Welcome to The Fordyce Letter:

Articles tagged 'personalproductivity'

Get Your Year In Gear – Your 2005 Action Plan

by

Gary Stauble on Jan. 1, 2005

fordyce-default

Now that the holidays are over, it’s time to think about how you’re going to make 2005 your strongest year yet in terms of production and professional fulfillment. The Action Plan below is a part of a process that I use with recruiting firm owners in my coaching programs to assist them in gaining clarity and sense of excitement regarding their goals. Here are a few things to be aware of:

Your 12 month plan is a snapshot of the future- your vision of what your business will achieve in the next year.

The purpose of this exercise is to “begin with the end in mind” and create a target that will provide a sense of direction and purpose to your daily efforts. It is a basis for decision making, planning and business development activities

Your business is a vehicle for getting more out of life. It should serve you, rather than the other way around. This is your chance to pre-meditate the future.

Be sure to base your one year goals on your long term company vision

The “why” or benefit of the goal is where the true motivation lies to stretch yourself beyond your comfort zone. The “why” usually has to do with benefits or feelings; freedom, affluence, confidence, contribution, travel etc. This is the “juice” that makes the effort of reaching the goal worthwhile so make it compelling.

12 Month Action Plan:

Name: Today’s Date: Completion Date:

12 MONTH GOALS:

Goal I: Our revenue will exceed…

Why it’s important:

Action steps needed in order to hit this goal:

A.

B.

C.

Goal II:

Why it’s important:

Action steps needed in order to hit this goal:

A.

B.

C.

Goal III:

Why it’s important:

Action steps needed in order to hit this goal:

A.

B.

C.

Goal IV:

Why it’s important:

Action steps needed in order to hit this goal:

A.

B.

C.

Goal V:

Why it’s important:

Action steps needed in order to hit this goal:

A.

B.

C.

STRONG START 90 DAY GOALS:

Goal I: Our revenue will exceed…

Why it’s important:

Action steps needed in order to hit this goal:

A.

B.

C.

Goal II:

Why it’s important:

Action steps needed in order to hit this goal:

A.

B.

C.

Goal III:

Why it’s important:

Action steps needed in order to hit this goal:

A.

B.

C.

Goal IV:

Why it’s important:

Action steps needed in order to hit this goal:

A.

B.

C.

Goal V:

Why it’s important:

Action steps needed in order to hit this goal:

A.

B.

C.

Keep reading »

“Stockholm Syndrome” And The Recruiter

by

Michael Goldman on Dec. 1, 2004

fordyce-default

“Stockholm Syndrome describes the behavior of kidnap victims who, over time, becomes sympathetic to their captors. The name derives from a 1973 hostage incident in Stockholm, Sweden. At the end of six days of captivity in a bank, several kidnap victims actually resisted rescue attempts, and afterwards refused to testify against their captors.

What causes Stockholm Syndrome? Captives begin to identify with their captors initially as a defensive mechanism, out of fear of violence. Small acts of kindness by the captor are magnified, since finding perspective in a hostage situation is by definition impossible. Rescue attempts are also seen as a threat, since it’s likely the captive would be injured during such attempts.” [Ask Yahoo, http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20030324.html; more information, http://www.mental-health-matters.com/articles/article.php?artID=469 ]

The inspiration for this article came from a response Danny Cahill wrote to a closing question on www.AccordingToDanny.com entitled “The Eulogy Close.” It’s a particularly challenging close when a candidate wants to accept a client’s offer, but is reluctant or refusing due to a non-compete contract he/she has signed. I won’t go into the Cahill letter here in detail, but I encourage you to visit his site and “look it up,” as my father would say. I associated the Stockholm Syndrome with The Eulogy Close because it’s aic situation that occurs incrementally more often as the issue behind the close has more fear and emotion associated with it. However it can also be a very simple occurrence that will trigger the Stockholm Syndrome within a recruiter and begin to solidify an instinct that will lead to a new recruiter’s failure in our business. This is a crucial issue that needs to be addressed, so let’s break it down tactically……

What is it, who can suffer it and why? The Stockholm Syndrome as it relates to our business happens when a recruiter identifies with the objection from a candidate or client as a result of an exaggerated altruistic feeling toward that person and/or an identification with the objection or situation. It’sically verbalized or imagined as, “I wouldn’t do THAT if I were him. I can understand his objection.” The recruiter literally talks himself out of overcoming an objection or challenge in the process. With new recruiters, the misleading altruism can be a result of a feeling that they want to “help the world” through their noble work and wanting everyone to like them — or a fear of any form of confrontation. If it’s not an altruistic cause, it’s wanting to avoid the fear of failure in working through an objection or looking like a “snake-oil salesman.” With experienced recruiters it can be as a result of not wanting to summon the emotional energy to circumvent the objection (i.e., just being tired or perhaps shall I say it? — lazy). Either way, it’s an illusion. There is no better service a truly consultative recruiter can offer his contacts than removing fear and misunderstanding from a process in order to help them succeed for the long term. Remember, we wear the multiple hats of “change agents,” “teachers,” “counsels” and “anti-fear agents,” among others.

