“Products are made in a factory but brands are created in the mind.” – WALTER LANDOR
Questions & more Questions?
“Ask them about their previous roles.”
“Discuss the overall cost up front.”
“Make sure to check references.”
These are some suggestions you might have heard when someone gives you unsolicited advice on how to hire the right employees or consultants. Well, all the aforementioned points are true, of course. You should check a consultant’s online reviews, disclose your budget, and take a look at their previous achievements. It’s a no-brainer.
However, in this article, we’ll talk about some aspects of the process of hiring consultants that don’t get discussed quite often.
You Should Go for ‘Top Consultants’, Not ‘Top Consulting Firms’
When a brand name is attached to a product or service, it’s considered okay to charge an insanely high amount to customers. This applies to consultancies as well. When it comes to consultancies, there are just a handful at the top and the rest are mostly unheard of by most people. Not saying that these big names don’t do a great job. But if you’re willing to think outside the status quo and explore other options, you’ll likely find a top consultant for the quarter the price.
The task of hiring the best consultants doesn’t always have to involve the best consultancies. It sounds like an obvious thing, but surprisingly, so many business owners don’t even consider the possibility of looking at some other places when hiring a consultant.
Whether you hire a freelance consultant or one from a top consulting firm, in the end, you’ll likely have only one, or a couple of consultants who actually work with you. Choose this person based on their personal and professional attributes—not just a big brand name.
The Process of Hiring a Consultant Is Similar to That of Hiring Employees
Howdo you hire a permanent full-time employee if you’re too busy with your day-to-day operations? It’s simple. You could approach a recruitment agency to handle 80% of the hiring process for you. Then you can interview the top candidates and onboard the chosen one.
The same process can be used to hire a freelance consultant. The only difference is that instead of visiting a recruitment agency, you can approach an online consulting platform. These freelance platforms give you access to hundreds of top management consultants at any time. You can even find consultants who have worked for Google, Facebook, and other Fortune 500 companies.
Sometimes, small and medium-sized business owners who >are not used to working with consultants solely rely on their professional network or social media ads when they’re thinking about hiring a consultant. But it doesn’t have to be this way anymore. The advent of online consulting platforms has made it so easy for businesses to find the best consultants in a matter of days.
There Are Dozens of Niches Consultants Specialize in
Yes, consulting is more than just business strategy advice or accounting—which are a couple of niches that big consulting firms specialize in. In reality, you can, and should, find consultants for your specific business problem. There’s no doubt that generalists can get the job done as well, but why not hire a consultant who has solved the same problems in the same niche before?
For example, if you’re thinking about hiring a consultant to create your company’s weekly newsletter, you should hire an inbound marketing consultant because they specialize in such tasks. Similarly, if you want to run Facebook ads for your next annual sale, it’s recommended that you hire a Facebook ads consultant instead of a generalist marketing consultant who ‘kind of’ knows about social media ads but isn’t very experienced.
That’s why it’s crucial that you define your problem first and then decide which type of expertise and skills you’re looking for in your consultant.
Your Entire Team Should Be Open to the Idea of Hiring a Consultant
The decision to hire a consultant should be collective. Hiring the best management consultants is easy, but to make the most of this opportunity depends on the whole team. A consultant’s knowledge and experience might not be of any use if they’re not offered proper support and collaboration from internal stakeholders, especially senior management.
Sometimes, consultants are seen as temporary outsiders and kept at a distance by the permanent team. It’s an age-old human tendency to be a bit skeptical of strangers. Before you bring a consultant on board, let your whole team feel included in the decision, so they don’t feel undermined later. Let them know exactly how each employee and the company will benefit because of the consultant.
For instance, if you’re hiring an Agile coach to help you incorporate your company’s new operations process for the first time, discuss with your team how convenient it’ll make their weekly operations. Make the consulting engagement a win-win for everyone.
It’s often believed that the only thing that a business needs to do is hire a consultant, and they’ll take care of all the problems. What no one tells you is this: The company and the consultant need to work as a team. Sometimes, the consultant will lead the situation, but sometimes, they might need some help from the team as well.
