Blog
Is your company brave enough to hire overqualified job applicants?
Posted on May 3, 2017 at 5:52 AM |
![]() |
No, probably not. In fact,
I’m guessing your company doesn’t even interview them for fear of the following: 1. When more
experience and skills are obvious from their LinkedIn profile or job
application it naturally brings the perception of added value. And added value brings the perception of
higher pay, even if the salary range hasn’t been disclosed. If that perceived higher salary is higher
than your budget for the position the application goes into the “overqualified”
file. 2. Recruitment is expensive and takes time, so of course every employer wants
the most return on their HR investment.
If the applicant brings additional value it’s natural to conclude that
they have lots of “options.” Therefore the
applicant probably wouldn’t stay very long.
Let’s file that one with the overqualified too. 3. Additional experience must mean they’ll get bored with a lower tasked
job. And who wants employees who are not
motivated or refuse to be “engaged?” 4. Additional experience implies that they are older and set in their ways. And the young manager the applicant would
report to really views them as a potential internal competitor, not a potential
mentor. 5. Their additional skills and experience means the applicant has obviously
applied for the wrong job. That means
there must be something wrong with them, or they have something to hide. There could be several other
reasons, but you’ll never know because your organization doesn’t take the time,
or see the need to have a conversation. No
doubt your management has metrics, case studies or white papers that explain
why it’s always done this way. And yet,
the overqualified candidate expressed interest.
They initiated first contact with your company. If nothing else, don’t you wonder why? For example, what if: · They
want to shift industries. · Move to
a new location. · Travel
less, or more. · Achieve
greater work-life balance. · They are just ready for a change. It’s time to rethink
this situation because on the positive side overqualified can also mean: 1. Well known
and connected to your market. 2. Influential 3. Knowledgeable 4. Self-sufficient
and easy to manage. 5. Motivated,
enthusiastic, even passionate about their work. 6. Able to
provide fast results. 7. All of
the above. Look, regardless of how long an overqualified
candidate stays, he or she is bound to add value to your employees and company. You could do worse things than hire an
amazing performer, even if he or she stays only six months. So, make the time to find out what really motivated them to apply in order
to validate additional process considerations.
Examine and evaluate their social capital and personal brand carefully. The last thing you want to do is dismiss a relationship
that could be useful to your sales, marketing or executive team. Consider creating a networking process to
introduce the candidate to key employees within your organization. That action will help your current employees
grow their social capital, and at the same time soften the rejection and keep
doors open if hiring them is not an option at this time. |
Will you survive the first 100 days?
Posted on January 26, 2017 at 8:51 AM |
![]() |
Whenever a new president takes office talk turns to the vaunted
first 100 days. The phrase has been
around since FDR and is now used by the media to measure the successes and
accomplishments of a president during their initial leadership transition. It’s interesting to note that this benchmark
has rarely correlated with the subsequent success or failure of a president’s
time in office. After all, every president
goes through ups and downs as they face the challenges that are unique to their
particular time in history. So what
keeps the hundred days mythology alive then?
And why have experienced business executives who are starting new
positions also been coached to take their first 100 days seriously? Because, almost every organization is really
working from a sequence of short-term plans, so it would be disastrous for a
new executive to think they have six, nine or 12 months to get up to speed. First impressions
are critical to future momentum; first impressions influence credibility, trust
and often longer-term success. And as we
all know, you don’t get a second chance to make a good first impression. Sadly; statistics show that nearly 11 percent of
executives will fail in their first year on the job, and according to
Manchester Inc. nearly 40 percent won't make it past the first 18 months in a
new position. Those facts are eye opening and imply
that either a lot of executives are operating with a faulty 100-day plan, or
that organizations are doing a great job of placing candidates in the wrong
positions. If
you are an executive facing a new assignment take some time to read Michael
Watkins “The First 90 Days.” Yes, it was
penned back in 2003 but it is still a pretty good read on the subject and it
will help you with your strategy. If
you are responsible for hiring a new executive perhaps it’s time to consider a
different type of strategy. A strategy
based on temporary, interim or fractional executive leadership. Keep in mind, temporary or interim doesn’t
mean less talented, and your risk of placing the wrong executive will be greatly
reduced. |
Real-Time Talent Mismanagement in Action
Posted on November 17, 2016 at 8:56 AM |
![]() |
“We’re looking for a lighter version of you.” In a business recruiting situation, they
probably don’t mean that you’re overweight.
