If you’ve put a job advertisement up recently and all you get is crickets then you’ll understand the frustration of not being able to attract the right type of person.
You might even be in a situation where your staff is looking elsewhere because of the hype around increased salaries.
When looking to fill a position the obvious thing to do is ring a recruiter or put an advert up and wait for the phone to ring.
My recent experience helping a client to find a candidate is that quality candidates are very demanding and the unqualified waste your time so before you get to advertising go through a few things first that will potentially save you thousands and attract the right type of candidate.
I truly believe we are entering a new phase, not just because of the current business environment, but because there is a shift in the way we can do work.
The information here is an alternative strategy to recruiting. So to help you combat this 2023 phenomenon, I’ve mapped out some existing strategies that, over time, could be adapted and developed radically change how businesses are run.
If you’re lucky enough NOT to need staff right now, you can still use this approach to lay the groundwork to retain quality staff and create a Business that Cares environment.
By following this approach you’ll be more strategic in your people management and planning with the concept of thinking differently about running a business.
There are short or long-term solutions here. You may still need to recruit, but there are tips here that could save you thousands.
Look Internally
Ideally you will have already created an internal succession plan that identifies rising stars. You might think your business isn’t big enough to warrant this, so let’s re-frame the problem and look at it as building capacity and capability to improve profits.
By looking at the problem through this lens you can create an internal professional development program that builds from the ground up and is intentional and an investment to improve your asset.
This is most relevant to Supervisor and above positions.
The Pros of this approach are:
-
You’re able to fill the gaps in your organisation with people whose character you know and able to mold their knowledge, skills, and experience in a way that is tailored to your business needs.
-
You build strong internal relationships through Mentoring and On The Job Training.
-
It allows you to create long-term loyalty.
You don’t have the issue of wondering if the person is a fit.
The Cons of this Approach
It’s not a quick fix and takes time and investment.
It can cause internal jealousy especially if it’s targeted at one individual instead of an ‘across the board’ professional development strategy.
Recruiting to fill a supervision role takes time and money. Even if you recruit using internal resources, there is still a cost.
Let’s assume a 10% cost of hiring for a Total Annual Reward of say $150,000.
That’s a minimum of $15,000 “sunk recruitment cost”. It’s not an investment, it’s an expense.
However, if you ‘invest’ $15,000 into a professional development program for, let’s say 3 internal stars, over a 12 month period, that has a better ROI.
People Capacity and Capability Analysis
If your people were at their best you may not need more people.
In my experience as a HR Consultant, employers often wanted to throw more bodies at a problem. I always asked on what basis did you make this decision.
I often got a blank look and a shrug of a shoulder.
You might find that you have enough people, but they do not have the necessary skills, knowledge or experience to do the job asked of them.
I’ve attached a copy of Capability and Capacity Framework.
The Pros of this approach are:
You’ll have an organisation wide assessment of the existing skills levels mapped against the skills required.
You’ll have the data to develop the most appropriate Professional Development Program.
It creates a framework for employee engagement and career development
The Cons of this Approach
It requires knowledge of basic HR principles and may need to be outsourced.
As it’s organisational wide it requires some coordination
Look at your process improvement
If your systems and processes were at the their most efficient, you may not need more people.
Most businesses have lost efficiency, over time, and a review rarely does not find improvements.
We use our proprietary Deep Dive Analysis to, amongst other things, discover the state of each functional area and opportunities to improve systems and processes. The purpose is to provide data and information of workflows and to assess their effectiveness and efficiency.
If you can find efficiencies it means you can reassign resources or not recruit additional staff.
The Pros of this approach are:
There is a focus on the existing way of doing things with an intention of either validating the existing process or finding efficiencies
Builds internal Standard Operating Processes and consistency of approach
Increases the value of the business
Identifies cost savings of expenses and staff
The Cons of this Approach
It requires management time to initiate and manage the process.
It may require a reallocation of staff or result in redundancies.
Design your Remuneration Policy to take money off the table
People don’t leave for money. They look for an alternative because they are unhappy, and find jobs with more money.
If they were happy they would not start looking.
There are many studies supporting this but still people believe that money is the key.
Here are a few strategies to make money less important.
Internal Inequity
Very often businesses have a disparate level of salary ranges for the same or similar positions. To find out if this is a problem, list all your staff, their position, their salary (and any benefits). Group the same jobs together and if there is more than a 20% variation either side of the mean. You have a problem.
Performance incentives
Incentives do not have to be money bound. They could be a reward for a behaviour that is conducive with the values of the business.
Employee of the Month feels very 80’s, but there could be a variation on this.