Hiring the best consultants has never been easier because of the ubiquity of freelance consulting platforms. It might just take a few clicks and a couple of phone calls before you’re discussing your project with a top consultant. Businesses can now hire some of the best consultants in the world without even approaching the Big Four firms. No matter what your problem is, there’s a consultant out there that specializes in solving them. All you need to do is approach an online consulting platform.
As daylight savings approaches and 2021 is well underway, it’s a good time to think about different ways you can, well, save time. These days, employees are spending more and more time at the office–certainly exceeding the typical 40-hour workweek. However, increasing hours worked does not necessarily translate to increased efficiency.
So, how can leaders and managers improve employee productivity while still saving time? Here are the top 10 things you can do to increase employee efficiency at the office.
1. Don’t Be Afraid to Delegate
While this tip might seem the most obvious, it is often the most difficult to put into practice. We get it–your company is your baby, so you want to have a direct hand in everything that goes on with it. While there is nothing wrong with prioritizing quality (it is what makes a business successful, after all), checking over every small detail yourself rather than delegating can waste everyone’s valuable time.
Instead, give responsibilities to qualified employees, and trust that they will perform the tasks well. This gives your employees the opportunity to gain skills and leadership experience that will ultimately benefit your company. You hired them for a reason, now give them a chance to prove you right.
2. Match Tasks to Skills
Knowing your employees’ skills and behavioral styles is essential for maximizing efficiency. For example, an extroverted, creative, out-of-the-box thinker is probably a great person to pitch ideas to clients. However, they might struggle if they are given a more rule-intensive, detail-oriented task.
Asking your employees to be great at everything just isn’t efficient–instead, before giving an employee an assignment, ask yourself: is this the person best suited to perform this task? If not, find someone else whose skills and styles match your needs.
3. Communicate Effectively
Every manager knows that communication is the key to a productive workforce. Technology has allowed us to contact each other with the mere click of a button (or should we say, tap of a touch screen)–this naturally means that current communication methods are as efficient as possible, right? Not necessarily. A McKinsey study found that emails can take up nearly 28% of an employee’s time. In fact, email was revealed to be the second most time-consuming activity for workers (after their job-specific tasks).
Instead of relying solely on email, try social networking tools (such as Slack) designed for even quicker team communication. You can also encourage your employees to occasionally adopt a more antiquated form of contact…voice-to-voice communication. Having a quick meeting or phone call can settle a matter that might have taken hours of back-and-forth emails.
4. Keep Goals Clear & Focused
You can’t expect employees to be efficient if they don’t have a focused goal to aim for. If a goal is not clearly defined and actually achievable, employees will be less productive. So, try to make sure employees’ assignments are as clear and narrow as possible. Let them know exactly what you expect of them, and tell them specifically what impact this assignment will have.
One way to do this is to make sure your goals are “SMART” – specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and timely. Before assigning an employee a task, ask yourself if it fits each of these requirements. If not, ask yourself how the task can be tweaked to help your workers stay focused and efficient.
5. Incentivize Employees
One of the best ways to encourage employees to be more efficient is to actually give them a reason to do so. Recognizing your workers for a job well done will make them feel appreciated and encourage them to continue increasing their productivity.
When deciding how to reward efficient employees, make sure you take into account their individual needs or preferences. For example, one employee might appreciate public recognition, while another would prefer a private “thank you.” In addition to simple words of gratitude, here are a few incentives you can try:
PTO: Instead of a bonus or raise, you can offer your employees additional paid time off without having to use their vacation or sick time.
Take Them Out For a Meal: You can take the team out to lunch, dinner, or happy hour. Maybe even allow them to leave work early to do so.
Send a Handwritten Note: Sending a handwritten note shows you recognize the great work your employees have done and that you care enough to put your own personal time into thanking them.
Lazy Monday Coupons: Another option is a “Lazy Monday” coupon, which allows employees to arrive late on a Monday morning.
Tell Your Boss: If you email the team or team member thanking them for their work, considering copying YOUR boss on the email.
Try a Wellness Program: Consider implementing a workplace wellness program to cut down on the number of sick days and reduce your company’s overall health insurance spend.
6. Cut Out the Excess
If possible, try not to give employees smaller, unnecessary tasks when they are focused on a larger goal. Take a look at the team’s routine, and see if there is anything that you can cut to give employees more time to focus on higher-priority assignments.
For example, if employees are asking to write daily reports for their supervisors, but supervisors generally don’t have time to read them, consider cutting the word count requirement. Doing something simply as a formality is wasting valuable time that could be used for accomplishing goals that actually help your company.
7. Train and Develop Employees
Reducing training, or cutting it all together, might seem like a good way to save company time and money (learning on the job is said to be an effective way to train, after all). However, this could ultimately backfire. Forcing employees to learn their jobs on the fly can be extremely inefficient.
So, instead of having workers haphazardly trying to accomplish a task with zero guidance, take the extra day to teach them the necessary skills to do their job. This way, they can set about accomplishing their tasks on their own, and your time won’t be wasted down the road answering simple questions or correcting errors.
Past their original training, encourage continued employee development. Helping them expand their skillsets will build a much more advanced workforce, which will benefit your company in the long run. There are a number of ways you can support employee development: individual coaching, workshops, courses, seminars, shadowing or mentoring, or even just increasing their responsibilities. Offering these opportunities will give employees additional skills that allow them to improve their efficiency and productivity.
8. Embrace Telecommuting
Allowing your employees to work from home might seem inefficient – after all, how can you guarantee that they will still be productive if no one is watching them? However, the reality is quite the opposite (in fact, studies show that people who work from home are 13% more productive than office employees). Letting your employees telecommute will allow them to save time that would otherwise be wasted completely.
For example, say an employee is feeling too ill to come into work (or is simply worried about getting their coworkers sick) but can still be productive. If you don’t allow them to work from home, they will be forced to take a sick day and skip working altogether. Or, forcing your employee to miss an entire day of work if they have to wait for that 2-4 hour period to get their refrigerator fixed, simply isn’t efficient. Instead, allow your employee to work from home so they can maximize what time they do have available.
9. Give Each Other Feedback
There is no hope of increasing employee efficiency if they don’t know they’re being inefficient in the first place. This is why performance reviews are essential – measure your employees’ performance, then hold individual meetings to let them know where they are excelling, and what areas they need to work on.
Increasing employee efficiency isn’t all about what they can do better – some of the responsibility falls on you as well. But just like your employees, you aren’t psychic. So after reviewing your employees, ask them what you could do to help them improve. Maybe they would like a little more guidance on certain tasks, or would prefer a little more room for creative freedom. Asking for feedback not only gives you clear, immediate ways to help your employees improve, but also encourages a culture of open dialogue that will allow for continued development over time.
10. Think Big Picture
Things that might seem like an inefficient use of time to you now, might actually be to your advantage in the long run. So, before vetoing an apparent misuse of time, ask yourself how this could possibly benefit your company.
Investing in HR System now can save your company – and your employees – countless hours down the road. From automated onboarding to payroll that runs itself, embracing HR technology will improve efficiency, reduce frustration, and help your business grow.
By utilizing a number of our efficiency tips, you can be sure that you don’t fall behind and put that extra hour to good, productive use.