As in the actual Stockholm case noted above, some recruiters will identify so closely with the objection that they become agitated by those trainers or managers who would attempt “rescue action” by helping them understand how to take the proper course of action. The fear or insecurity generated by the objection flips a switch within the recruiter that locks out logic and objectivity and disables the learning function. The emotional defense airbags fly out and wreck a deal, prospective relationship, source for contacts and most importantly the career of a promising recruiter.

When can it happen? On a regular basis with many recruiters almost always with those in the first few years of running a desk, but very often with those in the business for many years. It can happen at very simple times getting basic information, and it can kick in as a first reaction to a particularly difficult or complex objection.

How is Stockholm Syndrome manifested in a recruiter? It could be a simple situation for a new recruiter trying to determine a candidate’s salary we’ve all had that time when an uneducated prospect feels that salary is “private.” The recruiter buys in to the objection without attempting to educate the prospect. It can happen and most frequently does when a recruiter is attempting to source a contact for names or leads. Upon the objection (e.g., “I don’t want to give names to you because you’ll just steal people from my organization.” “It’s not appropriate for me to give you a name without clearing it with the person first.” Or “I don’t know anyone who’s looking.”), the recruiter “owns” it himself of course, he understands why the objection is made, thinking, “I wouldn’t give names either, I know what I’ll do with them.” There are logical, mutually beneficial reasons to get past that objection. (Ask me some time at a conference or refer to Cahill’s web site that’s for another article.) It could happen with the “Eulogy Close,” when a recruiter shares the personal fear of being sued by an employer for breaking a non-compete contract. “I wouldn’t want to have to go through that either.” The emotion of the moment could prevent the recruiter from working through the complex close as Cahill describes thus destroying a deal due to perceived but not actual negatives. There are many other examples of how the Stockholm Syndrome can “infest” a recruiter and that’s literally what it is, an infestation. A great morning meeting at your office would be to role play with your colleagues in identifying red flags, situational possibilities and cures.

Speaking of cures, how can a recruiter look for his or her own manifestations of the Stockholm Syndrome? Be alert and very aware of your perceptions and emotions. Look for the fear in your reaction to objections and challenges. Be mindful of agreeing with a contact’s objections too quickly. Either while you’re in conversation with him, or even before you pick up the phone. There’s nothing wrong with being in mid-conversation and asking to put the contact on hold while you briefly recover from the fear or gather your thoughts. In my early days in the business, I used to put the contact on hold to counsel quickly with my manager or another recruiter I respected. You can even tell the contact you’ve just been paged, can you get back to him in five minutes? Better to put the situation on brief hold rather than react without the proper tactics. Remember that courage is not the absence of fear, but the mastery of it. You can actually practice techniques that will help you master fear. Identification and action are the first steps. Seek education and role-playing from your peers and managers. Be proactive about learning. Passivity kills in this business. The Stockholm Syndrome issue is probably one of the three largest impediments to success we have. Once you’ve learned how to identify symptoms of the syndrome and techniques to respond to them, PRACTICE! Look forward to opportunities to put the techniques to work for you, and your candidate or client.

All of us come into this business with a certain set of pre-conceived perceptions. Many contribute to our long-term success. But many conversely can lead to mediocrity or failure. Those perceptions must be changed in order to provide true value to people’s lives and self-respect for what we do as professionals. This is accomplished through education. Don’t ever stop learning. If you’re reading this, you must believe in that philosophy as I do. You’ve just taken another step forward through awareness. Next comes action. The Stockholm Syndrome in our business is just another speed bump on the path to success. It’s up to you to keep moving forward to your goals. Enjoy the trip!

Keep reading »

Approved List or Preferred List – It’s Up To You!

by

Terry Petra on Dec. 1, 2004

fordyce-default

Many Staffing Professionals believe that in order to do business, they must be included on their client’s “Approved List.” Although being on these lists may provide a certain level of business opportunity, generally, these opportunities are cloaked with restrictions and cumbersome processes. Remember, “Approved Lists” are “designed to control mediocrity not to foster excellence.”

Conversely, some of these same companies have a “Preferred List.” However, the difference between how you qualify for each list can be substantial.

Typically, all you have to do in order to qualify for the “Approved List” is sign a services agreement which is generally developed and controlled by the Human Resources department. These agreements tend to be one-sided and designed to handle a quantity approach to the hiring process (See TFL 10/03 “The Reality of Take It or Leave It Contracts”). Once on this “list” you have the opportunity to submit resumes to H.R. on positions that are open to every firm on the list. You may also be competing against internal candidates as well as candidates who submit their resumes directly to the company through job postings on their web site or as a result of employment advertising. Your odds for success working under these circumstances may require a “quantity approach” which further reinforces the client’s rationale for developing an “Approved List” in the first place.

In most instances, doing business under the restrictions of an “Approved List” will relegate you to working on “low hanging fruit.” Furthermore, rising above industry standard mediocrity will be all but impossible since the arrangement does not provide an opportunity for quality differentiation.

Before you choose whether or not to do business with your clients as a member of their “Approved List,” at least ask them how a firm qualifies for this distinction. The answers to the following questions should provide the insight necessary in order to make an informed decision.

“How does a staffing/recruiting firm qualify for your Approved List?”

Remember, in many instances, all it takes is a willingness to sign their services agreement. If this is so, ask,

“What performance based criteria must be met in order to qualify?”

“How do you measure whether or not a firm meets those criteria?”

