Will You Still Force Fit Your Hires Into A Single Category in 2013?

If there is one thing Mark and I have learned over the last decade writing our Source of Hire whitepapers, it’s that the “sources” employers choose to attribute their hires to are no longer independent elements. 

Every source from walk-ins to referrals are seriously interconnected in an increasingly elongated supply chain of prospects and candidates. Knowing how to combine the way each source influences others to contribute to an outcome – a quality hire, would mean better budget decisions.

The trick is measuring how these different source elements interact.

In our most recent study of 185,000 hires, SOH 2013: Perception is Reality, we concluded:

-       -  Big Bad Data. Collection methods and the statistics to assess them have not kept up with the explosion of channels and their relationships.

-      -  On-Shoring May be the 2013 trend of the year. Employers, in January, told us they expected to hire 17.5% more US F/T employees this year than last. Lately that prediction is looking more and more accurate.

-      -   The #1 Source of Hire, at least for large, highly competitive industry leaders is right under their nose (not employee referrals but current employees who fill 42% of all the openings).

-        - However, Employee Referrals, which come in at about 25% of the remainder, are as important as ever. It’s just that firms are more likely to attribute a hire to  a referral than identify al of the other sources that contributed to the referral, in the final analysis, happening.

-        - Social Media and other Source of Hire Categories are NOT independent of each other. In fact, social media probably is the underlying influence leading to 7 of 11 categories of ‘sources’

-        - Job Boards are NOT Dead; they are evolving…and evolving quickly.

Gender does matter in selection apparently...if you are married

Under the subject of halo effect - something that recruiters and hiring managers are supposedly trained to assiduously avoid (lest they be unconsciously biased by a non-performance related characteristic like height, attractiveness, firm handshake, race, religion, etc., etc.),  we now can add Marriage.

GenderCounts, a study by Cornell ILR Assistant Professor Emily Zitek and a Dartmouth Assistant Professor, Alex Jordan, found that 'raters' considering 'finalists' for a position characterized married women (with the identical qualifications of a single person regardless of gender) as "Less willing to work long hours, less committed to advancing in the company, more distracted by social responsibilities and outside work, and less likely to succeed on the job. 

Wow. US raters. As a result of these 'assessments' married women were significantly less likely to compete successfully for the job than say married men (married men, by the way, were found to be "more likely to get the job than single men.")

Ok, the problem this study's authors have to handle is who exactly were the 278 'raters' -  in what is otherwise a well-designed sophisticated and researched study. The raters were only described as "young adults" (at least in the summary we saw). It is unlikely they were recruiters or hiring managers in real life. Probably they were college students still wet behind the ears so to speak. 

Still, how well do you (as a recruiting leader) train recruiters and hiring managers to deal with unconscious biases? Have you ever audited the tendency to choose or not choose a demographic like 'marriage'?

2013 - Back to the Future

We are avid fans of crystal-ball gazing and enjoy uncovering clues to the future.

Despite our penchant for guessing what is around the corner however,  it is actually more interesting (and worthwhile) to simply ponder the possibilities we see in the present and report on them- as we typically do with a periodic ‘Update’ and the ‘Bellwether’ we send to interested folks and Colloquium members.

 The bigger problem this time of year is that predictions...including ours succumb to 2 fatal flaws :

1. Stating the obvious. How hard is it, for example, to examine the data surrounding the exponential sales of smartphones and tablets with the fact that only 10% of Fortune 500 firms have mobile-enabled their career content and conclude there will be change? (Open to discussion is whether 15%, 25% or 35%+ of the Fortune 500 will have developed mobile enabled career platforms by the end of 2013. Go ahead, pick a number.)

 What prognosticator worth his or her salt would ignore similar changes in Work Analytics, Sourcing, Branding, Social Media, Candidate Experience, Measurement, and Global. So what?  Did you learn something you don’t know. What is counter-intuitive and why? Who predicts a discontinuity…something that will happen for the first time that impacts the function? Or is there an unintended consequence of a trend we all know is happening. (We did make a $1 bet four years ago with one VP of Talent acquisition that at least one city bordering the ocean – my pick was Miami, would ‘go under’ within 5 years from a natural disaster as a result of global. We almost claimed a win after Oct 29 with NYC being lost but didn’t push the claim.

