People are the most valuable asset of any business, but they are also the most unpredictable, and the most difficult asset to manage. And although managing people well is critical to the health of any organization, most managers don't get the training they need to make good management decisions. Now, award-winning authors and renowned management Professors Mike Useem and Peter Cappelli of the Wharton School have designed this course to introduce you to the key elements of managing people. Based on their popular course at Wharton, this course will teach you how to motivate individual performance and design reward systems, how to design jobs and organize work for high performance, how to make good and timely management decisions, and how to design and change your organization’s architecture. By the end of this course, you'll have developed the skills you need to start motivating, organizing, and rewarding people in your organization so that you can thrive as a business and as a social organization.
Hiring
Loading...
En provenance du cours de University of Pennsylvania
Managing Social and Human Capital
798 notes
À partir de la leçon
Motivation and Reward
In this module, you'll learn how motivation affects an individual's performance and how to use that motivation to drive performance. You'll explore how incentive systems are designed and how psychological concepts such as behavior modification, imitation, conformity, and compliance influence and shape these systems. You’ll also examine the current process of hiring employees using technology, tracking systems, and outsourcing. And you’ll learn how you can provide valuable feedback to your employees, and make performance appraisals productive. By the end of this module, you’ll be able to apply what you've learned to best motivate, hire, and evaluate your employees.
Rencontrer les enseignants
Michael UseemProfessor of Management and Director of the Center for Leadership and Change Management
The Wharton School
Peter CappelliProfessor of Management, Director, Center for Human Resources
The Wharton School
So let's talk about another issue in managing people and
one that gets a lot of attention these days, that's the question of hiring.
One of the reasons it gets so much attention is there's just a lot more
hiring going on, partly because there is less internal development,
promotion from within, and much more filling positions from the outside.
So if you thought that management was really everything,
then it wouldn't matter who you hired.
It's all about how you manage them.
We don't think that's true, but
we also don't think it's true, a theory that became popular a decade or
two ago, that it's really about the quality of the players coming in.
We'll talk more about this a little later, the idea that there are A players and
really good players, B players, average performers, and C players, lousy ones.
And it's all about hiring.
That's not true, either.
So hiring matters, it's not the only thing that matters.
Management matters a lot, as well.
There are two steps in hiring and the first one is recruiting, that is,
the people you get to apply to work for you.
And the second is selection,
when you look at the applicant pool who you going to pick.
We spend way too much time focused on selection, I think.
That gets all the attention.
And the problem with selection is, it's first of all,
if you got the wrong applicant pool,
you can't hire the right people if they're not in your pool to begin with.
And selection is just really hard to do.
And the reason it's hard to do is because candidates lie,
they don't tell you the truth, right?
They want a job,
they want you to hire them at that point, they've applied to work for you.
And if you ask them things like,
does this company look like the kind of place you want to be?
They say, yeah.
If you ask them, what's your biggest problem,
your biggest drawback to working with you?
They say things like, I work too hard, right, they're trying to spin you a story.
So, it's very difficult to get past that at the point of selection.
Let's talk about recruitment.
I think all employers ought to spend more time
crafting an accurate description of what their job is like.
One of the biggest reasons people quit is they say,
I didn't know what I was getting into.
This is not what I wanted.
That's completely preventable and I think frankly, the reason it happens is
employers are kind of afraid to show people what their job is really like.
They want them to only see the good things when they're applying.
But then the problem is they've gotta live together afterwards and
they discover the reality and poof, they quit.
This is kind of like if you're going to live together with somebody or
get married and you're hiding a whole bunch of stuff and
you're hoping after you're married that they'll all be okay with it.
It typically doesn't work very well.
It doesn't work very well in hiring either.
So, what you want is a description of what your job is like that is accurate and
also one that will probably scare away people who don't fit,
because you don't want those people applying.
Every person who applies costs you money.
And every chance that somebody gets in who really doesn't fit, every time
that happens it increases the probability you're going to make a bad hire.
So you want a statement, some people call this the employee value proposition,
about what’s different working for
us than other companies maybe that are in the same industry.
Plus side and minus side.
What's different about working for us right?
And you want that to be accurate.
Now, one way to do this is with internship right?.
Now you might think that the typical reason for internships is
the candidate can scope you out and decide or you can scope the candidate out,
rather, and decide whether this is the kind of person you want.
But a lot of companies have figured out that the more important use of that
is the candidate can scope you out.
So that if you offer them a job and they say,
yes, they know what they're getting into.
It's going to have a retention device to make sure you're not going to lose people
as soon as you hire them.
So remember, not hiring somebody is a problem,
if you can't hire that's certainly a problem.