Or

“How do you measure the capability of the firms?”

And

“When critical positions become open, what is your process for working with the Approved List?”

Some employers, albeit very few, can provide valid answers to these questions. If, in fact, they adhere to their criteria, the “Approved List” will consist of a few, carefully selected staffing/recruiting firms who consistently perform above industry norms. In fact, their “Approved List” is a “Preferred List.”

However, don’t be surprised if the individual you are speaking with is not able to answer your questions. After all, if the only thing necessary to qualify for the list is a signature on a contract, that does not speak well for their selection process. It brings to mind a quote:

“I would belong to no organization whose standards were so low as to allow me to be a member.” - Groucho Marx

Does that reflect the type of “Approved List” your client has in place?

Truth be known, some of the companies who utilize an “Approved List” for the majority of their openings also have a “Preferred List.” The major difference between the two is that one takes a quantity approach to filling positions (Approved List) while the other embraces a quality approach (Preferred List).

Companies who have a “Preferred List” recognize the value of a focused resource approach to filling their most critical positions. Following this logic, they develop relationships with a carefully selected group of staffing/recruiting firms. Their working relationships with these firms are characterized by exclusivity or near exclusivity, while the streamlined process emphasizes positive results versus quantitative activity. Bottom line, the firms on the “Preferred List” do not work the “low hanging fruit.” Instead, the client entrusts to them the responsibility for filling their highest valued positions with a commensurate level of commitment, direct access and follow-through.

The next time you are in a discussion with a prospect on the subject of an “Approved List,” secure answers to the above listed questions. Then, based on the answers, ask them about their “Preferred List.” If this type of list does in fact exist, the questions listed above are just as applicable. However, in most instances, they will be confused by your question because they don’t understand the difference between the two. This confusion creates a perfect situation for you to differentiate yourself on a qualitative basis.

Your next comments may be similar to the following:

“It has been our experience that companies who have a Preferred List carefully select its membership based on the staffing/recruiting firm’s capability. This capability is generally measured against three primary criteria.”

“First, is the firm process driven and can this process be validated for accountability, timeliness and results?”

“Second, can the firm access, evaluate, and deliver qualified and interested candidates for their selection?”

“Third, are they objective and can they be trusted to provide accurate information, guidance and counsel throughout the process?”

“Measuring against these criteria helps insure that only best staffing/recruiting firms are selected for the Preferred List thus building a resource of considerable value to the organization.”

“Does this appear to you as a reasonable approach?”(If not, why not?)

If “yes,”

“How would you suggest we proceed from this point?”

As in all aspects of life, nothing works all the time. However, most employers and Human Resources Managers will not have been previously approached in this manner by anyone from our industry. The novelty of your logic alone may very well spark further discussion and consideration.

Of course, the prospect may not respond in a manner that you find acceptable. When this occurs, you can always switch your approach to an explanation of how they may qualify to be on your “Preferred List.” (See TFL 11/03 “Responding To Take It or Leave It Contracts”).

Either way, if you can engage the prospect in a sincere dialogue concerning the primary attributes of a successful staffing/recruiting firm, you both stand to benefit from the discussion. You will benefit from differentiating yourself on a qualitative basis while the prospect may learn an important lesson on how to work effectively with our industry. If they don’t already have in place a “Preferred List,” they may very well create one with you as its first member. You’ve got to like those odds.

“Approved Lists” serve a purpose, but honestly, wouldn’t you rather be on the “Preferred List?” After all, it’s up to you!

As always, if you have questions or comments, just let me know.

Keep reading »

Be Aware Of The Boss

by

Terry Petra on Nov. 1, 2004

fordyce-default

Many staffing professionals who are engaged in the process of recruiting currently employed individuals miss the mark when it comes to clearly identifying their recruit’s motivations for changing positions. With an emphasis on filling searches/job orders and collecting their fees, they focus on selling the benefits of the position, primarily compensation and long-term potential. As important as these factors may be to a prospective recruit, they may not even come close to addressing whether or not a valid motivation exists for changing positions.

When it comes to identifying whether or not an employed individual has a valid motivation for changing positions, “be aware of the boss!” As strange as it may appear, in the largest percentage of cases, the individual’s “boss” can be either the primary motivation for staying in a position or the primary motivation for changing positions.

According to a 2004 Gallup poll of more than 1 million employed U.S. workers, the number one reason people quit jobs was a bad boss or immediate supervisor. The results validated that “people leave managers, not companies … in the end, turnover is mostly a manager issue.”

When the new web site Badbossology.com did its own online survey of 1,118 people, it found that fully half of them would fire their bosses if they could. In addition, nearly 30% would have their boss seen by a workplace psychologist.

In their breakthrough 1999 bestseller, “First Break All the Rules,” authors Marcus Buckingham and Curt Coffman provided a contrast by focusing on the traits of “great managers.” They measured the “core elements needed to attract, focus, and keep the most talented employees.” Of the twelve core elements, the employee’s direct supervisor controlled nine. Ultimately, these nine were the key elements most responsible for developing loyalty in their employees.

Remember

People go to work for people, not for companies and, if they stay with those companies, it will be for the same reason.

