Last time I spoke of over quoting one’s previous employer and the amount of irritation it would generate among colleagues and superiors. However there can still be more ways of saturating one’s peers, one among them being inability to quit dropping names of references that pushed your case all the way through your orientation in the Company.
These days Companies look forward to recruiting a large chunk of prospective employees through employee referral scheme. What better way can they get to attract friends, relatives and acquaintances of existing loyal employees; to become a family of strong values. This means every second person joining the organization has been referred by somebody and times like this there are people who love to flaunt their references.
What people forget is that references can help as much as pushing one’s CV across the recruiting team, getting an interview fixed and to some extent bypass the background verification process (if the reference is strong and higher up the hierarchy). The rest of the story of a happy ending or screw up depends largely upon the individuals’ capabilities.
People who tend to drop names also forget the fact that those very individuals who are being quoted would very much be placed in the highest discomfort level finding their names being tossed around conversations and across board meetings. The discomfort level exists equally among other employees who find it disbelieving to be subjected to such influence levels.
It isn’t just the colleagues and people associated in one’s project that start keeping a distance; but the HR dept. also keeps a note of such boasting chaps. At the end of the day it’s the person who’s performing and no matter through which channel he/she lands in the organization; he/she can be shown the gates!
So if one thinks it’s fancy to show your connections and get privileges out of situations, think again – Are you performing or are you making enough background to be despised and cornered!
Ever wondered why does the new fellow who joined 2 weeks back keeps quoting his previous employer for every decision he has to make, or every policy he has to discuss to the point of everybody else’s irritation?
Quite natural we look around for benchmarks every time we are assigned tasks, and just in case nothing should go wrong, we like to consult with previously accomplished procedures on the same topic. Be it a friend who’s done it before, a process done by a different team, a website that portrays all the angles of technicalities involved, in-numerous blogs or plain simple – the previous employer!
However such affinities to the previous employer start irking the current ones. If all was so sunny with them, what prompted an individual to change gears; is the general reaction they invite. It’s okay to consult and do things, but getting overboard with frequent quotes and trying to implement anything and everything can be quite risky. For cultures of the two organizations may not really be similar. Problems deepen when two entirely different industrial sectors are compared, for example some methodology that brought excellent results in an IT sector may not yield desired results in a Manufacturing for the same set of problems. It may not even land close due to various demographical reasons, or may draw flak from the team and the management. Plus if one so frequently feels the need to depend on previous employers, a big question arises – that for his credibility and competency for the post and profile he holds.
So next time beware when a task is assigned, refer and research from every place one can, but stop swearing by the Bible of previous employers, for now you would be known for the path breaking work you do and ideas you come out with; instead of following the rules made by somebody else. Were it to be followed anyway, it would have borne clones of processes and operations, spelling disaster under respective cultures.
One of the major reasons why our companies face high level of attrition is because of the fact that their job profiles are not commensurate to their individual capabilities / qualifications they possess (This expression was made vocal by 994 respondents in a survey called ‘A Study On Engineering Students Expectations From Their Prospective Employers’, under the section ‘Top 5 Parameters Respondents Consider While Selecting Their Prospective Employers’). Either they join organizations at some point of time because they need a job in hand, to begin with something. Just like ‘A bird in hand is worth none’! Or they are qualified to do something else; however they are placed at completely unrelated departments with the bright promise that, one day they would surely be shifted there, under the mask of job rotation. Though one cannot fully discredit the job rotation process, since it’s a tried, tested and proved methodology of understanding each other’s business and deliverable schemes. However anything short of 2 weeks at a station spells disaster. Here comes the question in every new employee or existing employee’s mind – ‘Are we making a difference and doing meaningful roles for the organization?’ This dilemma was well defined in Gautam Ghosh’s ‘Recruit For a Cause Not a Role’.
Are recruiters just busy filling in the headcounts for a department and finishing their job, or do they bother to stop and think – does this guy belong in here? Problems are similar for both manufacturing and IT companies, each having a share of woes to such issues of an unsatisfied employer putting down the papers. People go for their 9 – 5 jobs, complete their responsibilities and by evening their CV’s are floating all over the Internet, from day 1.
There was this guy at a manufacturing organization, a fresher straight out of college whose flair for mechanics and machines made him an enthusiastic candidate. However 5 months down the line he put down his papers. The reason he cited was that he was very confident of opening a Xerox shop and handling prints, but for mechanical he would have to start all over again.
A similar example from an IT company, where one guy was particularly fond of .NET technology; however he was placed under the SAP wing. Three years down the line, he was an adept at SAP, and respected for his skills; and just then he was shifted under the .NET wing. He had to start all over and it seemed 3 years went a waste!
There are individuals waiting to master skills and contribute in the growth of an organization. They want to unleash their enthusiasm in belonging to a company and doing their bit. But are we recruiting to stagnate or do we have better career plans in our minds for our employees?
When the business today February 7, 2010 issue came out with the ninth ‘The Best Companies To Work For’ survey, amongst celebrated Déjà-vu’s, hushed tones and several internet jokes what followed was an overwhelming cheer for Infosys, denial and acceptance of the fact that from year 2006, it’s taken 3 years to get back on the top slot. It’s taken good amount of hard work for an Indian multinational to be at that coveted rank and Mr. Narayan Murthy is a very proud person today! This years BT survey underwent a vast shift in the methodology by bypassing the companies and going straight to the employees and ask them to rate their choice by certain factors. The resultant was a unanimous phenomenal outcome. [Rank 1 – Infosys Technologies, 2 - Google India, 3 – Tata Consultancy Services, 4 – IBM (incl. Daksh), 5 – Microsoft India]
One such survey was conducted in the year 2007, where the methodology adopted was beyond all existing techniques and which bypassed the companies, heading straight to the prospective employees – the engineering students awaiting placements. Here too Infosys Technologies emerged as one of the top 5 dream companies, anybody in India wanted to be in.
WHAT is the background:
The information technology industry has emerged as most promising business proposition in India among the new generation business ventures. The speed with which globalization of business and advancement of technology are moving is significant. India in general and Bangalore city in particular are emerging as the most sought after destination for information technology business not only in Asia but also in rest of the world. These projections create lot of positive expectations from business organizations in terms of availability of trained manpower to meet the needs. Therefore organizations are redefining their talent management strategies by hiring more and more of freshers to curtail the cost. But unfortunately most of these organizations do not have validated HR strategies to attract the freshers into the corporate world. Therefore any effort to build a consensus on strategies for hiring freshers from the campus should be based on the research conducted by collecting data from engineering college students rather than existing employees of the organization.
STARTLING facts:
As per studies - in India every third person is a Software Engineer no matter which branch he/she chooses in engineering
YET, only 30% of them are employable
The rest 70% have the following drawbacks which contributes in HIGH ATTRITION: -
- Lack of clarity about their future.
- Attraction towards salary
- Peer pressure
- Lack of soft skills
- Lack of domain knowledge
But students have more than 1 offer in hand - Where do they fail in choosing the right job?
WHY talk of it now:
Amidst the economic slow down that has had global effects of downturns and large scale layoff’s, now when the market seems to be growing again and altogether grappling to attain its previous positions and brand value; times ahead look challenging for the HR Department and the Company as a whole. They have vacant positions to be filled, pink slipped employees tugging at the elbow and an ocean of talent knocking their gates every hour. If at these times, caution is not exercised in getting the right person for the right job; losses seem imminent and just when the world around may be enjoying the bounce back, there may still be someone who missed the bus! Talent management is a process everybody has had turns of glorious days and burnt fingers. The swinging between states keeps happening, but these 1-2 years is just not the time, when companies may have to go through the bad days! A large chunk of new entrants have always been the graduating engineers from India’s brightest technical schools, but are we able to retain them for longer periods than a year or two? If not have we ever wondered, what makes them job hop so soon? Or how is it that from the top technical school we fail to attract the top most talented students?
WHO conducted the survey:
In this direction this was the first study of its kind perhaps in the entire country surveyed in the year March – May 2007 by a team of students pursuing their 1st year of MBA at PES Institute of Technology – MBA Dept., Bangalore. The survey was presented in the NHRD Event ‘Triads’ 2007, Bangalore too. The objectives of which were:
1.Finding the Dream Companies as perceived by engineering students
2.Identify the criteria that enables to exercise the decision of joining a Co. or not
3.Help IT Co.’s device appropriate strategies for attracting freshers
The members of the team constituted of Ms. Deepa S and Ms. Akanksha Yadav (Me). Also Ms. Sonam Chirania and Ms. Poornima Rajapur contributed to the survey in data collection and entry. Throughout the survey the team was guided by Dr. G. Pandu Naik, Head of Learning & Development, Karle Group of Companies, Bangalore (then a professor of Human Resource Management in PESIT, Bangalore).
The Approach:
Not having a benchmark to base the study upon, the questionnaire was such designed that it followed the descriptive research technique and contributed to being a census survey. This was done so that one could understand the entire demographics behind the choices an engineering student makes while selecting upon placements. To ensure data authenticity, the survey was conducted on 6th semester engineering students in the specializations: Computer Science, Information Science and Electronics & Communication; in all accounting to a total of 994 respondents. Participation was optional but most of the students who were present on the day of data collection participated in the survey, in the presence of the researchers. Five Engineering Colleges in Bangalore city (India) were selected for this study, out of which three were rated among the 100 best Engineering Colleges in the Dataquest survey 2006. (PES Institute of Technology, BMS College of Engineering, RV College of Engineering, Dayanand Sagar Institute of Technology & BNM Institute of Technology) The criteria for selecting the said colleges were geographical proximity to researchers and the willingness of the colleges to provide access for data collection.
Data Analysis:
The survey questionnaire had two parts, the main survey and the demographic part. Basic statistical tools like percentages and averages were used for analysis. The key analysis (that of importance of 10 parameters) involved converting importance rating to relative scales (using Likert 5 pointer).
WHAT We Asked:
Respondents were asked the following distinct set of questions:
Rate the parameters you would like to consider for selecting your prospective employer using a one to five point scale:
The 5 pointer Likert scale was classified as:
[1 – Not at all, 2 – To some extent, 3 – To a large extent, 4 – To a great extent, 5 – To a very great extent]
Company – Brand Value
Salary and allowances
Locational Preference
Nature of Work
Career Growth Opportunities
Learning & Development Opportunities
Opportunity to Work Abroad
Welfare Measures (canteen, compliments, etc)
Job Security
Transportation
Dream company:
Respondents were asked an open ended question to fill as per their choice.
Nature of company:
Respondents were provided with 3 categories of different sets of nature to select from, where they would prefer to work:
1.Indian/MNC/Joint Venture
2.Established/Newly Started
3.Product/Service
Initial Salary Expected:
Respondents were asked to mention their expected initial salary on a per month basis
Suggestions to prospective employer for attracting talented candidates:
Respondents were asked to list 3 suggestions they would want prospective employers to introduce in their policies.
WHAT We Got:
A total of 994 respondents participated from 5 top engineering colleges of Bangalore.
DEMOGRAPHIC COMPOSITION
32% from Computer Science & Information Science
71% Male
54% plan to Work, 38% want to pursue Higher Studies
60% hail from Urban areas, 19% from Rural
47% belong to Service class, 28% from Business class
26% 2 L < 4 L, 23% 1 L < 2 L,
22% parental income (p.a.) upto 1 L, 10% 4 L < 6 L, 8% parental income (p.a.) > 6 L
55.4% prefer to work with MNC’s, 21.33% Indian
55.23% prefer Established Organizations, 26% Newly Started
43.16% prefer a Product base Company, 22.54% Service
59% expected initial salary between 3 L – 6 L (p.a.), 18% upto 3 L (p.a.), 11% between 6 L – 12 L (p.a.)
INTERPRETATION:
TOP 5 DREAM COMPANIES RESPONDENTS PREFER TO WORK IN
Top Five Dream Companies
No. of Respondents
Microsoft
151
Google
117
IBM
91
Infosys
48
Intel
44
Not Responded
167
Others
376
Total
994
TOP 5 PARAMETERS RESPONDENTS CONSIDER WHILE SELECTING THEIR PROSPECTIVE EMPLOYERS
Top Five Parameters
% Of Respondents
Career Growth
52
Learning and Development
44
Nature of Work (Job Profile)
34
Job Security
32
Opportunities to go Abroad
28
TOP 5 SUGGESTIONS GIVEN TO EMPLOYER BY RESPONDENTS FOR ATTRACTING TALENTED CANDIDATES
Top Five Suggestions
Number Of Respondents
Good Salary
106
No Consideration of Marks
90
Good Working Environment
79
Planned Career Growth
65
Job Based on Talent
36
RECOMMENDATIONS & IMPLEMENTATION:
If we glance the Top 5 Dream Companies students aspired to work with, surprisingly Infosys was the only Indian multinational that figured there. From our database that Companies that made it among the Top 15, including Infosys, there were just Wipro and TCS to make it a count of 3. So how do we explain that aura foreign MNC’s have that keep attracting employees their end? How should a company survive the economic slowdown and even when not staggered by global environment, yet minimize their soaring attrition levels? As emphasized earlier large scale recruitments always deal with new entrants fresh from engineering colleges and retaining and engaging them is no child’s play. So some of the recommendations from our end that surely everybody is aware of, however a constant reminder is required every passing season to be mulled over and be implemented:
Existence of a structured induction policy is absolute essential. Further fool proofing the process by introducing psychometric tests
The recruitment panel / team that represents the company should be highly competent
Insist on an interactive pre placement talk and present a detailed power point on the company’s products, services, facilities, et al.