Praesent justo nisl, auctor sed sapien ut, mattis consequat massa. Sed posuere consectetur est at lobortis. Maecenas faucibus mollis interdum. Praesent commodo cursus magna, vel scelerisque nisl consectetur et. Integer posuere erat a ante venenatis dapibus posuere velit aliquet. Morbi leo risus, porta ac consectetur ac, vestibulum at eros. Donec ullamcorper nulla non metus auctor fringilla. Vestibulum id ligula porta felis euismod semper. Etiam porta sem malesuada magna mollis euismod. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Fusce dapibus, tellus ac cursus commodo, tortor mauris condimentum nibh, ut fermentum massa justo sit amet risus. Aenean lacinia bibendum nulla sed consectetur.Vestibulum id ligula porta felis euismod semper. Vivamus sagittis lacus vel augue laoreet rutrum faucibus dolor auctor. Nulla vitae elit libero, a pharetra augue. Nulla vitae elit libero, a pharetra augue. Vivamus sagittis lacus vel augue laoreet rutrum faucibus dolor auctor. Cras mattis consectetur purus sit amet fermentum. Fusce dapibus, tellus ac cursus commodo, tortor mauris condimentum nibh, ut fermentum massa justo sit amet risus. Sed posuere consectetur est at lobortis. Aenean lacinia bibendum nulla sed consectetur. Aenean lacinia bibendum nulla sed consectetur. Maecenas sed diam eget risus varius blandit sit amet non magna.Sed posuere consectetur est at lobortis. Maecenas faucibus mollis interdum. Praesent commodo cursus magna, vel scelerisque nisl consectetur et. Integer posuere erat a ante venenatis dapibus posuere velit aliquet.Morbi leo risus, porta ac consectetur ac, vestibulum at eros. Donec ullamcorper nulla non metus auctor fringilla. Vestibulum id ligula porta felis euismod semper. Etiam porta sem malesuada magna mollis euismod. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Fusce dapibus, tellus ac cursus commodo, to Vivamus sagittis lacus vel augue laoreet rutrum faucibus dolor auctor. Nulla vitae elit libero, a pharetra augue. Nulla vitae elit libero, a pharetra augue. Vivamus sagittis lacus vel augue laoreet rutrum faucibus dolor auctor.Cras mattis consectetur purus sit amet fermentum. Fusce dapibus, tellus ac cursus commodo, tortor mauris condimentum nibh, ut fermentum massa justo sit amet risus. Sed posuere consectetur est at lobortis. Aenean lacinia bibendum nulla sed con. Vestibulum id ligula porta felis euismod semper. Vivamus sagittis lacus vel augue laoreet rutrum faucibus dolor auctor.
Superior talent is up to eight times more productive
It’s remarkable how much of a productivity kicker an organization gets from top talent. A recent study of more than 600,000 researchers, entertainers, politicians, and athletes found that high performers are 400 percent more productive than average ones.2 Studies of businesses not only show similar results but also reveal that the gap rises with a job’s complexity. In highly complex occupations—the information- and interaction-intensive work of managers, software developers, and the like—high performers are an astounding 800 percent more productive (Exhibit 1).
Suppose your business strategy involves cross-functional initiatives that would take three years to complete. If you took 20 percent of the average talent working on the project and replaced it with great talent, how soon would you achieve the desired impact? If these people were 400 percent more productive, it would take less than two years; if they were 800 percent more productive, it would take less than one. If a competitor used 20 percent more great talent in similar efforts, it would beat you to market even if it started a year or two later.
You get even more remarkable results comparing the productivity of the top and bottom 1 percent. For unskilled and semiskilled jobs, the top 1 percent are three times more productive; for jobs of middling complexity (say, technicians and supervisors), 12 times more. One person in the top 1 percent is worth 12 in the bottom 1 percent. For high-complexity jobs, the differential is so big it can’t be quantified.3
The late Steve Jobs of Apple summed up talent’s importance with this advice: “Go after the cream of the cream. A small team of A+ players can run circles around a giant team of B and C players.”4 Management guru Jim Collins concurred: “… the single biggest constraint on the success of my organization is the ability to get and to hang on to enough of the right people.”5
Great talent is scarce
The term “war for talent” was coined by McKinsey’s Steven Hankin in 1997 and popularized by the book of that name in 2001.6 It refers to the increasingly fierce competition to attract and retain employees at a time when too few workers are available to replace the baby boomers now departing the workforce in advanced economies.