Therefore, you must determine the nature and depth of the bond, if any, that exists between the prospective recruit and their boss. (See TFL 04/99 “Framing Your Relationship With A Recruit”). In order to “be aware of the boss” or more specifically, the influence the boss has on the targeted employee, build questions into your recruiting process that are similar to those that would be included in a comprehensive reference check. After an appropriate transition statement, the questions may be similar to the following.

- “Since the individual to whom an employee reports generally controls the quality of the work environment, it probably would be good for us to discuss your boss (supervisor, manager) in the context or your present position. Does that seem reasonable?”

-“Tell me about your boss (supervisor, manager, direct report).”

- “Were they the individual who hired you?” (if yes)

-“What were your impressions of them during that process?”(probe for specifics)

- “Did those impressions change after you were hired?” (if so)

- “In what way did they change?”(probe for specifics)

- “Do you interact with your boss outside of the work environment?” (if so)

- “Under what circumstances?” and “How often does this occur?”

- “Have you had any conflicts or disagreements with your boss?” (if so)

- “How were they resolved?” and “How did you feel about the resolution?”

- “What impact has your boss had on your ability to continue learning, growing, and developing in your career?” (probe for specifics)

- “On the job, how does your boss challenge you to do your best?” (probe for specifics)

And very importantly,

- “How does your present boss compare with all the other bosses you’ve worked for over the course of your career?”

- “Specifically, why do you say that?”

- “From your perspective, what are your boss’s greatest strengths/greatest weaknesses?” (seek examples)

- “How have these impacted your performance on the job?”

- “How would your boss react if you were to resign from your present position?

- “Why do you believe he/she would react this way?”

- “How would you respond to them?” (probe for the counteroffer)

You may not need to ask all of these questions but you do need the information the answers to the questions will provide. Only in this manner will you “be aware of the boss” and the impact they may have on the recruit.

At the extremes, either positive (a strong bond exists) or negative (can’t stand the boss), the recruit’s motivations will quickly become apparent. However, in many instances, the individual you are recruiting may not initially realize the impact the boss has on them, particularly the emotional impact. That is the primary reason why you need to cover this subject early in your recruiting process. Therefore, increase your recruiting effectiveness. Be thorough, be certain, and most importantly, “be aware of the boss.”

As always, if you have questions or comments, just let me know.

Keep reading »

Ignorance And The Human Condition

by

Wendell Williams on Oct. 1, 2004

fordyce-default

People like to believe they are rational, even when the exact opposite case is true. Think of it as a poor man’s Dilbert cartoon: “My decisions may be completely wrong, but I’m totally convinced!”

Human Error

Study after study by scientists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky has identified three major sources of human error that operate whether we know it or not:

We tend to evaluate people using mental stereotypes.

Highly vivid, frequent, or recent data heavily influences decisions.

“Anchoring” tends to affect decisions.

Stereotyping

Stereotyping in our world occurs when we base decisions on how well the applicant or employee fits our stereotype of the job. For example:

We tend to select employees who “look like” current employees (the applicant looks and talks like a banker, salesperson, analyst, engineer, etc.).

We think women don’t have the temperament to be executives, so we don’t promote them.

We think applicants can be selected by matching their scores against high producer averages.

Managers are afflicted with a “know ‘em when they see ‘em” syndrome.

HR interviewers want to “get to know” an applicant.

Frequent or Vivid Data

Another source of hiring mistakes is using vivid, frequent, or recent data to make decisions. For example:

Top producers’ skills are assumed to make them good managers.

Likable, good looking, or tall people are preferred over others.

Only when a well-known company loses a bazillion dollars in an EEOC challenge, do we focus on the need to defend ourselves against lawsuits.

One good or bad experience can affect all future decisions.

Anchoring

The last area to affect decision making is “anchoring.” Anchoring means that we evaluate new data using an arbitrary anchoring point. For example:

We are reluctant to spend $50 on tests to hire employees who earn less than $30,000, but will spend $5,000 to hire people who earn $100,000.

We assume applicants who score 90 on a test should outperform applicants who score 80.

Experience Trumps Facts

These are more than interesting facts. In essence, they are evidence that people have a persistent tendency to ignore knowledge in favor of personal opinion and experience.

So what kind of implication does this have for recruiting and HR? Plenty! It means that a disproportionate number of unqualified people are hired and promoted to the wrong positions. The cost? An average of 30% to 50% of payroll annually.

There are many observable symptoms of human errors in most corporations:

1. Gut reactions outweigh facts. (stereotyping)

2. Interviewers want to “get to know” applicants. (stereotyping)

3. Favorite tests persist, with no evidence of whether they work or not. (frequent or vivid data)

4. Management is reluctant to spend money to hire low-level positions. (anchoring)

5. Hiring tests tend to “migrate” from training workshops. (frequent or vivid data)

6. Interviews persist, despite the fact they are only accurate half of the time. (frequent or vivid data)

7. People scoring a 90 are perceived as “better” than people scoring 80 (frequent or vivid data)

8. Certain types of applicants do (or do not) work out in certain positions. (stereotyping)

I’m sure the reader can add more to this list; however, the important thing to remember is that people tend to do nothing with real knowledge, and even treat knowledge with suspicion. Basically, people tend to make decisions on data they think happened!

Dissonance Strategies

The solution for dealing with these errors requires another psychological strategy: “cognitive dissonance.” This is the term given to a condition where a person is presented with two totally conflicting beliefs.

