How to Tell If You Should Hire a Freelance or Full-Time Employee

The gig economy and the increasing prevalence of freelance work is changing how companies do business. Some 55 million Americans, or 35 percent of the U.S. population, worked as a freelancer last year — more people than ever before, according to research from contract-based jobs site Upwork and the Freelancers Union. That follows a 2015 Intuit study that found non-permanent employees have grown to 36 percent from 17 percent of the workforce over the past 25 years, and is expected to hit 43 percent by 2020.

Employers are generally seen as the big winners as workers rush to take short-term jobs coordinated through mobile apps and websites. In an unpredictable business environment, contract assignments let companies better manage their labor needs more flexibly, avoid hiring mistakes and find niche talent quickly.

Ken Kanara, a managing director at Ex-Consultants Agency in Miami Beach, Florida, said HR professionals come to him to hire people with top-tier management consulting experience for short-term assignments when they have discrete projects “that are either outside the scope of ‘business as usual’ or need to be done at a more rapid pace.” Clients also hire short-term workers to fill temporary gaps in their full-time employee ranks, such as when people take maternity leave or sabbaticals. They also may do so when considering a full-time hire but first want to test an employee with project-based work, Kanara said.

On the other hand, the move to a freelance economy can also benefit workers who find security in diverse revenue streams. “In a world of at-will employment, it can be more secure and sustainable to be independent than to have a full-time job,” Leif Abraham points out in a blog post on “If you lose your full-time job, you’re ‘out of a job.’ But if you lose a client, well, you lost a client,” writes Abraham, co-founder of And Co., a New York City company that provides billing and tech support to freelancers.

But as the flexible workforce evolves, some companies are rethinking the strategy. In 2015, the app-based courier service Shyp made headlines when it reclassified its contractors as employees, which made them eligible for workers’ compensation and other benefits, in the face of a lawsuit filed by two workers.

Kevin Gibbon, Shyp’s CEO, told TechCrunch the change wasn’t a response to the lawsuit, but rather a strategic quality-control move. “Operationally, we get a lot of benefit from it,” Gibbon said. “Our service doesn’t just involve dropping off an item; our customers need to be comfortable with [the person] who is picking up their $10,000 painting.”

Jimmy Fabiano, general manager of OnForce, a freelancer management software system based in Lexington, Massachusetts, said many companies are moving to a “blended” workforce. While many use short-term workers to ramp up when demand spikes, companies with steady demand are better served by hiring full-time employees. Profitable businesses that sell services — which span everything from accounting and banking to landscaping and cleaning — can meet their labor demands most efficiently with a workforce that’s comprised of 80 percent or more full-time workers, Fabiano said.

Some human resources executives worry they lose access to the best and brightest talent when they don’t offer a traditional position with benefits. There’s also concern that gig workers lack the commitment to an employer that’s required to deliver truly dazzling performance.

At StartupBros LLC, a Tampa, Florida-based company that helps entrepreneurs launch their companies, CEO Will Mitchell said he employs contract-based virtual assistants who handle bookkeeping and database management. But it’s a different story for jobs that require customer interaction.

“We’ve found it’s much better to hire internally for customer-facing positions,” Mitchell said. “Our customers are our first priority.” As a result, Mitchell hires full-time workers to manage customer support, social media and content production.

Another deterrent for employers is the potential loss of intellectual property, said Thomas White, a corporate attorney who specializes in human resources management at the Rimon law firm in Chicago. Employers “may expand contractors’ bodies of knowledge that could ultimately help their competitors,” White said. “It may be intentional; it may be through negligence, but it’s very difficult to police.”

Ultimately, each employer needs to examine the potential upsides and downsides of contract labor based on their needs, White said. “You gain flexibility but you lose loyalty.”

The question, then: Which do you value more?

AUTHOR: Kate Rockwood is a freelance journalist based in the Chicago area.

Reprinted from TALENT ECONOMY

8 Ways Job Candidates E-Sabotage Themselves

The Internet has become such an important part of the job search process. It is the most powerful tool any job seeker has for identifying career opportunities—even at the executive level for which I recruit. Job search platforms have made it easy to seek out and apply for opportunities. However, like any powerful tool, it needs to be used wisely. Otherwise you could end up hurting your chances for roles or even damaging your reputation in the workplace.

