A recent study has shattered the myth that, in tumultuous economic times as these, full-time employees are forced into contract and freelance work due to layoffs and cutbacks. This study found that Contractors actually prefer the independent lifestyle, and, counter to popular belief, many individuals are choosing self employment.  A mere 13% of respondents were forced into contract work due to layoffs, and 80% of accidental contractors say they are happier now than they were before engaging in contract work.

Freelance and Contract work empowers women and men to lead the lives they want to live. 30% of female respondents and many men want to have schedules that accommodate the demands of daily life. They chose to be self employed because contract work makes this flexibility possible. Similarly, individuals have grown tired of answering to someone else, therefore over 20% of surveyed men, and many women, cited a desire to be their own boss as their top reason for switching to contract work.  Over half of the respondents were between 30 and 49 years of age, which indicates that Generations X and Y are switching to and finding success in contract work.

The study also pointed out that while the majority of respondents work full time as Contractors, some also use contract work for supplemental income. Contract work gives individuals the ability to increase their means because it affords more freedom to choose projects that work with an already busy schedule. This is also a great way for new graduates or people looking to switch careers to gain valuable job experience without sacrificing income.

The study found that optimism about future business prospects is high among contractors even though it also found that finding clients is the biggest challenge that contractors face today. Contractors primarily rely on referrals and networking to find work, and over 45% indicated they intend to leverage their personal network more in the coming year. However, over 45% also specified that they intend to social media more in their search for clients.

Contract workers currently represent 25% of the Canadian workforce, and this percentage is growing. People aren’t being forced into contract work due to layoffs; they are increasingly finding that contract work will allow them to enhance their lives both personally and professionally.

To find out how you can become a contract worker, contact CWS at

Christina Fabugais
Sales & Marketing Manager
Phone: 1-866-837-8630 Ex. 9077
Email: christina.fabugais@cwsolutions.ca

All statistics were found in: Gandia, Ed. 2011 Freelance Industry Report: Data and Analysis of Freelancer Demographics, Earnings, Habits and Attitudes. Sept, 2011. http://d3go1ztdjepprc.cloudfront.net/ifd2011/FreelanceIndustryReport2011.pdf

By Dr. John Sullivan & Master Burnett

Over the past six weeks, we have attended eight large conferences that focus on or relate to talent acquisition. On the agenda in all but one were sessions dealing with employee referral best practices (and Master Burnett and Gerry Crispin will be leading a discussion of referrals at ERE’s March 23-25 conference in San Diego).

Since we have invested a great deal of time investigating both the design and performance of programs in hundreds of organizations, we always make it a point to check out such sessions.

After struggling to sit through nine presentations and listening to countless uninformed opinions, we have to lash out at the masses of professionals who manage employee referrals in their organizations yet remain woefully unaware of what constitutes outstanding, good, average, and woefully ugly program performance.

Below Average Isn’t Great By Any Measure

The first observation that left us absolutely dumbfounded was the fact that nine out of the eleven companies presenting (some sessions were panels) hired significantly fewer employees via their employee referral program than the average company, and that one presenter didn’t even know what percentage of external hires their program produced.

You may think that hiring 1:5 external hires through your firm’s ERP is a good thing, but our research (nearly 700 programs strong) shows that the natural rate of referral (that achieved with no formal program at all) is 16%. Generic programs, those with ad hoc management, often produce 24-27% of external hires. Formally managed programs produce on average greater than 34% of their organizations’ external hires and strategic programs now often produce 48% or more.

Volume of external hires alone doesn’t distinguish a great program, and on that note we congratulate most of the speakers we encountered. All of the programs being highlighted had design elements that were put in place to specifically address organizational weaknesses. Some program elements focused on making the program more visible among remote employees who work in field roles; some focused on drawing more attention to urgent needs; and others on addressing past issues with poor administration of the program. While the design elements could certainly constitute “better practice” when the scope of consideration is local, none were addressing elements that characterize “best practice.”