Our point was that if natural disasters are on the rise then what is your [Business/HR/Staffing] ‘Plan B’ in order for your firm to keep your business afloat? Could you ramp up to recruit and replace any critical function lost to such an event…and do it so much faster than your competitors it would give you an edge?

2. The second flaw is…timing. Nothing happens in a year. Even ten is questionable.

To illustrate, in 2002 we wrote and published a lengthy piece, a fictional story about just one person in the year 2012, Jaime Beth, a passive job seeker and a highly valued employee who encounters a situation where she begins considering a job change for the first time.

 Here are some of the headlines from that 2002 article along with our comments about what we were trying to get across in describing 2012 from  a distance.

We gave each prediction a (+) or (-) indicating our success.

 - Technology promises new solutions but only if we own the original problem:
We believed in 2002 that within 10 years individual stakeholders, especially the job seeker, would be well educated in career mapping concepts and have a clearer long term plan for themselves in the context of their life goals. Unfortunately Job seekers are generally as clueless as ever and employers have yet to map the expected outcomes they plan to achieve for EVERY stakeholder in the process. Until we know what they are it will be impossible to measure the recruiting function’s success or failure. (-) 

- Knowledge Management is creating paths to follow in a forest of data.
We described our story’s heroine, Jaime Beth following a stream of text she didn’t understand (a confusing company policy) but was able to ‘click’ on it and was instantly connected in real-time [audio and video] to an [HR] person she ‘knew’ who understood the context of her inquiry on several levels. (+) - High-tech without high-touch can raise the bar a notch. Together, they change the bar itself. This was a description of such a high level of customer service (how an internal HR person managed to engage one of the firm’s pivotal employees) that we doubt we will see anything similar for another ten years, if ever. On the other hand, the renewed interest in candidate experience gives one hope (-) 

- The Baby Boomers will trigger (once again) the changes that lead to the reinvention of work.
 Self-evident despite our ‘excellent’ rationale. (- )

- Selecting someone for a job is not the same as fitting the job to the person. We still don’t know how to describe a job properly let alone adjust it to the needs of the individual in the context of a group. This will wait for computers to become smarter than humans…somewhere around 2035 (-)

- Employee Referrals will remain the core source of new talent. 
 Self-evident. (+) 

- Diversity is simply a description of how we make use of everyone’s capabilities.
 In this part of the story, a meeting, held totally online, included a team member in another country who was deaf. She participated with technology aids in such a way that no one noticed she was deaf- the focus was on achieving a solution (and the technology converting voice to text and vice versa was flawless). We’ve come a long way but definitely on a global basis neither the technology nor the acceptance is without flaw. (-) 

- Ongoing career management services are critical to the success of educational institutions and professional associations. 
This segment of our scenario speculated that trusted sources of career connections i.e (alumni and professional association) would develop services for their members to help protect privacy and improve the timing when details about certifications, grades, accomplishments, etc. could be disclosed- sort of a professional registry) (-) 

- Retention and employment are linked. Privacy and disclosure are linked. Data collection, data analysis and planning will drive staffing processes all centered on communication with targeted talent…and those who influence them. An individual’s data cannot be warehoused without permission to access it each and every time. 
These elements reflected our thinking that HR would predict a spike in the risk that they might lose the employee (who was now a job seeker) based on her searches, inquiries about policy, etc. and, since her ‘value’ to the firm was high the HR system would ‘initiate’ a requirement to solve an inferred problem. Way out but hey it was 10 years ago. (-) 

 - The most successful companies will develop strategies that emphasize candidate choice not company selection. 
 Still working this one. See www.thecandes.org (-)

 We finished the story in 2002 stating three rules governing the evolution of recruiting: 1) Follow… the Job seeker; 2) Network…to build community with your prospects; and, 3) Measure…everything you do. 

In 2002 we thought our predictions in were a reasonable stretch... over 10 years. We were wrong. Timing is everything.

 What we learn from the exercise each year however is “to work in the world you see in the mirror but drive it the best you can toward the world you know it can be.” Too often people see things so clearly they get trapped in the mirror.

All that being said, one of the more interesting and worthwhile posts we’ve read about 2013 is John Sumser’s, Five Links: The Unevenly Distributed Future. Just remember to adjust for the two flaws.

Superstorms: Lessons Learned in the Aftermath

Three weeks after Sandy, life is getting back to normal…or is it. 