Introduce schemes for educational assistance and opportunities for enhancing qualification and skills
A structured induction programme for not less than 6 months
Introducing and following up the ‘Mentorship Programme’ with diligence
Evolving a high potential development programme
To possess a communication strategy nothing short of brilliance
Provide a job profile commensurate to individual capability, than trying and testing him/her on varied grounds before final allotment to an unrelated field of low interest
Plan the career map of a newly hired employee before going for selection rounds
Relax a bit on grades and scores, which doesn’t mean hire somebody not eligible by what the policy says. However give them a chance to sit for the placements by lowering the cut off bar. Who knows, there may be somebody really good in subject, but a bad writer. Or maybe somebody topped semesters, but last year fell ill or something quirky happened with him.
A discussion with a friend ended up with a question, “When Bill Gates moved up the ladder, do you think he had a successor all ready and groomed for the position and responsibility?” Or when a chairman of group of organizations retires, does he have a successor waiting in line?
Strangely theory suggests that succession planning is the most important function in the organization and our Organization Behaviour, Organization Development and Organization Structure books back at college all talk about its significance. A relatively large chunk of strategic HR deals with useful succession planning tactics every HR Manager aspires to carry out as a part of his KRA. Yet are we really able to create a line of distinction of those people who would occupy critical spaces?
The FIFO principle (First In First Out) definitely gives way to positions going vacant and the scurrying HR Department on a lookout of a suitable tenant. Many times, change of orders take place from within the organization and still at times new entrants from a competitor industry are sought after. If both fail, some organizations prefer keeping the position vacant. Higher up the management some consideration on succession planning is still planned out, however at the lowest level or mid level are we planned on our needs? Do we have any such model being worked upon?
There are many organizations where the fear of attrition prevents fresh blood from being trained for processes and activities. They constantly face the dilemma - whether they should train and make new employees fit enough for new roles and they quit within 2 months. Or whether they should continue extracting work however not tune them for future needs and even if they quit the problem can be dealt with then and there. Or they believe very frequent job rotations can solve the problem and provide an exposure to all activities in a short span. However this leads to a frustrated employee who doesn’t understand where he fits and what process is calling his skill. Plus frequent readjustments make a sure shot make up of mind that the first best opportunity and he is out of his current workplace. But aren’t majority of employees similar, waiting for the next best opportunity and salary hike from previous? Would this mean that they never get proper training and grooming for the roles that may come up across the desk?
With the continuing tiff between high paying and extremely rewarding IT industry and not really matching levels manufacturing sector, recruitment is an easy step. But retaining fresh blood as in employees from fresher levels to below 5 years of experience is always a tough call. People keep looking across green valleys and in the process neglect assigned responsibilities. Or even if they so wish to fulfil them dutifully they are bound by a sea of non related work they get to do. Though grunt work is necessary and is a part of the learning process, however longer stances of dry runs disappoint them and assure quicker resignations.
One option is harnessing the training cell in all its strength along with delegation of authority. The other can be promoting and entertaining the freshers as well as people coming in for internships. At several organizations a proper internship is denied let alone being allowed to work on things. The Tier-I T-Schools and B-Schools do not have to worry, however Tier-II and below have some grave issues in their kitty. Instead of providing a certificate just to waive off the responsibility or lack of projects, one can instead think upon building competence and manpower through this resource found in abundance. They seem to be the most excited lot who would want to be a part of the organization force and seem very eager to learn. Besides training and development has always been seen as a mode to develop competitive advantage by the organization, so when operation flow is in stake why not give serious thought to the same. Why not be prepared for hard times that may come and situations that may require fresh ideas and brains! Why not have someone lined up and ready to take on the initiative without wasting much of organization’s capital and time!
Transparency of something that is important for an individual or an organization’s growth up to a desired level indicates the credibility of the team and openness to consideration and negotiation if any. It is understandable that many organizations may defer to being transparent for all work processes, however there are certain areas one cannot be totally discreet, especially things related to capital and money matters. Yet we may still find some where compensation & benefits always seem to be that part of the asset which cannot bare transparency at any levels. So much so, even when new recruits join for a particular position all they are aware of is the job responsibility, designation and the CTC involved. It may make sense if during process of selection; one may not want to disclose the salary components; however once when somebody is sent an offer letter for acceptance, then the prospective employee has all rights to understand the break up of the salary assigned to him. It cannot be something that can be passed as ambiguity and the employee realises the components only when he receives the first pay slip.
