied customer service standards are, well, ordinary.  The benefits are inevitably short term and marginal. Who or what wants to be ordinary ?  It wins very few plaudits … or new customers and business. The autobiographical publication “My Fortunate Life” by Albert Facey was about a self declared ordinary bloke.  His life was anything but  ordinary and his book became a national best seller, with subsequent world-wide distribution.  It was awesome.  There is a lesson in that for all people in business and employment. Being “no worse than competitors” is not a goal that will stretch or motivate staff-members. A Never Ending Journey Pursuit and attainment of quality customer service is repeatedly referred to as a journey, not a destination. Changing, evolving and increasing customer demands ensure service excellence will be an eternal stretching goal. Many journeys are and will be characterised by the phrase:       “Awful to Ordinary to Awesome” Awful Service should and will be transposed from a business loss factor to being a defensive mechanism to retain customers, to ultimately, once the status of awesome has been achieved, to be strategic, a new customer generator. Set The Priorities Don’t shoot short! Where customer service is identified to be an issue, the very best resources and people, complemented by a liberal provision of time and infrastructural support needs to be allocated and focussed on the initiatives.  There are no short cuts and, yes, it will cost. Authority to resolve issues needs to be decentralised and delegated to all service providers.  Communication channels need to be optimised and transparency to be conspicuous, to ensure heightened accountability and responsiveness throughout the supply chain. Spoken and text communication needs to be complemented, confirmed and reinforced by full use of the available multimedia awareness, including emails, sms texts, faxes, letters and personal representations. Keeping people informed is an early phase to achieving and sustaining commitment, energy and a sense of fulfilment. A True Measure The time and appropriate measure of customer service related Key Performance Indicators (KPI)s centre on quality, not quantity. Many people know what needs to be done.  They simply need guidance, reassurance and assistance in how best to deliver the service promise, consistently. There is a lot to be said about style.  It is seldom expressed in customer service training and workshops. A touch of theatre and flair makes a statement and can make a lasting impression on existing, prospective and past customers.  Such endeavours are seldom ordinary. Celebrate Success To some, senior people in particular, providing quality customer service, is considered to be just part of the job. So too are kicking goals, winning matches, making movies, creating innovations and breaking records.  Many such milestones would go unnoticed and be unappreciated if it were not for the celebrations. Therefore, in business and with service it is important to create heroes, applaud their successes, endorse their personal initiatives and reward their achievements. If customer service is a journey, then achieving excellence in service is an ongoing process which responds promptly to attainments. It sounds fun.  And so it should be.  Fun is the missing quotient in many business relationships. Service is Different Vive La Difference! Optimal performance for engineers and other “scientific management” disciplines can and often do centre on processes like  6-Sigma and world best practice. In both instances, standards are set and strict adherence to such parameters are the hallmark of excellence. For customer service, the ideal is to set standards and for all staffmembers to consistently and regularly exceed such.  That is very different to advertising and promoting to customers and clients that their expectations will be exceeded.  The latter cases typically conclude in disappointment for all involved. Integral to achieving a status of “awesome” in customer service, some risk must be taken, trust must be extended to staffmembers, authority must be delegated, errors need to be tolerated and successes celebrated. The outcome will be performances worthy of Robert De Niro, Denzel Washington and Meryll Streep.           “AWESOME!” THE AUTHOR Barry Urquhart, Managing Director of Marketing Focus, Perth is author of <ul> <li>"Services You Right!"</li> <li>"Service Please!"   </li> </ul>  These are the two largest selling books on Service Excellence in the southern hemisphere.  Barry’s ongoing schedule of original research into service are features of his conference keynote addresses and interactive workshops. Email:             <a href="mailto:urquhart@marketingfocus.net.au">urquhart@marketingfocus.net.au</a> Web:               <a href="http://www.marketingfocus.net.au/">www.marketingfocus.net.au</a> Tel:                  (08) 9257 1777 Mob:                 (041) 983 5555

2010-03-10T00:00:00Z

Losses of customers and business do occur because of awful customer service 258 awful_to_ordinary_to_awesome

Don’t shoot short! Losses of customers and business do occur because of awful customer service. Too many business leaders, it seems, address these leakages with limited allocations of time, people and resources. Some rationalise with reference to the Global Financial Crisis and its fallout. Awful to Ordinary to Awesome

2010-03-10T20:52:52Z

Ann Andrews CSP

Recruitment can be a headache for franchisees and franchisors alike.  Ann andrews offers some suggestions on finding the right person for the job. There was a time in the world of work when there was little possibility of too many people applying for a position. Often, companies advertise several times and get no applicants at all. And then the recession of 2008 hit! Suddenly hundreds of thousands of people were made redundant with very little notice. Organisations became inundated with applicants. One position for a school janitor received 700 applications. The recession also caused a lot of those people to consider buying a franchise – the hope being that they could buy a secure future. The challenge then becomes sifting through those hundreds of applicants to find the best potential franchisees. The Cost of Franchisee Turnover There are wide variances on the estimated cost of turnover. In the case of an actual emplolyee, expert opinions vary between a starting point of around 75% of the annual salary for that position up to a staggering 24 times that person’s salary! In the case of franchisees, consider the reputation of having high turnover – and the challenge of the perception in the marketplace that this is a franchise that can’t keep people! In the recruitment game, whether it is recruiting staff or franchisees, the key principle always is - Skill vs. Attitude  what I call the 80/20 Principle (20% of your franchisees will give you 80% of your grief). Did you know that if you have one negative person in your team or organisation, it will take approximately five positive people to overcome their energy! Yes, we need a person with the skills to do the job, or at the very least the ability to learn the skills for the job – but we absolutely need the right skills plus a great attitude. Uncovering the Potential Bad Apples Always ask candidates to complete an application form. Yes, invite people to send in their CV’s, but mail or fax or email an application form to them as well. Here are some general questions which will encourage people to open up: <ul> <li>What are the things that stress you, and how do you manage those stressors?</li> <li>What motivates you to do your best work?</li> <li>What aspects of your previous jobs did you like the most?</li> <li>What management style are you most comfortable with?</li> <li>What management style are you least comfortable with?</li> <li>What are the qualities you believe you bring to this job?</li> <li>Tell me about the worst co-worker you have ever had and why were they so bad?</li> <li>What excited you about this position?</li> <li>When glancing through a newspaper or magzine, what type of articles usually leap out at you?</li> <li>What is the greatest obstacle you have had to overcome in your life?</li> <li>What has been your greatest achievement?</li> <li>Who has inspired you the most during your life?</li> </ul> Ending The Interview    It is often worth ending the interview with a light-hearted, more relaxed question. Questions like these will often tell you much about the interviewee’s values. But ask only one: <ul> <li>If you could spend a day with a famous person (living or dead), whom would you choose?</li> <li>If you won $5 million, what would you do differently?</li> <li>If you were elected prime minister, what would be the first thing you would do when taking up office?</li> </ul> And my personal favourite: <ul> <li>What would your best friend say is your most irritating trait?</li> </ul> I have often found out more about a person by asking this simple question than all the other questions put together. Take time with your recruitment process.  As a franchisor seeing someone sitting in front of you with a hot cheque is a very tempting situation - but remember that 80/20 principle and think about the COST of hiring a bad apple and the cost of then getting rid of them!    About the Author Ann Andrews CSP is a team facilitator, the author of four books, and contributor to a further three. Ann is a professional speaker, a consultant on Human Resource issues, and MD of The Corporate Tool-box <a href="http://thecorporatetoolbox.com/" target="_blank">http://www.thecorporatetoolbox.com</a>

2010-03-10T00:00:00Z

Finding The Right Person for the Job 259 how_to_recruit_great_franchisees

Recruitment can be a headache for franchisees and franchisors alike. Ann Andrews offers some suggestions on finding the right person for the job. This article highlights simple tips for uncovering the potential bad apples, and will help you to ensure you recruit the great franchisees by using a simple interview questioning process. Take your time to read this and then take your time with your recruitment process. The reward of hiring the right person will be worth it. How to Recruit Great Franchisees

2010-03-10T21:28:53Z

154

John Berling Hardy

In today's corporate world the unthinkable has become the commonplace. The nightmare scenario for any outside stakeholder in a corporation - pervasive collusion extending to include the executive and board levels - has become the elephant in the room. Our classic approach to risk management focuses upon placing adequate controls in place to address each identifiable individual risk. These controls are then meticulously tested and monitored on a regular basis. With this done, we are free to go about our business, secure in the knowledge that we are protected. But are we? Events over the last two years have demonstrated how flawed this thinking can be. There is a set of conditions under which tight controls are in place, yet malfeasance runs rampant at the high levels within the organization. I refer to this in my literature as the Hidden Game Algorithm. All control structures effectiveness depends on a single presupposition - the absence of pervasive collusion at the top. In the cases where it exists, the controls are not only ineffective, the inhibitor becomes the enabler, and the controls are actually enlisted in concealing the fraud. The assumption in the past as being the pervasive collusion was an anomaly, a kind of perfect storm that was so unlikely that it was not worthy of serious concern. I would argue that this presupposition is not only unfounded, it has been instrumental in blinding us to what was right under our noses. Collusion exists in small towns, in social groups, in religious organizations, etc. I suggest that pervasive collusion is the stasis towards which all social systems gravitate in the absence of specific safeguards being in place to prevent it. The notion that this was an anomaly ensured that these safeguards were not put in place, creating the ideal conditions for collusion to progress unimpeded. The best example of this is the way in which corporate malfeasance has been effectively legitimized in today's corporate governance paradigm. Executive remuneration packages have been designed in such a way that no matter what the roll of the dice, regardless of how catastrophic the economic fall-out from their decisions, the executives come out the winners. Bonuses, stock options, and golden parachutes have had the combined effect of indemnifying the executive against their own incompetence, and given them a Carte Blanche to use the company as their personal proxy. This could not have taken place without complicity at the board level, implying that the role of the boards of corporations, as the check on the performance of management, has been completely compromised. This means that the outside stakeholders are left holding the bag, multiplying the risk to equity holders, creditors, regulatory bodies etc. The only way to address this Hidden Game Algorithm is to identify the conditions that are likely to support it, and implement safeguards that are specifically designed to address this issue. These controls would need to be independent of the corporate governance system in order to be effective. No longer can the board be relied upon to protect stakeholder's interests. It is time they became more proactive, taking positive steps to ensure the security of their investments. John Berling Hardy, CEO, The Hidden Game <a title="blocked::http://getresponse.com/click.html?x=a62b&lc=evzB&mc=f&s=GBu9c&y=l&" href="http://getresponse.com/click.html?x=a62b&lc=evzB&mc=f&s=GBu9c&y=l&">http://www.johnberlinghardy.com</a>

2010-03-10T00:00:00Z

In today's corporate world the unthinkable has become the commonplace 260 persuasive_collusion__the_elephant_in_the_room

In today's corporate world the unthinkable has become the commonplace. The nightmare scenario for any outside stakeholder in a corporation - pervasive collusion extending to include the executive and board levels - has become the elephant in the room. Persuasive Collusion. The Elephant in the Room

