By I started this post back in February but didn’t finish it up until now. I’ve had several posts lately that I’ve started and haven’t finished. I don’t know if the creative juices have dried up or if distractions have creeped in. It’s interesting return to a draft and read what I’ve written to see if I have a Celine Dion moment (‘it’s all coming back to me now!’).
I read online about a certain delivery company laying off 12,000 people and it got me thinking this morning about hiring strategies. There are some businesses that have major fluctuations in their sales so that it makes sense to hire temporary/seasonal employees (think Six Flags, UPS, some retails shops). Let’s consider the non-seasonal businesses. Is it better to hire with a strategy that the employee is a permanent long term addition to the company or to hire with a strategy toward a high level of turnover? Noodle on that for a bit…
I will share my story of being hired and when I was involved with hiring as one perspective.
When I was a senior at SMU, I interviewed with Aetna. I must have wowed them because an offer was made to be a part of their management trainee program. There were 30 of us in the program that were placed across the US and given additional training. As an example, there were 4 new hires in Dallas/Richardson, but only 2 of us were part of this management program. Unbeknownst to me, Aetna was about to go through a major reorganization. When I started, Aetna was called Mother Aetna. Many people stayed an employee for their entire career. There wasn’t a concept of job hopping like you see today. Turnover wasn’t viewed as a good thing. It was viewed more like an error in hiring/interviewing.
My next job was for a mid-sized company. There were 4 of us in the Risk Management department – 2 safety guys, a claims guy and me (Information Manager). There was no hiring strategy whatsoever. The manager…was not good (that’s putting in mildly). The environment was toxic. I remember as I walked out from the interview, I asked the claims guy if he had any advice. He said ‘Run.’ Literally. But I didn’t (probably should have recognized that red flag!)
I was an entrepreneur for awhile. We had little money so there was no hiring strategy. Just sell enough bread to pay the rent!
And then I landed at CS STARS(nee STARS). I came in with a decent amount of experience plus an MBA, but that didn’t seem to make any difference. The hires were mostly straight out of school – with a huge connection to UGA’s RMI program. I was involved with hiring. There wasn’t much thought given to hiring more to allow for attrition. We did see people leave, but not often. Because there were opportunities and the culture was fun and energetic. CS STARS continued to grow and opportunities arose for sure…until three things converged: a major acquisition, a drop in the economy and a certain hire in finance. We experienced multiple re-organizations and layoff rounds as different models were attempted to get more revenue to the company with reductions in expense. The culture slowly died and the work became …work.
I landed at Origami in 2011. It was a start-up – rumored to not be able to make payroll and all sorts of nonsense. We hired experienced colleagues of the industry but ramp up time was still pretty high. Hiring was slow and deliberate. I remember we talked about whether someone would ‘fit’ in the culture…not that we didn’t want diversity…we just were protective of the culture. About 4-5 years we made our first leap…hiring 3 interns for the summer. The philosophy was the same – slow and deliberate selective picks. We were hiring with the thought that people would not leave. I still remember how upset I was when I received my first resignation letter from a teammate. And then…I am trying to think if I can put my finger on when…my guess is when a certain someone (to remain nameless) joined and suggested our hiring strategy was wrong. And our model flipped. We began hiring with a plan for higher turnover.
I’m against this model for a number of reasons. One, it puts a LOT of strain on the experienced colleagues who are keeping projects/client relations afloat as team members come and go. Two, clients don’t like this because they’re having to retrain their support team on the subtle nuances of their account. Three, it wreaks of ageism. The persons with experience are more expensive because they have the experience…and looking at the bottom line, a cold and calculating company would want to kick those persons to the curb and have a larger staff of neophytes.
Hiring with a plan for large attrition moves to a model where colleagues are considered interchangeable cogs in a wheel. But innovation comes with experience and unique non-cookie-cutter employees.
I’m told start-ups evolve this way…but I suggest that is only because a corporate suit came in and said this is the model. My plan is to grow my company with a concept of hiring for the long term. My job satisfaction is EXTREMELY high right now! I’ll keep you posted!