Your Opinion Isn’t Always Right

Another common misconception that popped up frequently in session Q&As and post-session discussions was the notion that employee referral programs negatively impact diversity slates. Two presenters even went so far as to acknowledge this notion as fact. Few things disturb us more than when people in program-management roles make decisions without verifying assumptions and testing hypothesis. The research is very clear on this issue: 89% of the time employee referral programs produce diversity slates as diverse or more diverse than the organizations overall sourcing efforts. In the 11% of cases where referral programs produce less diverse slates, the organizations are almost always hiring a mass quantity of blue collar workers in geographic regions with low diversity.

The Rush to Social Media

It’s no secret that we love social media and see it as a phenomenally powerful way to dramatically improve nearly every key talent management activity in the enterprise, but simply adding social media broadcasting capability to employee referral programs is not by itself a best practice. If only 17% percent of your employees are active on social media, investing a great deal of time and effort in socializing your program ignores the masses that could be tapped with far simpler solutions. Doing something just because everyone else is doing it is never a good reason, yet it’s really the only reason the vast majority of speakers could articulate for investing in social media enabled ERP tools.

Step Up

If you manage your organization’s employee referral program or influence it in some way, you need to step up and accept responsibility for managing the design and performance of the program. Numerous studies demonstrate that a well-managed employee referral program can accomplish many things; unfortunately, too few organizations establish goals for their program and then design them to be able to accomplish them.

Want to know where your program stands? Participate in the 2010-11 Dr. John Sullivan Employee Referral Program Design and Performance Benchmark Study. Participation is free, as are summary results. Data collection kicks off Novmember 15, 2010. Pre-register to participate at http://bit.ly/ERPStudy.

Without even knowing the name of your organization I can predict that throughout the most recent downturn you let your employee referral program “go,” so to speak. By failing to take advantage of new trends, technologies, and tools, and decreasing efforts to update and keep the program highly visible, your organization has allowed a number of program-performance-degrading-things to occur.

Unlike the previously posted list of program design features that can “kill” an ERP, these factors plague even well-designed programs, rendering them weak and ineffective. While much more likely to occur during economic downturns and periods of reduced or halted hiring, these program degraders can emerge whenever an employee referral program is neglected.

If your program doesn’t seem to wield the power it once did, do a quick mental audit to see if any of these factors may be to blame.