2010-03-10T23:06:12Z

167

Gordon Dryden

When I was born, in 1931, the “Great Depression” gripped the world. Where we lived, in the Catlins sawmilling district of South Otago, not one home had electric light. Tap water trickled from a corrugated-iron tank. We bathed once a week in an out-house copper tub. Our sole outside long-drop toilet teetered over a sawmill creek. We had no movies, no television, no night clubs. My family never owned a car. But the village of Tahakopa—at the end of the now-defunct Catlins railway line—did have a small free library, tucked into tiny church hall next to the blacksmith’s shop. In an isolated nation of 1.5 million people, almost 80,000 men were soon to be unemployed.  Exports dropped by 40 per cent. A conservative government seemed powerless to act. The United States was even worse off. At the height of the depression, one worker in four was unemployed. Not until the outbreak of the 1939-45 world war did it fall below 20 per cent. Yet by 1938 New Zealanders out of work had dropped to 14,000. By the start of the war: to almost zero Unemployment did not exist here for the next 30 years. Even by 1978 fewer than 1 per cent were out of work. For much of those intervening years New Zealanders enjoyed one of the three or four highest living standards in the world. Our annual productivity increases were consistently in the top three. We might have tolerated the world’s worst liquor licensing laws and most boring restaurants. But we did so many things right: the only county to turn a one-crop economy—in our case, grasslands farming—into a global success story. Our lumber pioneers created the world’s biggest man-made forest, planted on barren pumice land. That set the base for the booming pulp and paper industry, whose productivity increase topped the world in the 1950s. Our farm-scientists pioneered new breeds of sheep, to produce great meat and wool. New farm milking sheds and bulk tanker collection of milk from farm to co-operative processing companies doubled the productivity of our dairy farms. The world’s first automated milkpowder processing stoked the explosion of other dairy exports. Scientists at Ruakura and Massey research institutes poured out innovations. Aerial top-dressing—spreading fertiliser from New Zealand-made planes—turned mountainous tussock country into giant productive sheep farms. We became world leaders in the production of clean, cheap hydro-electric power, as dams were first built along the Waikato River and later in the South Island. And behind it all, from the mid-1930s, when the recovery began, lay the combined massive state house-building—from all-New Zealand materials—and highwayconstruction programs. State housing alone sparked the growth of protected manufacturing industries— from Fisher and Paykel’s whiteware to the all-wool tufted carpet. The late thirties, forties, fifties and sixties were magic years of hope and modest confidence. Along with Sweden, Norway and Denmark, New Zealand successfully led the world out of the great depression—what others achieved by wartime mobilisation. We even seemed to take it for granted that our All Blacks were generally the best—and that, in one blistering era in the sixties, four athletes living within a mile of coach Arthur Lydiard’s home in Mt Albert could own either every world middle-distance running record or their Olympic gold medals. Now—as the world cowers from the second biggest financial collapse in history— amazingly all the things that 1930s utopians dreamed about are now possible. But can we do it again—and in the same way? The answer, I suggest, is two-fold: yes we can—with the same spirit of innovation and early adoption (as we were among the first to fully adopt refrigerated shipping and containerisation). But: no—we cannot do it in the same way, in a world that is dramatically different. Seven new catalysts are now converging to change virtually everything: just as the disrupting technologies of the printing press, steam power, electricity, the massproduced automobile, television and the silicon chip have transformed previous eras. Those seven keys to unlock the future are simple but revolutionary. And they give small societies, like New Zealand, Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Singapore, as much opportunity to prosper as the innovative ecology of Silicon Valley: KEY 1: It’s global. Virtually everyone on earth now has the opportunity to plug into a digital global market. Tiny Singapore, with the same population as New Zealand but crowded into an area the size of Lake Taupo, and with few natural resources, has attracted over 3000 international companies to set up there. KEY 2: It’s personal. Even nine years ago, half the people on earth had never placed a phonecall. Only 12 per cent owned mobile phones. Now almost 3.5 billion have them. By the end of 2009: 4 billion. In Finland, the former Nokia gumboot and lumber company is the world’s biggest producer of the new mobile phone-cameramultimedia “computer in your pocket”. Better still, everyone has a talent to succeed at something—and now has the chance to sell that talent to niche markets around the world. KEY 3: It’s interactive. Only a few years ago I was battling with New Zealand’s sole state television channel for the right to run a second one. Now well over 100 million people, in many countries, create their own multi-channel global TV network every day: on YouTube—a concept that did not exist five years ago. Now, in a typical month, YouTube notches up 5.6 billion separate “video-views”. KEY 4: It’s instant. Eleven years ago, Google didn’t exist. Now it can scan billions of websites in half a second and provide instant answers to 300 million inquiries a day, and instant access to maps and email. For around $1 to $2 a year, Atomic Learning can provide each student in any school with access to 30,000 video tutorials, on all the world’s most important computer software. KEY 5: It’s often free or almost free. Over 300 million subscribers now make free international phone calls every day, and view each other as they speak through Skype on each other’s computer screens. Google provides all its information free—but sells its associated sponsored messages, often as low as 5 cents a click. China has slashed laptop computer prices by up to 90 per cent selling them without an operating system and letting buyers download a free “open source” system from the Web. KEY 6: It’s easily shared. Wikipedia is now by far the world’s biggest encyclopedia, with well over 10 million articles in English alone, compared with Britannica’s 80,000. Yet all Wikipedia articles are contributed by passionate specialists on their own subject—and extended by others, free. KEY 7: It’s co-creative. If we can dream it, we can do it—together with millions around the world. And this is probably the most important of all, especially in a small country where co-operative enterprise and “No. 8 fencing wire” innovation has always been a treasured trait. Wikipedia, Google, YouTube, MySpace, Flickr, Facebook and other online co-creative social communities are only the beginning. Each has created an interactive global platform to unleash the talents of millions. And each is based on all seven catalysts for change. Now that’s a real challenge. Even greater than the thirties! Gordon Dryden <a title="blocked::http://www.thelearningweb.net/" href="http://www.thelearningweb.net/">http://www.thelearningweb.net/</a> Gordon Dryden is the Auckland-based co-author of UNLIMITED, the new learning revolution and the seven keys to unlock it

2010-03-07T00:00:00Z

256 how_we_tamed_the_great_depression

When I was born, in 1931, the “Great Depression” gripped the world. Where we lived, in the Catlins sawmilling district of South Otago, not one home had electric light. Tap water trickled from a corrugated-iron tank. We bathed once a week in an out-house copper tub. Our sole outside long-drop toilet teetered over a sawmill creek. We had no movies, no television, no night clubs. My family never owned a car. But the village of Tahakopa—at the end of the now-defunct Catlins railway line—did have a small free library, tucked into tiny church hall next to the blacksmith’s shop. How We Tamed The Great Depression