For example, suppose we all believe we are the only sentient (i.e., self aware) beings in the universe – that is, until a dedicated researcher discovers vast colonies of teeny-tiny people living comfortably in belly-button lint (and you always wondered where the voices in your head were coming from!). Now we have to make a decision, we either accept the existence of belly-button people or not. In effect, the brain goes “tilt!” and one belief or the other needs to be rejected, because two totally conflicting beliefs cannot occupy our brain at the same time. That is cognitive dissonance (and belly-button people) at work.

Here are a few strategies you might consider using to defeat human errors associated with hiring:

Don’t argue, it will only encourage the person to defend his or her beliefs.

Use analogies to make the point – such as pro-sports tryouts, talent scouts, coaches, and playing conditions.

Get people to publicly agree that there are performance differences among employees.

Get people to admit that every applicant looked like a high performer during the pre-hire phase.

Conduct a brainstorming session to put a cost on low performance and a benefit on high performance.

Gather performance data (i.e., turnover, training, retention, sales, productivity, work attitude, and so forth) and statistically compare it to pre-hire test scores.

Stay abreast and distribute the latest EEOC litigation and settlements.

Managers, recruiters, and HR people seldom recognize the human tendency to make judgment errors unless they are presented with data that creates cognitive dissonance. This often includes a manager’s in-your-face awareness that he or she is personally losing the organization millions from low performance.

When presented with this type of data, entrepreneurial change agents don’t have to wait for opportunities, they can make their own.

Of course, the rest of the people can just continue believing interviews accurately predict performance, unvalidated tests are appropriate for hiring, variable employee performance is the norm, training can fix hiring mistakes, or sourcing is the biggest recruiting problem.

We all have a choice.

Keep reading »

Know The Difference Between Value And Commitment

by

Terry Petra on Oct. 1, 2004

fordyce-default

Practitioners as well as their prospects and clients often misunderstand one of the most fundamental principles of our business. This misunderstanding creates a multitude of problems ranging from heavily discounted fees to nonproductive working relationships, all of which can seriously compromise the likelihood for achieving a positive outcome.

This fundamental principle can be stated in two simple to understand sentences.

1. The size of the agreed upon fee must reflect the value a client places on the open position (see TFL 10/03 Justifying Your Fee A Value Proposition).

2. The payment terms (contingency, engagement fee, retainer) and the agreed upon working relationship reflect the client’s commitment to the recruiter (see TFL 06/04 Justifying An Engagement Fee).

It is imperative to understand the duality of this principle and not to confuse its two components, which frequently happens during fee negotiations.

Remember

Anytime a client is allowed to compare the size of your fee with their perception of the process you will follow in filling the position, you will probably lose.

Value (fee justification) is determined by the contribution of the position to the overall welfare of organization, not by the process utilized to acquire the individual to fill that position.

That is why not all open positions have an organizational value that justifies the payment of a fee. As an example, if, after quoting your fee to a prospect, they say “your fee is too high” or something of a similar ilk, you might consider responding in the following manner:

“It could be. How do you measure that in comparison to the internal indicator of the position’s value to your organization?”

Or

“It would be too high if the value you place on the work product for the position doesn’t justify this level of investment. In your organization, how is that measured?”

The purpose for these questions is to help the prospect/client focus on the value of the position. After all, if it is a low value position, paying a fee may not be in the employer’s best interest. On the other hand, if it is a highly valued position, the actual size of the fee should not be a problem. Nevertheless, if you allow the employer to use anything other than valid internal indicators on which to make this judgment, you are doing them a disservice.

The second component of the principle, payment terms and working relationship, reflects the employer’s commitment to you. They may agree to pay your fee yet not agree to work within the structure of a productive process. This could result from poor timing (other resources are already in play), a lack of understanding regarding the benefits of mutual commitment, or, as it is in most instances, a lack of confidence in the recruiter’s ability to successfully fill the position in a timely fashion. The operative words here are “lack of confidence.”

Remember

Without confidence, there is no commitment and without commitment, there is no relationship.

In situations where you have not previously worked with a client, you must build their confidence in your capability to produce a successful outcome. First of all, in order to do this, you must possess the wherewithal to accomplish the task and secondly, you must be ready and able to clearly articulate the specific steps of the process you will follow in order to create the necessary results (see TFL 10/02 “It’s in the How and not the What”).

If you fail to build an acceptable level of confidence in your client, you will not gain the commitment necessary to properly execute an effective process on their behalf. Without this commitment, your results, if any, will most likely benchmark you as industry average at best. You will have become a commodity in the eyes of the client.

Therefore, if you are interested in building privileged relationships with your clients while earning full fees; make certain that you understand the difference between “value” and “commitment.” More importantly, make certain your prospects and clients achieve the same understanding.

As always, if you have questions or comments about this principle or how to apply it, just let me know. Your contacts are always welcomed.

Keep reading »

Building Motivation To Get On The Phone

by

Scott Love on Jun. 1, 2004

fordyce-default

Do you find it difficult to create the energy to start making your round of phone calls in the morning? If so, then you are not alone. Even veteran big billers admit to me that sometimes it takes them as long as four hours to get the nerve to pick up the phone and make the first call.