Odds are they’re telling you that they think you’re “overqualified.” And overqualified is usually code speak for
the following: 1. You are too old. 2. You are too expensive. 3. The hiring manager would be uncomfortable
with your credentials. Perhaps even
intimidated. 4. They don’t have the forward thinking vision
to consider expanding the position, or to anticipate their future talent needs. 5. All of the above. Overqualified candidates are rarely invited to interview with the
hiring manager. Their resume or social
profile is screened and the
assumption made that the person would be bored and not motivated, so they would
underperform or leave. As a
result, the standard template rejection email is sent letting them know they
should feel free to apply for other jobs you have posted. Of course you’ll feel they’re overqualified
for those jobs too inviting the process to start over. This is completely ludicrous when you think
about it. No doubt HR has metrics, case
studies or white papers that explain why it’s always done that way. And yet, the overqualified candidate
expressed interest. They initiated first
contact with your company. If nothing
else, don’t you wonder why? For example: · They
want to shift industries. · Move to
a new location. · Travel
less or more. · Achieve
greater work/life balance. · They
just want to make a change. There could be several other
reasons, but you’ll never know because your organization doesn’t have the time or
see the need to have a conversation. And
yet, your sales and marketing organizations may very well be spending large
portions of their time and promotion budgets trying to meet those same personas. Take note; overqualified is also code speak
for: 1. Well known
and connected. 2. Influential
decision maker. 3. Knowledgeable 4. Motivated 5. All of
the above. Why
you should be networking with the Overqualified Are there unique factors you should
consider in this situation? Indeed and here
are just a couple to start: · Before you reject the candidate find
out if there is room to expand the job role in order to take advantage of
his/her background. Also, think carefully
about future needs. This situation may
present an opportunity to bring in
areas of expertise that are not currently represented at your company but will
eventually be needed. Take time to find
out what is really motivating them to make a change in order to validate
additional consideration. · If hiring is definitely not an option
make sure you examine and evaluate their social capital carefully. The last thing you want to do is to set fire
to a bridge that your sales and/or marketing team has been trying to
build. Consider creating a networking
process to introduce the candidate to key employees within your organization. That action will help your employees grow
their social capital, and at the same time soften the rejection and help keep
doors open with the candidate should your needs change. Are you still thinking about sending that overqualified candidate
your standard rejection letter? |
We wish you the best of luck in your search!
Posted on September 30, 2016 at 10:09 AM |
![]() |
Your
company needs a marketing leader so your HR team is engaged to round up the
best possible candidates. This person
will provide leadership for your entire marketing group, craft your strategic
marketing plan, and report directly to your CEO as part of the executive
management team. Your notice in LinkedIn
draws many qualified candidates; in fact, you suspect there are some who
currently earn more than your budgeted reference range. You can only hire one of them though and you
have a small staff, so you tell yourself that you don’t have time for niceties. That means the majority of the applicants
will receive your boiler-plated HR rejection letter.
From: [email protected] Dear
Candidate,
After
careful consideration, the team has decided not to proceed with your
candidacy for the Chief Marketing Officer position at XYZ Company. While this
position was not a match, XYZ Company is growing and we continue to add new
positions, so please keep an eye on our career site. Thanks
again for your interest in XYZ Company. We wish you the best of luck in your
search! Regards,
The Team at XYZ Company Let’s take a minute to explore this story.
If you have any empathy at all you know that you’d be disappointed
to receive a note like the example shown no matter what position you were
applying for. And from my added comments
it’s obvious I believe that template letters are nonsensical, and in fact could
be disastrous when applied to the executive level no matter the functional area
(Legal, Finance, IT, Sales, HR, etc.).
To make matters worse, a few of the more socially savvy applicants took
proactive steps to attempt networking with some of your senior team members. Alas, your senior team is socially inept and they
completely ignored the engagement. Adding a new member to your executive management team is high
risk. Not just as it relates to the
hiring of the “right” individual, but to your entire corporate brand over the
course of your search. How you and your
management team treat the executive candidates and react to their social
invitations could have a lasting impact on your brand that may or may not be
helpful. Just remember, many of the applicants you reject and/or ignore could
end up as key executives with your suppliers, channel partners or current
customers. And what will they be
thinking about your corporate brand then? |
Are you losing ground in the social economy?
