by Jennifer Hart Yim | Mar 22, 2017 | Blog, Leadership, Logistics, Supply Chain, Talent
By calling them “soft skills,” are we shortchanging competencies that are critical for supply chain and procurement professionals to succeed?
This guest post comes to us from Argentus Supply Chain Recruiting, a boutique recruitment firm specializing in Supply Chain Management and Procurement.
One of the biggest stories in the world of Supply Chain and Procurement talent over the past few years has been the emerging importance of Soft Skills. Time was, the business world saw Supply Chain and Procurement as highly analytical fields, where the ability to organize and interpret data was paramount. Analytical skills are still important, of course. But as the field has become more strategic — with a greater impact on wider areas of business — professionals in the field have had to become stronger at advocating for it. No senior Procurement professional is going to get very far into a Procurement transformation without being able to advocate for their Procurement method and what it can deliver. No one is going to transform their organization’s Supply Chain without being able to explain whatever insights they’ve gleaned from data to senior management.
When we say “Soft Skills,” we generally mean:
- Verbal communications
- Written communications
- Relationship-building skills
- Presentation ability
- The ever-elusive and hard-to-define-but-you-know-it-when-you-see-it “polish”
There’s no doubt they’re important, especially when it comes to moving into the senior ranks of leadership. But by calling them “soft skills,” are we really shortchanging them and treating them as ancillary to the “main,” “vocational” skills we ask for? Maybe it’s time to put them front and center.
They may be skills, but they’re not soft
Marketing guru and entrepreneur Seth Godin had an interesting post about the concept of “Soft Skills” and whether the way we think about them needs a revamp: “Let’s stop calling them ‘soft skills.’ They might be skills, but they’re not soft,” he says.
Godin’s basic point is that soft skills build a great workplace culture. And workplace culture isn’t an ancillary bonus to a business’s core function. It is a business’s core function. Godin doesn’t discount the importance of vocational skills. You can’t make a Supply Chain run without data. But for all the talk about strategy, a truly successful company succeeds not because of its strategy, but its culture — just like a truly successful career in business is often driven by soft skills rather than vocational skills.
His point is also that we don’t put as much effort into training soft skills as we do vocational skills, which might be because vocational skills are easier to measure. For example your typing speed (or for a Supply Chain role, your facility with SAP or JAD software) is much easier to measure than the kind of empathic awareness that makes a team sing. The result?
“Organizations hire and fire based on vocational skill output all the time, but practically need an act of the board to get rid of a negative thinker, a bully or a sloth (if he/she is good at something measurable).”
Rebranding soft skills as real skills
Godin’s suggestion is to rename soft skills “real skills” and break them down into new categories by which we might assess them:
- Self Control
- Productivity
- Wisdom
- Perception
- Influence
He breaks these categories down into an exhaustive list of skills (“diplomacy in difficult situations,” “etiquette”) that’s definitely worth checking out, and worth assessing in new hires. It gets a little abstract, but we couldn’t agree more with Godin’s core point: It’s time to put “soft skills” front and center.
In Supply Chain and Procurement, which are the areas we recruit for, soft skills are taking on more relevance as automation begins to handle the nuts and bolts of how products come to market, and how companies work with suppliers. The function is becoming more nimble and more strategic, and the future belongs to those who are able to be strategic advocates — and the companies that prize this in their hires.
Yet in a field that is, by its very nature, obsessed with efficiency, measurement, and data, soft skills sometimes take a back seat.
We think it’s time to change that.
Related posts:
by Fronetics | Dec 5, 2016 | Blog, Supply Chain, Talent
Compare your company culture to the attributes of the four Hogwarts houses to determine where you belong.
Company culture is an integral part of who a business is. It affects the product, the kind of talent it attracts, and, ultimately, its business performance.
Company culture can also tell you which Hogwarts house you belong in.
Or, so say the folks at Venngage, a free infographic, template, and design tool. Venngage’s editors sorted their 54 favorite tech companies into the four houses that make up the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, of Harry Potter fame.
Companies like Twitter and Google fell into Gryffindor, Harry Potter’s house, for their best-in-class ambitions and risk-taking ways. On the other hand, the editors assigned Apple and LinkedIn into Slytherin, the house of dark lord Voldemort, because they are tactic-driven and resourceful.
Which Hogwarts house would your company belong in?
Venngage came up with attributes of each of the four Hogwarts houses that could also reflect company culture. Here are the descriptions for each house:
Gryffindor
Companies with a Gryffindor culture want to be the best in their niche (and maybe even the industry as a whole) and aren’t afraid to take risks to get there. Generally, they are the most likely to use competitive incentives, like sales targets, to drive productivity. Companies with a Gryffindor culture pride risk taking, determination and competitiveness in their team members.
Hufflepuff
An environment of community, collaboration and working towards shared goals is at the base of companies with a Hufflepuff culture. That’s why nonprofits and companies targeting education often align with this house. Companies with a Hufflepuff culture pride trustworthiness, loyalty and a strong work ethic in their team members.
Ravenclaw
Companies with a Ravenclaw culture put a lot of thought into every aspect of their business. They pride themselves on creating the best product and on refining that product through rigorous testing. Companies with a Ravenclaw culture pride creativity, innovation and thought leadership in their team members.
Slytherin
Companies in Slytherin are resourceful and tactic-drive and are always looking for new and better ways to achieve their goals. They may see the value in more traditional hierarchical structures, with a more rigid chain of command. But that doesn’t mean people in a Slytherin company culture don’t take care of their own — they simply regard experience as an important factor of authority. Companies with a Slytherin culture pride ambition and cunning in their team members.
