DDI’s Talent Management Intelligence

Should the Unemployed also be Unemployable?

By Scott Erker, Ph.D.

I just heard a story on NPR ”Job Seekers Find Bias Against the Unemployed” discussing how much harder it is for those without jobs to find jobs. Considering that earlier this month, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that there are still 14.8 million people unemployed—a 9.6% unemployment rate. So that discrimination is directed at 10% of the US population.

One job seeker says that while he knows it's not personal—“try telling that to some kid who asked every single girl to the prom in his high school and they all said no. After a while, being told that you're not desired or wanted that many times, it might start to sink in, but you try to block it out.”

How terrible it would be to lose your job, not be able to get work, and then to have the length of time that you’re unhappily unemployed be a knock against you. Especially considering that in the 12-18 months that have passed since companies experienced massive layoffs, the economy has barely recovered with open positions and ramped-up hiring, so individuals haven't been able to recover with a new job for more than a year in many cases.

Traditionally, time out of work has been a viable predictor of performance and turnover.But today, you have the significant confounding factor of the down economy.

The story pointed out that the chance of finding a highly qualified candidate in the ranks of the unemployed was very likely when you look at the volumes of people out of work and the rate that companies downsized.

So how do employers balance this out? It’s important to note long gaps in employment, but to really look closely at skill, ability and motivational fit to the target job as the best predictors of future job performance.

It would be better to look at what they’ve done in the time they’ve been unemployed—have they been developing themselves, exploring new opportunities, networking—or have they been resting on their laurels, hoping that something great would land in their lap.

Scott Erker, Ph.D., is the Senior Vice President of Selection Solutions for DDI.

Would a Pay Raise Keep You Around?

By Mike Hoban

Last week Google announced it would increase its employees’ pay by 10% to help ensure it can attract and retain the best and the brightest talent. The company has had some notable talent defections to competitors such as Facebook.

Perhaps that slightly fatter paycheck will bolster retention. It sure can’t hurt and it should at least bolster morale, although early estimates also indicate that it will add $400 million to Google’s operating expenses for 2011. There are many factors besides money involved in peoples’ individual decisions about the question “Should I stay or should I go?” (and yes, that is an old song by The Clash), so the jury is out about the ROI of Google’s decision. 

However, it does re-surface in a very public way the old debate about what motivates people to not just stay with an employer, but to stay with an employer and be productive and innovative and engaged. Oh yes, and loyal.  Is money the key to what we might call “deliberate retention?”  That answer to the question is absolutely unequivocal: "it depends." 

Seriously, it really does depend. For individuals just trying to make ends meet, money might be the most important element in that person’s “hierarchy of needs” structure. Personal growth and interesting, challenging work are not likely to be on the short list of “gotta have’s” for such an employee. (you can listen to Dan Pink talk more about this idea).

Yet, for many of us in this knowledge work world and as Daniel Pink opines in his book Drive, there are other factors besides money that inspire us and which help drive our decisions about where to cast our professional lot.  He suggests the key factors are autonomy, mastery and purpose (of course, Maslow called it “self-actualization”).

Our choices are based on our values and since everyone’s values are sui generis, it’s not going too far out on a limb to suggest that with retention, there is no one size that fits all. There’s no silver bullet. Yes, “It depends.” 

Google made its decision partly based on internal employee survey data and I’m sure they know what they’re doing and admittedly, the company’s market cap is somewhat greater than my own. But I’ve come to believe in what I call the “20% Rule.”  That is, few professionals will leave a job for less than a 20% pay raise even though most employees get a pay raise when they change employers. People leave for other reasons (the jerk boss; the dead-end career path; the toxic culture) and just happen to make more money in their new job. 

So if someone was looking to move to a different company, would a pay increase be the clincher to stay? (see survey to the left) Everyone has to answer that question for themselves but I think overall the answer is no. All of us would welcome a generous pay increase (ahem, boss – are you reading this blog??) but if we were truly unhappy, I think the corporate tithing would not be a compelling reason to stick around if there were other options. Look at all of the “Best Places to Work” data. What makes them the best is not that they pay the best.

People who base their choice of employers strictly on the size of the paycheck run the risk of becoming unhappy mercenaries. Traditionally, the “golden handcuffs” philosophy bought retention, but didn’t necessarily buy commitment.  And retention without commitment is a formula for mediocrity.  

Mike Hoban is a senior consultant for Development Dimensions International (DDI). 

Leadership ‘In Treatment’

By Rich Wellins, Ph.D.

It’s tough to find time to watch television. However, my wife and I try to find time to watch two shows together. The one that really rocks our boat is HBO’s “In Treatment”.

In its third season, the series follows Dr. Paul Weston, a psychiatrist who helps three different patients over a series of episodes. There is a fourth “series” where Weston goes to his own therapist. Weston is played (superbly by the way) by Gabriel Byrne.

Psychotherapy and leadership are not one in the same. One big difference: analysts need to keep a personal distance with their patients, whereas leaders can get a bit closer. But this scripted show is one of the best ways to see models of leadership skills available. Here is what you will see by watching just one episode in terms of positive leadership behaviors:

• Listening to understand, not refute.
• Asking questions that create insights around actions and behaviors. Dr. Weston above all is a seeker, not a teller.
• Being non-judgmental. Believe me, if you follow the show, he is treating people this season who are antagonistic at best. It would be easy to judge their behaviors.
• And, he will be directive and tough when he needs to be. In one case, a teen (Jessie), brings his mother (he is adopted) into a session and starts to verbally abuse her. In no uncertain terms Dr. Weston tells Jessie he will not put up with that sort of behavior in is office. It is rare, but is firm when he needs to be.

After each show, I actually try to practice some of the behaviors I have just seen (I have a long way to go).

I also cannot help but wonder: Could I work for this guy? My answer is—I’d love it.

If you’ve watched "In Treatment", I’d love to hear if you think of Dr. Weston as a leadership model.

Rich Wellins, Ph.D. is a Senior Vice President at Development Dimensions international (DDI).