2010-03-07T21:33:54Z

166

Robert Clay

If you’re in business you need to understand the nature of the people born between the early 1980’s and the mid 1990’s, who now make up approximately 20 per cent of the workforce and are vital to our economic future. The fascinating article on Generation Y that follows was written by <a title="blocked::http://www.humanassets.co.uk/" href="http://www.humanassets.co.uk/" target="_blank">Dr Charles Woodruffe</a> of business psychology consultancy Human Assets Ltd. It appeared in the July 2009 edition of the always excellent <a title="blocked::http://trainingjournal.com/" href="http://trainingjournal.com/" target="_blank">Training Journal</a>, and is reproduced here in full with the kind permission of the publisher. The article explains so well the nature of Generation Y. It will not only be of interest if you work with or employ Generation Y people, but its insights are also interesting from a marketing perspective, when deciding how to target and reach this important part of the population. I hope you enjoy it and find it as useful as I did. Generation Y — Charles Woodruffe asks why Y? In the run-up to the recession, there was a plethora of articles and conferences claiming to unlock the perplexing nature of Generation Y. They are the pipeline of new talent available for employers but their values, needs – indeed, demands – were seen as different to those of their forebears. Employers were trying hard to understand them in order to attract and retain them. They were presented with a stereotype of very demanding, ‘want it all now’ young people who were difficult to recruit but easy to lose. Generation Whine was rather cruelly applied as an alternative epithet. The Generation Y stereotype has a logical basis in the way in which members of that generation were parented. In talking about Generation Y, we are talking about people brought up by active parents. Although, somewhat irritatingly, every writer seems to date the generation differently, Generation Y is broadly the group of people born in the early 1980s and runs through to those still in secondary school. Their parents are broadly from the group known as the Baby Boomers – those born between the end of World War Two and the mid 1960s. The key feature of Generation Y’s upbringing is that their Baby Boomer parents have been heavily involved in it. We are talking about the huggy parents who ferry their children from event to event, do their homework for them, help them with their applications and, most importantly, have given them a high sense of self- worth Nor has the active parenting ended. The Americans have conjured the marvellous term ‘helicopter parents’ to describe the ongoing vigilance of the parents of Generation Y. This vigilance extends to a willingness to take issue with HR managers who do not recruit their progeny! So where has all this left the children? Supposedly, members of Generation Y are marked out by their self-belief. They have had a history of positive feedback, understanding and parents answering their every need. They have little track record of frustration and having to wait. They have tended to be able to obtain what they want when they want it – be it a lift to a party or the latest Game Boy/Xbox etc. And the members of Generation Y that you are seeking to recruit and train will, almost by definition, have had a history of academic success. As if having doting parents was not enough, members of Generation Y came to the labour market – until last autumn – at a time of plenty. But autumn 2008 might, of course, be where the story ends. In summer 2009, we need to take stock. Firstly, we were only ever talking about a caricature. Secondly, we need to decide whether the caricature still applies and matters. The Caricature If you follow Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, with basic survival and security needs at the bottom and self-actualisation at the top, the parenting and background economy were said to have resulted in Generation Y being able to move directly to address higher-order needs. By the caricature, they are self-actualisers. In the workplace, they are painted as a high- maintenance generation, marked out by: <ul type="disc"> <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">High Ambition </li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Sense of entitlement </li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Outspoken – they show a high willingness to challenge managers and are undeterred by traditional hierarchy, giving off an air of over-confidence </li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Inability to take criticism </li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Wanting work-life balance and flexibility. One survey suggests that 85 per cent want to spend 30–70 per cent of their time working from home </li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Wanting attentive management from supervisors and regular appreciative feedback. Generation Y is also said to: </li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Struggle with processing failure and criticism </li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Unable to internalise lessons </li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Have difficulty with unclear guidelines or minimal management – yet not want to be told what to do </li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Be ready to resign if their jobs are not fulfilling and fun, with decent holidays and the opportunity for career breaks and time off for charity work. </li> </ul> At the same time, Generation Y offers several positives, including: <ul type="disc"> <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">A complete at-oneness with IT – they have been brought up with it </li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Team-working skills </li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Self-belief to achieve </li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">A high level of drive. Seemingly in contradiction with the emphasis of Generation Y on work-life balance, people comment on their willingness to work after hours and at weekends to get a job done. </li> </ul> That was the caricature of Generation Y up to the recession – a time when Generation Y did not fear unemployment, having every belief in its ability to secure alternative employment. What is the status of the caricature now? Firstly, like all caricatures, it would be foolish to apply it without thought or inspection to everyone born in the decade and a half from the early 1980s. Secondly, there is probably a germ of truth in it that it would be equally foolish for managers to deny. On one hand, the caricature is an exaggeration and shorthand for a particular type of person. On the other hand, it recognises changes that have taken place in people’s expectations at work that have spread beyond people born in those specific years. Dealing first with the characteristics of the Y generation, you should clearly not think that everyone born within their timeslot will embody all their characteristics – good or bad. Their stereotypical behaviour was generally an unrealistic and irritating way for people to approach employers (I recall hearing of a person in their mid twenties throwing a strop because their bonus was merely half a million pounds); nowadays it is just plain ludicrous. Of course, there will be some who, recession or not, continue to live out the caricature to its extreme. It seems to me that you do not have to adapt to their shortcomings, which – taken to an extreme – might stop them being seen as talent in the first place. Instead, your selection systems need to pick out the ones who will adapt to work life in your organisation. However, and returning to the germ of truth in the caricature, there has to be some mutual adaptation. You will choose members of Generation Y who were difficult to recruit but easy to lose seem the most productive people or the best investments. They will choose you if you have recognised that the centre of gravity of what you offer people has changed. This change has also spread outside the confines of Generation Y, just as Facebook and iPods are not the monopoly of a particular generation. It is a change from which it will be hard to turn away, even in a recession, though, of course, people might well have retraced their steps down Maslow’s hierarchy. Everyone might be concerned with job security, but that does not mean they will be positively engaged if their other needs are ignored. So how do you engage people who have become used to the new generation of employment? Essentially, you have to get alongside their needs and values and make sure you address their priorities (Woodruffe, 1999). For several years, I have used a needs triangle to try to summarise what people nowadays are looking for in work (see below). This is not perfect science but it does offer a way of ordering people’s needs. The particular Generation Y spin to this is shown in green. The entire triangle must be considered if organisations are to attract and retain talented people – if they are to be employers of choice. What is more, people must be treated as individuals. For example, some people want to sacrifice pay for more holidays in their package; for others, it is the other way round. Taking the three components of the triangle in turn, there are several specific factors to consider for each of them. <a title="blocked::http://marketingwizdom.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Gen-Y-Needs-Triangle1.jpg" href="http://marketingwizdom.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Gen-Y-Needs-Triangle1.jpg"><img id="Picture_x0020_1" title="blocked::http://marketingwizdom.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Gen-Y-Needs-Triangle1.jpg" src="cid:image001.jpg@01CAB0A1.DB9615F0" border="0" alt="Gen Y Needs Triangle" width="499" height="205" /></a> 1. The Package Generation Y – particularly males – are said to be quite focused on their salary. This has been put down to their student debt burden and the need for a good salary to join the property ladder. However, although the package is a vital component of being an employer of choice, few people flock to an otherwise bad employer purely because it pays well. Generally, the package is the least sure way of retaining people for it is the inducement that is most easily matched by another employer. 2. Employability We do not go to work just to earn today’s money, but tomorrow’s also. People are concerned with an income stream rather than just immediate money. There are four major factors that affect employability: <ul type="disc"> <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Being developed People nowadays demand development. They recognise that the future is uncertain and that even a committed employer cannot guarantee a job. They want to be ready with a passport to alternative employment. Organisations must give a high priority to people’s development in order to attract and retain them. Development must cover professional and managerial/ leadersip skills. The most powerful development comes from providing people with new experiences, particularly experiences that challenge them. </li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Involvement with prestige projects Ambitious people, notably today’s Generation Y graduates, like visibility. They relish the opportunity to tackle prestigious projects, particularly those that will give them exposure to people with power within the organisation. Assuming their contribution is a positive one, such exposure enhances employability. </li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Career advancement Drive and motivation is part of what makes people talented. Advancement feeds their goal of securing and maintaining an income stream. Part of being an employer of choice comes from letting good people get ahead quickly. </li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Being part of a prestigious organisation There is an advantage to the employee in working for a prestigious organisation that is at the leading edge of its sector. It has a currency on the job market that will generate future income. The importance of this factor is clear from organisations’ thirst to be among the list of Top 100 employers (eg The Times Top 100 Graduate Employers). </li> </ul> 3. Job Satisfaction If people go out to work to generate the income for a style of life, they also want to be happy while doing so. Six components of job satisfaction can be separated: <ul type="disc"> <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Achievement To be an employer of choice, you want your staff to be telling their friends about the tremendous achievements they have notched up, not how they are bored out of their brains and under-utilised. Generation Y puts great store by using its strengths. </li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Respect and recognition People are less tolerant than in the past of status distinctions and barriers. They want to be trusted with information and to have their hard work noticed. Members of Generation Y are also said to be intolerant of status barriers: they expect to be able to email senior people and might well extend this to those at the top of their employing organisations. Raising managers’ skill levels is vital to being an employer of choice. Indeed, they need to lead rather than manage. Generation Y is also described as in particular need of regular feedback, having grown used to regular testing at school and university. </li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Autonomy People enjoy a sense of autonomy and of being trusted to get on and deliver. They can be frustrated if they do not feel a sense of ownership over their projects or if they lack real responsibility. It was partly satisfying this sense of autonomy that made ‘dot coms’ so attractive. </li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Balance between work and private life Generation Y is said to be particularly intolerant of a lack of integration between work and private life. It is not so much a sense of balance as a blurring of the two that matters. Members expect to come to work and be logged into Facebook or MSN at the same time as doing their work. At university, they are used to mixing work (study) and their private life and would see it as restrictive to have boundaries at work. They are the ‘permanently connected’ generation. </li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Congruent values People want to work in an organisation with values that are congruent with their own. By definition, values are something on which we differ. However, at any period of time there is a dominant value system with which employers would be better off being congruent than discordant. For example, nowadays, organisations strive to parade their CSR credentials and this must be for their staff to witness as much as their customers. But it is vital that this is authentic: Generation Y is vigilant to a lack of integrity. Generation Y is also said to be particularly vigilant to identity and intolerant of working towards something that does not reflect its own sense of identity. </li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">A sense of fun in a good working environment Many people prefer to work in an informal and fun atmosphere. Organisations have sought to meet this in all sorts of ways, such as by having trendy office environments, ‘dress-down’ days and team-building events of various sorts. A lack of teamwork/cooperation was cited as a turnover driver by 19 per cent of leavers in a survey by TalentDrain. </li> </ul> Individual Focus Perhaps more important than any of the above needs is the requirement to treat people as individuals. In response, organisations are doing their best to customise what is provided to employees, ensuring as far as possible that each person’s particular needs are met. But they’ll leave anyway However, the image of Generation Y is that you can meet its members’ needs as much as you like but they’ll leave anyway to build their CVs. They do not have staying with their first employer as their game plan, so what is the point of bothering with them? There are two responses to this. Firstly, will they all leave? The answer, surely, is of course not, especially in the current economic circumstances. If you can offer them the chance to build their employability, some will stay, some will go with the possibility of coming back and some will be lost forever. Secondly, the ability to build employability is, in truth, probably greater for large organisations than others. Certainly, small firms would be naïve to think they can readily take on graduates who will stay to lead their organisation in the future. It is simply not in the Generation Y blueprint. Quite realistically, they will see that they need to move around and build their CVs. On the other hand, large multinationals can offer a series of employments akin to moving between organisations. This is fortunate because opting out of employing Generation Y is only realistic for smaller organisations. Large volume recruiters like retailers, the civil service, law firms and accountants have to keep topping up their talent pipeline. Other organisations could consider leaving their recruitment of future leaders until people have matured into the ways of work. That is not to say that they should boycott Generation Y: it is just that the relationship is likely to be an affair rather than a marriage. Conclusions Generation Y makes up approximately 20 per cent of the workforce and is vital to our economic future. Some of them will behave in line with their caricature. In a recession, one hopes for their sake, many will not. However, it is also the case that what people expect from work has evolved and this evolution extends beyond Generation Y. The task of employers is to separate the employable from the unemployable but also to adapt to the changing demands of each generation in just the same way that they adapt to the changing expectations of their customers. Finally, a survey last year by the CIPD and Penna came out with findings that run counter to the Generation Y stereotype. It found that Generation Y members were less concerned about CSR than Baby Boomers and also “far less likely to rapidly change jobs than was thought” (Allen 2008). Maybe another Generation Y quality is the ability to pick up on, and adapt rapidly to, changing economic circumstances. References <ol type="1"> <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Allen, A. (2008, September 18). Redefining the rules of the generation game. People Management, 12-13 </li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">CIPD and Penna and (2008, September) Gen up: How the four generations work. CIPD website <a title="blocked::http://www.cipd.co.uk/NR/rdonlyres/25DA52DE-F120-4579-AFE3-564C8801425D/0/genuphowfourgenerationswork.pdf" href="http://www.cipd.co.uk/NR/rdonlyres/25DA52DE-F120-4579-AFE3-564C8801425D/0/genuphowfourgenerationswork.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.cipd.co.uk</a> </li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Woodruffe, Charles (1999). Winning the talent war: A strategic approach to attracting, developing and retaining the best people. Chichester: John Wiley. </li> </ol> Charles Woodruffe has written another article on talent management, this time focusing on Generation Z – which he describes as “the silent generation” due to their preference for interacting with technology rather than other people, which you can read on the Training Journal website. Go to <a title="blocked::http://www.trainingjournal.com/generationz.pdf" href="http://www.trainingjournal.com/generationz.pdf" target="_blank">www.trainingjournal.com</a> to read his predictions for this new generation, born since 2002 and due to enter the workforce in around ten to 15 years’ time. Dr Charles Woodruffe is MD of business psychology consultancy Human Assets Ltd. He can be contacted on +44 (0)20 7434 2122 or via <a title="blocked::http://www.humanassets.co.uk/" href="http://www.humanassets.co.uk/" target="_blank">www.humanassets.co.uk</a> Brought to you by Robert Clay - <a title="blocked::http://marketingwizdom.com/" href="http://marketingwizdom.com/">Visit Website</a>