Walking the dog this weekend morning around a relatively unscathed block of homes in central NJ (miles from the shore) today, reminders are everywhere. Tons of debris in front of every home (more than 40 homes), the noise of still more 75 foot oak trees being cut while leaning precariously over homes rends the air, blue tarps draped over roofs (5 homes) that were speared with limbs weighing tons waiting for roofers and a flatbed truck finally easing up behind a flattened neighbor’s car (where my 75 foot oak fell)…I check to make sure he doesn't accidentally take the new car parked next to it.

Sandy was a storm that has little comparison even to Katrina although we can take some comfort that lessons learned from that catastrophic event seven years ago were likely responsible for preparations last month that saved lives- Speed to respond and Pre-positioning among them.

Still, while the lives were lost by comparison to Katrina and other major US disasters were few, there are some lessons employers and their HR and Staffing leaders might find challenging in the upcoming weeks and months as the scope and the size of Sandy’s full impact unfolds.

-        Your disaster plans should have been in place. Some were. Some weren’t. Employers that reached out to check on employees in the affected areas, identify the challenges they were facing either personally or with family and friends and authorized extended personal time, specialized teams, resources, donations, product, etc. etc. will see their employment brand, engagement levels and…retention rise. Conversely…(After Katrina a SHRM commission on disaster planning led to a number of resource tool kits that employers ought to periodically review.)

-        Your employees may need to deal with personal time differently for several months. Loss of cars, access to supplies, friends and family needing relocation (and just moral support), long lines dealing with insurance and government agencies- all will stretch personal time policies. Performance may be temporarily affected. How is your firm responding…especially if your headquarters is located outside the affected areas?

-        Lots of jobs were lost, mostly small, local and heavily retail (Casinos may be the exception) but few people will be leaving the area to seek new work anytime soon. In fact, those that most need to get on with their lives and find new jobs elsewhere are least likely to do so before next spring if past disasters are any guide. Local career coaches- and there are plenty of them, should be offering pro-bono events around career and life issues.

-        Lots of jobs are also created. The economy may even spike upward with the sale of cars and rebuilding…temporarily as people spend money they didn't have.

-        Recruiters will have additional personal they’ll need to address when speaking with prospects and candidates willing to leave the area (i.e. needing to return often to handle unresolved family issues, value of real estate), or helping people come into the area (Q: Where can I live where the power is likely to be on? A: Nowhere) and, just getting people’s attention to consider a risky move (looking for some stability for the time being). Nothing really new…just more of it more often.

Recruiting Leaders might consider running occasional disaster scenarios. Every disaster is different and there are many small, localized ones between those that impact millions. As a recruiting leader if you have an all hands meeting, think about breaking your folks into small groups and challenging them to solve some outrageous questions like the following:

A disaster in [name a country] has decimated our [name them] products and supply chain. Our business leaders want to move operations to [name a location] for 6-12 months. We need to hire in volume for [x], [y] and [z] jobs immediately. You have 30 minutes to develop a detailed plan. If you have questions…answer them to give you the best chance of success and identify the answers that would sink the initiative.

A [deadly contagious] disease has been uncovered in [a neighboring state]. All movement across state lines has ceased. Martial law along the borders has been declared- otherwise business as usual.  However 50% of our external hires have final slates with 2 or more out-of-state candidates. Can we fully hire and onboard w/o any problem. How often for example has remote video resulted in an offer rather than screening for finalists? How prepared are we to do all interviews via video, even local ones?

The internet is down and will be down for 3 months at a minimum. Our success as a business will be dictated on how well we can adapt versus our competitors. Every function is being challenged to operate w/o the internet…or they will be furloughed immediately.  List those elements of the recruiting processes, tools and partners that are under water (i.e. our cloud based ATS database of candidates) and how we will work around.

Preface: SHRM Heading to South Africa to Study Evolution of Staffing and HR (October 28, 2012)

The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) has a best kept secret. For years it has been sending delegations of HR leaders to other countries to study how our profession is evolving. SHRM could do a great deal more to market this opportunity as it offers members the most extraordinary learning environment anyone could ask for…but that is another story. I’m just happy to be going with dozens of peers to share observations, opinions and a little data.

Delegates on these excursions typically meet with government leaders, university professors, students, and company employees to better understand how what we do [HR] is understood, supported and executed as a function of the businesses in society.