Posted on September 7, 2016 at 10:09 AM |
![]() |
Why You Should Be Hiring the Best Sales and Marketing Athletes over Industry Experience
Posted on August 21, 2016 at 10:58 AM |
![]() |
“You don’t
understand. Our business, in fact our entire industry, is different.” I’ve heard that statement a hundred times. To be honest, early in my career, I’m sure I
said, and believed it myself; but not for quite some time now. After decades of working with sales and
marketing organizations across several industries I can tell you with
confidence that when it comes to the basic mechanics of your business you’re
not that unique. Believe me, it’s OK for
us to agree to disagree on this topic, and I’m sure many will. But in my opinion there is nothing magically
different about your company, and the fact that you insist on only hiring
individuals who have “industry experience” is the very reason you will fall
behind your competition. How do I know you value industry
experience so much? First of all, it was
obvious in your job post:
You don’t have to read between the lines
to see your thought process. Industry experience
equals rainmaker. When asked which is more
important, picking the best qualifications or selecting a player who presents the
strongest industry background, most hiring managers will say I want both. Yes, they are both desired. But if you had to favor either industry
experience or best qualifications which one would you choose if you were
serious about maximizing the impact of your team? From my point of view, put your money on
the organization that drafts the best athlete.
Uncertainty reigns, and in today’s business environment a rolodex can
become outdated before your new player finishes reading your new employee
manual. In addition, even if their
contacts remain current there is no guarantee your new player will maintain
their industry standing. After all,
their reputation was established under a different brand and that in no way
guarantees that they won’t need training, or will make a successful transition
to your particular environment. At best, strict industry experience comes
across as desperate pleas for quick sales or a statement of “we don’t like
change.” Of course, anyone who has
carried a quota or launched a marketing campaign knows Quick Hits and
Low-Hanging Fruit are never as quick or as low as everyone believes. And “more of the same” is certainly a
creativity killer. What statements might you find in a job
post that focuses on the best athlete?
The best athlete understand how persuasion
really works and know that human beings still make buying decisions based on
doing business with people they know, like, and trust. They are capable of creating narratives with
ultimate designs on increasing their social capital. And they are able to consistently create content
that their audience values. In short,
they can figure out how to build key relationships and add value across any
industry, not just drop names and quantify the costs. If you want to grow your business, stop
worrying about how much industry experience your job candidate has. Just hire the best sales and marketing athlete. |
The Wisdom of Keeping Middle Managers
Posted on April 26, 2016 at 11:16 AM |
![]() |
“Been there,
done that, bought the t-shirt.” It’s a phrase meant to express the speaker’s complete familiarity
with a situation, and as you probably noticed, it definitely contains overtones
of cynicism and exhaustion. I’ll admit
that I used it several times on my children as they were growing up. And I’ve been tempted to use it in business
situations, but have managed to hold my tongue. Middle managers have watched senior executives come and go
with their golden parachutes and slogans of the day. They’ve trained and guided interns and new
hires knowing they could actually be nurturing their future boss. Yes, most 40+ middle managers have seen it
all, and they’ve earned the right to wear that darn t-shirt. At least the ones that still have their jobs. The problem they face today is that the “middle”
isn’t valued; particularly when the middle is starting to acquire a few grey
hairs. In order to trim expenses and
flatten the organization, the middle is often gutted leaving senior working
staff and middle management without a position.
Hey, it’s not personal, it’s just business. Remember the phrase, “up or out?” You know, if you can’t make, or won’t take
the leap to senior executive then you’re history. After all, if you’re an older person who just
likes doing the job there must be something wrong with you. Besides, at this point you’re more expensive
than someone with less seniority, more resistive to change, and your skill sets
are not the latest and greatest. So, why
are we even having this conversation?
Case closed. This conversation needs to happen because the assumptions
above are simply not true and could be hurting your business. Senior staff and middle managers are often the most reliable
sources of accumulated corporate wisdom.
They are the trusted experts that fellow employees, business partners
and clients have come to depend on. If you
believe their acquired knowledge can be captured and transferred into your data
warehouse before the layoffs you’re just plain wrong. The insights, perspectives, institutional
memory, and relationships they’ve built over time can’t be duplicated or replaced. Here are three good reasons not to gut your
middle managers: 1. Brain drain can impact your business in
many ways. The elimination of your middle
management doesn’t necessarily reduce your human capital costs. Yes, this group tends to be more expensive
than the new hires that may eventually lead your business; but who will train
and mentor those new hires in order to help them learn the business and make
them productive? 2. Targeting experienced employees sends the
message that seniority is a liability with your company. Is that the message you really want to
send? If so you can throw employee
loyalty out the door. 3. The Yiddish expression, “maven” is
derived from a Hebrew word meaning “one who knows.” Mavens are trusted experts.