2010-03-07T00:00:00Z

Understanding Generation Y 255 gen_y_–_love_them_or_hate_them_they_are_now_20per_cent_of_the_workforce!

If you’re in business you need to understand the nature of the people born between the early 1980’s and the mid 1990’s, who now make up approximately 20 per cent of the workforce and are vital to our economic future. The fascinating article on Generation Y that follows was written by Dr Charles Woodruffe of business psychology consultancy Human Assets Ltd. It appeared in the July 2009 edition of the always excellent Training Journal, and is reproduced here in full with the kind permission of the publisher. Gen Y – Love Them or Hate Them They Are Now 20% of The Workforce!

2010-03-07T21:38:32Z

Ann Andrews CSP

Why do we treat our people this way? And yet, if only senior management realised, that if they treated their staff with any kind of care and humanity, their bottom line could grow exponentially. But first they have to treat their staff as humans. People need a break every now and again.   I once asked the general manager of a computer company what growth he was aiming for over the next 12 months – his reply – 3-5%. When I asked if he would like 30% growth, he almost fell off his chair. His reply was distinctly patronising – ‘Ann, in case you hadn’t noticed, computer companies don’t get that kind of growth any more.’ My reply – ‘that’s not what I asked you – I asked you if you would like 30%?’ I went on to explain, that if we aimed for 30% and only achieved 15%, wasn’t that infinitely better than aiming for 3-5% and getting it? However, I also explained that he wouldn’t get 30% by constantly tightening the screws and demanding more and more and more from his staff. I have spent 15 years working with organisations, encouraging managers and employees to leave behind work methods I believe are leftover from the Industrial Revolution. I show managers how to delegate 30% of their day to employees so they (the managers) can work ON the business not IN it, and I show employees the necessity of starting to think and act like an owner not a dependant.  To think every single day, ‘How can I do my job better today than I did it yesterday?’ An organisation will not get this kind of loyalty if they treat their people like machines. Even machines need oiling occasionally.  I believe everyone within an organisation is a stakeholder, not just the shareholders. In fact I believe if an organisation actually gave their employees a small parcel of shares, they would be amazed at the loyalty and involvement and results they would get from their staff. It is a cliché I know, but in this world of look-alike products and services, the ONLY competitive advantage any organisation has is the people it employs. Their loyalty, passion, energy, initiative, drive,creativity and willingness to go the extra mile when times are tough, could be the difference between survival and extinction. Business planning is done the way it has always been done - a group of senior managers (mostly with a financial background) putting their heads together to create a dry and uninspiring business plan – yes a business needs a business plan, but wouldn’t it be more exciting if they: <ol> <li>Didn't just focus on the short to medium term?</li> <li>Involved their staff in looking at where THEY wanted the company to be in 2 years, 5 years and 10 years?</li> <li>Asked for ideas and input from every single member of the organisation, including cleaning staff?</li> <li>Had regular focus groups of staff to discuss what competitors were doing and what ideas came from that which could be used or adapted?</li> <li>Held regular customer forums to involve them in ideas for the future</li> <li>Involved suppliers occasionally to see what ideas they were working on in teir business that could have a lfow on effect into yours?</li> </ol> One of the most powerful business books any manager or owner can read is Maverick by Ricardo Semlar. By setting up totally self-managed teams, Semlar (Maverick) improved productivity in his organisation from $10,200 per employee to $96,000 per employee over a period of 13 years. When he first floated the concept of employees not only managing themselves, but also making day-to-day business decisions, he was ridiculed. Yet he had the last laugh, because by empowering his people and giving them a share in the profits (and the losses), he watched his bottom line double/treble and quadruple.  Ricardo Semlar now shows up for work 2/3 times a year, the rest of his time is spent playing golf, speaking to large organisations for a huge fee, and writing books and articles about his business. He also has a waiting list of people who want to work for his company. Do you? Was it easy? No. Did they have set-backs along the way? Of course they did. But he never lost sight of the fact, that working in a hierarchical fashion, where he made all the decisions and everyone else just followed orders, required him to be physically present every day of the week, and that is not how he wanted to live his life. Ah..I hear you say – but he was the owner of the company. If I as a manager only came to work three or four times a year, I would be fired. Of course you would, I am not suggesting that as a manager you only show up three or four times a year – what I am suggesting, is that you look at the concept that Semlar used – handing over as much decision making to the front line as he possibly could. You can do that. So where do you start? You start by making the decision to get out of hierarchy.  As managers, what would you rather be doing instead of managing people?  Wouldn’t you rather spend one day a week doing more productive things? Do you really enjoy watching other people work (or not work as the case may be)? As a manager, once you have decided what you would rather be doing, think about what you are prepared to give up in order to have that day a week. Usually managers will profess to hating running meetings, or scheduling rosters, or stock-taking, or dealing with performance issues. Employees can run meetings, and schedule rosters, and do stock-take and deal with performance issues. Employees can do anything, if they are trained in the task, coached while they are learning and then trusted to get on and do it. The interesting thing is that if we turned our organisations on their head and seriously involved employees, we may actually need less managers. And possibly that is the reason we keep doing what we have always done and getting our 3-5% growth! Perhaps managers keep coming up with things for their staff to do to justify THEIR positions. It doesn’t have to be that way. A manager has four tasks to complete: <ol> <li>To increase profits and productivity</li> <li>To decrease costs</li> <li>To grow people</li> <li>To do themselves out of a job every 3-5 years.</li> </ol> So maybe bottom line thinking is actually a form of self-preservation for senior management and an easy way of NOT having to deal with staff in any way other than giving out more and more orders and causing more and more change. Whether it is needed or not. Food for thought.