I've been fortunate to travel with peers on similar jaunts to China, India and Brazil in the past few years and I’ve also traveled to another dozen countries on my own. Each experience has truly altered my way of thinking about Human Resources and the  impact culture has on how we view it. For me, stepping out of the box is a constant lesson as a US practitioner to re-examine the body of HR knowledge and the standards we implicitly follow in light of our own changing culture to stay relevant and effective for the organizations we lead.

Preparing for South Africa, in some ways was easier as its story (at least the story told in our schools) is the subject of every students’ world history and social studies curriculum- from the clash of the Dutch, English and Indigenous populations to the rise and fall of Apartheid. Who isn't familiar with the names of Mandela and Tutu? Who doesn't know the impact of South Africa had on Ghandi? Is the current mine worker issue related? For that matter are the basic benefits, working conditions, and management best practices affecting  productivity and engagement levels of US workers (or lack of same) a product of our unique cultural shifts or globally shared professional standards?  

I believe every country in the world has a moment when it looks in the mirror and sees clearly what is and what could be. For many cultures it sometimes stops there...just a single moment, perhaps repeated but never acted on, frozen for all time. For others, it is the beginning of a new journey.

I think the USA has had many such moments and, while its journey is far from over, we are a culture that is pretty adamant about pursuing change. South Africa seems similar in many respects and, in my final preparation to check off another life-long ‘wish’ on my bucket list, I’m looking forward to the trek next week and to all that I might learn.

A lesser known moment but one of real interest to me as a young man occurred when I was working for Johnson and Johnson as a newly minted OD and Training professional some 30+ years ago. J&J was a part of the 1977 Sullivan Principles developed by GM, GE, J&J (and eventually adopted by 125 firms doing business in South Africa) with Reverend Leon Sullivan. The objective was social responsibility. The motives remain controversial but reading the principles offers insight into that ‘mirror’. And as a person who every day read J&J’s 'Credo' etched in the doorway where I went to work, I realized that my firm's 'core values' were more than window dressing. They were the driving force on which great businesses thrive and which underscore HR’s means to contribute.

I know the stories I've read in the US won’t match the reality of the stories I can learn from the people who live in South Africa. I need to suspend what I think I know and simply listen. As time permits, I plan to share a few thoughts in this space starting next week…assuming I survive the flight…I’m not a fan of long flights.

Postscript: With Sandy about to land. Getting t South Africa is becoming an adventure in itself

Candidate Experience: A Movement in the Making

by Gerry Crispin, Elaine Orler, Ed Newman, Mark Stelzner, Jeremy Tipper, Sarah White Candidates care about how they are treated. Let’s say that again- with emphasis this time…Candidates care passionately about how they are treated! Employers on the other hand are just beginning to wake up in a world where their firms’ “numbers” are measurably impacted by the experience they create for their candidates. We believe every goal worth achieving starts with a first step- and we've taken that first step alongside a broad coalition of practitioners, vendors, consultants and other staffing stakeholders coming together to champion the under-served stakeholder, the ‘candidate’. We’re not in it just because it’s a good thing to do…it is. What we believe is that how we treat someone IS good business and since business operates on what it can measure, we think it essential to come together as an industry, and even as a profession to move this needle that has been stuck for decades. Measuring the candidate experience will be the driver of a new way to look at recruiting. It will explain the ‘why?’ and provide a context for the direction that emerging technology, communication platforms and social media will converge. These tools, still seen from the perspective of the Employer, are slowly but clearly shifting to a Candidates’ perspective as their decisions and actions in the recruitment process impacts sales, retention, performance and…much more. Defining just what the ‘candidate experience’ is, how we can measure its impact and publicizing the firms who meet at least minimal standards is our near term goal…and we believe it is important that what we learn is ‘open source’ to all. Our non-profit, TalentBoard, was created in 2011. The non-profit’s current Board, see this article’s authors above, is committed (along with a rapidly growing group of peers and colleagues) to find and honor employers through the Candidate Experience Awards. In its second year, the Candidate Experience Awards are getting noticed.

The subject of this Wall Street Journal article last week- the second annual, 2012 Candidate Experience Awards which were presented at a packed session in Chicago at the HRTechnology Conference on October 8 and honored 37 employers, is just one piece of evidence that the interests of both the companies that ‘get it’ and the candidates who demand it are coming together.

