It shouldn’t be this tough.

There is no company that has too many good people. So, if you interview someone bright, ethical and enthusiastic, someone with a good work ethic, someone whose training matches the position you are seeking to fill and whose attitude is a perfect fit with the group he or she would be hired to join, go for it.

Hiring While De-Hiring

Companies take hiring especially seriously when they are in re-engineering mode. The ingress and egress of people come and go in turns; they must, therefore, be handled carefully so as not to get in each other’s way. But serious and cautious do not necessarily mean wise. Re-engineering sometimes gets in the way of intelligent thought and intelligent hiring. If a critical position needs to be filled, fill it. Quickly! I have seen companies stall hiring, saving salary and losing invaluable momentum in the process.

Inside Hiring Outside

I have been privy to numerous debates about hiring from within as being a virtue or a vice. One CEO said to me, “If a company cannot find anyone from within to fill a senior position, then management, starting at the very top, has failed”. I know of several Fortune 500 companies that move people up in spiral fashion, alternating between staff and operating positions. Others, however, see things differently. Companies, they say, need to refresh themselves, need to add new blood, new ideas, new energy. They see recycling employees as slowly grinding companies into mediocrity. I have even witnessed debates about what constitutes inside and outside. For example, how would you qualify a long-term temp being made permanent? Or the rehire of a former employee who has gained valuable experience elsewhere? Trust me, those competing for the position have very different – and not altogether generous - views of the issue.

Family Matters

Then there is the matter of hiring family. Generally, the more paternalistic the company, the more likely it is to hire employees’ relatives. Not surprisingly, this maximizes loyalty and minimizes turnover. Not surprisingly, those who prefer hiring from the outside see reasonable turnover as healthy and the lack of turnover ossifying. What is healthy? Between 5 and 10% annually. I am of two minds on the family issue. It should not prevent a hire, all things being equal. But, things are never quite equal. When family members are involved in anything negative (a layoff, for example), emotions will run somewhat higher than usual. Conversely, when family members do well, there is always a suspicion (even if there is not a hint) of patronage. Many companies would rather not take the chance. It’s a shame.

When Too Much is Not Enough

It is easy to understand why you wouldn’t risk hiring someone you believe is too junior for a position and likely not up to the job. It is more difficult to accept not hiring someone because they are too senior and likely to quit within six months because the job would not be enough of a challenge or provide enough opportunities for growth. Surprisingly, I have seen the second case occur more often than the first. The problem is clearly bigger than the people involved. If any job situation does not provide enough scope or latitude for growth, then the company is not worth the time applying to in the first place. Jobs must be clearly defined. Job situations, however, should never have boundaries set so tight that we cannot foresee growth, laterally or vertically, for quality people who are placed in them.

Running the Gauntlet

In some companies, even lower level hires are expected to meet a variety of difficult thresholds, to say nothing of a host of senior managers, before getting the nod. I find it strange bordering on the scary to force entry-level prospects to run a gauntlet of managers, with gusts up to vice-presidents, to get a job. They are repeatedly put on the spot, a spot that I imagine seems to them somewhere close to the guillotine. I can understand – and, in fact, always insisted on - the process for senior hires. I personally have interviewed over a dozen candidates for senior positions. But I can also recall the process once being used in a way that completely intimidated a wonderful candidate for a relatively low-paying clerical job. I must confess, though, I kinda sorta didn’t follow the process. In truth, I counseled the candidate on how to navigate the gauntlet, how to handle the pressure and the people involved. Perhaps I helped, perhaps my help wasn’t needed, but the candidate did just fine. And two years later is still doing fine, thank you very much.

There are a number of excellent books on corporate strategy that merit your attention and that will provide value for your time and for a twenty. There are, of course, others not so excellent, books that at my most generous I would consider hollow in content, penned by pop authors contemptuous of their readers. Unfortunately, in business books as in so much else, popularity is not necessarily reflective of value.

There are times, however, when strategy junkies need a quicker fix than can be provided by books, good or bad. These cravings can be satisfied by reading various business magazines and blogs. Not all are of these are of equal value either and some blogs, especially, are thinly-disguised platforms for selling services and are unabashedly self-serving.

All this is to introduce a business magazine I discovered quite by accident in a store that offers for sale obscure magazines, toy soldiers and Marvel comic memorabilia. The discovery was the Spring ’08 issue of Strategy + Business. Published by Booz Allen Hamilton, the huge strategic management and technology consulting firm, Strategy + Business is - to their credit and my relief – neatly disguised and only mildly self-serving.