Why is this? We know at the end of every day that the phone calling doesn’t hurt us. There are no bruises, cuts, or scrapes that we get from being on the phone. We have call reluctance, call aversion, fear of the phone, and plain old procrastination that keep us from reaching our fullest potential each morning.

What if there was just one idea that helped you overcome this fear of the phone and helped you start making more calls?

There is. All you have to do is make your money calls first. Call those people whose conversations will result in the deal going forward. Start your day with the phone calls that have the highest probability of closing a deal and you’ll be amazed at how much energy you get through the rest of the day.

These are known as the “money calls.” Start with a money call such as:

Offer acceptance conversation with a candidate.
Offer presentation conversation with a candidate.
Offer review with a client (where you got the letter and you are going to present it to the candidate, you just want to review it with the client before you do so.)
Offer draft conversation with a client (you found out what the candidate would say yes to, now you are sharing that with the client.)
Offer test with the candidate (you are finding out what the candidate would say yes to)
Interview debrief with the candidate
Interview debrief with the client
Interview prep with the candidate
Interview prep with the client

The energy that you receive from these calls gives you the positive association with going on to the next call. If we can have five good calls in a row first thing in the morning, then now you have a reason to stay on the phone. If you can develop an incentive to get going sooner in the mornings and to start strong, then you’ll stay motivated all day to stay on the phone. If you don’t think this will work for you, then try it for a week and see how much more motivated you are at getting and staying on the phone.

Keep reading »

Diversity Recruiting – Stereotyping

by

Frank McCarthy on Jun. 1, 2004

fordyce-default

“Dear God, so far today I’ve been pretty good. I haven’t cursed; I haven’t talked about my neighbor; I haven’t lost my temper; I haven’t been mean to anyone; I haven’t been greedy; I haven’t been selfish; I haven’t had too much to drink; I haven’t been nasty or coveted anything. I’m thankful for that. But in a couple of minutes, Dear God, I’m going to get out of bed and from then on I’m going to need a lot more help. Amen.”

A Quincy Jones remark is perfect right here: “I’ve always thought that a big laugh is a really loud noise from the soul saying: ‘Ain’t it the truth?’”

God must have a great sense of humor. The giraffe, the camel, the monkey attest to that. Some, Bostonians for sure, would say the New York Yankees fit this category. Many times when I experience things that happen in everyday life, human foibles and interactions, I think: “Here’s another example of God’s humor.” God must get a big kick and a few laughs out of the way we stereotype people who are different but I don’t think He sees any humor in the way we treat people who are different.

Stereotypes are harmful because they prevent us from seeing people as individuals with unique skills and characteristics. Stereotypes are almost always negative or have a negative effect on the person stereotyped.

Gordon Allport defines stereotyping as “a perceptual and cognitive process in which specific behavioral traits are ascribed to individuals on the basis of their apparent membership in a group…. A stereotype is an exaggerated belief associated with a category. Its function is to justify (rationalize) our conduct in relation to that category.”

Allport states that prejudice is a logical outcome of stereotyping. Prejudice, as defined in Webster’s Dictionary, is “a feeling, favorable or unfavorable, toward a person or thing, prior to, or not based on actual experience.” In The Nature of Prejudice, Allport takes it a step further: “Prejudice is an overt or hostile attitude toward a person who belongs to a group, simply because he belongs to that group, and is therefore presumed to have the objectionable qualities ascribed to that group.”

Many believe that we all have a natural tendency toward prejudice and stereotyping. Allport teaches that prejudice ranges from people whispering about or avoiding certain people, to discriminating against those people (keeping the country club white), to attacking certain groups with violence or semi-violence (isolating or making it tough for a neighbor of color), to death (lynching, massacres, genocide). According to Allport, a prejudiced person is a mixed-up human being. His words are strong:.

The course of prejudice in a life seldom runs smoothly. Prejudiced attitudes are almost certain to collide with deep-seated values that are central to the personality. The influence of the school may contradict the influence of the home. The teaching of religion may challenge social stratification. Integration of such opposing forces with a single life is hard to achieve.

Hey! This is pretty ponderous and dispiriting for a beautiful spring day. Lighten up. Go back to stereotyping; that’s more palatable. Is it? Listen to the words of Dr. Evelyn Scott in an address delivered in Melbourne, Australia:

It is stereotyping which is the root cause of racism; it is stereotyping which is preventing us from reconciling our differences….The term stereotype was first used in the eighteenth century to describe a printing process designed to duplicate pages of type. Today its meaning has changed dramatically. Today we recognize stereotyping as a fixed conception of a group which is held by many people, which allows for no individuality or critical judgment.

One of my clients is a major hospital where 139 different ethnic groups are served. Imagine listing all the stereotypes perceived in that environment. It would be easy and probably entertaining to specify universal examples of stereotyping. If I did so, this article would take an entire issue of TFL. Instead, let me quote Sondra Thiederman, the author of Making Diversity Work:

“Positive biases are as apt as negative ones to distort our perception of what a person is really like…. A big problem with positive stereotypes is that each good thing we inflexibly believe about a group is invariably paired in our minds with something negative…. I can think of few groups that we glorify more than the Irish, but our infatuation is a double-edged sword. Yes, we declare with a winsome smile, they are charming, but they are also childlike; yes, they are poetic but they are also moody and temperamental. Everyone, of course, knows how creative the Irish are; how sad, we say, that this creative spirit leads them to drink.”

