Giving Out Homework Before Interviews Weeds Out The Bad Candidates

Today's advice comes from, Sabrina Parsons, CEO of Palo Alto Software, via The New York Times:

"One of the important things is how you hire the right people...One of the things we want is someone who’s able to figure things out, and become an expert. You don’t say: “Oh, I can’t do that. I don’t know it.” You say: “How do I figure it out? What do I need to do?” We live in an information world and you can find out everything, and usually inexpensively. So we want people who aren’t afraid of that."

 

Parsons says the best employees are those who are willing to seek out answers to a problem themselves. They don't wait around for others to tell them how to solve an issue, instead, they fend for themselves.

 

Giving out a homework assignment before an in-person interview ensures that you know which candidates are willing to take the time to solve problems on their own. You'd be surprised at how many people will drop out of the running simply because they don't want to make that extra effort.

 

"You can’t really ask that question in an interview, because you’re just going to get the answer they know you want. So we’ve changed our interview practices. Everyone who interviews with us, no matter what position, gets homework. We do an initial phone interview, and then they get homework before the in-person interview. It’s two hours of work. And the purpose of it is not to find the correct answer, but more to see their thought process. But more than 50 percent of the people you send the homework to never even contact you again. It’s great, because we don’t want that person."

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/give-out-homework-before-an-interview-2013-4#ixzz2QYHxEjnq

People Crave Autonomy More Than Any Perk

Back in February, when Yahoo's chief executive, Marissa Mayer, announced a company-wide ban on working from home, the response from media commentators was vociferous. (If the outcry seemed disproportionate, perhaps that's because so many of them work from home and didn't want their editors getting ideas.)

 

Mayer's detractors say the ban is anti-family and anti-feminist; her supporters argue that working face-to-face brings benefits that email and phone calls can't rival. Both sides have a point, but the real reason I suspect the policy will prove wrong-headed is more elemental. Deep down, people crave few things so desperately as a feeling of autonomy, and at Yahoo that just got squelched – not just among telecommuters but also among those employees who would never actually have chosen to work from home anyway.

 

It's a cliché that more choice isn't always a good thing: people get less pleasure from whatever they end up choosing, and may make riskier decisions, too. Yet the idea of keeping one's options open exerts an extraordinary power – as demonstrated again, most recently, by research in the field of "compliance-gaining techniques". One of the most reliable ways of persuading someone to do what you want, it turns out, is simply to add a phrase such as, "But you're free to choose" or, "But obviously, don't feel obliged."

 

A review of 42 studies, conducted among 23,000 people in France, Russia and elsewhere, found that reminding people of their autonomy made it much more likely they'd agree to a request such as donating to charity, signing a petition or paying a stranger's bus fare. (I found the research via PsyBlog at spring.org.uk.) In one experiment, in a French shopping mall, only 10% of people gave to charity when asked – but when researchers added, "You are free to accept or refuse", the proportion shot up to 47.5%.

 

What's especially unsettling about this isn't the simple fact that we like to be reminded we've got options. Instead, it's the implication that this freedom is being granted by the person seeking our compliance. Confronted by a chugger in the street, you're obviously always "free to choose", whether or not he or she happens to mention it. The findings seem to suggest, however, that we give our accoster the authority to give or withdraw that autonomy – which makes you wonder if it's really autonomy at all. It's uncomfortably reminiscent of the "closed choice" technique for gaining compliance from toddlers: "Would you like to wear the green jumper, or the red jumper? You get to choose!"

 

There are also echoes of the "reciprocity rule", the urge that famously explains, among other things, why the Hare Krishnas hand out flowers or books before asking for cash, and why giving people mints with their restaurant bill can boost tips by almost a quarter. Indeed, one theory is that reciprocity is why "But you are free" works so well: having received the "gift" of being allowed to say no, you feel obliged to repay the favour – by saying yes.

 

It's arguably heartwarming that we behave like this, of course. The problem is how easily it's exploited.

 

By the way: the way to evade chuggers, I've finally learned, is not to get rattled by trying to think of the right thing to say, but just to focus on not breaking your pace. Works like magic. Try it! I mean, if you like. No pressure. You're free to – well, you get the point.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/people-crave-autonomy-more-than-any-perk-2013-4#ixzz2QYGgTaCe

6 Types of Change Resisters That Are Holding Back Progress

Change is essential and inevitable for all organizations, but some people are better at coping with it than others. Dana Brownlee is the founder of Professionalism Matters, a national corporate consulting company that trains groups to boost team productivity in the workplace. She identifies six types of change resisters that we must battle in order to move forward with our important initiatives.