Interestingly, it wasn’t the feature articles that most captured my attention but the front section columns. A number of these should get you thinking :

Upturn Thinking in Downturn Years

In market downturns, the companies that emerge strongest are those that, while retrenching, push ahead with long-term strategic planning. One example of a company that did just that is Lucent; even while the telecom hardware business was in decline, CEO Patricia Russo pushed ahead with an initiative to identify new growth areas that would make use of Lucent’s core capabilities and provide stable revenue and income streams going forward.

New Metrics for Media Campaigns

The reach and frequency metrics used in assessing traditional media campaigns are losing relevance in this age of the web, social networking platforms, cell phones, PDAs, podcasts and video games. Marketers are looking to deliver “contextually relevant messages” to specific, i.e., targeted concentrations of potential customers. They are seeking more precise information on how this digital activity correlates to actual sales. As this information becomes available, they will increasingly embrace the pay-for-performance advertising model.

Undiscovered Riches in IP

In an age of commoditization and globalization, you might imagine companies would dig deep to find and exploit assets that yield sustainable differentiation. Among those assets, Intellectual Property may well be the next frontier. Companies are getting wise to the significant revenues that can be gained through patent and technology licensing. IP is moving out of the legal counsel’s office and into the corporate development arena. In fact, in the past 15 years, licensing revenues have burgeoned from $15 billion to $110 billion. To take it to the next level, companies will have to make their intellectual property both serve the business and be a business in its own right.

New Life for Tired Brands

Ford is attempting to revive the Taurus brand out of the ashes of the Five Hundred, and Proctor & Gamble is using Red Zone antiperspirants and deodorants to reposition Old Spice among teen males. Should and can old brands be revitalized? Have the attributes which once made the brands successful been eroded or been made irrelevant by competing brands? Are the products suffering from the poor opinion of its original customer base or poor awareness from new, potential customers? A proposed four-step Brand Vitality Assessment (which, no doubt, Uno Who could conduct) would provide the answers.

All in all, I rate this magazine a lucky find, one for which you might keep an eye out. You might also want to scour the back issues. Go to www.strategy-business.com. Of course, with Booz Allen Hamilton being a mega consultant, you should not expect a free lunch. Not while they’re trying to build the brand at any rate.

A few days ago, marketing maven Seth Godin made a wonderful observation: An inbound phone call is the ultimate in short-term permission. The customer or prospect is taking the time to call you. (See Who Answers the Phone?)

Every marketer has been taught about contact points, where stakeholders’ paths, direct or indirect, intersect with those of the company. It can be a trucker asking for directions, or a dealer following up on an order, or a consumer with a complaint, or a shareholder with a query. It can be opening your package or looking you up in the yellow pages. It can be reaching you – or not – on the phone, via e-mail or in person, at the door. For marketers, each point of intersection is vindication, at least, that something is working, and a valuable opportunity to make that something (and the relationship if nothing else) work better.

Too many companies underestimate – and therefore, under-resource (in manpower and funding) customer service in all its various forms. Time is money but, when it concerns customer service, the money is seen as spent rather than earned, outbound rather than inbound.

I once had a bright employee who was asked to coordinate shipments during a period of tight supply. Since we had cleaned out most of our inventory, we were operating on a just-in-time or, as we put it, on an as-needed basis. To keep all this transparent to customers, we had to keep one step ahead of them, knowing what their needs were before they did. This required constant tracking and communications, a maximum of effort and empathy for a minimum of 12 hours a day. It was reputation-making stuff and, precisely for that reason, this employee had a request – that her title did not include the words Customer Service, which would have devalued her role dramatically. When and how, I wondered, did this unfortunate devolution of customer service begin?

Branding is ultimately about how people see your company, its products and/or services. Customer service is what you do at that critical moment when people get to see your company as it really is. The two are inextricably linked. Companies that spend a ton of marketing dollars to build the brand should remember this.

My thoughts on loyalty (as stated in my last post, Whose Bread I Eat, His Song I Sing) run counter to conventional wisdom which currently holds that loyalty between supplier and customer and between employer and employee are tentative at best, subject to change without notice and likely with little regard. Loyalty, it seems to most, is a quaint notion that has neither place nor purpose in a globalized, commoditized world. Perhaps Thomas Jefferson was right: The merchant has no country. Even I do admit that there are circumstances where my confidence in loyalty is put to the test.

Acquired Rights – and Wrongs

Being acquired or merged usually has its down-side or, more precisely, down-size for the acquired or merged company and the people therein. The rationale given invariably revolves around synergy. In the new math, one head is better than two. Redundancy is good only in IT and nuclear deterrence. For example, there is no need for two finance departments, especially since there can be only one treasury into which all cash flows and one set of books into which all the numbers flow. The problem with most rationalizing is that expediency and incumbency trump quality. You go with what and who you know; both are highly prejudiced by proximity, that is, you go with those close to home. The take-away of an acquisition is that something has to give.