Fast forward to the wake of the Great Recession, and the war for talent turned into the war for jobs. In economies gripped by financial crises, unemployment hit levels not seen since the early 1980s, so there was no shortage of applicants for many openings. When Walmart launched a new Washington, DC, store in 2013, for example, it received 23,000 applications for 600 positions.
It was harder to get entry-level work there than to be accepted by Harvard: 2.6 percent of Walmart applicants made it through, as opposed to 6.1 percent for the Ivy League university.7
Yet this didn’t end the war for talent. In medium- and higher-complexity positions, where stronger performers have an increasingly disproportionate bottom-line impact, the opposite was true. In those uncertain times, gainfully employed talent became less likely to change employers, so people who had an advantage going into the crisis had an even bigger one. Further, pressure to reduce HR costs made it harder to identify and attract the most talented people. Everything suggests that the war for talent will rage on. “Failure to attract and retain top talent” was the number-one issue in the Conference Board’s 2016 survey of global CEOs—before economic growth and competitive intensity (Exhibit 2). In more complex jobs, this will continue to be true as baby boomers (and their long experience) exit the workforce and technology demands more sophisticated skills.
A McKinsey Global Institute study8 suggests that employers in Europe and North America will require 16 million to 18 million more college-educated workers in 2020 than are going to be available. Companies may not be able to fill one in ten roles they need, much less fill them with top talent. Yet in advanced economies, up to 95 million workers could lack the skills required for employment. Developing economies will face a shortfall of 45 million workers with secondary-school educations and vocational training.9
Most companies don’t get it right
Since business leaders know that talent is valuable and scarce, you might assume that they would know how to find it. Not so (Exhibit 3). A whopping 82 percent of companies don’t believe they recruit highly talented people. For companies that do, only 7 percent think they can keep it.10 More alarmingly, only 23 percent of managers and senior executives active on talent-related topics believe their current acquisition and retention strategies will work.11
These leaders aren’t being humble—most companies just aren’t good at this stuff. Gallup reported that in a 2015 survey, more than 50 percent of respondents were “not engaged”; an additional 17.2 percent were “actively disengaged.”12 Related surveys report that 73 percent of employees are “thinking about another job” and that 43 percent were more likely to consider a new one than they had been a year earlier.13
The fact that the Baby Boomers’ decades of knowledge and experience are now leaving the workplace forever makes this state of play more unsettling. At the natural resources giant BP, for example, many of the most senior engineers are called “machine whisperers” because they can keep important, expensive, and temperamental equipment online. If high-quality talent isn’t brought in to replace such people, the results could be catastrophic.
And the scarcer top talent becomes, the more companies that aren’t on their game will find their best people cherry-picked by companies that are. In the future, this will be even more likely, since millennials are far less loyal to their employers than their parents were. The Bureau of Labor Statistics says that workers now stay at each job, on average, for 4.4 years, but the average expected tenure of the youngest workers is about half that.14 People often underestimate the cost of turnover: the more information- and interaction-intensive the job, the greater the threat to productivity when good people leave it, and the more time and money must be invested in searching and onboarding. And if competitors poach your talent, they get an insider’s understanding of your strategies, operations, and culture.
Talent matters, because its high value and scarcity—and the difficulty of replacing it—create huge opportunities when companies get things right. Let’s now turn to how they can do that.
What are the big ideas?
Focus on the 5 percent who deliver 95 percent of the value
Companies go through cycles of initiatives to improve their talent processes. Yet they reap only incremental improvements, and the vast majority of leaders report that their companies neither recruit enough highly talented people nor believe that their current strategies will work.
What do these leaders miss? Let’s consider American football. If you asked people who is the most highly paid player on a team, they would correctly say the quarterback, the key person in the vast majority of plays. People would probably say that the second most highly paid player was the running back or the wide receiver since they work directly with the quarterback to advance the ball. These people are wrong. It’s the relatively unnoticed left tackle, who protects the quarterback from things he can’t see and could injure him.