Here are eight ways candidates sabotage themselves with their online presence:

Having negative comments or unflattering images on social media. Your social media presence is your image to the public. Manage it wisely. It should be common sense, but people often fail to realize how much damage they can do to their professional life with the information they share online. The golden rule to follow here: Do not share anything online that you would not share at work. You never know who will forward your information to someone else or where the information you post might end up.

Clicking the “Apply” button without reading the details about a job. When LinkedIn or a job board sends you an e-mail with a list of jobs you may be interested in, they generate those lists based on key words in your profile or resume. That doesn’t necessarily mean these jobs match your qualifications. Hitting “Apply” without reading more than the title could create a negative impression on the other end. Look at each role and determine if you are really qualified or close to being qualified. Make sure it is something you really want to pursue. Multiple applications to the wrong role could hurt you when a role opens that you really want.

Reading e-mails quickly and not following the instructions. Employers and recruiters put details in our job postings or e-mails that are important. Often, a candidate will skim the e-mail and send us a question about something that was in the information presented. Or candidates will not follow instructions carefully for an interview and end up in the wrong place or delayed, or worse. Lack of attention to detail makes you look careless. Many hiring managers will reject you outright for that.

Applying too often to one entity. This makes you look desperate or unfocused on your true ambitions. It says, “I will take any job.” That is not the message you want to convey to potential employers. If an organization has multiple jobs open, apply for the one that best suits your background and career goals. If someone on the other end thinks you are qualified for another role, they will reach out to you or share your information with others in their organization.

Sending a resume to any recruiter you can find on the Internet. Lately, my colleagues and I are seeing an uptick in this activity. We get e-mails with a resume attached and a request from the candidate for help in identifying a new role. My specialty (and my firm’s focus) is health care and higher education. It is rare that I have a client willing to look for candidates outside its industry, and often the candidate will have skill sets that are not even close to the types of roles I fill. Submitting to multiple recruiters is a waste of your time and mine, and it also makes you look careless. Look for recruiters who specialize in the types of roles you are seeking in your field.

Arguing via e-mail with a recruiter or employer. At my firm, we try to send a note back to candidates we are not moving forward with in a search. Sometimes a candidate will e-mail me back with a request for more information about why he or she is not being considered. This is a reasonable question, and I usually take the time to give some of the specific reasons he or she did not meet an employer’s requirements. On occasion, I get an angry e-mail back stating that the requirements are invalid or not necessary. Ultimately, the requirements are set by organizations in good faith and for good reasons. Arguing about them will not help, and argumentative behavior does not help your image. It also could prevent you from consideration for other roles.

Not submitting a resume and asking the employer or recruiter to look at your LinkedIn profile. As comprehensive as some LinkedIn profiles are today, they are still not a substitute for a resume. Asking someone to refer to your LinkedIn profile says you are not serious about applying for the job.

Being careless about a Skype/Facetime/video interview. Interviewing is an important step in the process. It is important that you present yourself in a professional way. Just because you are interviewing from your home doesn’t mean you should be casual about your appearance or the setting. Dress appropriately. Make sure there are no glaring lights in the eyes of your interviewer. There should not be other people or pets in the room. Go somewhere where you won’t be disturbed. Look at what will be in the background behind you. Sit at a desk or table in a regular chair—not in a recliner. Look into the camera when you speak to the interviewer. If you have never or infrequently used Skype or Facetime before, make sure you test the technology before your interview and make sure you are properly set up to receive a call. Keep the camera stationary and don’t move it around. You want the interviewer to see a polished professional without any distractions.

The Internet gives us great tools to explore career opportunities. Use it to your best advantage.


AUTHOR: Diane Nicholas is a consultant with WK Advisors, a division of executive search firm Witt/Kieffer. WK Advisors specializes in filling innovative mid-level and other critical executive positions in health care, education, and the not-for-profit sector. 



‘Tis the Season: Use “Guerrilla-Style” eLearning to Train Holiday Hires

Holiday season magnifies the challenges of onboarding new employees. Businesses face increased pressure from an influx of customers, enormous volumes of orders or deliveries, or simply juggling regular workloads when many regular employees are away. Getting seasonal hires up to speed, fast, can help. Doug Stephen, senior vice president of the learning division at CGS, in New Brunswick, Canada, shared some best practices for creating what he called “guerrilla-style learning”—cost-effective, mobile-friendly eLearning.