Middle managers are your mavens. Can your
business realistically grow and thrive without a few mavens? “Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt.” OK, that’s great but that’s not the
point. We need mavens who can help us
harness their wisdom in order to build solutions to the challenges we’re facing
today. And that’s why this post isn’t a
call to just collect t-shirts. |
Want to Grow Your Business? Look for Personal Brand Builders.
Posted on February 29, 2016 at 9:04 AM |
![]() |
Do you truly understand the value of your own personal brand? The strength of your personal brand plays a
role in, and impacts the strength of your social network. And the strength of your social network
contributes value to your employer. Your
personal network isn’t a tangible asset, but it is social capital that vests
immediately. And it's portable, meaning you
can take it with you. Have you ever
thought of it that way? I’m often surprised that many organizations don’t consider the power their employee’s hold in this regard. There is always conversation about “brand value” as an intangible corporate asset. But accountants would be quick to point out that value is not derived from rolling up the individual sum of each employee’s personal brand. But how do they justify separating the value of the corporate brand from the efforts of the employees whose personal connections and know-how made their company brand success possible? If one or two of your most influential employee’s left the company
what would happen? For many smaller
organizations that event could be very damaging. It doesn’t necessarily mean the end is
imminent, but the loss of those connections and the related social influence
could take a long time to recover from.
In the B2B world we do business with people we know, like and
trust. And individuals, who are known,
liked and trusted are generally effective at building influential social
capital. What statements often describe social capital builders?
In short, they know how to build
trust-based relationships and add-value to their network, not just drop names
and quote prices. If your business wants
to grow, look for more than just “industry experience,” seek out individuals
with strong personal brands who have a track record for building social capital. They are often natural rainmakers. |
The Marketing Leaders Seat at the Executive Table
Posted on February 22, 2016 at 3:45 PM |
![]() |
The
executive team gathered around the conference table and the webcam flashed
green as the First-Half 2016 sales forecast began. The CMO remembered a time when these meetings
were in person and required full business attire, there was no PowerPoint, and
there were no smart phones or facilitated hashtagged social conversations with
the audience. The business world had
changed though, and he loved it. He can tweet
and blog with the best of them. Social
media and mobile devices were changing the business landscape, and he was
determined to help his company meet the transformation challenge. The prior year had involved several
one-on-one meetings with his counterparts.
They were productive, but at times he could still feel a little tension
and some apprehension. Information Technology - The Chief Information
Officer The prior
year included several meetings with the Chief Information Officer. In late 2012 Gartner analyst Laura McLellan
had published a report that contained the statement “by 2017, the CMO will spend more
on IT than the CIO.” Of course a
sound bite like that raised some eyebrows in both marketing and IT. 2017 is now less than one year away and it
was time to check their facts and see if that prediction could be supported
with their own data. The CMO and CIO had
already been working closely together over the past couple of years as a result
of the organizations ongoing social media and mobile marketing
initiatives. And what did they discover? That technology
was indeed the second largest part of the marketing budget. But for their company, the associated dollar
value was not more than the IT budget or likely to overtake it. What was actually becoming of greater concern
was the number of applications, programs and platforms the small marketing team
was being tasked to learn and manage. In
fact, across all the marketing functions, the number currently stood at well over
two dozen. CMO/CIO Collaboration: Marketing departments
are often responsible for several technical applications. They can include
aspects of CRM, marketing automation, email marketing, website analytics, data
analytics, marketing research, creative applications, webinar-meeting, and
more. This doesn’t even begin to touch
on all the new social media and mobile marketing related platforms and
applications that are now part of the strategic marketing plan. The CMO and CIO need to focus more on
matching talent and headcount to the applications that are actually being used
and bringing value than worrying about who has the bigger budget. Sales – The Chief Sales Officer Like many
CMO’s he had started his career in sales.
He had carried a quota and covered a territory just like the CSO. That background brought great credibility and
helped them agree on many strategies; but they could still have their moments
when it came to lead generation. Of
course sales would like “qualified,
ready-to-buy right now” leads. But
they both know in complex solution selling environments that’s not a realistic
expectation. Marketing was providing
support through the entire sales cycle, but their main focus – including the
budget – was on the front end. Creating awareness,
generating interest and building greater industry credibility had been
important to helping them engage with prospects and customers. And the fact that over 60% of their marketing
budget was dedicated to lead generation activity supported that point-of-view. CMO/CSO Collaboration: There will always be some degree of tension
between sales and marketing when it comes to lead generation activity. And that’s OK, the key is not to let it
spiral out of control. One area the CMO
and CSO agreed needed more focus was on helping the sales teams understand and
make better use of social media, particularly LinkedIn. Many sales people still view social media as
child’s play. They are not leveraging
social platforms as business development tools.