Some employees disproportionately create or protect value, and not all of them are obvious. A navy, for example, should obviously ensure that it has the best and brightest people commanding fleets of nuclear submarines. Equally, however, it should ensure that it attracts superior talent to the role of the IT-outage engineer, who prevents catastrophes for the crew, the environment, and humanity. In a world of constrained resources, companies should focus their efforts on the few critical areas where the best people have the biggest impact. Start with roles, not processes (which create generic solutions that don’t meaningfully improve results) or specific people (who might help you in particular situations but don’t build institutional muscle).
Picking the right battles isn’t easy—you must understand the true economics of value creation in specific roles. That’s precisely why this can be one of your secret weapons in the war for talent.
Make your offer magnetic—and deliver
Leaders know the term “employee value proposition,” or EVP: what employees get for what they give. “Gives” come in many flavors—time, effort, experience, ideas. “Gets” include tangible rewards, the experience of working in a company, the way its leadership helps employees, and the substance of the work (Exhibit 4). If your EVP is truly stronger than the competition’s, you will attract and retain the best talent. But for three reasons, few companies have EVPs that meaningfully help them win this war:
Not distinctive. A typical human-resources department spends months determining what employees want—a great job, in a great company, with great leaders, and great rewards. HR then says the value proposition should deliver all this, so the EVP resembles that of every business that’s gone through the same process. It’s better for companies to stand out on one dimension while not ignoring the others. Work for Google if you want to face complex challenges, for Virgin if Richard Branson’s leadership stirs you, or for Amgen, if you aspire to “defeat death.”
Not targeted. Although it’s fine to have an overall EVP, what matters most is a winning EVP for the 5 percent of roles that matter most. If data scientists are hugely important, for example, you’ll want an EVP that lets them invent things; offers a clear, rapid career progression; and helps them have a big impact.15
Unreal. An attractive EVP cooked up by HR and pushed through PR used to help secure the best talent. In the long term, however, this was always a losing proposition, since great people would quickly become disillusioned if the reality didn’t measure up. Today, however, talent won’t buy such promises at all. Employees are a more trusted source of information about working conditions than CEOs or HR chiefs.16 The same Internet and social media that help customers investigate product claims do the same thing for EVPs. Sites such as Glassdoor or Job Advisor offer peer ratings and reviews of what it’s really like to work for a company. Your EVP can’t be spin—it has to be distinctive, targeted, and real.
Technology will be the game-changer
Michael Lewis’s book Moneyball17 pits the collective old-time wisdom of baseball players, managers, coaches, scouts, and front offices against rigorous statistical analysis in determining which players to recruit. Analysis wins, changing the game forever. Could the same be true for recruiting top talent?
When the National Bureau of Economic Research looked into this, it pitted humans against computers for more than 300,000 hires in high-turnover jobs at 15 companies. Human experience, instinct, and judgment were soundly defeated: people picked by computers stayed far longer and performed just as well or better.18 This wasn’t the only such finding. University of Minnesota professors analyzed 17 studies and found that hiring algorithms outperform humans by at least 25 percent. “The effect holds in any situation with a large number of candidates, regardless of whether the job is on the front line, in middle management, or (yes) in the C-suite.”19
Many leaders find this hard to stomach, but some companies are abandoning old ideas. The waste company Richfield Management, for example, uses an algorithm to screen applicants for character traits suggesting a tendency to abuse workers’ compensation. Claims have since dropped by 68 percent.20 After Xerox replaced its recruitment screening process with an online test from Evolve, attrition declined by 20 percent.21
HR software systems from Oracle, SAP’s SuccessFactors, and Workday already gather information through sources such as LinkedIn to provide an advanced warnings when top talent may be thinking about jumping ship. At McKinsey, we used machine-learning algorithms to determine the three variables driving 60 percent of the attrition among our managers. Unexpectedly, all three are unrelated to pay, travel, or hours worked.
Although people analytics is a field still in its infancy, it’s gaining speed. In 2016, only 8 percent of companies reported that they were fully capable of using predictive modeling, but that was up from 4 percent in 2015.22 Leaders who don’t implement concrete plans to leverage technology in the war for talent will quickly fall behind. Yet machines alone won’t win it. In 1997, IBM’s Deep Blue computer thrashed grandmaster Gary Kasparov. Today, however, the world’s best chess players are neither computers nor humans, but human teams playing alongside computers.23 That will be true in business, too.