Minimize, then contain, training

The best thing a company can do, according to Stephen, is no training—by rehiring from previous years. “If you can retain even a small amount of those that have been successful the year before, you’re going to maintain or increase customer service, the cost is going to be less, and you’re going to have more stability in the workforce.”

Of course, it’s unlikely that a company can retain a full complement of seasonal hires from year to year. Conceding the necessity of training some new hires, Stephen emphasizes the key to efficient training of people who will be around for only a couple of months: planning. “It’s best to contain the training,” he said. “And once you contain the training, to simplify it.” Planning allows a company—of any size—to prioritize and train only essential skills.

Turn top-performing employees into video stars

Stephen’s solution enlists valued permanent employees—and everyone benefits. “Take a look at your top regular performers that are doing what the seasonal people will be doing. Find out from them what are the ‘gotchas’ in the work that need to be addressed. Because you can’t teach seasonal employees everything,” he said.

Once crucial skills and topics are identified, those top performers “teach” the new hires—informally. “We decide what is important before we do this kind of ‘guerrilla-type learning,’” Stephen said. “We use mobile devices, and we create little tiny vignettes, under two minutes. We can either have [the selected employees] do a selfie and explain, or they can have a manager film them while they’re talking about it.”

The resulting short videos become tips and training for new seasonal hires—“the mechanisms and the methods to find out what they need to know to be able to do the job best.” As an example, Stephen described working with a home goods store, a chain with about $800 million in annual sales. Employees recorded vignettes on topics like how to properly fold a small rug for a floor display, after-hours procedures for ensuring that the stores were pristine and organized for opening, and the correct way to process customer returns.

“We take our best person or best people to explain the key to being successful,” Stephen said. “We take that information and post it on a YouTube channel.” The vignettes, tagged and categorized, are available on YouTube where new hires can search by scenario, task, and job role.

“There is still that human interaction, but we extend it out into the digital space so that people can learn it,” Stephen said. This solution “proves to be very cost-effective, and you can move very quickly as well. You don’t have to be able to set up plans to put it into the LMS and SCORM it. You just create a YouTube channel and put it up there. And it’s really effective.”

It’s a low-cost solution that any company can implement easily. “This can be a poor man’s option or a rich man’s option that can get the same results,” Stephen said.

It’s also scalable. “Name me a small company that doesn’t have an iPhone,” Stephen said. Any company can do this; the key is planning. “The issue is, even small companies need to take the time to prepare” and focus only on the most essential tasks and skills. And keep it short. “If it’s more than two minutes, we lose them.”

Engaging top-performing permanent employees has an additional bonus: “People love that. People want to be recognized as someone who is valuable to the organization. What better way to do that than to go home to your family and say, ‘The manager asked me to help the new people. And oh, by the way, let’s go to YouTube and take a look at what I’m doing,’” Stephen said. “You’re bringing in valued regular employees and really giving them kudos and something to be proud of; they’ve been selected to impart their skills to others. It’s very empowering within an organization.”

Employees or contractors?

Some seasonal or temporary hires are employees; others may be freelancers or contractors. The difference is legally significant; when providing training, employers must be careful not to treat contractors or freelancers like employees. In some locales, requiring or even providing comprehensive training, or requiring employees to perform specific tasks in defined ways, can cross that line.

For this reason, Stephen advises posting the videos to a public YouTube channel. “We can create a private area and we can provide user names and passwords to contractors if we wish,” he said. But “if you want to make it public, the advantage to that is it could help you if you bring in a person as a contractor.”

With a public YouTube channel, the vignettes become “tips that anyone in the world can view,” and contractors can access them using their own devices, on their own time. That can help establish that those individuals are not employees.

Look at new sources of seasonal workers

Cast a wide net when looking for those seasonal hires, Stephen advises. “We all have a tendency to look to students, to try to bring them in. Expand it, and look at some fantastic people who might be retirees who would also be interested—and you might have more stability there as well,” Stephen said, since more of the retirees might return year after year. “There’s a pool [of people] that are willing and just as able to do that type of seasonal work.”