2010-03-03T11:00:00Z

If you treat your staff with care your bottom line will increase 254 there_is_more_to_a_business_than_just_the_bottom_line_

I have just been working with an international bank and their staff are absolutely overwhelmed by the never-ending, on-going changes that keep coming down from on high. They are quite literally, exhausted! Sickness is rife, attendance is becoming a challenge and morale is low. There Is More To a Business Than Just The Bottom Line

2010-03-03T21:30:35Z

Andrew O'Keeffe

How was I to know that one of my team had been abused as a child and that I needed to be more sensitive in interacting with him? The point is that I wasn’t to know. You often can’t know the pack of cards you are dealt as a manager.   Managers face a challenge unique in human history. Only over the last two centuries have we spent our workdays managing people who are not our family. Over the long course of human history, the natural condition is that we spent our days with our immediate family. Everyone’s history, personality and life experiences were both known to the family and were the responsibility of the family. That was life. But since the Industrial Revolution 250 years ago (and even more recently outside of Western societies) we get to work with people with a range of experiences, good and bad, that shape their identities and leads to the mix of personalities in our teams. We then by chance get to work together, and a manager needs to integrate the variability of personalities and experiences.   At another level, managing at the individual level is critical because humans have a sense of “self”. Only one other animal demonstrates this same sense of self. Animal Studies Leif Cocks is a senior primate keeper at Perth Zoo in Australia and President of the Australian Orangutan Project. He was the first person to share with me how scientists study for “self”. First, the animal being studied, say a monkey, gorilla or chimpanzee, is provided with a mirror and left to become familiar with the object. The animal is then lightly sedated and the scientist paints a blue spot on the animal’s forehead. The animal comes back to consciousness and happens upon the mirror. In looking in the mirror, it is only the chimpanzee that is curious about the blue spot and uses a finger on its other hand to try to wipe off the blue spot.   In other words, the chimpanzee appears to know that it’s them in the mirror and that “a blue spot has appeared on my forehead”. No other animal currently studied shows this behaviour. A monkey might scream and drop the mirror. Friends with dogs tell me a dog barks at the stranger dog in the mirror. No other animal sees “self” and it’s only from a sense of our self that we see, acknowledge and understand other selves. (The head of primates at Milwaukee Zoo in the US, Jan Rafert tells me that bonobos will soon be studied using the mirror experiment. Bonobos are as evolutionary advanced as their chimpanzee cousins and one suspects will also see themselves in the mirror). Implications for Leaders As leaders, or as HR professionals guiding leaders, the key implication is that we are not so much managing teams as we are leading individuals. As a manager on one of our leadership programs recently said, “Of course! In my team of seven I need to manage each event in perhaps seven different ways in order to effectively relate to my seven staff.”   Here are some tips for leading at the individual level.   Tip 1 – Base Camp   There can be no relationship without knowing the person, which means knowing the person’s identity. The test is that the person knows that you know them. As a leader, how well do you know the people in your team of direct reports? Do you know the following information about each person:   <ul style="margin-top: 0cm;" type="disc"> <li class="MsoNormal" style="color: black;">Their personal family situation (partners, children, parents, siblings)? </li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="color: black;">Where they were born and where they spent their formative years? </li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="color: black;">The key life experiences that shaped their sense of self? </li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="color: black;">Their personal achievements they are most proud of? </li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="color: black;">Their interests outside of work? </li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="color: black;">Their key work achievements over their working life? </li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="color: black;">Their key skills that they most like to apply? </li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="color: black;">Their motivation as to what they most want to achieve through work? </li> </ul> Without knowing the answers to these questions you can not possibly know the person. Only through knowing a person can we have a connection and the moral authority to lead.     Tip 2 – Individual Catch-Ups   The single most important leadership action a manager can take to connect with individuals is to schedule regular meetings with direct reports. These meetings should be for one hour and be held at least fortnightly. The meetings provide a platform for respecting and connecting with individuals.   One of the managers I have worked for who held regular and effective catch ups was an executive at IBM called Tony Bowra. As you walked into Tony’s office for your catchup, Tony swung around in his chair and reached into his filing cabinet and pulled out your file – a simple manila folder. He had scratchy notes from your last meeting and slips of paper with “memory jogger” ideas that had crossed his mind since last time. Having an hour with Tony was productive and energising. He sought for ways in which he might help you, we bounced ideas around to progress a task and he checked in with progress on activities so that you knew that he was interested.   Over the years I have found that sometimes the reason causing managers to resist the idea of a regular catchup with their people is that they are unsure what to cover in the meeting. Here are some suggestions: <ul> <li>Progress of tasks since last meeting</li> <li>Identifying and removing any roadblocks</li> <li>Discussing ideas of new tasks and initiatives to respond to emerging problems/opportunities</li> <li>Sharing any development/feedback observations</li> <li>Checking in to see if the person needs any support or assistance from you</li> <li>Action points for next meeting.</li> </ul> Because we are dealing with individuals, a manager quickly finds that each person uses the meeting differently. One person might be tasked focused. Another might value the time for conceptual discussions. Another might talk more about personal topics.   If as a manager you start this initiative, you might be surprised by the responses you trigger when you ask towards the end of the meeting, “Is there anything else you wanted to cover today?”   Tip 3 – Birthdays   Sometimes it’s the simple things that work. Beginning in 1999 I had the good fortune of working with a colleague called Cathy Wilks. Cathy taught me a great lesson about individual connection. When we first started working together she said, “I don’t need a lot from my manager. Just don’t forget my birthday!” So simple, yet significant – birthdays are personal, like an individual fingerprint. They are a great opportunity for a manager to recognise the identity of the individual. After that lesson, I never again delegated the action of birthday recognition. I retained the action to acknowledge each person’s birthday and to broadcast their birthday announcement and good wishes to other team members.     Tip 4 – Senior Executives   What about senior executives connecting with front-line staff? It might surprise you that front-line staff often classify senior executives according to the scale of those executives who “say hello” and those who “don’t even say hello”. Senior executives who say hello are in effect acknowledging and respecting the people as individuals “in the mirror”. Those who do not are ignoring the identity of the person and consequently, in the minds of the individuals, are refused the authority to lead.   A second-level manager of a manufacturing facility once told me that before he started at a new plant he learned the names of all 80 staff in the factory. He said that, “Then on the first day I just needed to match faces to names and to learn something about each person.” He added that he couldn’t imagine how he could connect, lead or influence the 80 people without knowing each individual.

