The economy has taken its toll on just about every company out there (working with so many different businesses, we at CATS Software know this firsthand), and the stress and anxiety thrust upon HR professionals is often too much to handle.

According to Workforce Management’s HR Anxiety Survey, “laying people off in this recession has caused a significant portion of HR professionals to consider exiting the field.” Thirty-seven percent of those surveyed claimed that the massive layoffs at their companies have prompted them to rethink staying in the HR field. In short, many HR staffers have become disenchanted with their department, forced to get their hands dirty yet have no say in the company’s hiring and firing policies. Plus, it should come as no surprise that HR departments are spending more and more time laying off people and less time actually doing what they set out to do.

Of course, the unpleasant stuff like laying off employees is an unfortunate but necessary part of HR. But I can assume most people didn’t get into the field to make others unhappy (of course, several of you probably have stories that could prove me wrong). Being the “bad guy” for too long can wear you down, and it’s all too common these days for businesses in financial trouble to see firing as a first resort to cut costs.

That’s the question the always on-point John Zappe asks in a recent post on ERE.com. It’s not news that newspaper revenues are sliding ever further down the drain, but especially worrying is the dip in job classifieds. When up against recruiting powerhouses like Monster and CareerBuilder, the ad loss is in the millions, if not billions. In a survey conducted by ERE, recruiters claimed that “they considered print advertising to be the least effective means of attracting candidates from among the five choices. Those choices were employee referral programs, job boards, career fairs, print, and social networks.” Recruiters argue that the value of newspaper ads pales in comparison to the growing resources like social media.

They have a point. So much of recruiting is geared toward electronic resources that newspaper advertising seems almost quaint. The team behind the CATS Applicant Tracking System has worked hard to make online integration as seamless as possible, not out of snootiness, but out of the high demand for such features.

The necessary next steps for many newspapers have been running recruiting ads fewer than seven days a week. That may be enough to slow the leak, but I can’t imagine it would be enough to stop it. The other, arguably more clever option is for those big recruiting sites to buy advertising space that leads readers to online resources and information on events.

Do you think that’s enough? Are there other ways to use print advertising to boost the recruiting industry? Or is it past the point of no return?

Last week, a blogger at RecruitingBlogs.com shared an interesting question asked of her: Is rejecting someone because of his or her tattoos a form of discrimination, or just in keeping with the idea of “professional appearance”?

In this specific case, the candidate in question was very well-qualified for the position. But the hiring manager, after seeing Facebook pictures of “his near full-body tattoo” (Facebook strikes again!), the candidate was rejected.

On the one hand, the author of the post points out that “Employers have the right to implement grooming and dress policies to protect legitimate business interests.” Every employee contributes to the image of a business, and perhaps a body full of ink doesn’t reflect the desired message.

On the other hand, one of the commenters on the post questions whether tattoos have anything to do with ability. Of course, they don’t interfere with one’s work any more than would a particular hair color. No one at the CATS Software office has facial piercings or visible tattoos, but I can’t imagine it being a big deal if one of us did. Is it old-fashioned to care about body modification now that it’s so pervasive in our country? I’ve seen my fair share of facial piercings at “traditional” places like banks, so does this mean it’s not a big deal anymore?

These days, selling anything from recruiting services to lipstick has become a challenge. But Recruiter Daily has a handy breakdown list that can help you entice potential buyers to take the plunge.

Of course, selling is all about reading the prospect correctly and giving him/her what they need (or at least what they perceive they need). According to the article, people buy for at least one of five reasons:

1. in pursuit of pleasure;
2. to avoid pain;
3. to fulfill an emotional need;
4. to gain prestige; or
5. to save time, effort and money

And even when someone is saying “no,” there’s still potential to identify their resistance and address it. For example, if someone says “There’s no money in our budget to pay a recruiter,” a suggested response would go something like “I can just imagine that your workload has increased due to the current company policy. I can send you some candidates as a comparison to your own so you can be sure that you have the absolute best shortlist in this market. I know you will only hire my candidate if they are the best for the position and it costs you nothing to look.” CATS certainly falls under this category; trying it out is free, and we try to emphasize how it will both save time and avoid the pain of coordinating the hiring process on your own.

Pretty savvy sales pitch, right?

The article goes on to insist that, although giving discounts might be tempting, it’s important not to make them a bad habit. Precedence is powerful thing, and it will be hard to get someone to pay a full fee when they can say “Well, last time…” Instead, try a value-add: Offer a service or upgrade at no charge to the buyer. This assures him or her that they’re the focus, and they’ll feel more comfortable with the sale.

These days, selling anything from recruiting services to lipstick has become a challenge. But Recruiter Daily has a handy breakdown list that can help you entice potential buyers to take the plunge.