But hiring somebody who ends up quitting is arguably a worse problem,
because you've gone through all the costs of bringing them in.
And if they're unhappy and quit, they're making the people around them unhappy and
then you gotta repeat the process anyway, right?
So if we take that more seriously, we'd spend more time on recruitment.
Now on selection, what do we know?
There's a huge literature on this, but let me summarize it briefly.
The things that matter the most are things associated with past behavior,
tends to be the best predictor of future behavior.
If you could actually find out how they performed in a similar job before,
that would be great, right?
That would be maybe the best thing you could get.
It's hard to get that in many countries, hard to get good references from people.
If you could get that though, that would be wonderful.
That's partly why internal moves of people who already work for you are so good.
Much better than hiring from the outside typically because you know a lot about
that person already and the information's pretty accurate.
So, that's really good.
Other things that are really good, skill tests work.
If it's important to know whether a person has the skills to program,
give them a programming problem and see if they can solve it.
The problem is that you can only do skills tests generally for more of the simpler,
basic sorts of skills.
Conscientiousness out of personality matters,
that's the only thing that consistently matters out of personality.
IQ seems to matter a bit.
But when we talk about these things mattering, it's important to recognize
how much are we talking about and turns out not very much.
So for some of these things, you might see a correlation between, let's say,
personality test conscientiousness and job performance of 0.3.
And you might say, well, that looks pretty good, right?
But we need to remember from statistics that the amount of variation that explains
is the square, r-squared, right, correlation is r.
The amount of variation explained is r-squared.
So that personality test only explains 9% of
the variation in performance, 0.3 times 0.3.
And that's only the case if you don't have other things in there
already that might be correlated or similar to personality.
If you've got past job performance in there, the amount that you
add by throwing in personality or IQ or something else is even smaller than that.
So, the punchline there is we're not that great at being able to predict
on average how well any particular candidate's going to do,
which is why recruitment is so important, okay?
And the last issues about hiring is the idea about how it drives
organizational culture.
And this is a theory people call Attraction-Selection-Attrition and
the reason they call it that is here's how it works.
If you've got a company with a particular culture, candidates come,
they see the culture or they know about what the company is like,
people start to self-select, that's what you want, right?
So the people who end up applying are already pretty similar to your standard.
And then your company or your organization picks
from that applicant pool the people it likes, thinks are going to succeed.
They tend to pick people who are like themselves.
It's not crazy, those people have succeeded.
And then the people who are the most different, feel they don't fit,
are the ones that leave.
What do you end up with at the end of the day?
A group of people who are very similar in terms of norms and values.
Maybe that's fine.
It also reminds us why we don't get diversity in organizations, though,
because this process, which happens more or less everywhere,
tends to replicate the type of organization you've already got.
So one of the lessons from this is if you want diversity,
you gotta build it in as a priority because the natural process like this,
which plays out at all hiring, tends to work against that, okay?
Now unfortunately,
the reality of hiring doesn't look much like textbook descriptions.
There's a lot of textbook that describe complicated models of hiring that
begins with filling out descriptions of jobs and then how they fit into
organizational hierarchies, and the competencies, and all this kind of stuff.
Posting applications or posting positions, posting applications, all that stuff.
The reality of technology is changing this a lot.
So this last year in the United States, for example, the Federal Reserve
calculated the majority of people who move jobs were not looking for a job at all.
Somebody came and got them.
And this is because of technology like LinkedIn and
other sources where you can look at people, where they work,
their record and go ping them and say, I think you would be a good fit for us.
The applicant process is now driven by computers,
technology called applicant tracking systems where computer screen resumes.
So to get through that process, your resume has to have the right words on it,
which is another complication.
It's also possible that you can outsource the whole hiring process.
Firms called in an industry called recruitment process outsourcing will just
do the whole thing for you.
And of course, it's also possible to not hire anybody at all but
to engage labor through staffing agencies.
You lease the employees of a staffing company.
You're not hiring them, you're not really managing them directly.
There's all kinds of ways in which you can get labor now
that doesn't involve hiring anybody at all, right?
So, there's a lot of choices now about how you might manage things and
it increases the complexity of all this.
It requires a deeper dive into all these things.
And unfortunately, the standard sources and the textbooks
are not really up to speed as to the reality of how people get hired today.
Explorer notre catalogue
Rejoignez-nous gratuitement et obtenez des recommendations, des mises à jour et des offres personnalisées.
Coursera propose un accès universel à la meilleure formation au monde,
en partenariat avec des universités et des organisations du plus haut niveau, pour proposer des cours en ligne.
© 2018 Coursera Inc. Tous droits réservés.