And it wasn't just the claims of the 37 winning employers (above) that made them stand out! Yes, initially, 90 firms told the TalentBoard details about how they treated their candidates. They responded to survey questions about how and when they listened to candidates; described how they managed their candidates’ questions and expectations for what would happen when they applied; discussed the ways they informed candidates who were unqualified or, who just didn't make the final cut. We learned about employers’ interview practices, communication methods and responses to requests for feedback. The claims of the employers were just one side of the equation. This August nearly 44 of the 90 original firms willingly agreed to the next step- to ask their candidates to independently answer questions about how they (the candidates) were treated. And why not all 90 you might ask? A third of the employers knew in advance they wouldn't go beyond the first step (and still others that wanted to- were not allowed to. Think about that for a moment). Every participating employer who completed the initial survey however, will be able to benchmark themselves against the firms who won. And so early half the companies that originally applied were willing to look in the mirror by inviting their candidates during August and September to complete a 40 minute survey. We didn't tell the companies who to invite or how many candidates they should invite. We didn’t offer the employers a template to encourage their candidates or even tell the employers whether to ask everyone who applied or, just qualified candidates, or, just those who interviewed or, simply those they offered a job to. Employers were simply asked to tell us in the end how many they asked and, how they did it. We could see the who responded and we asked them how far they got. Most of the employers convinced hundreds (hundreds!) of their candidates to respond and complete the survey. A few companies had thousands complete it and one company (PepsiCo)…ended up with 5000 candidate surveys. Only 15% of the 17,500 completed candidate surveys were new hires and so the vast majority were individuals who had applied but never got the job! And they had a lot to say. (A whitepaper will be out in December). 37 firms met the ‘evidence based bar’ (see the picture above). Seven of these firms: Addidas, ADP, CaseMate, CH2MHill, Deloitte, Intuit and RMS had stories teased from them by a panel of four judges: Joe Murphy, Steven Rothberg, Jeremy Tipper and John Vlastilica. And another winning firm Pepsico, was mentioned as the Candidate Voice for having the most candidates respond. (This excellent blog, by Chris Brablc at Smashfly about the 2012 CandEs offers additional insight into some of the stories we hope to publish in the coming year.) Interest in Candidate Experience is far from new- excellent articles and even an academic study or two go back thirty and more years. But it’s only in the last few years that the quality and number of articles has exploded. Video, simulations, mobile devices, social media and chat rooms, etc. are now widely available tools that when used appropriately can help employers set expectations and deliver on them and where candidates can learn to make better career decisions. It is time to help employers who treat individuals with what some would say is ‘common courtesy’ get their message out. In the near future TalentBoard hopes to contribute to the development of reliable and measureable definitions of a candidate experience that we can all agree on. We hope to demonstrate to business leaders that how we treat candidates does indeed impact staffing, HR and corporate performance measures. And [very] long term…what if the ISO (International Standards Organization) or some similar standards body approved (through consensus of hundreds of stakeholders) that when a company exhibited a few simple behaviors i.e. a measurable standard, the company could post something recognizing the fact on their career site? Would candidates want to choose to apply to firms that offered better information and closure before attempting to deal with other, less helpful ways to get a job? What if search engines offered a choice to candidates to see the jobs on companies that complied with basic standards of treatment? Would candidates choose that job search first…over a broader search? What If counselors, coaches, career services folks and, ultimately, candidates themselves had a complete listing of employer behaviors that, if present in the job process, would more likely help them make better decisions about choosing a job in the right firm at the right time? Would they prefer learning from their efforts to find a job or… rather stay in the dark? We've thought of more ‘what ifs’ but will save them for a future article. (Full disclosure: The board of TalentBoard is not paid and all funds raised are invested in the management of the award itself. Employers do not pay to participate. Costs during 2012 were totally underwritten by vendors who have stepped up: Monster, Kenexa, and Cornerstone; HireRight, Hirevue, Jibe, Randstad Sourceright, SocialEars, and StartWire; Async Interview, Climber.com, iMomentous, Montage, myStaffingPro, onewire, PeopleScience, Smashfly Technologies and TalentCircles. Our non-profit has turned down support from employers to avoid even the perception of a conflict of interest.) This is not just an award. This is a movement. Join us.

