2010 poses interesting cross
roads in Talent Acquisition for many companies.
With the onset of changes from the IRS, DOL and new case law being
defined about fair employment practices, COMPLIANCE AND COST MANAGEMENT have
become driving forces over building good infrastructure. These challenges have been compounded by the
increase in focus around contingent labor as part of a total strategy,
rebuilding talent programs to support
the ever changing needs, limited budgets, decision making capabilities and
finally supporting ongoing mergers and acquisitions. In speaking with many
Talent Management Leaders, it is not about doing “what is right” it is about “botox”
and deploying solutions that can decrease cost and manage compliance. A leader
in this space must focus on blocking and tackling and deploying solutions that
leverage the resources they currently have in a way an organization is ready to
have them perform. The reality is, the
READINESS and EXPECTATIONS, may not align with the RIGHT set of solutions.
This insight is as a
result of my activities over the last
few months that have focused on audits, vendor selection, process documentation
and technology implementations. The
themes for this have been “help me save money, make my life easier and keep me
compliant”. However while the themes are
alive, the work expectations of a Talent Acquisition / Management leader have
increased exponentially as they must execute strategically, tactically as well
as block and tackle. The internal struggle
becomes do I check the box or do I do it right? OR as I
say do you do Botox or a full facelift?
While I am not sure this
article will solve this problem, this
article will provide some benchmarks of how peers are successfully deploying
solutions and working within these constraints.
Benchmarks: What are some of your peers doing?
Two large organizations, recent spinoff’s, no technology, variable hiring
Limitations: Limited resources, budget for external
consultants, executive appetite for doing the required pre-work and post
implementation change management.
Botox Actions: Develop generic processes, hiring manager
self service is a big decision, no integrations, career site facelift (simple),
simple approval processes, job board memberships, basic on-boarding and compliance
Gaps: Internal mobility (process and policy), Search firm management process and practices,
ERP integrations, integrated background and screening vendors and thorough
requirements development associated with college, internal, volume,
professional and executive hiring practices. Change management and user acceptance programs
Focus: Contingent and Direct Hiring Practices.
Description: 5 Companies, 2 Global,
variable hiring practices.
Limitations: Technology, policy adherence, corporate
cultures, competing priorities and resources.
Botox Actions: Contingent Workforce Audits, Direct Hire Audits, Process Documentation,
Recruitment Operations Guide Creation. Legal defensive support vs. pro-active policy
Gaps: (Contingent): The ability to execute with
speed. (Direct): Resources, change
management, centralized policy administration, operational management resources
dedicated to HR compliance.
Focus: Direct Hiring Practices.
Limitations: Process optimization, sourcing tools,
assessment tools, on-boarding systems and practices, transactional service
delivery (order taking focus).
Botox Actions: Increase
in temporary hiring, adding of contract recruiters, investigation of RPO with longer
decision cycles, basic branding and recruitment advertising support for web, social
media execution w/o aligned strategy,
refined job postings and communications.
Gaps: Process development / optimization,
vendor management practices, recruitment marketing strategy and metrics,
workforce planning, consultative / high value recruitment delivery practices,
alignment to the business, training and recruiter development.
External Solutions (RPO, MSP, Research,
Project Recruitment, Consulting)
Focus: Direct and contingent hiring practices.
and long term commitment to a solution.
Actions: Business case development, increased supplier
presentations, competitive pricing, longer decision making cycles, increase in internal stakeholder management and contracts
that assume less liability as a buyer of services.
Gaps: Budgets with decision making ability to
As filling requisitions remains
a focus, compliance and litigation can distract the progress of an HR / Talent
Management and Contingent Workforce Management organization. Below are a few snippets from www.lexology.com, that are real issues
causing a distraction in policies, practices and HR’s focus.
v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals, a
jury awarded over $250 Million to a class of female sales employees who claimed
that they were paid less than their male counterparts. Statistical analysis was
used in an effort to show that females systematically received lower
performance ratings than men in comparable jobs.
Social networking sites (e.g., Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, Twitter, etc.) are fast becoming a popular
tool for employers seeking information about job applicants. It has been reported that the
number of employers currently using social media during the recruitment and
hiring process has more than doubled in the past two years. According to the
same source, 45 percent of employers currently use social networking sites to
screen potential job candidates and 35 percent of those employers have rejected
an applicant because of information they discovered, such as inappropriate
pictures, information regarding alcohol or drug use, and postings in which the
applicant “bad-mouthed” a former employer, bragged about prior acts of
misconduct or made discriminatory remarks.
The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a ruling that may create additional
liability for employers whose policies have a disparate impact upon minorities.
On May 24, 2010, in Lewis v. City of Chicago, 560 U.S. _____ (2010), the Court
held that a disparate impact discrimination claim may arise not only from the
adoption of an employer policy which has a disparate impact upon individuals in
a protected class, but also in all future implementations of the practice
covered by the policy. With recent studies exposing the potential disparate
impact of common employer policies, such as using social media for background
checks and recruiting, this case may have a far-reaching effect.
remember that disparate impact claims may arise not only from the introduction
of a policy such as a social media background check policy which results in a
disparate impact or discrimination, but also each hiring decision which results
from implementation of that policy. In light of this ruling, employers may want
to consider these practical pointers:
Examine your hiring,
screening and promotion policies, including your social media background check
and recruiting policies, to ensure they do not result in inequalities on the
basis of protected classes, e.g., race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;
If your policies do
result in such inequalities, ensure that you have documentation which
establishes the business necessity of the policies; or
policies and implement new ones which do not result in disparate impact or
discrimination, and ensure that social media is not the sole source for recruitment and background checks.
Many organizations are rebuilding and having to work within
the parameters that are acceptable within their organization today. This should not stop good work it just makes
the journey towards excellence bumpier and a longer road to travel. To all of
those smart people I have and continue to work with – I appreciate that they
continue to do great things – just baby steps instead of one giant step for
mankind. I would be happy to discuss
these details in further, should you be interested, contact my at firstname.lastname@example.org