November 15, 2024

Corner Office: Kris Duggan of Badgeville, on the ‘Getting Stuff Done’ Index

Q. How do you hire?

A. The most important thing is to have a framework that everybody in the company knows. So we said: Let’s just come up with something very simple that is easy to understand and that people can use every day in their interviewing skills.

The first is to hire people who are experts in their domain. It’s really about excellence. So I will ask people, “Are you an expert in your field, and if you are, help me understand your field.” Then I ask, “How did you acquire this knowledge?”

The second thing I’m looking for is “sparkle.” Is this person contagiously enthusiastic? You may be an expert in your field, but if you don’t communicate well, or if you don’t get people excited, or you’re not passionate or enthusiastic, that’s going to be a hindrance. And it’s not the difference between being introverted or extroverted — you can just see it in somebody if they have the magic.

The third thing we look for is people who just get stuff done. We’re very focused on metrics — we have goals and controls, and everybody in the company has them. We even have a rating system we use to score employees, from 1 to 5, based on their “getting stuff done” index every quarter. People take the scoring concept very seriously, and really like the accountability and the transparency around some of these things — and the fact that they’re empowered to get stuff done.

The other critical thing we’ve done in our hiring process is to require every candidate to do homework. It varies by department and by function, but every hiring manager has to have a homework assignment for open positions. We just hired a director-level marketing position, and they had to come in and present their plan for what they would do for the company to drive their marketing strategy.

I’ve found that there are so many biases that we create or imagine when we’re going through the hiring process — this person came from that school or they seem very polished, whatever the biases might be. But when you have them put pen to paper, and compare that against a field of candidates, you get a much clearer picture of how they think and work.

We also don’t set deadlines for handing in the homework. We let them set the deadline, but then we track very closely how they perform relative to that. So we’d never say, “You owe us the homework by tomorrow.” We would say: “We’re very interested in you, and we’d like you to do some homework, and here’s the assignment. Do you have any questions about that? And when would you like to submit the homework?” That’s one way we can test for their behavior — do they get it done on time, or do they make excuses because it’s late? What I’ve found from all the interviews I’ve done in the last 10 years is that whatever nagging suspicion you have during the interview process about their behavior will be magnified 10 times after you hire them.

Q. You mentioned the importance of having shared goals in the organization. Can you elaborate?

A. I think organizations have a hard time communicating up and down the chain of command and getting everybody mobilized to focus on the same goals. I’ve experienced that firsthand — whatever your task or scope of work, you don’t know how that connects to your manager and your manager’s manager, and how that is all kind of interconnected.

So the biggest thing we focus on is this concept of “interlock.” It’s about how we get all the departments connected with their goals — from the C.E.O. to the front-line person — so that all of those goals and controls are transparent. Everybody should know what everybody’s goals and controls are, and everybody should understand their individual ones relative to their department, and their department’s goals relative to the company’s.

This interview has been edited and condensed.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/business/kris-duggan-of-badgeville-on-the-getting-stuff-done-index.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Visas Are Urged for Lower-Skilled Work

In the statement, signed by Thomas J. Donohue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and Richard L. Trumka, president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., the groups called for a visa system that would let businesses meet their demand for lower-skilled workers, while offering protections for American workers.

The statement called for the creation of a government bureau that would use “real-world data about labor markets and demographics” to fashion a guest worker program — an idea that the Chamber had until recently opposed. The statement also described “a new kind of worker visa program that does not keep all workers in a permanent temporary status” — language that seems to imply, at least generally, the possibility of a pathway to legalization or even  citizenship for some guest workers.

The groups articulated three general goals: the assurance that American workers would have “a first crack at available jobs”; a new visa program for lower-skilled workers that would be adjusted to reflect the changing needs of businesses as the economy shrinks and expands; and greater transparency in determining the market need for temporary workers.

Traditionally, labor unions have rejected the idea of a guest worker program for lower-skilled workers, which they fear could take jobs away from American workers and depress wages. Business leaders have lobbied for a guest worker program, arguing that they need low-skilled labor for jobs — in agriculture, for instance — that American workers cannot or will not do. (A leaked draft of the president’s immigration proposal said nothing about a guest worker program, perhaps a tacit acknowledgment that the White House was looking to labor and business leaders to forge their own agreement on the issue.)

The principles outlined on Thursday — the product of months of negotiations between the groups — required compromise from both sides. Labor unions, acknowledging that “there are instances — even during tough economic times — when employers are not able to fill job openings with American workers,” agreed that there may be a need for a new type of guest worker program. In return, the unions insisted that American workers get a first shot at open jobs, and they secured an agreement that the number of incoming lower-skilled workers would be set based on need.

But even as there appears to be a growing consensus on some issues, a full-scale immigration overhaul remains a far-off prospect. This week, Representative Robert W. Goodlatte, Republican of Virginia and the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, came out against a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants — a crucial component for Democrats for any immigration plan.

“People have a pathway to citizenship right now: It’s to abide by the immigration laws, and if they have a family relationship, if they have a job skill that allows them to do that, they can obtain citizenship,” Mr. Goodlatte told NPR. “But simply someone who broke the law, came here, say, ‘I’ll give you citizenship now,’ that I don’t think is going to happen.”