"Our Employees Are Our Greatest Asset"

This [standard] cliché is repeated over and over by the world’s public employers in their most valuable marketing piece, their Annual Report. We know it’s BS. You know it’s BS…and so does everyone else.

Employers, in their infinite wisdom, realize that investment in their firm, at least in part, is subject to the public perception that cash, bricks and mortar aren’t the only factors in a firm’s success and, at the very least, some reasonable effort to avoid outright abuse of their employees is critical to supporting the brand they’ve managed to build. To that extent, employment and product brands are intertwined

One could note, for example,  that sales of clothes for example, tend to go downhill quickly when a little light shines on them being made with child labor at starvation wages in some distant country.

Taking a more traditional approach however the critical work by Becker, Hueslid and Ulrich on the HR Scorecard (2001) during the last couple decades demonstrates that if we can improve the engagement of our workforce, those higher engagement scores coupled with our [HR] scorecards tend to be statistically correlated with increased corporate performance.

So, occasionally, it’s not BS. There are times when firms actually walk the talk and reap the rewards of managing a great workforce. Sounds like a value proposition for HR to me.

What if we could all agree (Agree? I know, but there is a point to this ludicrous speculation. I promise) on a couple of the metrics that differentiate between how employers manage their workforce for performance and those who are simply engaged in a creative writing exercise? And, god forbid, what if we discovered that those companies in the former group did perform better!

People seeking to invest their money might want to know a little more than, “Our employees are our best asset” when they read the company’s literature.

Public firms walking the talk might want to share more of those measures to attract their fair share of investment.

There is, amazingly, a methodology for obtaining agreement [consensus] on professional issues developed by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), a body recognized by (and sitting at the table of) the International Standards Organization (ISO).

And, for the last four years, with SHRM as sponsor and underwriter, literally hundreds of professionals involved in every aspect of HR- researchers, vendors, consultants, practitioners, educators, etc. have been debating incessantly over dozens of fundamental HR terms, measures and practices with an eye to creating an agreement or two or two hundred i.e. Standards.

It takes time- two to four years for each standard so the work isn’t for the faint of heart, those easily frustrated or for the folks with lots of opinions and little else to back it up or for folks frustrated by folks with lots of opinions and little else.

And we’re not talking about a standard that everyone must use but, instead, a voluntary standard that people would want to use, adopt or comply with because of the imbedded logic of the agreement.

Take Cost-per-hire as an example. It may not a true measure of staffing efficiency or productivity but it is one small component in developing such an ROI.  Everyone thinks they know what it is but there are dozens of definitions being used in the workplace. No two software applications calculate it the same way. Arguably some would say we should not be measuring CPH at all because we tend to place too much emphasis on it.

But, if we are going to measure it, why not agree on what IT is. Then, we can emphasize its appropriate uses from a common base.

It took three years of public and private debate to reach consensus on CPH but as of February 2012, there is, in fact, an ANSI approved definition of Cost-per-hire.

Employers now have a comprehensive document that covers the subject. Hundreds of academics, practitioners, educators etc. have agreed on it. Vendors, including most notably ADP, have already adopted the standard and reconfigured their software to comply with it. Next stop ISO.

Time to up the ante.

The person who led the workgroup under the SHRM/ANSI Staffing and Workforce Planning Standards Taskforce that obtained consensus on CPH now heads the HR Metrics Standards Task Force established in 2011. This newly formed Task Force created a workgroup on HR Investor Metrics and volunteers were sought. They came and debated and even engaged colleagues in Finance and Investment communities to participate. Their initial thinking in what is likely a two to three year process was recently placed in Public Review.

And all hell broke out.

That a few noses were out of joint is an understatement. To catch up I would refer you to the July 23, Businessweek article entitled HR Group Creates Workforce Metrics and Kris Dunn’s HR Capitalist/FOT blog, HRPA to SHRM: We Don't Need No Stinking Standardized HR Metrics...

For those looking to create some real disruption over the next few years, I would encourage you to join the standards movement. Our manufacturing colleagues get it- few firms fail to comply with ISO 9000 and similar standards.

You can argue all you want that HR is different but there will then come a time when an HR equivalent of ISO 9000 is adopted and…we may know whether your employees are your firm’s greatest asset…and what to do to make it so.

(Sooner, rather than later there could even be voluntary standards for the treatment of candidates. What a radical notion that would be. #tiltingatwindmills)