Subject matter experts from the marketing team need to spend more time
training the sales teams, one-on-one if necessary, in order to make
improvements in this area. Legal – Chief Legal Counsel A few
years ago the CMO and Chief Legal Counsel had a difficult relationship. At one point the CMO had actually said “I’d rather go to the dentist than have a
meeting with our legal department.” The
reason is that Legal and HR had formed an alliance to band all corporate social
media activity. Employees were not allowed
to access LinkedIn during the early social media years and later on blogging, Facebook
and Twitter went through similar review processes. That was now in the past, the legal
department was onboard. CMO/Legal Collaboration: Legal understands the value of social media and
recognizes the fact that there will always be some degree of risk associated
with those media channels that cannot be totally mitigated. However, that doesn’t mean marketing gets a
free pass. The marketing department will
work to make sure all “Social Media
Policies and Procedures” documentation is always up-to-date and
communicated throughout the organization.
This will be very important because “Social Employee Advocacy” software applications are likely to
expand how marketing leverages social media throughout the company in order to
help employees feel comfortable in the role of brand advocates. Human Resources – Chief Human Resources Officer Like
legal, HR has been fully engaged with marketing as it related to the new social
media channels. Sure, in the beginning
they worried about employee productivity and whether or not social media was
even relevant to their functional area.
At times they still wonder about the productivity, but they definitely
see the recruitment value. CMO/HR Collaboration: There are two important areas the CMO would
like to see addressed as it relates to HR and how their current processes
impact the corporate brand. Both projects
will also involve IT. First, current
HR applications and processes offer prospective employees the ability to connect
their LinkedIn profiles and or upload their current resumes. Either way, the process still requires them
to enter the same employment and education history that can be found in those
sources. This duplication of effort is time
consuming, frustrating and leaves a bad first impression of the corporate
brand. Second, automated
boilerplate rejection letters are killing brand value. Take a close look at the message projected in
a typical automated HR letter: What type
of messages are we sending? Here are
just a few to consider: 1. Applicants don’t appear
to rate a human response. Sorry the “HR
Department” doesn’t count. By the way,
how do you feel when you get an email concerning a subject that you’d naturally
like to respond to, but can’t? 2. The subject line
“Thank You for Your Interest” feels like a Western Union Death Notice. 3. The applicant response
is not personalized. Sorry, just because
you used their first name in the opening doesn’t make it personal. Most standard rejection letters have the
exact same wording. It appears that all
HR departments are using the same group of lawyers for this task. Sorry, just kidding. But really, how original. 4. Your high-level
feedback, “credentials and experience are valuable” is too general in nature
and is not helpful to the applicant or the process they are going through. 5. The same form
letter is sent to nearly every applicant.
Sure, the three or four you interview and the one person who gets the
job doesn’t receive this particular letter.
But think of the hundreds of individuals, some who might be potential
customers and have a high degree of social influence, who are now very disappointed
and perhaps quite insulted by the rejection. 6. The response was sent
late. They applied for that position three
months ago. The fact that you were busy
is not an excuse. Simply terrible. In my opinion the hiring manager (even
if the position is reporting directly to the CEO) needs to send the
letter. A form rejection letter sent
from HR months after the application was submitted only confirms that they were
never seriously considered. We’ve
figured out how to do one-to-one marketing with our customers and prospects;
it’s time to bring that same care to our HR process or we’ll find ourselves
losing ground fast in the social economy. CMO / CEO Collaboration: The Chief
Executive Officer came up through finance and is pretty much a numbers
person. And, as you might suspect, the
CEO takes special interest in things that increase revenue, decrease costs, or
mitigates risk. In short, that means the
question “What’s the ROI?” is never
going to be far from the surface. The
CEO is speaking now so let’s listen… “What is currently
impossible to do that if it were possible would change everything.” That’s an
interesting question to open the meeting… “Well, use the hashtag
#ItsPossible for today’s meeting because we’ve got big news!” OK, the
CEO is more than just a numbers person!
The CEO understands the importance of leading by example and is not
afraid to leverage the new social platforms.