The Top 20 Employee Referral Program Performance Degraders

  1. Loss of a program manager — losing or failing to replace a program manager charged with championing the program and keeping it active can lead to disastrous consequences even for a short period of time. Solution: a resource, hold them accountable, empower them with program metrics, and educate them on key ERP success and failure factors.
  2. Reliance on job announcement spam — unfortunately it has become common practice to spam employees with irrelevant job announcements and generic program communications, both of which overworked employees quickly learn to recognize and set aside. Solution: use a more targeted approach to sending out announcements, decreasing the overall volume, and making sure each contains information relevant and of interest to the recipient.
  3. Repetitive message formats — years of experience have demonstrated that using the same message format over and over will eventually result in employees tuning out the noise, just as you tune out the billboard that rarely changes on your commute to work! Solution: toss out form-messaging templates and craft a real communication that educates, empowers, excites, and calls for action.
  4. Repetitive rewards — program rewards and prizes are intended to excite, but once they become commonplace or stale, they cease to be effective. Solution: periodically change or rotate program incentives using a survey sent to a sample of your employees to determine what would or would not work.
  5. Program suspension — some organizations completely suspend their program when hiring is slow, resulting in an “out of sight, out of mind” mentality among employees with regards to being 24/7 talent scouts. Solution: regardless of requisition volume, never suspend a program. It’s OK to narrow the scope of the jobs covered or temporarily reduce incentives, but the process and mantra to keep employees scouting talent for future hiring needs must never cease.
  6. Not countering “inappropriate now” arguments — when reductions in force occur, it’s not uncommon for arguments against external hiring to emerge on the premise that giving a job to anyone other than those displaced already would damage morale. Solution: it’s unfortunate that reductions in force must occur, but when they do, those shed by the organization are often those in non-core roles or that possess skills no longer as valuable to the organization as their rate of compensation. To assume that a mission-critical or key vacancy could always be filled by the ranks of those laid off is silly. It’s also silly to assume that other organizations would be laying off volumes of talent in previously hard-to-fill areas, reducing the difficulty of recruiting scare talent moving forward. It’s the role of the ERP program manager to counter or prevent such arguments before they get started. In modern agile organizations, hiring can occur in critical business units just as layoffs occur in others. Make managers and employees aware that the development of new products and services (and their future job security) often depend upon access to new skills and technologies. While retraining those displaced is nice, sometimes it is both time and cost prohibitive.
  7. Not maintaining operational responsiveness — without dedicated attention, it is easy for programs with exceptional service standards to slip, resulting in delayed responses to inquiries, slower referral response times, and even complete non-responsiveness. Because response time is the No. 1 success factor for ERPs, service standards should be restored. Solution: re-examine the service standard expectations you have set for your program, and if unable to resource the program adequately to maintain them, reduce the scope of the program temporarily or seek volunteer assistance so that every interaction meets expectations.
  8. Relying on the original business case — business priorities change, unfortunately few HR organizations update their business case for key programs such as the ERP to reflect the changing environment. Without ongoing program positioning, it’s easy for programs to lose their executive champions and for participants to forget all the ways the program benefits them and makes the organization stronger. Solution: the business case for the employee referral program should be reexamined every quarter and changes should made to the program strategy and operating model in accordance with changing needs. Executives, managers, and employees in particular need to be reminded of the important role the program plays in building better teams and improving organizational performance. The communicated business case should include evidence of improved quality of hire, retention rates, diversity rates and promotion rates. It is especially important to update the “performance differential” calculation, which demonstrates that referral hires produce more on-the-job than other sources of hire.
  9. Ignoring new tools and technologies — programs designed even recently might not have taken advantage of newly developed referral tools, approaches, and technologies. In recent years a lot of development in process and technology has occurred to support vacancy prioritization, electronic referral marketing/communications, social network extension, external stakeholder participation and automated program administration. Solution: every quarter reevaluate how technology can empower the world-class process you desire to execute and try out many of the new service/tool offerings among pilot study audiences. With many tool developers adopting agile development methodologies, product offerings are likely to change/evolve frequently.
  10. A lack of employee education — even in great times many organizations failed to provide enough tools, training, and support to help employees uncover great talent within their network, so during tough times it’s no wonder that education efforts all but go away. Without referral events, manager executed referral activities, PDA parties, referral open houses, “Give Me Five” visits, and priming exercises, ERPs become purely reactive and fail to produce the volume of flow needed in the most critical areas. Solution: the referral team must develop quick but compelling presentations/exercise kits for employees and hiring managers (available both online and in person). These tools should explain and clarify new and revised policies, procedures, and expectations, as well as walk employees through simple exercises designed to help them identify possible referrals for current and near term key talent needs. Participant research reveals that a majority of employees are underwhelmed with the amount of how-to guidance their organization provides on identifying possible referrals, networking, dealing with “would you refer me” requests, and how to convert contacts into referrals.
  11. Not interfacing with related HR programs — in recent years many organizations have invested in social media programs, alumni group development, and contingent labor programs, all of which have logical ties to the ERP, but that might not have been used well during the downturn. Solution: put together a team with leaders from each related program to determine where partnerships make sense, where duplicate efforts are underway, and most importantly where resources/tools are underused.
  12. Outdated prioritization — well-designed referral programs prioritize vacancies based on their business impact, and referrals based on the past referral success rate of the referrer. However, the organization’s priorities may have changed. Solution: if you don’t have a prioritization schema, develop one now. If you do have one, work with senior management to adjust the schema based on emerging needs quarterly or as critical incidents emerge. (Note: prioritization does not require that individual referrals be treated any differently during the hiring process.)
  13. Lack of recruiter training — failing to periodically update training of existing recruiters and skipping the training of new recruiters regarding the critical success factors of referral programs can degrade a program from within. Solution: program managers need to be continually educated on the latest benchmark best practices and performance targets leading organizations are adopting and develop periodic training/information sessions for recruiters outlining their evolving role.
  14. Failing to do periodic upgrades — the performance of even the best-designed referral programs degrade quickly when program evolution ceases. Solution: if you are not now or have not been rolling out program enhancements and promotions at least once a quarter, start now. Tie enhancements and promotions to forecasted critical needs and short-term business issues to create natural excuses to communicate about the program and improve visibility.
  15. Not using metrics — great referral programs rely heavily on metrics to continually improve, but when times get tough, metrics often all but disappear. Solution: identify how employee referrals impact business operations and layer program performance metrics into existing finance and operations reports, making the program visible as a performance driver. Do not forget to quantify the dollar impact on revenue of the key quality of hire metrics.
  16. Mergers with other recruiting programs — during tough economic times, it is not uncommon for autonomous referral programs to be combined or merged with other recruiting programs. This lack of identity and control will rapidly degrade program performance. Solution: if you have merged your ERP with other initiatives, make the business case to restore its independence immediately.
  17. Unfounded legal fears — even well-designed referral programs get “nitpicked” on by “overly nervous” lawyers and HR professionals who often present their personal opinion as unbiased professional guidance. Solution: don’t argue with attorneys; instead, partner with them on the premise that it is the corporate counsel’s duty to find a way to do what the organization “needs” to do in a manner that reduces the organizations exposure to risk. You wouldn’t propose writing their legal documents, so they shouldn’t design your programs! Make the business case for key program features and outline the negative impact of foregoing a practice. Risk mitigation is about balancing the possible cost of litigation with the financial benefit of a practice. If you are not armed with ROI projections, real-world data, and best-practice benchmark examples, don’t expect to fend off unfounded legal arguments.
  18. New/alternate ATS — many applicant tracking systems provide an ERP module that becomes more attractive versus operating a separate ERP program with isolated infrastructure during tough times. These modules which allow employees to send an invitation to apply to referrals turn all referrals into online applicants long before they need to be. They also result in a dramatic decrease in the conversion rate of employee-initiated employee referrals. Solution: figure out when it makes sense in your organization for a referral to become an applicant, and structure your technology solutions to empower your process the way you want it versus altering your process to fit the design of an available tool. Hundreds of mashable tools and services exist today that can empower your program as you envision it.
  19. Failing to scale — in tough times organizations merge and get acquired. If your organization has done either, it’s not uncommon for a program designed for a small organization to be ineffective in a larger organization. Solution: evaluate what elements of your program can scale to meet the needs of the newly combined organization and which elements need redesign. Until all program elements can function effectively, consider limiting the scope of the program to that which the existing infrastructure can support at the service level desired.
  20. No globalization — if your organization has become a truly global one, as many have, your ERP must be globalized. Solution: look at all processes, communications, and policies to ensure that cross-border referral of talent is being facilitated, and that all possible scenarios have been planned for. Identify what elements of your global program my require localization (communications, rewards, etc.) and develop a matrix specifying each.