2010-03-01T11:00:00Z

Managing People 253 the_greatest_management_challenge_of_all_

One time a few years ago one I inadvertently upset one of my team. We were in a team meeting, progressing through the agenda. Dan (not his real name) started on his subject. He was joking around a bit and I asked him to stick to the subject. In the normal course of things my comment would not have upset anyone. But I could see that Dan was hurt by my comment. Of course I was concerned and immediately after the meeting I went to his office. I apologised for the obvious hurt I had caused. He shut the door. Graciously, he said that he sometimes overreacts to things. He confided that he had been abused as a child and “so things that might be little to some people trigger hurt in me.” The Greatest Management Challenge of All

2010-03-02T00:55:01Z

Hannah Samuel

Research shows more than 40 percent of New Zealanders don't have reading, writing, speaking and listening skills necessary to understand many written documents used in workplaces. Yet, many of us continue to use words that confuse when we write and speak, losing both goodwill, and possible business, in the process. You might feel comfortable using the words 'pro' and ‘anti' instead of ‘for' and ‘against', but are you sure the person you're communicating with is as familiar and comfortable with them as you? Or how about 'bi-annual'? If you mean 'twice a year' why not say that? Making someone feel belittled or confused does nothing to enhance your reputation. In fact, it may well earn you a reputation for being superior, arrogant and a show-off. Using obfuscatory (confusing) words our customers and supporters don't immediatelyunderstand isn't impressive - it's dumb. So how can you enhance your reputation as a communicator and keep people 'with you' and tuned-in, rather than turned off and tuned-out? • Focus on them, not you. Set out with the intention of making the reader or listener feel good about interacting with you. Put them at ease and help them openup to create a genuine two-way communication process that works for them. • Be specific and direct. Speak and write clearly. Avoid using long sentences and unusual words. People are more likely to 'stay with you', and enjoy the interaction, if you communicate using words and phrases they are familiar with, and easily understand. • Be friendly and natural. Many of us write much more formally than we speak, and yet our written words are simply spoken words captured on paper or electronically. Write how you speak and you may be surprised at how natural it becomes. • Avoid jargon, technical and unusual words as much as possible. Industry specific words have their place, but for most day-to-day communication, plain and simple is almost always best. • Never assume. Check understanding on an ongoing basis. If you think the person may be confused, or not following you, use a different, more easily understandable word or phrase as quickly as possible. Confuse and you'll lose. Communicate in a way that builds rapport and makes people feel good about the interaction and your reputation for being a gifted communicator will be assured.

2010-02-22T11:00:00Z

Using words that confuse when we write and speak, losing both goodwill, and possible business, in the process 252 do_words_you_use_confuse

If you've ever been irritated, or frustrated, by someone using words and phrases that make things harder to understand, rather than easier, you're not alone. Do Words You Use Confuse?

2010-02-22T22:37:38Z

Ann Andrews CSP

2010-02-21T11:00:00Z

How to get out of fighting fires and crisis management 251 ah_yes_but_

Over the course of my 20+ years working in the corporate world as a personnel manager and human resources manager, I became passionate about teaching employees how to be self-managing; to think ahead with regard to their skill-set and career prospects. Ah Yes But

2010-02-24T22:53:09Z