The world is changing. We are becoming more ethnically diverse. People from different cultures are coming into daily contact with each other and this brings greater opportunity for the expression of stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination.

The main arena for this change is the workplace where the vast majority of us make our living. The workplace is made up of many groups. In Voices of Diversity by Renee Blank and Sandra Slipp, real people talk about problems and solutions in a workplace where everyone is not alike. The diverse voices portrayed in the chapters are those of African Americans, Asian Americans, Latinos, Recent Immigrants, Workers with Disabilities, Younger and Older Workers, Gays and Lesbians, Women, and White Men. Rather than deal with all the voices, let me conclude with some African American voices I have heard in the workplace in the past thirty-four years some are from this book, others from my experience:

- We never get honest feedback. We are always seen as blacks, no matter what; the black accountant, the black engineer. Race is always our identifier, our badge.

- Rarely are we singled out for our accomplishments. We have to be clearly better than our white counterparts.

- The old stereotypes follow us around they are always there. When we talk about veiled or overt discrimination, no one believes us.

- No matter how good our track record is, we still have to prove ourselves. Our achievements do not follow us.

- When we excel, we make people uncomfortable. Rarely are we part of the normal socialization in an organization.

Stereotyping is all of the above but it is also sad because we miss so much about the persons being stereotyped.

Keep reading »

Quit And Win! – How To Reduce Staff Turnover

by

Steve Finkel on May 1, 2004

fordyce-default

He had many years of experience as the successful owner/manager of a fine firm, yet he had a problem. “It’s not that I hire the wrong people,” he said to me. “It’s that I keep the wrong people too long.”

To coin a phrase, “He ain’t the only one!” Were a long-tenured owner/manager to add up his cumulative costs over his time in business, putting aside only commissions paid to consultants, it is probable that his highest expenditure would be not rent, not phone, not furniture. Rather, it would be the lost draws, social security, unemployment payments, phone, and business costs associated with ultimately unsuccessful consultants!

Moreover, in addition to tangible costs, that owner would have such items as time, emotional drain on both manager and office, lost deals (not always known), negative client reactions to a poor consultant, the fact that another person on the same desk could have been doing much better, candidates not recruited who might have been placed by someone else in the office. . . The expense of an unsuccessful consultant is truly staggering.

As our market continues to improve and we add to staff, we can expect a spate of tests, services, and consultants purporting to improve your odds in the selection of new employees. Bad idea. For some years, heavy testing was in vogue amongst many major corporations. Huge amounts were spent in an attempt to arrive at a formula or test which predicted success. Consistently poor or mediocre results have cause most of these firms to drop the testing programs. They have been weighed extensively and found wanting. Thirty-five years ago, Charles B. Roth, one of America‘s finest sales trainers and business authors, wrote, “The weakness of aptitude tests lies in the fact that they can’t tell much about intention; the important thing is a man’s willingness to throw himself whole-heartedly into the job.” This statement remains as true today as the day it was written.

What, then, is the answer? Given the assumption that the selection process and the initial training must both be as excellent as possible, what else can be done to prevent “keeping the wrong people too long?”

I believe that rigid adherence to a system of progressive and quantifiable steps of elimination will help any organization. The earlier an individual who lacks the necessary ingredients for success can be identified and eliminated, the more we can concentrate our time and money on those who deserve it and the greater our profits.

Following are some ideas to consider accomplishing just that:

Screening Interest

Perhaps the key factor involved in success in our business is a willingness to learn. Regardless of talent or even background, this business must be learned by serious study. The reason the “born salesman” is so seldom successful in search and recruiting is the long learning curve involved; a glib consultant unwilling to work hard to learn tends to be a “shooting star” of short duration.

Specific questions should be asked about this when checking references. However, beyond this, there is a simple way of testing for this vital quality. Give the prospective consultant a book on this industry to read, and see how enthusiastically he or she dives into it. A person determined to succeed will absorb the book rapidly, read some chapters twice, and come back with questions. A future failure will probably read very little.

There are several excellent books out on this industry now, the most recent being Larry Nobles’ well-written comprehensive work, “Search and Placement! A Handbook for Success” (www.larrynobles.com). Its obvious use is as a training manual and reference guide for every consultant. However, it will be found to be an effective “screening tool” for new people as well.

Don’t just “let the consultant read the book.” Give it to them, dated, signed, and inscribed (“To Bob, A future superstar”) by the manager. A serious person will highlight and underline it. See what happens. That’s how you determine Charles B. Roth’s previously-mentioned “most important thing” at an early stage.

Pre-Hiring

A well-respected individual with a major franchise organization recommends having the potential consultant make 25 to 50 calls (for example: Marketing calls) to a pre-determined list of prospects before hiring. This individual says he is not concerned with the results; he is concerned with how rapidly the potential consultant hits the phone and the amount of time spent between calls. Too much reluctance eliminates the candidate from contention.

While I have never personally utilized this method, it seems well worth considering as an early eliminator.

