FS - INTERVIEW MODULE

04-06-03

Kartavya
Abhi
Nagwekar
Inder

Global Recruiter | Func. Specs
Interview Mgmt. Module
Ref: Pg 16/18 of my yesterday’s note

On this page of my yesterday’s note, I have described Stage II (of HELP!) – using which, a CPO/recruiter can graphically super-impose the “Gross Annual or monthly Compensation” being offered (or being demanded by Candidate) on the Company’s own internal compensation-profile, of PEER-GROUP (executives within the Company having same designation, as the Candidate).

The idea is to ensure that the CPO/Recruiter does not end up offering a compensation figure to the Candidate, which would dramatically upset the internal “apple-cart”!

Whereas all recruitment managers are painfully aware that they have to offer, may be, 20%/30% MORE to outside Candidates, as compared to a COMPARABLE executive already working within the organization, they (the recruitment managers), are not so sure, that they do not end-up offering 50%–70% more to an outside Candidate! (This is sure to invite a “revolt” amongst Comparable existing employees!)

But this “lapse” – and consequent “revolt” – are far more frequent than you would imagine! You may also end-up losing some of those unhappy insiders. At least, if no one quits then the morale goes down!

What is really bad (very bad!) is that the CPO causes such an anomaly / such a disruption / such a revolt – out of sheer ignorance / lack of facts & figures.

However, despite having/seeing on his Computer screen a Compensation Profile of PEER-GROUP:

(Graph Illustration)
Y-axis: No. of Employees
X-axis: Gross Salary (Rs./month)

• Distribution curve shown
• Peer Group = MANAGERS, Population = 49
• Salary offered = 32K/month to Candidate
• Range: 25K → 32K → 38K → 40K

He (the recruiter) still goes ahead & offers a monthly gross salary of Rs. 32K (or even 38K) to the Candidate,

then, it is a “conscious / well-considered decision.”

Now, he (CPO) knows:

• What he is doing
• What consequences can follow

·         → who will get terribly upset
→ who will get mildly upset
→ how he is going to handle each existing employee’s grievance.

·         Now, armed with facts (viz: Internal Compensation Profile of PEER-GROUP), he is well-equipped (information-wise) to defend his decision.

·         He is much better-placed to explain to his existing disgruntled employees, the “RATIONALE” behind his decision. He is not caught on the “wrong foot” or taken-by-surprise.

·         In L&T, I used to prepare (plot) these graphs manually & update these, once-a-year (i.e., during annual increment time) – especially in case of Managerial staff.

·         But that was in 1977–79, long before PCs arrived on the scene!

·         Now, I suppose leading/large organized companies must be getting these GRAPHS, as a byproduct of their SALARY/PAYROLL SOFTWARE.

·         Or, I suppose, they could, if they wish – in case they are using any SALARY/PAYROLL software.
It is possible that it may not have “occurred” to them, that using such byproduct graphs, during interview/negotiations, could save them a lot of unnecessary “headache” later on.

·         Once they start using these graphs, they may wonder, how they ever managed without these!

·         Not only during negotiating salary with a prospective Candidate, the HR managers will start using these graphs during:

·         → annual rewards/increments
→ promotions
→ transfers (to other Divisions/Offices etc.)
→ Union negotiations
→ Compensation-Restructuring exercises
→ formulation of VRS

·         etc. etc.

·         Now you can see that this feature/functionality will re-surface, again & again, in:

·         → Manpower Requisition Module (Ad-Compose)
→ Interview Mgmt. Module
→ Employee Mgmt. Module
→ Organization Module

·         The HR mgr / the recruitment mgr / the CPO / the user dept., all will want to PULL these graphs at different times, in different modules, for different purposes.

·         And they will expect (rightfully) that…

 

→ at a given point of time, SAME/IDENTICAL graph appears in all modules (when pulled)

→ there is some “in-built” mechanism, whereby all graphs get automatically updated, on an ongoing basis, everytime

• a new person joins
• an existing person leaves (resignation/retirement/transfer/death)
• monthly salary of any person changes due to any reason (increment/promotion/transfer etc.)
• a person’s designation changes (meaning, his data gets transferred to a different PEER-group)

So, automatic generation/maintenance of COMPENSATION-PROFILE GRAPHS (for all PEER-groups within a web-subscriber Co.) is an important feature of Global Recruiter.

This is what will set Global Recruiter apart from any software/webservice available in the market.

One added advantage (a byproduct?),

 

is that, we will generate

THE GENERAL POPULATION PROFILE

by simply aggregating the INDIVIDUAL SUBSCRIBERS’ POPULATION PROFILES.

So, if 123 Companies subscribe to our webservice and, they have, between them:

• 23,949 Managers
• 869 Gen. Mgrs.
• 84 V.P.s
  etc. etc.

we (our software), will consolidate all individual salary-data and generate the GENERAL (or rather COMMON) PROFILE.

Neither we nor any subscriber will get to see/know which specific executive of which specific company gets what salary. (We can never allow this under any circumstances!)

But the aggregation/consolidation (PEER-group wise), benefits ALL subscribers while maintaining complete ANONYMITY of the contributing individuals & contributing companies.

Only the concerned Company will be able to see its own profile. Of course, they can superimpose their own profile onto the COMMON PROFILE and…

(Graph illustration at top)
Y-axis: No. of Executives
X-axis: Gross Salary (Rs./Month)

• Peer Group: Managers
• Company XYZ: 239 Executives
• Common Graph: 5234 Executives

---

At present, I am considering PEER-GROUPS as those falling under same “DESIGNATION-LEVEL” (but actual designations, initials vary widely from company-to-company).

So, each subscriber company would need to “place” its existing executives, in one of our 9 designation-levels. Then only we can form PEER-GROUPS.

(Table below)

Gross Salary (Rs./Mth)	Subscriber Company	Customer
Srl. No.	Name of Executive	Actual Designation

 

If subscribers feel uneasy/uncomfortable making available such CONFIDENTIAL data to Global Recruiter, they may even drop the Name of Executive & leave it blank! (We are not interested in knowing that this data belongs to XYZ executive!)

If subscribers agree to make such data available (about their existing employees), we can form PEER-GROUPS:
→ Designation Level wise
→ Function wise
→ Age wise
→ Exp. wise
→ Edu. Level wise
→ Posting City wise
etc. etc.

In return, subscriber can have a much wider choice of sub-sets (of Peer-groups) to compare. This ability of drilling down to a niche target group for comparison would become very valuable, when COMMON POOL contains, say, 300,000 executives – of which 60,000 are “Managers”!

Question:
How can we get Subscriber Companies to part with this sensitive data?

If we say, only those subscribers who submit data about their existing employees will get to see/view COMMON PROFILES,
— then will it work?

How can we be sure that a subscriber gives data for:
→ all of its employees
→ all “columns” in the table?

To fulfill our condition, he may simply furnish data about 2 managers (all columns filled) when he has 200 managers in employ,
OR
15 General Managers (only 1 column filled).

I don’t think, putting any no. of “conditions” will obtain “compliance.”
I feel, it is only the “self-interest” which will get compliance.

And that self-interest is,
→ being able to generate his own company’s (Peer group wise) salary profiles.

Without his making available this data for all his employees, these profiles cannot be generated (the profile will look horrible for 2 employees!).

And without these profiles, he can neither super-impose on COMMON PROFILE for comparison (understanding) purpose, nor can he take “Information based Intelligent decisions” (p. 4).

(Signature mark at bottom)