A few months back, FOT’s resident incentive and rewards guru, Paul Hebert, penned a great piece called ‘HR Plays Too Much Defense’. It was a great take on how, in many HR organizations, the default position of risk avoidance, protection, and even fear detracts from the function’s potential and ability to enact positive and relevant change in the enterprise. Click the link and take a few minutes to re-read the post. It’s cool, I can hang here while you digest Paul’s take.
Well, my recruiter friend replied, they are taking some pretty strong action. First, they made all of their sales reps make their LinkedIn profiles and connections private. They didn’t want their staff to be easily found and connected to by other recruiters, as well as their connections mined. Next, they had IT block all incoming email messages from the domains of their main competitors. They couldn’t have rival recruiters emailing their people directly, after all. And last, they took their partial social media blocking policy at work and extended it to more sites and networks. Sure, they still let folks, some folks, onto LinkedIn, but that is about it. Taking those few steps, in their opinion, would help in slowing down, if not stopping, the exodus of good people to their enemies.
Interesting, I replied. They had it all figured out. Once the rival recruiters saw their emails bouncing back from their mail server, surely they’d pretty much give up, right? And if all of a sudden, their LinkedIn search results for their people start coming up a bit less rich than before, well, I am sure they, of course, would just slink off, head down, cyber-defeated in a low-stakes, pathetic game of corporate jousting. And the full social media ban? I am sure none of their people actually use social media at home, or on their personal smartphones. Good thinking about the block, that will effectively erase them from the savvy sourcers out there.
In the American Old West, as the settlers moved further into Native American territory, they frequently were fearful for their safety from raiding parties of all sorts. They adopted a defensive tactic known as ‘Circling the Wagons’, which entailed arraying their covered wagons in a complete circle, and placing their prized possessions and people in the center. The idea being that by assuming this posture they could better see and ward off any attacks. Sometimes this strategy was successful, sometimes not so much.
But the thing is, today, if you try the modern version of circling the wagons around your talent, the rest of us can still see inside, and unlike in the old west, you can’t really do much to protect your possessions and people all that much. You can try and circle the wagons, cower in the middle, and hope your ‘enemies’ don’t find your valuables.
Or you can, as my friend Paul suggested, take the offense. It is up to you pardner. Giddy up!
Great post Steve,
It’s not surprising that ‘circling the wagons’ is the default response – as you and Paul have already inferred, HR is culturally conservative and plays defense by default.
It’s time we realised that the information genie is out of the bottle – we are rapidly moving into an era where relevant ‘recruiting’ information on employees is going to be available for those who know how to look for it – and lock down policies of any kind are ineffective and even counterproductive.
Companies simply need to offer more compelling reasons why the employees should stay rather than leave. A more interesting question is:
Can they do this, or will it simply result in an unsustainable ‘arms race’ as employers constantly compete with each other to retain key staff?
There is a case to be made that companies won’t be able to ‘hold’ onto employees, without offering part ownership (shares) and that we are seeing the beginnings of a paradigm shift on how labour is organised.
The future? Scaled down companies with small numbers of part-owner employees, who form the core, with a much large group of flexi or contract or freelance workers doing all other functions.
To be fun to watch.
Thanks for the great work, look forward to reading more.
Best wishes
Hung
This is a great post – ‘circling the wagons’ says it all. You can detain this or that person for a while with defensive measures but it’s a losing game in the long run.
@Hung – Thanks for your comments, you make a number of interesting points that will be things to watch for and plan for in the future.
@Laura – Thanks, I like your use of the word ‘detain’ rather than retain – a good way to look at this issue I think.
Excellent post Steve, thought provoking as usual.
I think that “circling the wagons” also risks alienating your best performers. If you take your top sales people as an example, are they more or less likely to consider other offers after the company just forced them to lock down their Linked-In profile and banned social media and made it less convenient?
I think playing offense would work better, and by that I don’t mean going after your competitor’s talent – I mean treating your top talent in a way that makes them more likely to stay.
Sean – Thanks and excellent point about playing offense not just meaning going on the attack against your competitors, but more aggressively trying to ensure your internal talent is engaged, challenged, and see staying as an option that meets their short and longer term goals.
I’ve seen a number of signals that the environment for hiring and poaching is on the increase. The part I think you’re missing is working on helping your best people to not have a REASON to leave.
You can’t keep others from making contact and extending offers. But you CAN have an impact on whether people look seriously and think about leaving.