This kind of an issue is dealt by and large by small size and mid size industries, where it is hard to tap upon good resource and retain them for a long time. Chanced upon prospective employee who may prove to be assets need to be pulled in and engaged so that he doesn’t get swayed by competitor industries. It may sound foolish not knowing one’s salary components before joining, yet there are people who do not inquire and yet there are some who wish to gain an understanding however organizations refuse to quote. For fresh graduates it may not be of much concern as then they are just beginning the process of finding a footboard to stand upon, however for somebody making a career change it can prove to be disastrous and could well be a plunge in the career graph if he decides to blindly hop into one. There was this one person I came across sometime back, who had good experience and understanding of the industry he belonged to. Naturally his talent got recognised in the Organization he thought could lift his career. In the interview rounds a CTC was discussed, negotiated and finalised upon. However due to internal constraints the finalised amount was not given and a lesser CTC was zeroed upon. An effective communication could have taken place, yet the prospective employee was kept in the dark. Nor did the employee consider inquiring about the components and discuss on the plans. When he went for accepting the offer and casually got to know of a lowered CTC, he was in a dilemma whether to accept or reject. He did reject, but at a personal loss. Before joining he resigned from his present workplace and that left him unemployed till he would be in a position to convert one. He wouldn’t be in a dearth of one for long for sure, however a mere communication and transparency could have saved a lot many hassles.
Compensation is always a sensitive issue and those who handle it know of its ups and downs. Those who plan to get into an organization too need to understand the importance of asking for one, before making a decision. Yet it still lies as a major responsibility for an organization and non disclosure or reluctance of sharing one shouldn’t deter anybody from asking what he is destined to be paid.
Recruitments round the year always end up being a pain for those that belong to that specialization. Screening and selecting among hordes of unwanted resumes is indeed a tumultuous task. To ease out the process somebody introduced the Referrals policy and it started bringing out good results. Suddenly employees all so satisfied with the Organization started recommending near and dear family and friends. Then there were some Companies who started acknowledging the brilliance at ease and rewarding employees, some didn’t believe in rewarding but found the referral policy the biggest source or databank available, and there were still some who didn’t believe in the policy.
The 2 extreme positions are the best that could be carved out of this policy; however the middle position is the one that creates major issues, especially in Companies that believe in having local candidates on their payrolls. Hardly a speck in the crowd would belong to far flung places settled at workplace location. Here the referral policy is so much into the system that it has actually entangled the recruitment process.
Suddenly everybody is on a referring spree, and if one tries finding out the history behind their acquaintances, one would be surprised to know that among all things the only common factor was a common surname. Thus it made enough ground to approach the right person in the Company and be rest assured that one would certainly be on the rolls within a couple of days. If this kind of a business can sprout annoyance from just a two or three, then to imagining every single referral belonging to the same genre, it can prove to be quite troublesome for the HR as well as the Organization. As merit of an individual cannot be stated by common surnames, or can one perform any psychometric tests to separate out the desired from the undesired. Whether one looks to the left or to the right, numbers keep percolating with individuals of common surnames. What in turn goes waste is the Company’s resources in paying them salaries for the work they do not do (though this isn’t a generalized sweeping statement, nor do all referrals end up being on the same side of the sinking boat). The resources utilized to train them for the job, paying of the salaries, and once when they quit (that too prematurely) no suitable replacement comes around, hence training the new guy all over again. Besides the references being not so credible, yet following suit since the person whose referring is a top shot in the Company. Little realizing that in this great movement of doing something worthwhile and good for their communities, people are actually gathering dust around! The whole game of reserving seats in political stunts across States being so similar to the Corporate story of referrals. Has anybody benefited by these mindless games at the State levels? So be the case at Corporate level. The policy may seem all so rosy from the distance, but is proving to be a brain chewer from close by.
Maybe we need an alteration in the Referral Policy and we need to limit how many people a year can current employees refer (at those companies that have an open agenda throughout the year). Maybe we can even put some constraints upon who can be referred and put more emphasis on the idea that the referrer’s PLI would somehow contain some value of the referrer’s performance. Otherwise were these trends to continue, one fine day we would have the Company plagued by similar community or surnamed people taking over charges