1. The “Positive” Change Resister

In group settings they seem positive, but often make passive aggressive comments that are really thinly veiled jabs (I’m sure the new shipping process makes complete sense and I’m fully onboard, but I’m just wondering what we should say if customers complain about longer wait times?) To minimize their impact: during a group session, ask each person to write their top concern about the change on an index card and ask everyone to pass them to the front of the room for review and discussion. The key is to encourage those who might complain outside the session to instead voice their concerns in a more constructive fashion.

2. The “Unique” Change Resister

This is the person who feels that their situation is different. For some reason, they’re special and shouldn’t change along with everyone else. To minimize their impact: clearly explain how the change impacts everyone and can benefit anyone. Also, emphasize the importance of everyone’s participation. (Although some of you may use the system more than others, it will be critical to have 100% compliance. If everyone does not participate, it will be unwieldy and confusing).

3. The “Let Me Be Last” Change Resister

This person is the procrastinating resister. They’re dipping their toe in the water, watching everyone else jump in and hoping to go last. They may in fact be quite vocal that they’re only going to change kicking and screaming. To minimize their impact: set clear deadlines for change acceptance. If possible, have everyone “take the leap” at once and make the change into a positive celebration.

4. The “We Need More Time to Study” Change Resister

This person gets caught in analysis paralysis. They don’t want to make a change until they’ve analyzed every possible scenario and option. To minimize their impact: clarify that the goal is “directionally correct” but not “perfect”. Establish a limited time for study/data gathering, and then take decisive action.

5. The “Cost Justifier” Change Resister

This resister is focused on the cost justification or ROI for the change. They’re paying attention to the dollars and the cents and feel that if it doesn’t add up, change shouldn’t happen. To minimize their impact: clarify the reasons for the change early on. If the rationale is non-monetary, be very upfront about that (Our focus this year is on improving customer service. As a result, we’re upgrading our vendors and those changes will certainly increase costs, but the anticipated long term benefits are worth the short term costs in our estimation).

6. The “Incremental Change” Resister

This person won’t commit to the full change, but they’ll make incremental steps toward change. They may not use the new online system for processing their invoices, but they’ll at least sign up for a login and password (and hope the system goes away before full implementation is mandated). To minimize their impact: clarify the expectations for making the full change very early on. Eliminate any ambiguity about expectations. Instead of saying “Staff will be expected to familiarize themselves with the online request system by 1Q 2013″ say “All requests must be initiated through the online request system effective 2/1/13.”

Have you run into any of these Change Resisters?

13 CEOs Who Get Paid Shockingly More Than Their Employees

In the past 30 years, compensation for chief executives in America has increased 127 times faster than the average worker's salary.

An annual list from Payscale compares the ratio of CEO to employee pay for the largest 100 companies as ranked by Fortune last year. (CEO pay is gathered from Fortune's list and includes salary, bonus and profit sharing, but does not include equity.)

 

The gap is most extreme at Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., where CEO Michael Duke gets paid 1,034 times more than his average worker. This ratio is twice as much as the second company on the list, Target (597:1).

 

Payscale found that worker satisfaction tends to be low at companies with an extreme CEO-to-worker pay ratio.

Alan R. Mulally gets paid 304 times more than the average Ford employee.

Wikimedia Commons

 

The ratio for CEO pay to average employee pay at Ford Motor is 304:1 with a CEO annual compensation of $20,830,000 and median annual employee compensation of $68,500.

Ford Motor pays its employees 3 percent above market relative to companies in the same industry and 70 percent of its employees say they are highly satisfied.

In 2012, the company reported $20,213 million in profits and is ranked number nine on the Fortune 500 list.

This ranking of Fortune 100 companies was created with data gathered and crunched by Payscale.

John H. Hammergren gets paid 313 times more than the average McKesson employee.

AP

 

The ratio for CEO pay to average employee pay at McKesson is 313:1 with a CEO annual compensation of $19,070,000 and median annual employee compensation of $61,000.

McKesson pays its employees 1 percent above market relative to companies in the same industry and 71 percent of its employees say they are highly satisfied.