How do I make it happen?
The new leader of a major US public institution had a mandate for change. Her department failed to meet the budget for five years. The press was having a field day with tales of incompetence, inefficiency, and bureaucracy gone mad. Morale was extremely low; key talent was leaving. The leader felt she knew what had to be fixed, but she didn’t have the talent. There was no quick fix—each division had its own approach to recruiting, and all were consumed with their immediate needs. The defectors were mostly the higher performers and specialist talent the organization wanted to keep.
In the leader’s words, a team was commissioned to “fix the leaky bucket, and fill it with the finest stuff imaginable!” Core members from each division populated a task force to meet the challenge. Division leaders were told they were on the hook. The team first determined the talent requirements for the organization’s five-year plan. Two roles were especially important: general managers and data-analytics specialists. The team then coupled this demand view of talent with a supply view and identified the gaps. Senior leaders gave the team a mandate for bold action.
With the priorities established, the team took a deep dive into the current mess. What did recruits in each target segment care about? How did the institution compare with their other options? Why were people in key roles departing? Which current approaches were and weren’t working? Using interview techniques to get behind superficial answers, the team gathered qualitative data. Quantitative data were generated by predictive analytics algorithms that determine patterns and an analysis of how general managers spent their time.
The organization’s value proposition—the promise of interesting work, on-the-job development, and an attractive, flexible career path—turned out to be on target. However, the reality didn’t live up to it. When recruits called friends hired previously, they heard that the organization had gone “bureau-crazy.” Recruiters knew this, but their incentives were to get people through the door, so they hyped roles to meet short-term goals. Good talent left quickly, while others, happy with the security and relatively high pay, “quit and stayed,” remaining on the payroll but contributing little.
The team found that specialist candidates wanted a different value proposition: deeper technical development, opportunities for special projects, a more relaxed and informal environment, and freedom from administrative tasks.
The working team recommended two discrete career paths, for generalists and specialists. The role of general managers would be adjusted to let them play more of a coaching (rather than a coordination) role. For data analysts, the team proposed more relaxed, informal recruitment events on school campuses and a stronger referral program. Predictive analytics showed that the organization had significant weaknesses for some roles. Its leaders agreed to “segment of one” discussions with the highest performers to understand their issues and fix them quickly.
Analytics suggested that ten vital leaders might be on the verge of leaving. They were engaged to help reinvent the EVP for the general-manager role—an approach that not only produced better answers but also helped to promote retention. Further changes were proposed for the annual succession-planning process (for instance, focusing on pivotal roles) and the recruitment process, to make both more efficient.
The leader and top team led from the front—for example, by personally attending the newly overhauled top-talent development programs—to communicate the importance of making the target EVP real and vibrant. She quickly became known for asking two questions in every performance dialogue: “what are your top five to seven priorities?” and “who are your top five to seven most talented leaders?” People learned that there should be a match between the answers. A talent office created to ensure progress reported on key metrics, such as time and cost to hire, as well as acceptance and attrition rates (overall and for key talent). These were studied with as much intensity as operational and financial metrics. To institutionalize transparency, the talent office developed an interactive dashboard with metrics on hiring, quality, fit, and efficiency.
The results appeared quickly: employee engagement shot up and attrition declined, especially among the most recent hires. Acceptance rates started improving, and employees became a powerful recruiting source. HR launched “choose who you want to work with” campaigns and made the most dynamic leaders and specialists “recruiting captains” for key campuses and career fairs.
Eighteen months later, after rising nearly 40 spots in the public sector’s Best Place to Work ranking, the organization found it easier to access talent, especially data scientists. Attrition dropped to historic lows, particularly in critical general-management and specialist roles. As a final sign of success, instead of trumpeting the organization’s downward spiral, headlines announced the bold new agenda and leadership.