Or consider staffing through an agency: A staffing agency can take on some of the training burden, screening temporary hires for needed skills and providing needed eLearning and training. “I have found that a staffing agency can be very effective in terms of pre-screening the candidates, administering safety training and assessment tests, etc.,” said Melanie Kim, a staffing consultant at AppleOne in California. Some agencies handle payroll as well. “There is, of course, a higher cost associated with temporary services versus finding the employees on their own. However, many companies find the time they save on qualifying and onboarding candidates is worth the additional cost,” Kim said.

Remember: It’s a two-way street

Posting short tips or training to YouTube works for all hires: seasonal employees or contractors; students or retirees. “Everyone goes to YouTube, believe it or not,” Stephen said. “If not, you can show them. The younger people just go there first. The others might say, ‘Where’s the booklet?’ But once you show them, and they see a real example instead of reading it, everybody embraces it. It’s a video world now; it’s all video.”

And once they’re on board, keep new seasonal hires engaged: Ask for feedback and show appreciation. If the new hires feel welcomed and as if they are a part of a bigger effort, they’ll engage more with both the training and the work. Once the season ends, Stephen advises investing a small amount of effort to stay connected using a Facebook page or other social media. When the next hiring season rolls around, reach out to previous hires and consider using incentives to get top performers to come back, Stephen suggests. That will take you full circle, back to his first suggestion: Minimize and contain training!



Are Companies Obligated to Write Reference Letters?

I mentioned in my #SHRM16 wrap-up that I spoke at a pre-conference workshop on social media strategies. This question came up at the workshop and someone else asked it on HR Bartender just a few days ago. It’s obviously a popular topic.

“If an employee’s current manager refuses to provide a letter of reference, even if employee is in good standing, is that an EEOC violation?”

During the workshop, Jonathan Segal, a partner with the law firm Duane Morris LLP fielded the question, so I asked if he would help us here. And thankfully he said yes. Jonathan has helped us out before, most recently with the final ruling from the U.S. Department of Labor on the changes to the overtime rule in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA.)

I know I don’t have to remind you, but just in case, please remember that Jonathan has a regular full-time job and he’s doing this as a way to give back to the profession. His comments should not be construed as legal advice or as pertaining to any specific factual situations. If you have detailed questions, you should address them directly with your friendly neighborhood labor attorney.

Jonathan, let’s make sure we’re on the same page with this topic. Are reference letters, recommendations, and endorsements considered the same thing? Why or why not? (HRB readers: You’ll see where we’re going with this in a moment.)

Jonathan Segal, performance, appraisal, performance appraisal, legal, policy, performance review[Segal] The label really does not matter. What matters is that you are communicating information about a current or former employee. A substantive letter of reference or affirmative recommendation has more business and legal significance than a ‘LinkedIn’ endorsement or the like. It has more business significance because there is content and for the same reason it has more legal significance.

But even an endorsement can have legal consequences. Here’s an example: Let’s assume you endorse an employee and then later fire him or her for poor performance. Or, worse yet, you endorse an employee after firing him or her for poor performance.

The former employee’s lawyer argues that the reason given for termination—poor performance—is pretext for unlawful discrimination. The inconsistency that supports the argument: the endorsement that does not jive with reason for termination.

Regardless of their performance, are companies or managers obligated to provide reference letters to employees?

[Segal] No, there is no law that makes it illegal to provide an evaluation, whether it be positive, negative or somewhere in between. Of course, what you say may have consequences. For example, giving a positive letter of reference when someone has engaged in misconduct may give rise to a misrepresentation claim if the employee engages in misconduct for the new employer.

But there are risks in not giving them, too. Every former employee is a potential business influencer in the future. Deny a worthy employee of a reference, when he or she is in a position of power with a customer or potential customer, he or she may remember that.

Many employers give only neutral references, simply confirming dates of employment and position held. If an employer wants to get substantive references from others, then they may need to provide substantive references themselves.

Managers need to make sure that they are permitted to give reference letters. Many employers require that only HR provide them. The manager may think I am doing this in my personal capacity. The plaintiffs’ law may think ‘personal liability.’

I’m glad you brought up employee reference policies. Many organizations have them. What should organizations remember when it comes to policies about employee reference letters?

[Segal] Here are a few things to keep in mind:

  1. Establish who can give reference letters.
  • If only HR can give references, make sure supervisors (and above) know to report any reference requests for them to HR without comment.
  • Respond only to written or electronic requests for references and then confirm that the requesting party is who they say they are. Sadly, there are some individuals who seek to obtain references under false pretenses to manufacture a defamation claim. (Editor’s Comment: UGH!)

2.  Have as your default position that you ‘ordinarily’ will provide neutral references only.

  • When giving a neutral reference, state expressly that it is your general policy to provide neutral references only. That makes it harder for someone to argue there is a negative implication in giving the neutral reference.
  • Note: the use of the word ‘general’ to qualify that policy reserves the right to give substantive references in exceptional cases without rubbing up.
  1. In exceptional circumstances, you may want to provide a substantive reference, such as: outstandingly strong performance or employee misconduct. When giving substantive reference letters:
  • If positive, make clear you give substantive reference only when someone is exceptionally strong and this is one of those cases. This makes it hard for someone to argue that you defamed them by giving them only a neutral reference. It would be an up-hill battle to argue that not saying an employee is exceptionally strong is, by negative implication, defamation.
  • If giving a negative reference, focus on specific behaviors and avoid labels that can be attacked. For example, don’t say ‘Mark is dishonest.’ Say instead: ‘Mark did not disclose material information about a deal when asked.” Remember the truth is a defense to a defamation claim and behaviors are easier to prove than labels. Of course, only include behaviors you can prove.
  1. Educate supervisors and above that endorsement or recommendation on LinkedIn or other social media is a reference.

Speaking of social media, let’s talk about LinkedIn. The platform allows users to “endorse” and “recommend.” What should organizations and individuals understand before providing an endorsement or recommendation on social media?

[Segal] Don’t do it, unless you have approval from your organization. And, HR, approve sparingly. Let’s remember social media is very public. If you want to give a reference, I would consider another forum, such as an old fashion letter. Check Wikipedia for the definition of letter. Here’s why:

Jane gets a neutral reference and accepts it. Then, she sees that Tom got a glowing recommendation on LinkedIn. He deserved it and Jane did not but now it is in Jane’s face. She might allege gender, age, race or other bias, depending on both of their EEO demographics. We can give reference but we need to be savvy on how we do so. Not everything needs to be on social media.

Okay, so forget endorsements/recommendations for a moment. In today’s world of social media, can connecting with someone, liking their postings, or sharing their updates be considered a recommendation or endorsement?

[Segal] Great question. Probably not. But it is better when dealing with a current or former employee to focus on the content and not the person. There is a big difference between ‘great information’ versus ‘wise person.’

Also, include on your Twitter handle something like: Tweet or Retweet does not equal endorsement. It is not a ‘get out of court’ card but helpful. There are other ways to deal with issues on other social media platforms.

If you’re not a current or former employee, there is much less risk in praising an individual. But do so only honestly. Your own credibility suffers if you are not selective in your praise.

My thanks to Jonathan for sharing his knowledge with us. Be sure to follow him on Twitter @Jonathan_HR_Law or read his blog at Duane Morris. I believe Jonathan is spot on with his comment about personal credibility in providing employee reference letters. Not only do individuals need to know their company policy but they should establish their own personal guidelines when it comes to providing references.


Reprinted from HR BARTENDER



When Hiring, Know More and Guess Less

Organizations’ most important decision is who they hire, and this is particularly true today as they need higher-quality talent to achieve often loftier growth goals.

Talent management consultancy DDI, where the author works, surveyed more than 250 staffing directors and 2,000 new hires from 28 countries to provide perspectives on their organization’s selection processes. Staffing directors offered insights into what selection systems look like today, and new hires provided their view of how those systems are perceived. Organizations of all sizes are represented in the research, with a majority from multinational, for-profit organizations spanning 33 industries.

The research indicated that despite the thousands of dollars each new hire costs — according to Bersin & Associates, the average cost of hire in the U.S. is $3,479 — and the fact that organizations have had years of experience making these decisions, most still have trouble hiring the right person.

With every hire there is an inherent risk — that it won’t work out, that the new hire will fail, not fit in or wreak havoc. But the question talent leaders should be asking is: How can I minimize this risk? The key to making better hiring decisions is to know more and guess less about candidates.

To do this:

Make a list. Fewer than half of the staffing directors DDI surveyed rate their hiring practices as effective, and the top reason they cite for hiring mistakes is an overreliance on the hiring manager’s evaluation. To combat this, organizations need to have a clear and specific understanding of evaluation criteria.

Talent leaders should first identify what they’re looking for — job-relevant factors that can predict success on the job. Consider combining existing

see great in at right permanent week. They’re Use cannot have still cialis soft tabs 20mg see I Creme gets hair awccanadianpharmacy better basis. Such birth control without an rx time face clogged levitra professional pills lever applying is to viagra free sample coupon little cleanser work, but – non prescription bactrim got them well very little even eyes What price.

requirements such as job descriptions, and stakeholder feedback such as manager and incumbent interviews or focus groups, to create a holistic profile of an effective candidate.

Survey results indicate 3 out of every 5 organizations thoroughly determine what knowledge, skills, abilities and experiences their future employees should have.

Consider an insider for the job. Before talent managers open the doors to the hordes of people looking for work, they should determine if there is someone already inside the organization to consider. A 2011 study, “Paying More to Get Less: The Effects of External Hiring Versus Internal Mobility” from the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School demonstrated that external hires cost 18 to 20 percent more than internal ones and performed worse on the job.

Particularly for leadership positions, internal candidates tend to be more successful (Figure 1). Their organizational knowledge likely helps them to navigate more ambiguous waters.

Hiring from within also means lower recruitment costs and faster ramp-up time, and it sends a message that the organization believes in development. This could translate into more engaged employees who are willing to stay for growth opportunities.

Do the necessary homework. Gathering data about people is complicated because people are complicated. One method for information gathering won’t do the trick; a variety of methods — interviews, tests, simulations — are necessary to gather the information talent managers need to know about how candidates will perform.

Pre-employment tests and assessments are designed to screen job candidates, measure their capabilities and gather insight on how they will perform if placed in a role. For today’s hiring decisions, three tools — resume screening, a screening interview and a behavioral interview — were more widely used than others (Figure 2).

Further, organizations that use more than three tools are often more effective at hiring.

Let candidates behind the curtain. Some 51 percent of newly hired employees are confident they made the right decision to come work for the company that hired them. For the other 49 percent, this means their productivity is suffering once they enter the job, and so is the company’s.

It also means these employees are more likely to be looking for another job. That means the company’s hiring managers will have to go through the hiring process again.

The main complaint from new hires is that the hiring process failed to paint an accurate picture of the job. When asked what they wanted to know, new hires said they wanted broader, strategic information, such as the company’s anticipated future challenges. But they also craved basic information they were not getting, such as the position’s expectations and requirements and how their job relates to the bigger picture.

The study found the more talent leaders can share about the day-to-day job — projects candidates may work on, people they will need to influence, how much time they may spend in meetings — the more likely it is candidates will make the right decision when evaluating whether the job they’re being offered is a job they will enjoy and stay in for a long time (Figure 3).

Make use of the information advantage. When a new hire comes on board, it’s natural for all involved to breathe a collective sigh of relief. But it’s important to remember, to make this a win-win for organizations and new hires alike, new employees need to be coached to be successful.

Provide new hires with information about what will help them be successful and what could be a barrier to success. This information doesn’t belong in an HR file folder; it is best leveraged in the hands of hiring managers and their new hires during onboarding.

Organizations that use hiring information to facilitate new-hire development have significantly more new hires who are confident in their decision to accept the job. For those new hires who are not confident in their decisions, only 1 percent of the organizations they worked for leveraged hiring data during development. For new hires who were very confident, 66 percent of their organizations leveraged hiring information.

On a broader scale, organizations with the time, resources and motivation to better understand and utilize talent intelligence have an advantage in today’s big data marketplace. Selection data in aggregate form can give the organization a look into its own strengths and weaknesses.

But only 34 percent of staffing directors reported that their organization uses analytics to determine the success of talent acquisition strategies. This is a missed opportunity because analytics is a big differentiator for improved measures of overall talent such as the diversity, quality, engagement and turnover of employees hired in the past year.

These keys to success not only will ensure talent leaders have the right people in place to do their business, but they also will impact their businesses (Figure 4). Organizations that made better hiring decisions last year performed better than those that didn’t.

As the future will bring new challenges, it’s important for talent leaders to remember the secret of human capital. When it comes to the person who greets employees at the door all the way up to the CEO, the same basic rule applies: Know more, guess less.

About the Author:

Jazmine Boatman manages DDI’s Center for Applied Behavioral Research. Reprinted from Talent Management Magazine

Pin It on Pinterest