In 2012, the company reported $1,202 million in profits and is ranked number 14 on the Fortune 100 list.

This ranking of Fortune 100 companies was created with data gathered and crunched by Payscale.

Larry J. Merlo gets paid 316 times more than the average CVS Caremark employee.

justmeans via YouTUbe

 

The ratio for CEO pay to average employee pay at CVS Caremark is 316:1 with a CEO annual compensation of $18,160,000 and median annual employee compensation of $25,800.

CVS Caremark pays its employees 3 percent below market relative to companies in the same industry and 60 percent of its employees say they are highly satisfied.

In 2012, the company reported $3,461 million in profits and is ranked number 18 on the Fortune 100 list.

This ranking of Fortune 100 companies was created with data gathered and crunched by Payscale.

Terry J. Lundgren gets paid 345 times more than the average Macy's employee.

AP

 

The ratio for CEO pay to average employee pay at Macy's is 345:1 with a CEO annual compensation of $10,020,000 and median annual employee compensation of $29,000.

Macy's pays its employees 7 percent below market relative to companies in the same industry and 62 percent of its employees say they are highly satisfied.

In 2012, the company reported $1,256 million in profits and is ranked number 110 on the Fortune 500 list.

This ranking of Fortune 100 companies was created with data gathered and crunched by Payscale.

James Dimon gets paid 355 times more than the average JPMorgan Chase employee.

Wikipedia

 

The ratio for CEO pay to average employee pay at JPMorgan Chase is 355:1 with a CEO annual compensation of $19,050,000 and median annual employee compensation of $53,800.

JPMorgan Chase pays its employees 3 percent above market relative to companies in the same industry and 64 percent of its employees say they are highly satisfied.

In 2012, the company reported $18,976 million in profits and is ranked number 16 on the Fortune 500 list.

This ranking of Fortune 100 companies was created with data gathered and crunched by Payscale.

Brian L. Roberts gets paid 370 times more than the average Comcast employee.

 

The ratio for CEO pay to average employee pay at Comcast is 370:1 with a CEO annual compensation of $18,760,000 and median annual employee compensation of $50,600.

Comcast pays its employees 3 percent above market relative to companies in the same industry and 70 percent of its employees say they are highly satisfied.

In 2012, the company reported $4,160 million in profits and is ranked number 49 on the Fortune 500 list.

This ranking of Fortune 100 companies was created with data gathered and crunched by Payscale.

Randall L. Stephenson gets paid 382 times more than the average AT&T employee.

AT&T Webcast screenshot

 

The ratio for CEO pay to average employee pay at AT&T is 382:1 with a CEO annual compensation of $26,000,000 and median annual employee compensation of $68,100.

AT&T pays its employees 3 percent above market relative to companies in the same industry and 65 percent of its employees say they are highly satisfied.

In 2012, the company reported $3,944 million in profits and is ranked number 11 on the Fortune 500 list.

This ranking of Fortune 100 companies was created with data gathered and crunched by Payscale.

Irene B. Rosenfeld gets paid 388 times more than the average Kraft Foods employee.

AP

 

The ratio for CEO pay to average employee pay at Kraft Foods is 388:1 with a CEO annual compensation of $25,360,000 and median annual employee compensation of $65,300.

Kraft Foods pays its employees 7 percent above market relative to companies in the same industry and 57 percent of its employees say they are highly satisfied.

In 2012, the company reported $3,527 million in profits and is ranked number 50 on the Fortune 500 list.

This ranking of Fortune 100 companies was created with data gathered and crunched by Payscale.

Rupert Murdoch gets paid 409 times more than the average News Corp employee.

Wikimedia Commons

 

The ratio for CEO pay to average employee pay at News Corp is 409:1 with a CEO annual compensation of $24,790,000 and median annual employee compensation of $60,700.

News Corp pays its employees 7 percent above market relative to companies in the same industry and 66 percent of its employees say they are highly satisfied.

In 2012, the company reported $2,739 million in profits and is ranked number 91 on the Fortune 500 list.

This ranking of Fortune 100 companies was created with data gathered and crunched by Payscale.

David M. Cote gets paid 440 times more than the average Honeywell employee.

flickr/policynetwork

 

The ratio for CEO pay to average employee pay at Honeywell is 440:1 with a CEO annual compensation of $32,860,000 and median annual employee compensation of $74,700.