Call for Peer nominations for acts of excellence, acts of kindness, best Dad joke, get creative.
Team bonus where every member of the team participates in the rewards, not just an individual.
Valuing additional or notional benefits
There are obvious taxation considerations that need to be made in offering cash based benefits and in Australia there is Fringe Benefit Tax and other legislative regulations.
Seek advice from a suitably qualified professional adviser before you make any offers in this area
Time off to attend a philanthropic endeavour that the employee wants to make an impact. Eg volunteering to a cause. Support the employee and provide paid time off.
This is the same as donating with the added value of engaging with the employee’s purpose.
Providing flexible work hours. This is not so uncommon post pandemic, but it is still a good option for positions where the output is not contingent to ‘the time attending work’
Providing internal education programs with financial counselling services. Providing a flexible payroll system that distributes salary to multiple accounts. This does require a Payroll System that has internal flexibility.
The Pros of this approach are:
That there is a standard approach to negotiating remuneration packages
Provides the employees with flexibility that they may not be able to receive at an alternative employer.
Encourages the conversation to be less focussed on just money
A fairer compensation model
It cements a team spirit.
The Cons of this Approach
If it’s not managed well it can become too competitive and cause the opposite effect.
It requires time to develop and test
It may alienate the existing staff who are on a more substantial package.
It requires HR technical skills especially with Job Sizing
Adopt a Collective Accountability approach
We often hear the term Employer of Choice implying that it is the Employer’s responsibility to ensure that the workplace is designed in such a way to attract and keep quality employees.
The flaw with this singular approach is that there is no obligation on the employees to contribute to the very workplace they inhabit.
I’ve coined the term Collective Accountability. It’s the combination and contribution by all stakeholders to the creation and evolution of a positive business.
A business that cares.
The business cares about profit for all stakeholders, its staff, its customers, its suppliers, its community, having a purpose, making an impact.
Collaborative Engagement
Rather than an Employee Engagement Survey (although they sometimes work), consider a more collaborative or committee approach. Social events like Christmas Parties are often driven internally by a ‘working party’. If there are only 10 of you in total, that may be just 2 people. But the principle of a shared load is still the same.
Business Charter
We listen intently and respectfully to our colleagues.
This means that your mobile phone is off when you’re in a meeting with said colleagues.
We speak our truth without fear of judgement or retribution.
This means that you feel safe to disagree or express your feelings without fear. It doesn’t mean you are right just because you disagreed, it just means you can.
The Pros of this approach are:
It builds an internally robust culture that is hard to tip once established.
The Cons of this Approach
It takes intention and resolve by the leadership.
It requires a deep level of communication education and emotional intelligence.
Outsource to a specialist
Specialist skill.
The first is where the internal capability is not something that forms a part of the day to day operations.
An example may be you need some software developed. You have an IT Department but no Full Stack Development capability. Hiring a specialist in this area makes sense as they come in as a temporary resource to the IT Team.
Capacity support
The second is to provide additional capability and capacity as the business scales.
The business is not big enough to have a full time person, but big enough not to have one.
The natural tendency is to ‘do it yourself’ thinking you have the capacity and capability to deliver. Is the work is important enough to do, then it’s important enough to invest in the resources.
The key here is to scale the business to a size where the external supplier is no longer required.
In fact there are plenty of examples where a contractor has been recruited as a Full Time Employee
Specialist skill.
The first is where the internal capability is not something that forms a part of the day to day operations.
An example may be you need some software developed. You have an IT Department but no Full Stack Development capability. Hiring a specialist in this area makes sense as they come in as a temporary resource to the IT Team.
Capacity support
The second is to provide additional capability and capacity as the business scales.
The business is not big enough to have a full time person, but big enough not to have one.
The natural tendency is to ‘do it yourself’ thinking you have the capacity and capability to deliver. Is the work is important enough to do, then it’s important enough to invest in the resources.
The key here is to scale the business to a size where the external supplier is no longer required.
In fact there are plenty of examples where a contractor has been recruited as a Full Time Employee
Recruiting Bridge
Where you are having trouble finding a Full Time Employer through the recruitment process, you can hire a consultant to provide a Part-Time service.
This may be to set up the framework if it’s a new position.
It could be to do the heavy lifting to establish the role and Mentor an internal person and then pass it off.
It could be to hold the fort so things don’t disintegrate.
The Pros of this approach are:
You hire a person who has a high degree of expertise in a specific area.
You don’t generally need to put a supervision regime in place
There is a set cost and time-frame
The contract can be terminated for non-performance without workplace legislative consequences.
The Cons of this Approach
Potential project over-runs
Limited Accountability
Disclosure of intellectual property