Final Thoughts

Very few things that are easy to do have more of an immediate impact than using a failure analysis “checklist” to conduct a quick assessment of an important HR program. With hiring targets growing, there is no more important recruiting program to assess than your ERP, don’t you agree?

How people communicate and leverage the web today has
significantly changed since 2007.  These
changes will challenge the recruitment and staffing profession to understand
web trends, become experts in programs and only execute activities that align
to both the brand promise and the brand experience.

What is a Brand
Promise?

The business dictionary defines “Brand Promise” as:  Benefits and experiences that marketing
campaigns
try to associate with a product in its current and prospective consumers‘ minds.

Definition 2:

The brand promise is what
audiences are assured of receiving as a result of their relationship with the
brand.

A Brand is our image in the marketplace.  Recruitment and Staffing is an extension of
the brand and the brand experience.
Therefore our customers, who are candidates, get attracted by our brand, the messaging and the opportunity. The activities we engage in as Recruiting
professionals should communicate the brand and serve as a beginning of the
brand experience.

STOP

Stop and ask yourself, what is your corporate Brand and how
does that translate to the experience a candidate should receive?  Would you segment your population? How?   Keep
that question in mind as you put in action your robust marketing plan. NOTE: ACTION
and EXPERIENCE can impact referrals and hires.
A poorly executed recruitment marketing program where the follow through
is the missing link, can create a word of mouth viral marketing effort that
counters all of the good efforts.

Web Behaviors

Now that we have walked through the definition of the Brand
Experience, the next step is to understand how the web is used by every day
people and how this can impact the success of our recruitment marketing
efforts.

In 2007 – 52% of the population were inactive.   33% watched.   19% criticized.    In recruitment the activities translate to
a focus on Job Boards, banner advertising,
and email communications.  The
critique factor came from websites such as Vault.com and corporatememos.com.  Technologically  applicant tracking system companies improved
the candidate interface, support two levels associated with source of hire, as well as enable communication
triggers and tools to communicate to a  candidate. Candidate communications were very
transactional and simple between the candidate and the employer. Finally the
OFCCP began their journey around the definition of an internet applicant.

In 2010 – 24% of
people used the internet to create, 33% converse, 37% are critics, 59% have
joined and only 17% are inactive.   How
this translates to recruiting are the increased tools to source candidates; The
evolution of Social networking websites such as Linkedin, Spoke and others;   Real-time communications such as twitter and
texting; Mobile media and interactive strategies to provide a candidate instant
access to a live person or experience. An increasing number of corporate critic
sites such as glassdoor.com and jobvent.com.
Technologically applicant tracking systems which have focused on
compliance must now merge with CRM tools to show the love. Finally, the start
of an evolution to actively market to retiree’s, alumni and contingent labor as
we move into the FREELANCE ERA.

Emotionally

The impact of these changes results into a set of expectations,
that due to economic trends and the stretched role demands of HR and
Procurement are not being met:

Candidates Want:

1.
Instant feedback

2.
Company insights and education

3. What
they read is what they should expect

4. A
clear path on how to enter a company whether it is full-time, part-time or
project based
employment.

Whereas Recruiters are expected to:

1.
Outreach to more people

2.
Obtain quicker results

3. Stay
focused

4.
Provide quality service

5. In
some cases move from a high touch                     to a high transaction delivery model

The reality of these changes are:

1.  People can learn and experience within a very
short amount of time.

2. Candidates
do not get the instant feedback, if any.

3.
Recruiters have many more people to sift through.

4. The
candidate experience has suffered.

5. HR
and Recruiting must execute programs and marketing with greater strategy and
skill.

6.
People are using and leveraging internet technology different and so must we.

7.
Networks are alive.

We need to look at how we work differently and fine tune all
of our strategies and practices to meet the changing world.  While today we grapple with measuring our
lead to hire ratios, we will also need to look at the brand and its impact over
time to attract and retain quality talent. All of which tie back to an ongoing recruitment
marketing strategy which is dependent upon an overall talent strategy within
the organization.

I continuously read the blogs
and articles about social media and proactive sourcing strategies. However it
is critical to remember that we need to measure the effectiveness of what we
are trying to accomplish. In other words is our recruitment marketing efforts
solving a need or generating a result? This article will look at two dimensions
of data that will help you create an effective recruitment marketing strategy
and measure the desired program objectives.  The two dimensions we will explore is “Prospect
to Sale” and “Ratio of Source of Hire ,by Job Type”.

