Just when you think securing key talent couldn’t get any harder up pops a little red herring the 90 day trial period. Whether explicit or implicit, the perceived risk associated with making the move from a secure job to a new one lingers in the recesses of the candidates mind tipping the scales away from engaging.
It’s made working with the passive market difficult to say the least. What used to be a courting period, a dance of whims and desires responded to with value propositions and a dose of ego boosting flattery has reduced to an exchange of a couple of words; “No thanks”. A patchy, albeit recovering economy alongside being last on somewhere new, versus remaining nicely looked after in a ‘so-so’ role is still no contest.
To be of the best value to my clients’ I do a lot of headhunting. I’ve recently taken to asking potential employers if they intend to put it in the employment agreement when I pick up the brief. It determines my sourcing strategy and allows me to convey how much success I am likely to have with tactics centred on the passive market.
It also helps me plan the negotiation further down the track so that offers of employment are less likely to come unhinged based on an awkward standoff. This might be when it’s company policy to include it for all new hires. The law states both parties must agree to its inclusion but the irony is it’s not really up for debate. An affronted candidate and a staunch Employer means I have seen agreements pretty close to falling over at the very last hurdle as it becomes at least a matter of principle and at most a perceived livelihood risk.
I can see both sides. The Employer will argue if the person’s any good they don’t have anything to worry about. But then they’ve usually forgotten they are dealing with the passive audience and some relative unknowns for the candidate relating to the exact culture and true values of the Manager and organisation. Having said this as a business owner if I was hiring someone I can see the obvious benefits. It would be like taking out a free insurance policy. Most likely not required however the prudent thing to do and something to take advantage of.
The candidate takes the angle that for anything but the tiniest of SME it’s not being applied in the spirit it was intended; to de-risk smaller businesses should they wish to take create jobs and grow. It seems to signal a lack of faith in the person’s ability which doesn’t set the employment relationship off on the right foot. It’s a dressed up ‘try before you buy’ scheme and leaves the employee with very little power in the relationship.
For example, in the past a Manager who was less capable leadership and coaching wise and who would have persisted with initial bumps in the road may now panic and perhaps see it as easier to call it quits before things get complicated, thereby renouncing their obligation to their new staff member.
Whatever your stance on the issue, the crux is making the right hiring decisions in the first place. If someone has chosen to join your organisation and left another good job to come on board, barring misconduct, you do have a duty to try to make it work. If you’re a new employee you may well want to get a copy of Michael Watkins book.
ROI Talent Blog 