Recruiting & compensating for key positions in a competitive market.

• Author: Little, David A.

It's no secret that the electric utility industry is one critical sector of our economy that is facing an increasing shortage of and growing demand for talented and skillful workers. Investor-owned companies, cooperatives, and municipal utilities will be looking to fill positions at all levels--from entry level line worker to CEO--in the next few years. And all are looking for the most talented and well trained candidates possible. Chances are, your co-op is not exactly being overrun with applicants from within this industry who are clamoring to work at your utility.

The shortage of industry qualified applicants for the positions that are being vacated or newly created requires that cooperatives refocus their recruitment practices and compensation policies if they are to attract the best and the brightest to the co-op family. The traditional interviewing model is now a two-way dialogue between candidates and prospective employers. Put simply, utilities are being interviewed too. The realities of supply and demand mean that technically qualified candidates today have employment alternatives and they are assessing now more than ever whether your co-op (the potential employer) has impressed them enough to seriously consider coming to work for you. Generation Xs and Gen Y'ers ask questions, make observations and seek employers that offer working conditions (to include pay, policies and culture) that benefit their lifestyles.

The Ones That Got Away

I have seen first hand numerous situations of how not to recruit--where utilities decided to pursue and/or offer jobs to candidates that met or exceeded skills and experience expectations, but failed to hire them because the candidates/applicants rejected offers or declined further interest. And I have witnessed some excellent examples of how to do it right. The following are some actual examples of the former--how not to handle a top candidate. Unfortunately, many utilities haven't changed their practices and are still doing some or all of these, leaving negative impressions on candidates and, in some cases, losing the talented prospect. Some of the reasons include:

* The utility would not pay for interview expenses.

* The utility would not pay relocation expenses.

* Salary offers were below the range specified for the position because the candidate's current compensation was below that range and an offer within the range would mean an increase over current compensation that was considered excessive. In other words, the salary offer was based on the candidate's prior compensation and not upon the standard for the prospective position.

* Candidates were told that company policy would not permit offering the salary necessary to attract them because the candidate would be paid more than current employees. (Candidates do not want to hear your "political" troubles. They just want to hear that you are proactive in hiring talent and have that hurdle worked out).

* The salary offered was less than, equal to or slightly higher than the candidate's current compensation but the utility had previously communicated a willingness to pay the compensation expectations of the candidate and the offer did not meet those expressed expectations.

* The candidate was offered 10 days vacation to be credited after they had been with the utility for one year. The candidate was currently receiving four weeks vacation.

* The utility took an excessive amount of time to get back to the candidate with an offer. Most potential candidates expect a prompt expression of interest from the employer and if they don't receive that, they are often lost before receiving the offer.

* The utility asked the candidate to be a "change maker" and generate innovation at the utility when in...