Prospect to Sale

Prospect: A
prospect is a unique visitor that
visits your web property i.e. career site, blog, etc.

Lead: A lead
is a person that creates a profile within your applicant tracking system.

Non-Qualified Lead: A non-qualified lead is a person
that is dispositioned by reason at each stage in the recruitment process.

Sale: The
sale is the hire.

How to look at this data

The best way to look at this
data is over a six month period, ideally in a two year time period. For
example: January through June (2010 and 2009).  When looking at this data, it is best to note:

1.
The business
environment and it’s potential impact

2.
The effectiveness
of your recruiters ability to disposition all candidates through the process

3.
The degree of
error when a candidate self identifies their source – which will come into this
discussion later on in the article.

4.
Company brand and
it’s impact on overall candidate flow

If you do not have all of
this data, than work with what you can. See a snapshot below.  Here we do not have two years of prospect
data, and have weak data associated with year 1 of profiles created in the ATS
due to a new system implementation.

The Trends We Are Looking For

The trends with this data
that we are looking for are:

1.
At  a macro level are our recruitment marketing
efforts proportionately impacting our ability to hire? If yes, how?

2.
Prospect to Lead: Are we converting our prospects to
leads. So in other words, those who are landing on our web properties are they
applying for a job? If no, why?

3.
Lead to Sale: Are we attracting the right types of people to our website?  Are our leads to sales ratios improving?

4.
Inbound Recruiting vs. Outbound Direct Sourcing: What job types
is inbound marketing lead generation efforts more effective?  What job types do we need to focus on
outbound efforts?

5.
How does our lead
/ demand generation efforts impact our recruiting process and recruiter
effectiveness?

Ratio of Source of Hire By Job Type

Now that we have looked at
the trends from a macro perspective, lets slice this data by source and job
type.  The data elements we want to
explore are:

1.
Source of Hire:
Primary and secondary

2.
Total candidates
by source

3.
Total hired

4.
Ratio leads
generated to hired

5.
Cut by job type

Again there will always be a
degree of error in the data due to self identification and whether or not
recruiters are dispositioning all candidates in the process (this is a whole other discussion).

In this example – which is a
macro view:  Conversions from temp to
perm and direct sourcing are most effective, whereas the Internet is the least
effective, but creates the most amount of work.

To further dig into this
data, my recommendation is to look at job type and determine what job types can
be filled by XX recruitment efforts, and which job types do you have to put
more proactive strategies.

What does this look like in real life?

Many of you saw the Intuit
presentation at ERE on their social media strategy.  I loved it.
This strategy addresses a complex hiring challenge and is designed to
build brand recognition and a long term call to action within a target
population.  This team has done a nice
job segmenting where sourcing strategies are needed and how to solve their
business issues both short and long term.

Example two:

An organization I worked with
had to hire hundreds of people within a targeted period of time.  The marekting plan required a higher volume of
leads to get the hires. This process also created a need for additional
screening support to drive efficiency in the process.  The net of it is, a sophisticated social
media strategy would not work for a hiring event that required speed. However a
demand generation marketing program was the right solution.

Summary

Recruiting marketing is more
than throwing the latest and greatest  activities at a problem.  It does require an analytical way to measure
the effectiveness of what you are trying to solve.   Frankly this is the most costly part of
recruiting and dollars are tight. Making every dollar work for you is what we
all aspire to achieve.

Tracey Friend, tfriend@brightfieldstrategies.com

It is Monday morning and the facilities team is looking at
doing some consolidation.  This team sits
in New York and is looking at what they believe to be correct capacity numbers
for each of their campuses.  The reality
is, those numbers only account for a small % of the actual workers, working in
their facility.  They are missing the
contingent worker, the independent contractor and the worker who is supporting
a large scale statement of work.