Honeywell matches its employees salary to market pay relative to companies in the same industry and 71 percent of its employees say they are highly satisfied.

In 2012, the company reported $2,067 million in profits and is ranked number 77 on the Fortune 500 list.

This ranking of Fortune 100 companies was created with data gathered and crunched by Payscale.

Robert A. Iger gets paid 557 times more than the average Walt Disney employee.

The ratio for CEO pay to average employee pay at Walt Disney is 557:1 with a CEO annual compensation of $31,630,000 and median annual employee compensation of $56,800.

Wat Disney pays its employees 8 percent above market relative to companies in the same industry and 73 percent of its employees say they are highly satisfied.

In 2012, the company reported $4,807 million in profits and is ranked number 66 on the Fortune 500 list.

This ranking of Fortune 100 companies was created with data gathered and crunched by Payscale.

Gregg W. Steinhafel gets paid 597 times more than the average Target employee.

Target

The ratio for CEO pay to average employee pay at Target is 597:1 with a CEO annual compensation of $17,890,000 and median annual employee compensation of $29,900.

Target matches its employees salary to market pay relative to companies in the same industry and 59 percent of its employees say they are highly satisfied.

In 2012, the company reported $2,929 million in profits and is ranked number 38 on the Fortune 500 list.

This ranking of Fortune 100 companies was created with data gathered and crunched by Payscale.

Michael T. Duke gets paid 1034 times more than the average Walmart employee.

AP Images

 

The ratio for CEO pay to average employee pay at Walmart is 1034:1 with a CEO annual compensation of $23,150,000 and median annual employee compensation of $22,400.

Walmart pays its employees 1 percent below market relative to companies in the same industry and 53 percent of its employees say they are highly satisfied.

In 2012, the company reported $15,699 million in profits and is ranked number 2 on the Fortune 500 list.

This ranking of Fortune 100 companies was created with data gathered and crunched by Payscale.

How long will this go on?

DEAR WALMART, MCDONALD'S AND STARBUCKS: How Do You Feel About Paying Your Employees So Little That Most Of Them Are Poor?

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/ceos-who-get-paid-much-more-than-workers-2013-3?op=1#ixzz2PELNsGjF

 

The Dangers Of Making Rules For Stupid People

Can I assume that you’ve heard about the recent case in Florida in which a woman was arrested for riding a manatee?

 

When I heard about this incident my first thought was: “What kind of idiot tries to ride a manatee? Shouldn’t this lady have known better?”

The answer, of course, is yes- reasonable people do not see animals drifting along a Florida waterway and thinks “All aboard!”

But the Florida Keys are positively blanketed in signs like the one above, and a law does in fact exist outlawing the behavior in question.

I find it sad that the good people of Florida must legislate for the clueless few, but that seems to be the world that we live in. A world where our coffee cups bear dire warnings about the hot liquids within, and my curling iron has an enormous label advising me against putting it into my eyes.

Sadder still, this lunacy does not stop at the borders of our organizations- many of us have encountered organizations that create policies for the clueless few.

Policy Making for ‘The Clueless Few’

Not sure what I mean? I find dress codes to be a good litmus test. Does yours prohibit the wearing of tube tops (or jean cut-offs, or t-shirts bearing offensive language)? Awww, I bet that ruins the whole outfit you had planned for tomorrow, right? Of course not—because you and I are reasonable people who do not need to be told that wearing a tube top to work is a bad idea.

Yes, I know what some of you are thinking:

“But Jane, common sense is not so common. Someone might actually think that wearing a tube top is okay unless we have a policy that says it isn’t.”

That insidious thought is the first step along the path to policy making for the clueless few. Remember- unlike the state of Florida, we actually get to decide who calls our organizations home. We can choose not to hire people lacking common sense, making these policies unnecessary. Okay, okay- I know that’s easier said than done. You can hire someone who seems like a reasonable person for weeks, months or even years, only to have them do something so out of bounds that you assume they’ve been replaced by an alien doppleganger. People are unpredictable like that.

But pre-emptively writing policies will not prevent this from ever happening, and it will not address these occasional lapses in judgment when they do inevitably occur, at least not in a way that supports a truly accountable workplace. There are consequences to this approach and the policy proliferation that results. And those consequences almost certainly outweigh any benefits organizations might think this approach offers.