First Two Weeks

1. In the early stages of training, a series of daily written tests will help identify those who will be ultimately unsuccessful in our business at a very early stage, despite a rigorous selection process. This method has allowed those firms utilizing it to eliminate 25 to 35% of those hired in the first week. Barring major personal traumas, poor scores always indicate either a lack of intelligence or a lack of commitment (they didn’t study). Either eliminates a prospective consultant from eventual success and from further employment.

2. A written structured evaluation should be conducted at two weeks. While it is not possible to predict with certainty a “winner” at this time, it is frequently possible to predict a “loser.” Habit patterns such as arriving late and leaving early, not studying training material, poor voice or speech patterns, inattentiveness during sales meetings or formal training, and many other problems are unlikely to change. For a sample two-week evaluation form visit the author’s website (www.stevefinkel.com) and see the article

“The Early Evaluation”.

First Month

1. Every firm should have a good daily planner. (Planners are available for sale through our firm). Especially in a new consultant, a consistent reluctance to fill out the daily planner indicates an unwillingness to take direction, to follow the system, and to pay the price necessary for success in our industry. Termination of the new employee is indicated.

2. The new employee must keep track of his numbers. The manager should have minimum acceptable numbers each week which have been written out before the new employee comes on board. If the minimum number of calls is consistently not achieved, the employee lacks commitment. Early termination is the answer.

3. Correct Role-Playing should be a mandatory and on-going part of every training program (see “From Knowing to Doing: How to Implement” on author’s website for complete information). If the new consultant does not do well in role-playing, he cannot do well “for real.” Consistently poor performance in role-playing with no sign of improvement is a clear indication of qualities which do not indicate future success.

First Quarter

1. Minimum acceptable billings should also be determined and written out before the new employee comes on board. This will obviously vary depending on the firm, as a clerical desk will produce billings more rapidly that a technical desk, for example. The manager must determine what is acceptable for his firm, must write out his minimum anticipated results, and must rigorously eliminate those who fail to achieve these results.

2. Formal reviews of the fledgling consultant must be done at 30, 60, and 90 days. The consultant must be told his strengths, his weaknesses, and what is expected of him in terms of hard numbers during the next 30-day period. These expectations must be written out by the manager and put in the consultant’s file (copy to the consultant optional). This step will stop the old “he hasn’t produced any billings, but he’s got a lot going on” feeling at 90, 120, and even 150 days, as the investment in an unprofitable consultant spirals. Consistent failure to achieve pre-determined quantifiable minimum objectives necessitates termination . . .and the earlier, the better.

These suggestions, with the emphasis upon early elimination, may appear to be harsh to some. They are not. The pre-determined minimum objectives must be realistic, attainable, and based on knowledge of what has been achieved by others. To do otherwise is counter-productive. Given the fairness of the goals, however, the owner-manager must base his decisions as to the continued employment of new consultants upon quantifiable results at early stages of development.

As the market improves and recruiting firms add to their staff, many lessons of the past will have been forgotten by experienced managers or never learned to begin with by newer ones. There is no better lesson than learning how to make appropriate and logical decisions on new people with your firm.

Any improvement in the selection of consultants and in our initial training program will obviously benefit us; however, only by rigid adherence to a planned program of early termination predicated upon realistic minimum numbers can we truly develop our firmsand our profit margins to the maximum!

Keep reading »

Sharpen Your Attitude Edge

by

Scott Love on May 1, 2004

fordyce-default

An edge is all you need to get ahead in the world of executive search. You either close the deal or you don’t, and sometimes you get the account by a hair compared to your competitors. So just a slight edge is all it takes sometimes to win the competition’s business away from them.

Here’s how to get and keep an edge as it relates to your attitude. Remember that in search the whole decision to hire someone or to explore another opportunity is made subjectively based on the emotions, not the intellect, of the candidate and client. And one way you can sway them over to your side, assuming you have all the other components in place and the fit is a mutual satisfaction of needs, is to attract them to you with your insatiably positive attitude.

Many people believe that to be a good recruiter you need to have a caustic arrogant attitude. That’s just a cover-up for insecurity. The truly successful recruiters protect themselves from negative thoughts and low-level attitudes. They stay positive all the time. But it is nearly impossible in a profession to stay up all the time where the real “work” is to overcome all the rejection and witness the energy loss and time loss of deals that don’t get closed, sales that get missed, and opportunities that go to someone else. So how does a recruiter create and sustain an attitude so positive that it actually contributes energy back into his or her life?

Part of it has to do with daily affirmations. But that only goes so far. Plus, if you remember to do them, they start sounding rote and boring. So try something much more simple, much more powerful, and much more easier to remember than affirmations.

It’s a power phrase. Or call it a mantra. Or call it a short little phrase that gives you a burst of energy and creates the attitude of positive expectation in your life.

Here’s what I have used for many years and this little powerful and potent phrase has helped thousands of sales professionals all over the world:

“Today is going to be the most exciting day of my life.”

Say it as you are driving in to work tomorrow. Say it with expectancy. If you don’t believe that this will work or make a difference, try it for a week and send me an email telling me I was wrong. But this short pithy phrase of positive power can give you the edge that you need to stay more positive, more focused, more disciplined, and more aggressive in reaching your goals. It will give you enough energy to get the edge and get the business. Remember that an edge, no matter how slight, is still an edge, and sometimes that is all it takes to win the business.

Keep reading »