Working in the Managed Services space, where traditional
recruiting groups play a small role, has opened my eyes to  a host of opportunities and challenges, that
either go unaddressed or become an issue when a crisis or an event occurs.  At a very high level, we have workers that sit
in our facilities, doing work on a day to day basis receiving a paycheck from
someone.   These workers expect to be
safe, have access to tools, systems and buildings and work collaboratively with
others.   The point of which these workers
gain access to these resources may vary and the turning on or off of these items can become challenged.

Let’s take this a bit further..

On-boarding

There are five types of workers that may come through your
door:


Full-time
worker:
Point of entry is the
recruiting department


Intern /
Part-time worker:
Point of entry is the recruiting department


1099
worker
: Point of  entry is
procurement, recruiting or line of business


Contingent
worker:
Point of entry is procurement, recruiting or line of business


Worker
under a statement of work:
Point of entry is procurement and line of
business

Policies and
Procedures

HR and Corporate Security typically establishes a set of
employment policies that incorporate topics such as background checks, drug
tests, E-verify, I9 verification, credit checks, relocation, visa processing, employee
handbook, physical security access and provisioning, etc.  All of these practices are designed to protect
the organization and its people.

Risk

Here is where it gets interesting. If full-time, contingent
labor and workers under a SOW are not managed inside an organization, than the policies
that were designed to protect an organization are now challenged.  Secondly if they are not managed through a
common or complimentary set of systems and tools, how do you really know who is
working in your facility?

Example:

An organization is deploying a very large scale ERP
implementation. The company is using the services and resources from a large
systems integrator.  This large systems
integrator had hundreds of resources at the customer’s location, working side
by side with permanent employees.  The
systems integrator did not require the same level of employment verification and
background checking as the corporation.   The reality is the resources through the
systems integrator could be on this project for two years, well that is
statistically the same as how many years a full-time person stays in their job.

Example 2

An independent contractor was hired by a line of
business.  The business leader reaches
out to corporate security and requests badge and systems access for this
worker. The worker is granted access.
Did this worker have to go through the same pre-screening process? Does
this person have insurance just in case something happens?  How will this worker off-board and have
access turned off when they leave? Who has visibility outside of the line of business
that this worker is working on site at a physical location?

Off-Boarding

In a recent RFP the organization stated they had thousands
of people who had access to their systems, however they did not know if these
individuals were still employed as a contractor or another type within the
organization.  This organization is not
unique!  This tends to be the norm,
placing people and corporate assets at risk.

A Look Closer

When an employee leaves an organization, there is typically
a checklist of off-boarding steps that begin to happen. The person must return
assets, credit cards, their access gets shut down, etc.  The question raised is, does this checklist
and practice transcend to other labor types inside the organization?  Who owns it and how is it managed?  Does one group have visibility into these
processes and practices?

Summary

My goal is not to create fear, but rather bring light to the
risks of not looking at total workforce management.  On-boarding and Off-boarding of talent is not
only important to the protection of the organization, but it is a critical
component of the people experience.  A
consistent experience minimizes room for error and can help facilities, HR, the
C-Suite understand the people resources they have working within their
facilities to provide the level of service their customers require.  The collective visibility of these two sets of
processes also allows HR to do better workforce modeling and analysis.

Some things to consider as you review your on-boarding an
off-boarding processes.  Is this
important?  Who has line of site
visibility into all of these labor categories? How are they managed?  What processes and practices are in place to
insure there are controls around entering and leaving the organization?  Who are the stakeholders inside your
organization that current own, defend or manage these processes? What risks
does your organization have as it relates to on and off boarding and are they
critical?

Based upon these answers, there are best practices that can
be developed to build consistent processes and practices.  To learn more, go to http://www.brightfieldstrategies.com/
to download a whitepaper on the evolving workforce.