Steven Greenhouse contributed reporting from New York.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/22/us/politics/business-and-labor-leaders-urge-visa-system-for-low-skilled-work.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

DealBook: Egan-Jones Barred for 18 Months on Some Ratings

Sean Egan, the president of Egan-Jones Ratings Company, at House panel in 2008.Alex Wong/Getty ImagesSean Egan, the president of Egan-Jones Ratings Company, at House panel in 2008.

The Securities and Exchange Commission said on Tuesday that Egan-Jones, the upstart credit ratings firm run by Sean Egan, had agreed to an 18-month ban from rating asset-backed and government securities issuers as a nationally recognized statistical rating organization.

The agreement settles accusations that the firm made misstatements about its record when applying for a government designation, the S.E.C. said.

“Accuracy and transparency in the registration process are essential to the commission’s oversight of credit rating agencies,” Robert Khuzami, director of the S.E.C.’s division of enforcement, said in a statement.

Related Links

Egan-Jones, which also agreed to correct any deficiencies and submit a report describing those steps, can still rate asset-backed and government securities issuers during the ban — just not with the government blessing that confers special authority on its opinions. The firm retains that designation for its other ratings categories.

Egan-Jones plans to reapply for the designation once the ban ends, said Bill Hassiepen, co-head of the ratings desk at Egan-Jones, who called the settlement terms “agreeable.”

“The firm is most satisfied that this matter is resolved and behind us,” Mr. Hassiepen said in a statement. “This settlement allows Egan-Jones to focus all of our efforts and resources on what we do best — producing the most timely, accurate and independent ratings in the business.”

The S.E.C. had accused Egan-Jones of exaggerating its record in its application to the government. The firm had said it had 150 ratings of asset-backed securities and 50 ratings of governments under its belt, when it actually had none at that time, according to the agency. The S.E.C. had also found that Egan-Jones had violated provisions governing conflicts of interest.

Egan-Jones, notable for its business model of charging investors rather than issuers for its ratings, neither admitted nor denied the accusations.

Article source: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/01/22/egan-jones-barred-for-18-months-on-some-ratings/?partner=rss&emc=rss

On the Road: Airline Fees Trip Up Corporate Travel Managers

“It mystifies me because every time I check in on the Web, like a day in advance of my flight, there’s something more they’re offering me,” she said. “Sometimes you need to go through three or four screens with offers: Do you want to double your frequent-flier miles for this trip? Do you want to board early? There are so many choices,” said Ms. Trotochaud, a senior director at Concur.

Of course, the proliferation of offers for services that carriers once provided as part of the base fare is no accident. Airlines around the world pocketed an estimated $21.46 billion in revenue from the fees for those services last year, according to research by Amadeus and IdeaWorks. For many airlines, fees for checked bags ($3.4 billion last year in the United States alone), and various services like front-of-line boarding, up-front aisle seating, and in-flight meals mean the difference between profit and loss.

Airlines have been charging some fees for a long time, but began aggressively expanding them only in 2008, when they started charging for most checked bags.

That’s not going to change. So we might as well stop complaining about the fees.

Corporate travel managers have gotten to that point, and they are now just trying to “get their arms around them” for better budgeting and planning, said Ms. Trotochaud, who is a member of a working group, called the Airline Ancillary Product Global Task Force, of all the businesses involved in the buying and selling of air travel.

For their part, airlines say they want to provide as much transparency as possible for their fees. But doing so is difficult because there is no standard method of classifying and selling their for-fee services. “One problem is, we airlines have a lot of products we want to sell you,” Doug Parker, the chief executive of US Airways, told corporate managers last month at the convention of the Global Business Travel Association in Denver.

There has been a lot of confusion about fees in general, incidentally. Some estimates, widely reported, claim that fees represent as much as 20 percent of the cost of a typical business trip. But industry experts I talk to say that fees account for at most 9 percent of corporate air travel spending.

The problem for companies and their traveling employees is that the myriad computer systems for travel booking, credit card reporting and company expense management don’t all speak the same language. And, as Ms. Trotochaud pointed out, a $50 airline fee listed on a business traveler’s corporate credit card report could be for two checked bags or a one-day pass to an airline lounge. The checked bag charges may be allowable under company policy; the lounge pass may not.

“The challenge is to get a better picture of that transaction,” she said. That’s easier said than done, of course, because not only is there no uniform standard for describing and listing fees, there is none for budgeting for them in advance or managing them later when an expense account is filed.

Also, many corporate travel departments still haven’t drafted policies on fees. “Companies now need to figure out which things are reimbursable, and which are not,” she said. “Then they need to educate their travelers, so that when those travelers are making decisions along the way they’ll know what’s going to be reimbursed and what’s coming out of their pockets,” she added.

Drafting sensible and clear reimbursement policies is important, Ms. Trotochaud said, pointing to a recent study by the travel research firm PhoCusWright that found that only about a quarter of travel managers had communicated to employees a clear policy about travel expense reimbursement.

Without clear policies, she said, “the onus is on the traveler” to guess, sometimes when checking in at the airport on the day of travel, whether a fee for a certain service may be disallowed later.

“The reality is that most travelers are not booking far in advance,” she said. “They might not even know until the day of travel whether they might need to check a bag. And there are those transactions that happen when you’re checking in online or at the airport, or even on board the plane.”

She added, “I think companies struggle with what fees are reasonable to reimburse. But I also think business travelers are confused about what’s allowed and what isn’t.”

E-mail: jsharkey@nytimes.com

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=9991e4dc8a66b43eaaece096b4d5be3d