It is the same at the commercial level. Looking for synergies will almost always mean the rationalization of suppliers, large and small. This reflects not on the greed of the purchaser but on that of his suppliers, for acquisitions often provide the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to have it all.

A Changing of the Guard

A change in leadership will likely create a measure of vulnerability for direct reports. As in the case of the acquired company, loyalty can work in reverse, accruing to the original stakeholders or based on prior knowledge. The new CEO will assess the staff he inherits using both objective and subjective measures. At the end of the day – usually by the end of the first 100 days – he will go (or stay) with whom he is comfortable, from whom he knows he can command loyalty through thick and thin, and to whom he can confidently delegate difficult but necessary tasks. Not surprisingly, this may mean bringing along old staffers with whom a rapport has already been built and a necessary level of confidence already established. To the discomfort (though not the discredit) of incumbents, ‘may mean’ very often does mean.

Once again, a new buying team at a key customer could well entail the end of an enduring relationship, contractual obligations notwithstanding. A change may reflect not just pre-existing loyalties, personal and organizational, but also policy shifts. The new buyer may, for example, decide to move from split accounts to sole vendorships or vice-versa. Uncertainty is to be expected and you’d better have a good story to tell.

When the Going Gets Tough

When the numbers don’t add up to where they ought, odds are good that budgets will be cut. Management will, at one point, begin to talk about productivity, i.e., output divided by headcount. To enhance productivity, you can either increase the numerator (always desirable) or decrease the denominator (almost always the default) or, of course, do both. Any of these options becomes a driver for reengineering which, for most, does not mean refocusing the organization but shrinking it. There is a widespread belief that, in any restructuring, less is more. True or not, for those who are victimized, it is certainly less.

So, yes, there are circumstances that will shift loyalty into reverse (as in our first two situations) or move it to a back seat position (our third). Those circumstances invariably arise from a significant change – of leadership or of fortune. Even in explaining loyalty, more of the one would likely mean less impact from the other.

A recurring theme from the corner office will be an argument that the foundation for all successful enterprises over the long haul is integrity. Integrity is a concept impossible to understand if you don’t have it and unnecessary to understand if you do. The cornerstones of integrity are respect, commitment, consistency and loyalty. Each will be dealt with in time; this post is about loyalty.

It is too easily taken as a given that loyalty can no longer be found in business, that it goes as far as the nearest turn of corner and downturn of market. There is no real loyalty between companies and their employees, nor between suppliers and customers. When the slightest push comes to the merest shove, goes conventional - or, more precisely, convenient - wisdom, people will switch on a dime for a dime.

Three decades of experience tells me that this is simply not true. Of course, nothing is so simple, but I would most strenuously make the case that loyalty is alive and doing rather well under difficult circumstances. It takes a great deal of push to topple the walls that most employees build around themselves to maintain the security of their jobs. It takes a most egregious shove to overcome a buyer’s resistance to change.

The case could well be made that employees care more about their jobs than they do about the companies that provide them, that their loyalty travels only so far as their pay cheques will carry it. I would posit that people will almost always try to do their best for their employers and that given the opportunity and appropriate tools, most would succeed. They, equally, want their companies to do well, understanding full well who butters their bread. Despite all the griping around the water cooler and over Kokanee beer, most would be more than happy to wear the company colors and wave the corporate flag. Because now, as always, job security trumps job satisfaction.

Does this loyalty go both ways? Most companies – at least the good ones – know that you can never get enough good people. Most managers – at least the good ones – know that their success depends as much on the support of those below them as on that of those above. It is the sheep, after all, that make the shepherd.

Corporate buyers look for value as much as price. Even those charged with the purchase of commodities know that a secure and consistent supply chain is invaluable. Price will get an order, but relationships will get – and barring catastrophic screw-ups – keep the business. Incumbents will get the first call and the last look. They will be given the benefit of the doubt because buyers have no doubt about the short- and long-term benefits of doing so.

Suppliers will seldom chase business – even potentially more lucrative business – that would jeopardize their relationships with existing customers. Those that do will find out soon enough that what goes around comes around, that loyalty - or lack thereof - cuts both ways. They will come to realize that there is a lifetime value to customers that, while not easy to calculate, is impossible to ignore. Mostly, they will learn that shareholders are not interested so much in profit as in sustainable growth. Sustainable growth comes with protecting the base and growing with key customers.

Everyone will have a tale to the contrary - and nothing upsets the equilibrium of loyalty faster and with more finality than a changing of the guard - but it is precisely these exceptions that define the rule. And so, in general and on principle, I am in agreement with American writer, publisher and philosopher Elbert Hubbard who said, “An ounce of loyalty is worth a pound of cleverness”. At a minimum.