Lowered Expectations

The first of these is that employees feel infantilized, and take this as a signal that the organization does not really expect them to be personally accountable. Nothing says ‘lowered expectations’ like making that top-notch Software Developer brainiac you just hired sign something acknowledging that tube tops are off-side. We trust them to lead the development of our next product, but not to pick out a sensible outfit?

Opening a Can of Worms

The second consequence of policy making for the clueless few is that it inadvertently widens the scope of possible behaviours. That is, the vast majority of people will have a very good sense of what is acceptable office attire, but by bringing tube tops into the discussion (even while indicating that they’re not acceptable), an organization is acknowledging that it’s within the realm of the possible that an employee might actually show up wearing a tube top. This sets the outer limit of what’s ‘acceptable’ waaaay out there, implying that everything that lies on the spectrum between a suit and a tube top is a grey area. By articulating the outlandishly prohibited, we tell people that anything not specifically mentioned in a policy might be okay.

Building your Robot Army

And the third, and most serious, consequence of policy making for the clueless few is that it erodes the agency, authority, and good judgment that managers should be expected to exercise as part of their role. If an organization’s policies spell out every conceivable situation, action and consequence, we leave no room or need for individual people managers to think for themselves. This shows them that we don’t trust their judgment, and it will eventually beget a kind of ‘learned helplessness’ in which they refer to the Policy Manual to make every decision. Prophecy fullfilled, they’ll be clueless without the guidance of policies. No one wants this- we need people in our organizations who can improvise in ambiguous situations, not robotpeople who are slaves to ‘the manual.'

Passive Aggressive Much?

Every organization needs (and is required to have) some policies. But organizations that rely on policies written for the clueless few rather than working at the more difficult task of cultivating good judgment and employee relations skills amongst their managers allow a vicious cycle to begin.

An over-reliance on ‘the manual’ leaves managers and employees lacking the skills and comfort-level to engage in difficult conversations. Instead of addressing the occasional slip ups made by individual employees directly and professionally, organizations like this often resort to passive-aggressive tactics like e-mailing the dress code policy to every employee because one person showed up in shorts- and that sucks. Just say no to policy making for the clueless few!

 

Read more: http://talentvanguard.com/2013/03/19/manatees-tube-tops-and-policies-for-the-clueless-few/#ixzz2OZfRhSo1

Startups Should Watch Out For These Poor Leadership Behaviors

Many professionals in business, from startups to multi-nationals, assume that team leader or executive is an appointed position, and the skills come with the title. In reality, leadership is best demonstrated while not in a position of authority, and is a skill that must be sharpened every day of your life.

Most experts agree that leadership, as perceived by people around you, is more about behavior than it is about specific skills or knowledge. Darryl Rosen, in “Table for Three?” illustrates this with humor for each of fifty dumb mistakes that smart managers don’t make. The leadership one is setting a poor example by your own actions (“Do as I say, not as I do.”)

His rendition, including the following seven examples of poor leadership behavior, that I have seen all too often in startups, illustrate how your actions affect others around you:

1. Blame others for everything. An entrepreneur’s passion for an idea often prompts them to blame others or external events for setbacks, rather than themselves, so that they can maintain some semblance of self-esteem and control. This “attributional bias” may be understandable, but is perceived by associates as poor leadership.
2. Worry and fret about everything. Precious little of what we worry and fret about ever happens, so don’t share every concern with associates. At best, it comes across as lack of confidence, or more likely sounds likely trying to make excuses for possible later failures. Team members want leaders who calm their worries, not amplify them.
3. Criticize others and the company. Managers who speak critically of team members, customers, friends or family members, have something going on within them that needs to be examined. There is some aspect of self that they find unacceptable. Real leaders are recognized as willing to look in the mirror, and learn from what they see.
4. Complain about being overwhelmed. Overwhelm is a feeling that always precedes growth, and is a state in which your brain is developing new pathways and connections. Starting a business or a new organization will always cause self-doubt and insecurity. Real leaders embrace and manage these feelings, rather than complain to associates.
5. Do 10 things at a time in a mediocre fashion. Entrepreneurs or managers who claim to be able to do multiple things at a time must never use this as an excuse for poor quality. Associates will quickly conclude that mediocrity is good enough. Even one task done with mediocrity can be the kiss of death for any business, or any career.
6. Appear disorganized and manage things haphazardly. Doing things haphazardly is prone to mistakes. In business, when you are making mistakes, it’s costing you time and money. With associates, making mistakes will cost you in productivity and morale, and will kill their image of you as a leader. Worse yet, associates will follow your example.
7. Fail to see the positives in others. The key here is to maintain a positive mindset. Leadership is all about finding positives, for business growth, for competitive advantage, and people development in your organization. Managers and entrepreneurs need everyone in their organization accentuating the positive, not amplifying the negatives.