I compared our company mission and values here at Fronetics, and I believe that we’d fall into Ravenclaw house. We are driven by data; we constantly evaluate our clients’ strategies for effectiveness; and creativity and thought leadership are our bread and butter.
What house does your company fall in?
Related posts:
by Fronetics | Mar 18, 2015 | Blog, Strategy, Talent
Here’s why paying out actually pays off.
Contract buyouts within the sports and business worlds aren’t exactly a novel approach to making personnel changes. But what about paying employees — employees who don’t have contracts and haven’t yet earned further compensation — to quit? It’s a move that’s finding ground in the business world.
Take Zappos for example. The company pays employees $4,000 to quit. Yes, the company shells out $4,000 to employees who say just two words: “I quit.”
Here’s why it is a great idea.
All Zappos employees must participate in a four-week training program when they are hired. When they complete the four weeks, they are given a choice: They can continue to work for Zappos, or they can quit. Those who quit will be paid a bonus of $4,000.
Essentially, Zappos is putting their money where their mouth is when it comes to cultivating its company culture. Zappos leadership believes an employee who is not happy after participating in the training program or is not excited about the company and its culture won’t be a good match. By offering such employees an out, Zappos can quickly and effectively weed out employees who are not a good fit within the company’s culture.
This may seem crazy, but the reality is that when unhappy employees leave the company within their first four weeks of employment, the financial implications are much, much lower than the cost of unhappy employees who are likely to be uninspired at work and quit in less than a year.
Why does Zappos do this?
It wants to attract and retain great talent. In his book Delivering Happiness: A Path to Profits, Passion, and Purpose, Zappos CEO Tony Hsieh says: “Your personal core values define who you are, and a company’s core values ultimately define the company’s character and brand. For individuals, character is destiny. For organizations, culture is destiny.” In short, Zappos is big on company culture. This focus has made it successful — very successful.
So how many Zappos employees take the money and run? You might be surprised to learn that only between 2 to 3 percent of people quit and take the $4,000.
Another example of front-end hiring processes from eBay
During his time as the COO of eBay, Maynard Webb also employed front-end hiring processes to determine if a candidate would be a good fit within the company’s culture. To assemble a solid team, he recommends asking the right questions during the hiring process. He gives as an example of a question he would routinely ask job candidates to determine fit at eBay. “If something breaks at 2 a.m. but miraculously resolves itself before anyone understands it, is it okay to unplug and go to sleep? The answer should be no.”
With the U.S. Department of Labor currently estimating the average cost of a bad hiring decision to be as much as 30% of an individual’s first-year potential earnings, a single bad hire with an annual income of $50,000 can equal a potential $15,000 loss for a company. It might actually pay to create a company payment system that is designed to weed out new hires who reveal themselves to be less-than-stellar prospects for long-term employment.
What do you think about the idea of paying your employees to quit? What processes do you have in place to detect personnel issues up front?
Related posts:
by Fronetics | Mar 18, 2015 | Blog, Strategy, Talent
Here’s why paying out actually pays off.
Contract buyouts within the sports and business worlds aren’t exactly a novel approach to making personnel changes. But what about paying employees — employees who don’t have contracts and haven’t yet earned further compensation — to quit? It’s a move that’s finding ground in the business world.
Take Zappos for example. The company pays employees $4,000 to quit. Yes, the company shells out $4,000 to employees who say just two words: “I quit.”
Here’s why it is a great idea.
All Zappos employees must participate in a four-week training program when they are hired. When they complete the four weeks, they are given a choice: They can continue to work for Zappos, or they can quit. Those who quit will be paid a bonus of $4,000.
Essentially, Zappos is putting their money where their mouth is when it comes to cultivating its company culture. Zappos leadership believes an employee who is not happy after participating in the training program or is not excited about the company and its culture won’t be a good match. By offering such employees an out, Zappos can quickly and effectively weed out employees who are not a good fit within the company’s culture.
This may seem crazy, but the reality is that when unhappy employees leave the company within their first four weeks of employment, the financial implications are much, much lower than the cost of unhappy employees who are likely to be uninspired at work and quit in less than a year.
Why does Zappos do this?
It wants to attract and retain great talent. In his book Delivering Happiness: A Path to Profits, Passion, and Purpose, Zappos CEO Tony Hsieh says: “Your personal core values define who you are, and a company’s core values ultimately define the company’s character and brand. For individuals, character is destiny. For organizations, culture is destiny.” In short, Zappos is big on company culture. This focus has made it successful — very successful.
So how many Zappos employees take the money and run? You might be surprised to learn that only between 2 to 3 percent of people quit and take the $4,000.
Another example of front-end hiring processes from eBay
During his time as the COO of eBay, Maynard Webb also employed front-end hiring processes to determine if a candidate would be a good fit within the company’s culture. To assemble a solid team, he recommends asking the right questions during the hiring process. He gives as an example of a question he would routinely ask job candidates to determine fit at eBay. “If something breaks at 2 a.m. but miraculously resolves itself before anyone understands it, is it okay to unplug and go to sleep? The answer should be no.”
With the U.S. Department of Labor currently estimating the average cost of a bad hiring decision to be as much as 30% of an individual’s first-year potential earnings, a single bad hire with an annual income of $50,000 can equal a potential $15,000 loss for a company. It might actually pay to create a company payment system that is designed to weed out new hires who reveal themselves to be less-than-stellar prospects for long-term employment.
What do you think about the idea of paying your employees to quit? What processes do you have in place to detect personnel issues up front?
Related posts:
