Certainly, anyone who works in today's corporations knows that far too few employees are trying to do far too much work with far too limited resources. At some point in the last century, people were those companies' most important resource - but that was then and this is now, dude. If not ignored or placed on hold by corporate edict, hiring has become a necessary evil as opposed to a golden opportunity. And with every possible ounce of cost being wrung from corporate budgets, it seems to make sense to hire on the cheap: waste-not, want-not. This has led to the creation of computerized "vendor management systems" for personnel procurement; applicant-tracking software that classifies, files and retrieves r'esum'es electronically; "preferred recruiter" lists based largely on search firms' willingness to discount their services; increased reliance on online job boards, and so on. READ MORE

Chances are you've built or inherited a team that most days seem to work pretty well. Perhaps you yourself are a part of a higher team. Perhaps your team members have their own teams in place. Looked at from this perspective, the entire organization is a collection of overlapping teams - from the board of directors to the smallest sales office and production unit. The organization thus functions like a complex molecule, with the various teams as its atoms and each leader as a nucleus. And as long as any given team does not show obvious signs of radioactive decay, the comfortable assumption is that it's stable and performing as intended. Naturally, team members have their foibles. Tom, for example, tends to become passive-aggressive when assigned tasks he doesn't enjoy. Amanda is too inclined to criticize other members of the team. And Ed shoots first, asking questions later. How many - if any - of such foibles should be accepted as normal human behavior? And how are they affecting overall team performance? Could the team be doing better than it does? READ MORE

Professional baseball teams have developed a lucrative sideline letting middle-aged males sweat it out for a week at a real-life training camp. It's the dream of a lifetime for avid fans, and their mates pay dearly to send them, usually in honor of an otherwise depressing birthday. Travel with us instead to Fantasy Interviewing Camp, where Major League players make the hard-to-master process of candidate attraction and selection look easy. Note that we said "attraction" as well as "selection," because interviewing is a two-way street. It's great that you have chosen Mary as better qualified than Joe, but what if she has not chosen you? Oh, yes: And leave your baggage behind. If your organization is like most others around the world, interviewing is a hit-or-miss process, with more misses than hits. Let's take a fresh look. READ MORE

Recession and recoveries both have a way of sneaking up on the unsuspecting. With the benefit of 20-20 hindsight, government economists now believe that the current recession began the early part of 2001. In fact, the warning signs of an end to a decade of seemingly boundless growth stretched back to the previous fall, when various engines of growth began to sputter. Those warning signs included the implosion of the dot-com economy, lagging sales of telecommunications and computer hardware, a sagging stock market, the drying up of capital investment and the curtailment of corporate hiring. READ MORE

Organizations seldom set out to pick the wrong person for a job - but all too often succeed at that task despite themselves. When the hoped-for superstar proves to be not so super, or maybe just a poor fit, much of the benefit of filling the position has been lost. Last year saw a record number of new CEOs lose their jobs, as their Boards decided that one misstep was one too many. At lower, less visible levels the weeding-out process may take longer. But, sooner or later, mistakes must be corrected, or they will begin to eat away at organizational effectiveness. READ MORE