Fistful of Talent

A Cautionary Tale - Higher Unemployment of the College-Educated, Big Mortgages and Flat Housing = PAIN

It's called triangulation.  Sometimes it's good - think GPS, cell phones and smart lawyers..

Sometimes it's bad.  Think Higher Unemployment of the College-Educated, Big Mortgages and Flat Housing.  Those three things intersect in today's economy to really strap some high level professionals who never thought they'd be without a paycheck.

A story I had to share from a Business Week article entitled "Foreclosure Goes Upscale":

"The biggest factor in this second wave of foreclosures is the inability of distressed homeowners to sell in order to pay off their debts. Prices in bubble cities such as Los Angeles, Phoenix, and Miami are down less at the high end of the market than at the bottom, according to data from Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller home price indexes. But that's cold comfort to people who haven't managed to sell at all. According to research by the National Association of Realtors, there are enough $750,000-plus homes on the market to cover more than 40 months' worth of demand at the current rate of sales. That's four times the rate of oversupply in the housing market as a whole.

Unemployment is exacerbating the problems at the top of the market. The jobless rate for adults with a bachelor's degree or more may not sound too high at 4.4% in April given the overall April jobless rate of 8.9%. But it's more than double the rate of 2% a year earlier. And many families in that segment of the population built their finances on the assumption of continuous full employment, so they can't cover the mortgage when even one spouse is out of work.

Consider the plight of Stephanie and Bob Walker, who bought a $799,000, three-bedroom home in Los Angeles with a view of the Hollywood sign in 2006 but are losing it because last year Bob stopped getting computer consulting work that used to pull in about $240,000 a year. Bob eventually landed a job paying $60,000, and Stephanie found work as a $13-an-hour temp, but it wasn't enough to cover their mortgage and credit-card debt, which was swelled by about $130,000 worth of home renovations. They listed the house last year for an "optimistic" $875,000 but didn't get any takers. After months of price cuts and threats of foreclosure from the bank, they're days from closing on a sale at $700,000 that will assuage their primary mortgage lender—but leave them under pressure from other creditors. "We had no expectation things would come crashing down as fast as they did," says Stephanie. "We had no one to blame but ourselves. We didn't have a backup plan if he lost his job."

A cautionary tale for those pondering a housing upgrade that represents a bigger % of their take home pay or for those considering a job relo into one of the expensive housing markets in the U.S.

Editor's Note: By day, Kris Dunn is the VP of People at DAXKO, a cool software firm dedicated to providing solutions to the best membership-driven organizations in America. At night, he morphs into a blogger at The HR Capitalist and the Founder and Executive Editor of Fistful of Talent. That makes him a career VP of HR, a blogger, a dad and a hoops junkie, the order of which changes based on his mood. Tweet him @kris_dunn...

What's Your Pay? Money Should be the Last Thing On Your Mind When I Make You An Offer....

Ann Bares' post a while back over at Compensation Force on pay communication got me thinking… what’s my approach when communicating pay during the job offer?

I’m not sure anyone actually ever coached or taught me “how” to make a job offer. I’ve taken my own experiences of being offered jobs, coupled with what just makes sheer sense to me, and have come up with this approach: talk about the role, discuss why everyone is excited and how this is going to be a great career move… and then comes the discussion on money. I always save that for last. If I know I can close the deal easily, I’ll dive right in and give the figure, launch into a schpiel on our bonus program, and then hit them with benefits. I drive hard, put the pedal to the metal and quickly close the deal. That usually works well for me.

For candidates where salary might be a tougher negotiation, I usually start out with a little bitty on our ranges and how we generally determine compensation. For others, I’ll include a discussion of what the industry standard is and how our offer compares. I think a few times, I have even come flat out and said that we’re not going to be able to meet what they were expecting and then launch into where I can take them, what the earning potential might be long term and why their expectations might not be in alignment with our compensation structure. Essentially, I talk ranges, goals, rationale, and our intent.

I’ll also go for an emotional connection a la Paul Herbert in hard-to-close deals where I’ll emphasize motivation, the impact they can have (yes, you can help to change the world!) and that coming to work for my firm can’t be about the money – they have to want this role and I heavily emphasize the intangible benefits. And thankfully, I’ve actually never had a job turned down because of money, including when I’ve asked people to take pay cuts… but that’s not to say that I’m 100% confident when making offers. I actually hate talking about money and dread that part of the discussion.

I suspect some of the issues in the study Ann sites where most/many/all employees don’t know or understand the salary ranges for their positions and how base pay increases were determined could have linkages to how and what is communicated when first bringing an individual into an organization. My firm also does a compensation orientation session for new staff so they understand our pay philosophy and compensation structure. Another best practice, if I’m to toot the horn for my wonderful HR team and leadership. What are other folks doing though? Are there other best practices to share out there? I’m eager to hear what you’ve got up your sleeves.

Editor's Note - Jessica Lee is an Employment Manager for APCO Worldwide, a global PR firm in D.C. Like most upscale HR pros, she spends half of her time on recruiting, the other half on ER, Training and OD.  When she's not hammering a candidate to determine Motivational Fit, she's thinking about the future of HR, and wondering how many HR Managers nationally could pull off appearing in a Justin Timberlake video...Just like other upscale HR Pros I know and respect...

The UAW - Now Part Owner As A Result of All That Success at GM and Chrysler...

You're right.  Bad labor deals had nothing to do with the quagmire in Detroit.  In fact, the whole labor situation was such a non-factor that the UAW will probably end up owning huge stakes in both companies due to the albatross-like liabilities on the books allocated to the VEBA, which manages the health-care coverage of UAW workers and retirees.

Guys?  Thanks for helping out in our hour of need and refusing to restructure much of anything, especially in the area of benefits.  We can't pay you cash, so we'll probably just make you an owner, OK?

More on the UAW now being forced to act like an owner from Business Week:

"If General Motors (GM) and Chrysler somehow survive the current crisis, the United Auto Workers will end up with huge equity stakes in both companies under new restructuring plans. Is this good news for UAW President Ron Gettelfinger and his union?

Maybe not. First, these equity stakes come at a huge cost in terms of lost jobs and benefit concessions. The UAW Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Assn. (VEBA) trust, which manages the health-care coverage of workers and retirees, is owed $9 billion by Chrysler and some $20 billion by GM. The UAW has agreed to take stock in exchange for half those future obligations.

The union via the VEBA trust may end up owning 55% of Chrysler's shares and 39% of GM."

Still waiting for the first union to negotiate a deal where they advocate no increase in wages, but look to take 25% of the revenue generated by helping a company to outperform a 5 year plan.  Simply put, you help us outperform the expectation (which has to be a realistic goal), you get 25% of the booty above that line.  No cap.  Just like a good sales commission plan.

Could be tremendous for the workers and the company, but that's not how a union works.

Guess what?  You can blame who you want to blame, but bad labor deals are certainly a part of the reason why Detroit is looking more and more like Beirut (hold the jokes about the UAW and Hamas, because that's not funny).

So, instead of bringing a plan like the one above that says "we're going to help you rock the house over the next 5-10 years and we'll get paid on results", the UAW wanted their money upfront.  They wanted to create the perfect society where their members received benefits no one else in America got.

As a result, the next time they ponder a slowdown and chest-thump about a strike, they'll be negotiating against themselves.  That's a pretty interesting outcome...

Enjoy the responsibility, UAW.  It ain't as easy as you liked to indicate it was when you were on the other side of the table.  Hope you stick around long enough to acknowledge that.

Editor's Note: By day, Kris Dunn is the VP of People at DAXKO, a cool software firm dedicated to providing solutions to the best membership-driven organizations in America. At night, he morphs into a blogger at The HR Capitalist and the Founder and Executive Editor of Fistful of Talent. That makes him a career VP of HR, a blogger, a dad and a hoops junkie, the order of which changes based on his mood. Tweet him @kris_dunn...

Like The Bloodhound Gang Once Said, "We Ain't Nothin' But Mammals"...

I know, I know, you hate AIG and whatever other big financial institution is taking TARP money, and then turning around paying Chris Dodd empowered bonuses, having expensive junkets and generally refusing to use the capital infusion to actually make loans to worthy Americans.

Rome was the mob.  So is America when we get a story fed to us for 6 straight months via the CNN/Fox News media cycle.  So it's hard to feel any sympathy for the high level employees at the financial institutions who are leaving because they can't earn what they used to earn.  Cry me some crocodile tears, right?  Stone them!

Like the Bloodhound Gang once said, "you and me baby ain't nothin' but mammals, so let's do it like they do on the Discovery Channel".  Which I'm interpreting here to mean that like you and me, the investment bankers do what you and I often do - we move to where there's the most food compensation. 

But wait!  Talent moving away from the big investment houses/arms into smaller firms might actually be a good thing - if you can listen long enough to hear how spreading talent around leads to competition and, as a result, innovation...

From the New York Times:

"The turning point for Stephan Jung came in February, around the time bonus checks were slashed. A veteran of UBS, one of many banks tarnished by the financial crisis, Mr. Jung realized that the old Wall Street would not be bouncing back any time soon. It was time to head for the new.

“After 10 years, I did not see a future for myself,” said Mr. Jung, 42, who quit to parlay his sales expertise into a career at Aladdin Capital, a small but rising investment firm run by others who had also left some of the most venerable names in finance. There is an air of exodus on Wall Street — and not just among those being fired. As Washington cracks down on compensation and tightens regulation of banks, a brain drain is occurring at some of the biggest ones. They are some of the same banks blamed for setting off the worst downturn since the Depression.

This is certainly a concern for the banks losing top talent. But other financial experts believe it is the beginning of a broader and necessary reshaping of Wall Street, too long dominated by a handful of major players that helped to fuel the financial crisis. The country may be better off if the banking industry is less concentrated, they say."

So, cry the crocodile tears for folks like Jung who can't earn a cool million at the drop of a hat these days.  But applaud the fact that talent on Wall Street is moving to smaller players.  That distribution of top talent across more companies means competition in the sector is on the uptick, which can be nothing but good for Wall Street. 

In the world of talent capitalism, I'd rather have 10,000 millionaires than 10 billionaires (with no millionaires).  It tends to keep it real all the way around.  Go find your million dollar salary, AIG executives of the world.

Editor's Note: By day, Kris Dunn is the VP of People at DAXKO, a cool software firm dedicated to providing solutions to the best membership-driven organizations in America. At night, he morphs into a blogger at The HR Capitalist and the Founder and Executive Editor of Fistful of Talent. That makes him a career VP of HR, a blogger, a dad and a hoops junkie, the order of which changes based on his mood. Tweet him @kris_dunn...

The Time Has Come for Upper Management to Offer Long-Term Contracts to Talent Management Pros

We've reached a very interesting inflection point in the Talent Management world today.  There is no simpler way to put it than to be as straightforward as possible: Upper Management is demanding more of HR, notably Talent Acquisition and Organizational Development.  In fact, the following visual illustrates two critical gaps in perception that are at the root of our crossroads today.

When posed with the point, "HR lacks the capabilities to develop talent strategies aligned with business objectives", only 25% of HR respondents agreed while 58% of Line Managers agreed.  This is a problem.  When posed with the point, "HR is not held accountable for success or failure of talent-management initiatives", 36% of HR respondents agreed while 64% of Line Managers agreed.  This is an even bigger problem.  The Line Managers are essentially saying, "Not only are you not accountable, but you don't even have the needed capabilities to do the job."  Wow.

As I look across the Talent Management landscape, I ask myself what is being done to counter this modern day Battle of Waterloo.  It's as if Upper Management is sitting across the table asking us this question, (not so) patiently awaiting our response.  Academia is responding in a big way - "Beyond HR: The New Science of Human Capital" (published in May of 2007) was a brave move by John Boudreau and Peter Ramstad toward establishing an actual Talent Management decision science.  "The Differentiated Workforce: Transforming Talent into Strategic Impact" (Becker, Huselid, and Beatty, published March 2009) is another audacious move toward an arena near and dear to my heart -- identifying and nurturing those roles and talent pockets that create the majority of customer and economic value. 

However, while Academia is stepping up to the plate in a big, big way, I find those of us who actually do the job moving in a distinctly different direction.  Instead of having the intelligent, strategic discussions about Talent Management that the C-Suite is demanding of us, I see our community ducking legitimate response by staying busy in evaluating more and more new technologies.  As Social Media has accelerated the marketing hype within our industry to mirror that of a modern-day bodybuilding magazine, it's as if we believe that if we stay busy enough, we'll never have to really "man up".  Unfortunately, this is an ineffective approach because the time has come to 'pay the piper'.

The result?  Articles like, "Memo to CFOs" Don't Trust HR", "Why We Hate HR", not to mention a further declining of the average tenure of the Talent Management Professional.  My own research of 100 profiles on LinkedIn shows the average tenure of a TM Pro at 18 months - and in that sense, is it any surprise that short-term reactionary thinking and focus on immediate metrics?  In my humble opinion, this further perpetuates the problem. 

So, let's talk about a potential solution.  How about asking TM Pros to sign 5-year minimum contracts in which bonuses are paid out on incentives tied to long-term economic value creation?  Given that the average economic cycle is 3.5 to 7 years, I'd say a base 5-year contract might do the trick.  As an Executive Recruiter, it's not uncommon for me to put together 3 year contracts for the V.P. level and higher, so I don't see this as that much of a stretch.  Think about it - a large majority of our industry is a contingent workforce anyway . . . so instead of signing open-ended contracts at an hourly rate that can be canceled at a whim (one of the bigger value propositions of a contingent force), why not attach to them a time period conducive to moving beyond short-term Wall Street pressures?  Hey, it might not be a perfect solution (if there even is one), but it would be a step in the right direction.

Editor's Note - Josh Letourneau is the owner of LG and Associates, a Strategic Sourcing, Executive Search, and Human Capital Intelligence firm based in Atlanta.  Prior to founding LG & Associates, Josh worked as a Sales & Marketing professional in the software biz and was a hard-charging Sergeant in the Marines.  In his spare time, Josh enjoys shooting at other sourcing and search professionals as available in random paintball games.  Like my background? Talk to Josh, because with all this talk of 5 year contracts, he's my personal Jerry McGuire.  That makes me Rod Tidwell.

Complaining About Your Pay - Stay Classy, HR and Recruiting Professionals....

You're a young HR or Recruiting manager new to your role, and after 2-3 months, you finally get some payroll data on your team.  You're scrolling through the detail and BAAAAAAM!!!  Sally (your direct report) is making 5K more than you.  How the #$*# does that happen?

The answer?  It's complicated.  Sally was hired for a different role and was slotted into her current job in a reorganization.  Sally has 15 years of experience, you have 5-10.  Sally was hired by Bob in Global Sales, and man, did they like to pay a lot up front.  Lots of factors.

Of course, after you go through the reasons, the reality is the same.  Sally's making more than you, and you're her manager.  That ain't right.

So what's it going to be?  Are you going to suck it up, or are you going to make someone accountable for the issue?  Are you sure you want to go there?  After all, you are an upwardly mobile Pro and have access to ALL the data... That makes you different...

Here's my list of rules when it comes to determining whether you want to address a pay issue that's comparative in nature (that means you have salary data for someone else in mind).  These apply whether someone you manage, or someone who is a peer, is making more than you are:

1.  If the pay information you have is based on rumor or secured through the access your job provides, you probably shouldn't go into the conversation "guns a-blazing" - Find out that Sally makes more than you via the rumor mill or via your access to payroll provided by your job?  You'll hurt your credibility by identifying the direct issue (the employee who makes more than you) to the powers that be... Nobody wants to hear that you're combing the payroll records, putting them to memory and stirring the pot.

2.  If your career is on a solid arc upward, and the identified issue involves a peer or direct report who doesn't deliver what you do, be confident the market will balance the issue over time.  If you're a player and the other person isn't, don't muddy your brand by starting a negative conversation.  The market knows you're a player, and over the course of the next few years, you'll be rewarded.  If you are managing those who make more than you, that process has already begun.  The only thing that might derail that?  The perception that your work isn't the most important thing to you - the money is...

3.  Stay Classy, San Diego - If you have to have a conversation about money, identify who the best person is for that conversation, then keep the negative emotion to yourself.   No one wants to hear the emotional rant.  Figure out the best way to ask that person to take a look at the issue on your behalf, and ask them for their help without defining the end result you expect or those that make more than you.   Defining what you want indicates if they don't get to your number, they've failed.  All that does is damage a relationship.

I'm a big fan of high-end talent letting their performance define their worth.  That being said, I suppose there are times when a pay conversation is in order.  If that time is now for you, leave the citations about what other people make in your desk.  It will hurt your lifetime earnings more than it will help.  Figure out a better way to get into the conversation.

That goes double for all us HR/Talent types.  With great access (to payroll records) comes great responsibility.  You can't be trusted to see all the comp increases flowing across the Matrix, then have the audacity to come forward to complain about what someone else is earning.  For us, and the people who manage us, it's all about trust....

Editor's Note: By day, Kris Dunn is the VP of People at DAXKO, a cool software firm dedicated to providing solutions to the best membership-driven organizations in America. At night, he morphs into a blogger at The HR Capitalist and the Founder and Executive Editor of Fistful of Talent. That makes him a career VP of HR, a blogger, a dad and a hoops junkie, the order of which changes based on his mood. Tweet him @kris_dunn...

MoneyBall - You Know The Economy Sucks When Pro Sports Cuts Payroll...

I used to have two criteria for a recession - layoffs at google and pro sports cutting payroll across the board.  It now appears both have come true, so who needs Greenspan?  It's a recession!

Hopefully we're getting ready to turn the corner, but when Steinbrenner feels the need to cut payroll, that can't be good.  From USA Today:

"Fourteen of the 30 teams in Major League Baseball will have a lower opening-day payroll than a year ago, according to USA TODAY's annual salary survey.

Ten of the 14 teams are cutting their 25-man-roster budget by at least $10 million.

"That is an amazing number," Chicago White Sox chairman Jerry Reinsdorf says. "This isn't just the baseball economy. But the owners who subsidized losses for their team with their businesses don't have businesses as profitable anymore."

The average salary saw a modest 4% increase, to $3.26 million. But even the New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox have cut payrolls, based on documents obtained by USA TODAY from the Major League Baseball Players Association, clubs and MLB's central office. The Yankees still lead with a $201.4 million payroll, but despite committing $423.5 million on three new free agents, their payroll is down $8 million. The Red Sox lowered theirs by $12 million to $121.7 million, dropping them behind the Yankees, New York Mets ($149.3 million) and Chicago Cubs ($134.8 million).

The Cubs, whose payroll is the largest in franchise history, are spending $16.5 million more. The Philadelphia Phillies, the 2008 World Series champions, are the only other big-market team to increase their payrolls by more than $3 million.

In contrast, the San Diego Padres slashed their payroll by nearly $20 million. They have baseball's second-lowest payroll at $43.8 million, higher than only the Florida Marlins."That's terrible," Padres starter Chris Young says. "We're in the fifth year of a new ballpark, we're a midmarket team and we're next-to-last. You would like to see payrolls reflect the way the game has grown the last five to seven years, not have teams cut back."

When's the last time you saw the average salary climb in Major League Baseball in a way that was similar to most company's merit budget?  Never?  Back when astroturf felt like cement?  When Pittsburgh was a power team?

Ugh.

Editor's Note: By day, Kris Dunn is the VP of People at DAXKO, a cool software firm dedicated to providing solutions to the best membership-driven organizations in America.  At night, he morphs into a blogger at The HR Capitalist and the Founder and Executive Editor of Fistful of Talent.  That makes him a career VP of HR, a blogger, a dad and a hoops junkie, the order of which changes based on his mood. Tweet him @kris_dunn...

Help me...Help you. How NOT to Play the Salary Negotiation Game

Tom Cruise as Jerry Maguire said it best, "Help me...help you.  Help me, help you".  The context - Jerry is talking to Rod Tidwell (Cuba Gooding Jr.) about his prima donna attitude at a time Jerry was trying to help him secure a better contract to play football.  Hmmm.  This sounds relevant to compensation conversations I've had with candidates, and ties nicely with Kris Dunn's recent musings at HR Capitalist.

The basic question for a candidate is: Should you reveal compensation history upfront?  There are many opinions on this topic but mine hasn't changed since I've gone from corporate HR to working in retained executive search.  Unlike Jerry Maguire, I'm not an agent for my candidates - clearly, I get paid by my clients; however, my relationships with my top candidates is built on mutual respect, trust, professionalism and knowing expectations upfront.  This helps me...help them.

I've recently had a candidate that refused to give me his compensation history out of concern that the company would try and low-ball him when it came to offer time.  I get it - and I understand that lousy experiences in former offer processess have jaded him.  What I explained to him is there are reasons companies work with firms like ours - and one of those is the relationships that we have with our candidates.  Not only do we find the technical, cultural and leadership fit - we also do the vetting around compensation so that once the offer is made, there are no surprises and everyone goes home happy.

It's not a one-way street either.  I'm not only asking about compensation history, I also want to know what a candidate's expectations are around an offer.  Think baseball for a moment.  I want to know what a "homerun" offer looks like for my candidate - base, bonus, LTI, relo, PTO...pet insurance, whatever.  This is the offer letter that they will want to sign before the ink is dry.  Then I want to know what their triple and double looks like - and what they'd consider a strike-out.  If it is anything les than a "homerun", well, there might be some additional coaching, but at least expectations are clear.  My client then knows what it will take to get this top candidate and what they need to do, if they can't afford the homerun offer.  You can bicker over when exactly to have this conversation, but in my book the sooner the better so no one wastes time or energy.

So, what happened with the candidate above?  Well, he stood his ground which was his choice and that's ok.  Did it prevent me from presenting him?  Yep...when you have a slate of top candidates and one chooses not to trust in my process, they've just elected to move to the middle of the pack.  It isn't about a "my way or the highway" viewpoint - no, it is the fact that I don't have a complete picture of you as a candidate and my comfort level in evaluating overall fit for my client is not as strong as with other candidates - all other criteria being equal.

Maybe Jerry's response to "Show me the money!" should have been, "You've got to TELL me about the money first!"

Editors Note- Kathy Rapp is the Managing Director for HR Search Firm in Houston, where she helps progressive companies find groovy HR Talent to drive business results.  Prior to joining HR Search firm, Kathy booked more than 15 years of progressive human resources leadership experience working for such companies as Morgan Stanley and First Data Corporation.  A connoisseur of the intersection between pop culture and business, Kathy believes many talent issues can be addressed via the succession planning lessons experienced by Van Halen (David Lee/Sammy and sadly, Gary Cherone).

Um... We're Going to Need Some of that Severance Back...

Techcrunch reported over the weekend that Microsoft has overpaid severance to some of the 1,400 associates it recently laid off, and as a result, has sent letters asking for the money back.

It's a classic employee relations/branding situation.  Would you ask for the money back?  My take is that if you had a calculation issue with one or two people, you might just suck it up and leave it alone due to the PR impact it could cause.  However, if the miscalculation is widespread and depending on the error (the severity of which we can't determine), the company might feel compelled to ask all for the cash back.  Another thought is that if the number of impacted employees is significant, you're creating two severance plans for the same group of impacted employees, which might cause legal exposure...

It's an interesting situation.  See the pictures of the letter here, which are the usual fare you would expect.

Let's say 500 employees were overpaid out of 1,400.  What would you do?  Take it back or leave it alone?

PS - how did I not know there was a movie called "Severance"?

Need a Raise? Become a Career Polygamist!

One of the things I have always strived to do is provide value to my clients beyond our executive search services. I have a strong belief in building business relationships that are deep and wide. It serves both parties well - in good and in challenging times. I have helped clients develop sales strategies, brokered introductions with potential business partners, built compensation models and much much more over the years. I try to be a partner to my clients when they call on me. I also think my role is to be a good "listener" when they call - no strings attached. 

Anyway - back to the topic at hand. I received a call last week from a client who sounded puzzled and somewhat distressed in his voice mail. He wanted my advice on a critical issue he was dealing with. I returned his call and he had a real doozy on his hands. And I mean a doozy!

He hired a sales person (we did not conduct the search) last summer for his BPO software company and explained to me that things got off to a great start as the "newbie' engaged with the team. He quickly learned the value equation and began making sales calls. That was in the first 90 days. Then something felt different. Very different. This sales wonder-boy stopped showing up for meetings, refused to return calls from the sales VP and his activity level, as measured by his sales forecast, had all but dried up. In an effort to change his behavior, the sales VP put this individual on a 90-day performance plan to measure his activity and get him back on track. Seems fair - right? He put forth (a little) more effort - but not at the pace he had during his first 90 days. But something was wrong - very wrong.  

He then learned (this is a small space), through a third party, that this wonder-boy had discovered a better way to earn money in this economy - get a second job! This genius was milking two companies for two paychecks - including my client!! What was he thinking? Big Love - look out we may have a new series for HBO on how to become a modern day career polygamist! Unbelievable! He confronted the employee and he refused to admit any guilt - but there was too much evidence at the scene of the crime. 

Can you say B-U-S-T-E-D?

Question: What punishment fits this employee's crime? Some suggest a full refund from the employee beginning on the date he accepted his second job. Others suggested contacting the other employer and blowing the whistle (loudly) on this guy. I say throw the book at him!

OK - let's hear some feedback from HR professionals across the US. How would you handle this situation? Just curious...                

Editor's Note - Tim Tolan is a partner at Sanford Rose Associates and specializes in Executive Search in Healthcare IT.  He's a closer, and you really don't want to call him unless you're ready to bring out the bazooka to bag some big game...