Perhaps I’ll take some time to enjoy my seat at the executive table this
year. |
Why Chief Marketing Officers are thinking about HR
Posted on April 1, 2015 at 2:16 PM |
![]() |
If you are a technology vendor or CIO don’t panic. Chief Marketing Officers still love you. We continue to think about and are concerned
with technology and data. But I’m
starting to spend more time with HR this year.
Yes, I’m concerned with whether or not marketing has the “right people
on the bus.” That’s a challenge that never
ends, particularly when the business environment is constantly changing. What I’m bringing attention to, and becoming
more concerned with, is the individuals we don’t have room for on the bus. Let me set up the scenario. Think about your total recruitment this year. Based on the size of your company, your HR
department is likely to post several jobs, for several departments, across
various platforms depending on job scope and level. Some of your organizations have appeared on “lists”
recognizing your company as one of those “Best Places to Work.” That means you are likely to get tens if not
hundreds of applications for each position you seek to fill. Now bear with me because I’m going to apply
some math, logic, and then get personal in a moment. For one mid-level management job you received 50 applications. Your HR department called the top five best
choices, based on geographic location (you didn't want to pay for relocation),
experience and so on. After the Skype
interviews three were extended an invitation for personal face-to-face
interviews and one job offer was tendered.
Actually, the person hired didn't technically go through your formal job
process, they networked their way into the position. OK then, here is the tricky part, were
forty-five applicants sent the following standard HR email?
Dear (First
Name),
Thank you for your
interest in our (Internal Job Number and Internal Job Title) position with XYZ
Company. While your credentials and
experience are valuable, we have determined the credentials of other candidates
may better fit our needs at this time.
Your profile will be available to our recruiters as they seek candidates
for other opportunities. Please check
back for future opportunities.
Kind regards,
XYZ Company
Human Resources
** Please do not respond to this email. This mailbox is not monitored and you will
not receive a response. ** From a math and logic perspective are we good so far? You might be thinking, yes, your math is in
the ballpark, we’d get about 50 applications for a mid-level job posting. And logically we don’t have the bandwidth to
give personal attention to the forty-five who didn't make the initial screening. Sure, several in that group were very well
qualified, but we had to make the cut somewhere. “It’s
not personal, Sonny. It’s strictly
business.” The Godfather I love that line, but it’s dead wrong.
It’s always personal. We are by
nature, an emotional being. So, let’s
take a personal look at the standard rejection letter. 1. It’s not from a person. Sorry the “HR Department” and “Do Not Reply”
don’t count. By the way, how do you feel
when you get an email concerning a subject that you’d naturally like to respond
to, but can’t? 2. The subject line “Thank You for Your Interest”
might just as well be a Western Union Death Notice. 3. The wording is very similar in most rejection
letters. It appears that all HR
departments are using the same group of lawyers for this task. Sorry, just kidding. But really, how original. 4. Your high-level feedback, “credentials and
experience are valuable” is not helpful to the applicant or the process they
are going through. 5. Your response was late. They applied for that position three months
ago. We know, you almost forgot to send
any notice. Simply terrible. I could go on, but I think you get the picture. Alan, you’re in marketing, I still don’t
understand why you care about HR. OK, here
is why I care. Forty-five (late)
standard rejections letters multiplied by how many total job postings for the
year? From a branding perspective we
have potentially upset hundreds of individuals who could very well hurt our
sales in the future. How? Because many of the individuals we passed on
could still end up in our industry. They
may end up as employees of our competitors, sales or marketing reps for our
channel partners, or buyers for our current customers. And we just dismissed their interest in our
company with a canned rejection letter.
How much do you think they are really going to like us? What makes it worse is that from a political
perspective most of these individuals will keep their grudge silent. Just like the consumer who has a terrible
customer experience and chooses not to publicly voice their dissatisfaction,
but they never return. Is there an easy, quick and cheap answer? No, this is a big problem that most
organizations have given very little attention to. I doubt the negative financial impact of these
actions has ever been researched. In
fact, such research would probably be difficult to verify. But I do have some ideas for improvement, and
I’m going to be setting up more time with HR to discuss them. |
Categories
- Social Media (41)
- Human Resources (10)
- Content Marketing (18)
- Social Selling (2)
- Teamwork (1)
- SEO (1)
- Public Relations (6)
- Social Media Marketing (1)
- Sales Process (1)
- Social Networking (5)
- Word of Mouth Marketing (1)
- Strategy (51)
- Marketing Resource Management (2)
- Leadership (66)
- CMO (35)
- Customer Experience (36)
- Consumer Privacy (1)
- Learning (8)
- Personal Branding (19)
- Twitter (1)
/