Leadership and improvement is about taking small steps forward, and evolving just a bit each day. Think evolution, not revolution. Anyone can change one behavior a month, or eliminate one mistake, and suddenly you too can be an “overnight success.”

Of course, correcting leadership mistakes is only the beginning. There are at least 49 other ways to go wrong in navigating workplace relationships, problem-solving approaches, time management, credibility, and business effectiveness. How many have you avoided recently in your startup?

Read more: http://blog.startupprofessionals.com/2013/03/7-leadership-behaviors-startups-must.html#ixzz2OZZON2ku

The Stigma Of Hourly Employment Needs To End

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, hourly workers make up three-fifths of all wage and salaried workers. In addition, 40 percent of employers plan to hire temporary and contract workers this year, compared to 36 percent last year.

 

While these findings are all well and good, the fact is, there is still a stigma associated with this sort of work. Workers may be seen as “lost”, floating, or worse, not ready to commit to anything serious. However, we live in a different job market now. It can be difficult to find a full-time or permanent position in your industry, especially if you don’t have a ton of experience. But guess what? Hourly, temporary, contracted, and project-based work can be just as good as the alternative.

 

So, do away with preconceived notions that hourly work isn’t as good as permanent! Here are some reasons why:

 

Hourly work is just as valuable

In permanent positions you learn, work, and absorb information. You network with thought leaders, you perform tasks that can challenge you, and you grow as a professional. With hourly work, you do exactly the same thing. The difference? Your schedule. That’s it. The work you do is just as valuable, just as fulfilling, and just as beneficial to your career. It may not be the traditional route you may be used to, and that’s okay. Just remember, you can gain as much from an hourly position as something permanent.

 

Professionals can “try before they buy”

When you’re in a full-time or permanent position, you may have to sign a year-long contract or be committed to an employer for a set amount of time. With hourly positions, you may not have to take on that sort of obligation. In fact, you can “try before you buy.”

 

For instance, let’s say you were interested in marketing. Well, there are many forms of marketing, like analytics, content creation, public relations, and branding. Instead of wrestling over which path to take, working in temporary positions allows you to explore your different interests. That way, should your temp job lead into something permanent, you’ll be much happier and more productive in the job because you took the time to explore what you enjoy.

 

Allows you to spread out your interests

There’s a benefit to hourly work that may not be so obvious: You can spread out your interests. Are you an artist with a pension for baking? Great! Perhaps you’re into design but love to teach on the side? Awesome! Temporary jobs can translate these interests into an actual gig because there’s probably a market for them — you just have the benefit of having more than one focus. Plus, you get to explore multiple interests, which is always great for your career.

 

Separate your hobbies from your job

Some people say you shouldn’t make your hobby into a job because it takes the fun out of it. Well, with an hourly or temporary job, you’ll still be able to find a job that pays the bills, without giving up your sole passion. For instance, the artist with the pension for baking can still paint to their hearts content, but have a steady income through the bakery. The dual benefit of this is the ability to still have the time to do what you love, but not in a way that results in an empty wallet. Temporary employment makes this into a reality.

 

Stigmas are stigmas for a reason: We likely don’t know the full story or we don’t understand the concept, so we link our knowledge to something that may not be true. Hourly work may not be the norm, but it is becoming something with which more professionals are aligning themselves. And in the end, it doesn’t matter if your job is hourly or permanent. It just matters that work is helping you grow as a professional.

 

What do you think? What are some other reasons the stigma of hourly work needs to end?

Lynn Dixon is the co-founder and COO of Hourly, an employment network that quickly matches people who are interested in flexible positions with the right opportunities. Connect with Lynn and Hourly on Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn

Read more: http://comerecommended.com/publish2/why-the-stigma-of-hourly-employment-needs-to-end/#ixzz2OLCjig4N