Tuesday, July 13, 2010

Game Changer Recruitment...?

Earlier this week, I came across another masterpiece of an article by Dr John Sullivan in ERE, elaborating a case study to highlight why "Game Changer Recruitment is needed in all organisations."

Most recruiting managers focus on the cost of recruiting individuals (i.e. cost per hire), ignoring the potential return or the economic impacts that recruiting a game-changer will have. The case study illustrates a superior approach, one focused on return on investment.

Isn't it ironical that despite all the hype around human capital, today most companies pay more attention to the 'cost of hire' -rather than figure out how to maximise ROI!

Just look around- like Seth Godin says..our education system and society..makes people want to 'fit in'!
Take most job descriptions Why should not employees be rated on their competencies..rather than the number of yrs exp they possess?

We seem to encourage mediocrity -by generalising all candidates with a certain number of yrs exp -ought to be paid a certain salary budget!!

It is this valuation -a la commodity like behaviour..that also is responsible for companies having 'high rates of attrition', no? Since most people leave their managers anyway, and with a complaint that their contribution isn't recognised or rewarded?

We see it in the hospitality industry. A 4 star hotel can demand a better 'value for money' -because it has better systems /processes/infrastructure ..than a 3 star? Don't CMM level companies inspire more confidence than those who don't possess the certification?

We are possibly moving into a 'free agent' world, where the onus in the knowledge economy -of career development -lies now with the employee-more than the employer.

Do we see new assessment tools..would help employers evaluate..and sooner or later, the employees also see the benefit in 'being outstanding'!!

Or like the different rating agencies classifying different products as AAA+ and BB- while talking about Mutual funds and bonds, do we see such association henceforth while evaluating and compensating recruitment firms?

Or do we all like to play safe? And continue doing things the way we have been used in the past-and quote, "as per company policy, we pay x% to all firms -and we just want you to meet the (lowest common denominator!) expectations!"

I shall be glad to have your comments offline as before! Why trouble trouble, right?

No comments: