Fistful of Talent

On Declined Job Offers & Why Sometimes, I Really Believe Recruiting is Like Dating...

I am not sure when it last happened to me... but the other week, I had a candidate turn down a job offer. In this economy? I know. And it was a great, fair offer. The feeling of rejection? Slightly piercing. Okay, deeply piercing. I mean... it's been a while since I've had anyone reject me for anything... a date, a job. It just isn't something I'm used to! Ha! I kid! Being rejected though... it reminded me of an ongoing disagreement I've had with my best friend on his dating strategy and the parallel lessons for recruiting.

My BFF? He's a good looking guy. He's handsome, charming and sweet. He has a good job, no particular oddities or freakish tendencies and he's a ton of fun. I love him to death and think he's a great package - I even dated him myself at one point. If I had to liken him to an employer, because after all there's a point in all of this, he'd be one of those great places to work and have a kicking employment brand. People are drawn to him and he doesn't have to do much recruiting. But in some ways, he has a bit of a retention problem as at 34, he's still single. His turnover rate? Well, let's not go there because that would make ME just another statistic. There's voluntary and involuntary turnover though. He's ready to meet "the one" though. So what gives?

My theory is that it's his approach to dating. He casts the net wide, pulls 'em in, and because he's a great catch, he always has lots of options. The kicker though? He juggles multiple gals at once because his theory is that he should have backup options. If one gal doesn't work out, he wants to have alternatives who are lined up and ready for him. So on any given night when we are out on the town, I can watch my BFF working his phone and flirting with any or all of the dames. And it's entertaining, trust me. (Except for those fateful nights where they all show up at the same place in which case I have to run some major interference. Oi vey...)

My issue with his approach? He's too unfocused. I have long nagged him that each and every one of the gals he "talks to" can sense that he's not entirely present. There's just no way he can really give a gal the attention she deserves and probably wants out of him because he's spread too thin. He's not fully engaged - with any of them. If he really wanted to court someone? I have always argued that he should focus a bit more and give his attention to one girl a time. A gal can tell after all when her suitor is distracted so give her complete, undivided attention and then if she's not the one, move on. Yet my BFF thinks that it's opportunity lost. He doesn't want to be left standing in the cold alone if the object of his attention doesn't pan out. He wants a pipeline of gals.

But back to my declined job offer... We were all in love with the candidate and thought she was the one. We pulled out all the stops - the equivalent of red roses, love poems, wining and dining and all. I was singularly focused on her and getting her in the door... but then she said no thanks and I felt like I had been dumped and left out in the cold. And I can't help but to sit here and wonder if maybe my BFF is on to something.

Editor's Note- Jessica Lee is a Sr. 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 she can avoid using the job boards to fill the next spot in her organization...

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...

My Word Isn't Good Enough? Verbal Job Offers...

I was chatting with a recruiter friend the other day about job offers. It's probably one of my favorite parts of my job. But we've started noticing a somewhat disturbing trend...

Let me set the stage. My pal picks up the phone to make an offer to a candidate. They talk through the details, the candidate was excited as can be so they talked about a possible start date... and then she says she'd give her notice after she received the offer in writing. My recruiter pal says sure, and that she'd send her an email outlining what they had discussed and once they had a start date finalized, she'd put the offer letter together and have the powers that be sign the official letter.

The candidate said great, but she wanted to know when she would receive a signed offer letter. It seemed she wasn't willing to give her notice until she had something in her hands with an actual signature. She wanted real ink.

Am I the only one who thinks this is sad? She was given the offer verbally, she received a follow up via email outlining the terms discussed... but that wasn't enough. And mind you, this was a corporate recruiter extending the offer directly. There was no middle man there.

I've seen this a handful of times, too. And I'm not sure I "get it" completely. To check my gut, I sent a tweet out about it and the responses floored me - both via tweet and separately by email. Recruiters and HR pros saying they understood candidates responding in this way... it seemed there were a handful of folks who have had to rescind offers in the past, or that once offers had been made, they have had positions fall through, budgets disappear, or the requirements of a position changed... and job seekers who came back also saying they felt the same way about needing something in writing, with an actual signature, because they didn't trust verbal offers, probably were the recipients of offers made by the very same recruiters who responded to me... sigh.

Is anyone else confused by this?

First, I understand that given the state of the economy and the uncertainty all around us, sure. It isn't unreasonable for a candidate to want an offer in writing. Leaving a job for another job... it could be understandably a little risky. But I struggle because I just don't understand why the relationships that I've built with candidates, my word, and a confirmation via email isn't enough? Isn't that a lot to give? I mean, come on! When you put all three together, why would you ever think that I'd go back on my word?

But, maybe, more importantly... why have so many job seekers been jerked around when it comes to employment offers that they have to be so overly cautious? I mean for those of you making offers out there, what the heck are you guys doing?

If you're a recruiter, sure, make the excuse that something happened behind the scenes that you weren't aware of and surfaced at the last moment, after you made the offer to a candidate. Maybe it was a budget issue, a contract issue, an issue with your hiring manager. Make all the excuses you'd like. For me? The reality is simply that you weren't communicating enough, weren't in touch enough with the business, or your internal communication or approval channels suck. You should never make an offer that you can't keep and that you don't think will be accepted. Be in touch with the business. Do your homework. Make sure everyone is fully aware, in the know, in the loop, and ready for the offer to be accepted... otherwise?

You're doin' it wrong. And you're embarrassing me because candidates now have doubt about my word and whether I'll come through... and that just ain't right.

Editor's Note- Jessica Lee is a Senior 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 she can avoid using the job boards to fill the next spot in her organization...

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...

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).

Last Picked and Verbal Offers...

I don’t recall ever being team captain in elementary school.  This isn’t some Generation X angst thing or a heads up for therapy - I just don’t have any memory of being grammar school deity during recess.  Perhaps you, along with me, were lined up on the white line, waiting to be picked, present, and willing to apply our energy and enthusiasm.  Sometimes we were picked last or not at all.  Soccer, kickball, basketball – you name it, the team captain made the selections, and the rest of us had to live with it for the next 10-30 minutes of recess.

The feelings that go along with being picked last (or not at all) stink.  Watch Dodgeball if you've forgotten, it's a story of kids who were never picked.  As recruiters we a) visit these feelings on others when we decline candidates (I talk about this here) and b) we also get these feelings when our candidates decline us.  Yes, there are a myriad of factors that go into why we’re rejected, but there is one move that can reduce your chances of being declined: the verbal offer.  

At my company, hiring managers used to be the ones to make the written offer.  It was pretty stressful.  Let’s face it, most hiring managers are good at what they do on a regular basis, but typically, making offers isn’t one of those things.   After experiencing enough rejections, my staffing team discussed moving the offer process to the recruiter.  However, it wasn’t just a mere transition.  Recruiters began extending offers to their top candidates in two steps, something along these lines:

 

1. After securing required signatures of approval, the recruiter would contact the candidate and say something like this, “Hi Jeanne.  We’d like to make you an offer, if you’re  ready to make a decision about this role in our company”  Do you have any other questions that need to be answered first so you can make a decision?”  If the candidate’s response is that they are ready to make a decision, then the recruiter would continue, “As I have mentioned earlier, we would like to make you a verbal offer of [offer details].  I am looking for a verbal response, ‘no’, ‘yes’ or clarification about the terms.”

 

2. If there is a positive verbal response, then the recruiter draws up the written offer and either meets with the candidate in person for signing or emails, in PDF-format, the written offer with a short expiration date.

 

The details of an offer are indeed important.  However, making a verbal offer clears up the recruiter-candidate conversation at the end of the vetting process.  Does the candidate need more information? Are they mentally and emotionally ready to commit?  With a verbal offer, you know that the candidate has picked you.  Isn’t that a great feeling, as opposed to being left on the white line at recess?

Photo by shawnzlea

Editor's Note - William Uranga is the Director of Talent Acquisition at TiVo, where his team is responsible for all staffing strategies and recruiting programs for the organization.  He also moonlights as an instructor, teaching in the Certificate Program in Human Resource Management of the University of California Extension in Silicon Valley, and helped co-found and lead the Bay Area-based Recruiting Leadership Forum, a network for those who are leading recruiting in a corporate function and are just trying to get better at it.  Check out his blog at Talent Alchemy and don't say "DVR" when you call him...

Fishing Through the Fancy Titles On the Recruiting Scene...

I was talking to a blow hard potential candidate the other day.  He had introduced himself to me as the "Senior Vice President of XYZ Studios."

Ooooh...sounds catchy.  Sounds like someone I may be interested in.  

Then, we chatted.  It quickly became apparent to me that his job was the equivalent of a Business Development Manager.  Basically...he found external game partners to work with publishing their products.

In our world, this is a great job.  But, it's not a VP.  I quickly mentioned to him that this position within my group would not be executive level.  His response?  "Well...I may not be a VP, buy I should certainly at least report to one." 

Um...no.  Sorry.

I see this fairly frequently.  Often, particularly with smaller companies, if one is a good negotiator, you can go into a new job with a killer title.  A friend of mine, also a game recruiter, recently joined a new company as their sole recruiting person.  She mentioned to me that she could call herself anything.  Staffing Manager.  Director of Recruiting.  Vice President of Talent Acquisition! 

Heck, back in my bank recruiting days, it was standard to offer a person one title (Associate Vice President of Radical) with the understanding that they were welcome to use a title up to three above their official one for doing business with groups outside the company.  It was clearly a status thing.  Who wants to do business with any person even a step under the role of Senior Vice President of Executive Radicalness?

To my recruiting friends...Beware of the fancy pants title.  Despite the fact that Presidents are everywhere, titles do not always reflect reality.  Unfortunately, while not reflecting reality, they often inflate egos.  It can sometimes be tough to convince someone that what a Vice President does at their small corporation is not what a Vice President does at my large corporation.  Seriously, dude...the VP that I support has a team of 1500 people.  His direct reports each manage 100 or more.  Compare that to your team of 2.  

Now, don't get me wrong...I'm not all Mr. Cranky Man when I talk to Vice Presidents of UberSpecialness.  I simply address the situation up front.  At my company, while your title may not be as fancy as the one you currently have, you will be working on much larger products, with larger teams, contributing to a larger goal. 

Some people get it.  Others, if they're worth pursuing, need their egos stroked, just a little bit.  "Right now, people find your resume through a key word search online.  Or, maybe through a friend of a friend.  When you're done with my product...they will find your name after specifically buying the game just so they can pull names from the credits.  Well...that, and because the game rocks." 

Many titles just don't mean what they used to.  For another view, head on over to the HR Capitalist.  Kris has some ideas for why this is happening so frequently, nowadays.  In the meantime, don't offer an additional $100k to someone simply because they are leaving behind an "executive" title.  

Now, how am I going to fit my title, Extreme Super Jedi Master of Recruiting Brilliance, onto a resume?

Editor's Note - Jason Pankow is a Senior Recruiter for Microsoft’s Xbox LIVE and Xbox Software groups.  Jason supports the Interactive Entertainment Business at Microsoft, bringing in technical, as well as creative, talent to Redmond.  Ironically, Jason's just submitted a business case for becoming the Regional VP of Editorial Services-Northwest here at FOT.  That one's bogged down in the approval process.

Confucius Says...Cultures (and Candidates) Vary In Their Willingness to Negotiate...

Workforce is talking about the Paycheck Fairness Act. You can make up your mind on your own for where you stand. As for me? I’m honestly a bit ignorant on the specifics of the legislation. Sorry to be a total dud... but as I begin pondering it all, here’s where my mind begins drifting...

The way some folks talk about pay inequity makes it seem as if (1) some candidates are inherently better at and more likely to negotiate their salary (the white male in the Workforce article’s scenario) and (2) some HR pros or hiring managers will and do give in to said candidates and then perhaps "low ball" others who don't negotiate up (the black female in that same scenario). When I step back and think about this, it seems that in some ways, we’ve got a communication problem on our hands and more specifically, it’s the effect culture has on one's communication style. Let me speak from a personal standpoint and keep going on this one.

Me? A Korean-American gal. How I was raised? Well, my family is Korean first and foremost, and Confucianism deeply permeates Korean culture. There are influences on morality, societal norms, relationship models, family structure… or simply put, on culture. There’s that deeply embedded sense of obedience and respect to elders or authority figures. Modesty and humility are praised characteristics. And then there’s that whole collectivist attitude where conflict, competition, and self-serving behaviors are discouraged. Now translate that into the workplace!

A performance review of mine that sticks out greatly... a few years into the HR world, I had gone through a ginormous ATS conversion. My manager felt I had a lot to be proud of but as for areas of improvement, there was one little thing. She wanted me to start taking more credit and share more openly my ideas and accomplishments. I still remember her exact words. "You need to talk more about what you do and how you do it in staff meetings."

The thought of what she asked of me made me squirm. In my head, it was like she was encouraging me to be that kid in grade school who sat in the front of the class always with their hand up in the air when the teacher asked a question squealing, "Me! Me! I know the answer." I have never been that kid nor have I ever really liked that kid. I was never raised to brag, I was never encouraged to boast. In fact, instances where I might have been a little too proud? I got into big trouble. So, to my manager, I had to explain that what she was asking of me felt like self-promotion... and I wasn't sure I could do it, because culturally, I just wasn't raised in that vein.

I can’t and won’t make sweeping generalizations about groups of people. I have seen this same theme in others though. In interviews – the ultimate place to sell yourself? There are definitely candidates from similar cultures to mine who have a hard time putting the spotlight on themselves. They may also say "we" all the time in place of "I" because collectivism is deeply rooted in them. Or when offering a job... perhaps the candidate won’t or can’t negotiate because wouldn’t that be pushing back on an elder or authority figure? And out of respect for that figure, they might assume they are getting the fair and just offer, and that the decision maker behind the offer is using their wisdom to craft a package that is deserved.

So, for us who are pondering the Paycheck Fairness Act, what does any of my story mean? Decide what you may on the legislation, but in the meantime, think about this:

• Let’s not low ball candidates when making offers. Come with your best on the first shot, as the negotiation game is silly. Not all people can or will negotiate.

• Dig deep with candidates and be cognizant of cultural factors that might affect their communication style. Educate your hiring managers and interviewers to do the same too.

After all... Confucius says by nature, men are nearly alike; by practice, they get to be wide apart.

Pay Everybody The Same - Is this Russia, Danny?

Repeat after me...

Recruiters and HR pros are the keepers of the flame when it comes to compensation consistency for offers to candidates.  You live it everyday from a recruiting standpoint.  Do you know when a candidate is worth 10% more than another candidate?  What about more than an incumbent who is currently in the role?

Sure you do.  And if you don't keep a close eye on ensuring salary differences for candidates in the same  position are based on actual differences in knowledge, skills and abilities, there's a high likelihood that the government is going to try and do it for you. 

Workforce Recruiting has a nice example up to get you warmed up on the issue of pending legislation like the Paycheck Fairness Act (PFA).  A white male aggressively negotiates during the offer process, while equally qualified female and minority candidates don't negotiate.  The white male ends up with a higher salary. 

The catch - defining "equally qualified".  Do you want to do that, or would you like the government to?

More great ideas from Washington are on the way.  Ann Bares and Mike Haberman have been active in speaking up against the Paycheck Fairness Act (PFA).  Like the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), it's got a great title.  Who can argue against fairness?

The main thrust of the act is to address issues like gender pay equity, which is something all of us should look to impact on a daily basis in the offer and performance management process.

Of course, we already have laws that mandate that...

The problem with the Paycheck Fairness Act is simple.  The bill overreaches by getting the Department Of Labor involved in telling you how you should value talent in your organization.  With that in mind, the question is pretty simple - who do you want valuing the 1,001 factors that go into decisions on how to compensate your talent?  The government or your management team led by you, the gritty human capital pro?

You're kidding me on that question right?  Be sure to see the cuts originally riffed by HR Observations here and here.  Meanwhile, here's some fodder to think about from Compensation Force on the PFA:

"The Paycheck Fairness Act’s Section 7, like Section 3 discussed above, would directly involve the Department of Labor in the wage-setting process of employers, and, just as problematic, inject the widely-rejected theory of “comparable worth” into that process. And in deciding what jobs are worth to individual employers, the Government would apparently exclude consideration of some of the factors most relevant to that highly individualized determination, such as: marketplace value and supply and demand; the nature of a position vis-à-vis whether it involves physical labor; a company’s position in the marketplace; employers’ varying business needs and priorities; employees’ educational backgrounds; employees’ experience, both qualitatively and quantitatively; and regional differences.

There is more than enough here that ought to concern HR professionals, beginning with an unprecedented ability of government and the courts to insert themselves into all practices related to pay decisions, from performance management to job evaluation.  I'd like, however, to focus on a particular element of the Act: the requirement that a government mandated approach be used to, in effect, override market influences on compensation.  Like previous attempts at comparable worth legislation, this is based upon the argument that the market is biased against female dominated jobs, necessitating that its influence be nullified in setting employee pay.

I don't deny that gender pay differences exists; in fact I've posted on this topic before.  I do believe, however, that the influences behind gender based pay differences are varied and nuanced.  And my 20+ years of experience in compensation convinces me that aiming an instrument as blunt and misguided as the Paycheck Fairness Act at U.S. pay administration practices will have consequences that are more harmful than good - particularly in its aim to negate the impact of the market."

Again - pay equity GOOD (and many of you work towards this in your practice daily); government as a replacement for markets BAD.  Be a critical thinker, no matter how cushy the title of a bill sounds. 

Like so many laws, if you're a quality HR pro or recruiter who has to value talent, you're already looking at variations in offers to candidates with a critical eye.  You don't need a government threat to treat people fairly.  That's good, because that's what you should do.  Unfortunately, more legislation is only going to put pressure on you to dumb the process down, and stop being aggressive with comp when it's warranted - for female, minority and white male candidates alike.

Maybe that HR Director spot in Moscow is still open.  I hear the talent game is simpler there.... Everybody gets 1,000 rubles whether they've performed or not...

I'm Not Going to Tolerate a Lot of Negotiating, Bob...

Later on this week we'll be doing a series of articles for Workforce Recruiting, most of which deal with the topic of pending pay equity legislation like the Paycheck Fairness Act.

I know that sounds boring, but it's not.  Here's why - the focus of most of those articles is how  candidates who have better negotiating skills tend to end up with higher salaries than equally qualified candidates who refuse to negotiate.  Is that good or bad?

Regardless of your opinion, my ears perked up when I heard this last week:

Me - Sally (candidate in play) has another offer, so we need to think about that before we make ours.

Rick (name changed, perhaps gender changed to protect the ID of the manager) - Kris, I'm not going to tolerate a lot of negotiating on this one.

Me - OK... It's been a little while since we last talked to her and she was obviously on the market, so it's not surprising that she's been offered elsewhere.

Rick - Fine, I'm just not going to play a lot of games.

Me - Cool.  Let's talk about the base, we're 10K short from the competing offer.  What do you want to do?

Rick - Hold tight.  I'm not going to bring her in at a higher rate than my incumbents.

Me - I understand that and think that's a good call.  If you budge 5K, the probability of closing this one goes up from about 30% to about 70%.

Rick - No dice.  With this position, she can make it up on the incentive pay.  She can pull herself up via her performance.

ME - OK, we'll move it forward - not likely to close this one, however...

I run down that scenario for you for the following reasons - even though legislation like the Paycheck Fairness Act is being proposed due to equity issues caused by effective candidate negotiators getting more $$$ for the same job, I run into a lot of managers who take it personally when a candidate wants to negotiate.

It's personal to them.  Doesn't matter what the candidate's gender, race, national origin or zodiac sign is, they REFUSE to consider negotiation, unless I put their arm behind their back like Tony Soprano.  Telling them the job will remain open for an additional 60 days seems to get their attention.

For all the problems that can be caused by compensation equity issues, it makes me wonder if bigger problems are caused by companies and managers who refuse to negotiate.  After all, the same approach can spill over from recruitment into performance management and merit pay.

If you've ever been insulted by a candidate asking for more, you might be a manager with control issues - or pride yourself on being an effective negotiator.

Talent be dammed!