Of course, selling is all about reading the prospect correctly and giving him/her what they need (or at least what they perceive they need). According to the article, people buy for at least one of five reasons:

1. in pursuit of pleasure;
2. to avoid pain;
3. to fulfill an emotional need;
4. to gain prestige; or
5. to save time, effort and money

And even when someone is saying “no,” there’s still potential to identify their resistance and address it. For example, if someone says “There’s no money in our budget to pay a recruiter,” a suggested response would go something like “I can just imagine that your workload has increased due to the current company policy. I can send you some candidates as a comparison to your own so you can be sure that you have the absolute best shortlist in this market. I know you will only hire my candidate if they are the best for the position and it costs you nothing to look.” CATS certainly falls under this category; trying it out is free, and we try to emphasize how it will both save time and avoid the pain of coordinating the hiring process on your own.

Pretty savvy sales pitch, right?

The article goes on to insist that, although giving discounts might be tempting, it’s important not to make them a bad habit. Precedence is powerful thing, and it will be hard to get someone to pay a full fee when they can say “Well, last time…” Instead, try a value-add: Offer a service or upgrade at no charge to the buyer. This assures him or her that they’re the focus, and they’ll feel more comfortable with the sale.

No matter how you slice it, managers have it rough (except, of course, at CATS, where every employee is a dream come true…). They have to fix or prevent problems, deal with the toughest clients, and make sure that those under them are doing their jobs. They have to be the “bad guys.” So why would anyone want to be a manager? Many would say that the pay raise is the biggest incentive, of course. But a recent survey by the Institute for Corporate Productivity (i4cp) finds that most managers took their position so they could “make more of a difference in [their] organization.” But most of those surveyed claim they wouldn’t want a managerial position, even if offered. Stress and workload were cited as the main deterrents, showing that employees show sympathy for managers, even when they don’t see eye to eye.

The analysis of the survey comes to the conclusion that good managers are trained as much as born, and that firms need to ensure that their managers have the skills necessary to motivate their workforce. In terms of the day-to-day roller coaster of management, the essentials are “real-world experience, proper guidance, and the wisdom to know when they can’t please everyone with a decision. Management will always be a tough job, but knowing how to do it well will make it more fulfilling.”

Two recent surveys show that, when it comes to tough employment situations, fathers have it rough. CareerBuilder just released a survey of 797 men who work full-time and have children under the age of 18. The survey found that fewer dads would give up their jobs to take care of their kids, even if their spouse made enough money to do so (the number is 31%, down from 37% in 2008). In addition, fewer dads are willing to take a pay cut in order to spend more time with their families. In terms of spending time with their kids, “half of working dads said they have missed a significant event in their child’s life in the last year due to work; 28 percent have missed more than three.” As John Zappe said at Ere.net, “even Homer Simpson doesn’t do that.”

According to another survey, this one by Adecco Group North America (via Perfect Labor Storm 2.0), one-fourth of employed dads have taken on longer hours or second jobs to help ease the economic crunch.

These two surveys show how the pressure (both internal and external) on men to provide for their families could be considered alive and well. The number suggest that dads are taking on more job responsibility, yet they prefer that to the alternative of being home more. Both surveys conclude by suggesting ways to gain a healthier work-life balance. Part of it rests with employees, who might want to avoid checking your email until your kids have gone to bed. The other part rests on employers, who could offer more flexible work arrangements for parents.

Over at Punk Rock HR (another favorite at the CATS office), a reader posed the question, I was just wondering if you would suggest HR as a career? What are the pros and cons of working in HR?” Punk Rock in turn made the question into a contest to see who could give the best advice. The variety and passion in the responses shows how HR professionals can run the gamut from happy to disgruntled.

Here are some of the pearls of wisdom offered by the site’s readers:

“If you are wanting to be in HR because you’re a touchy-feely person, then I wouldn’t advise it. Alternatives for that personality type abound. If it’s because you want to be in business making strategic decisions to solve workplace problems, we would love to have you.”

“I would advise her to think of it as a career in babysiting. I hold hands when people get boo-boos, give them time outs and sometimes have to send them home. You also must have a high tolerence for crying, fighting and cleaning up messes.”

“HR is not always what it appears to be and you have to take the good and use it to help counter-act the bad. If you can find that balance (and for me that took a couple years), then HR can be a great career to explore. But whatever you do, you have to do it like a rock star.”

“In order to be a true ‘expert’ and have the ability to move on to bigger and better opportunities, it’s going to take some time and genuine interest in learning the in’s and out’s of HR.”

“The biggest con of working in HR is that it’s a paper mill. If you don’t mind paper being thrown at you all day, then perhaps HR is for you. Also, if you don’t mind fielding moronic questions, then again HR might be for you.”

The winning advice was from Mary Ellen Slayter, who runs SmartBlog on Workforce. Ms. Slaytor’s winning advice was actually to read another blog entry, “Love Helping People? Don’t Go Into HR” by Lance Haun of YourHRGuy.

I recently found out that business industry website The Industry Radar frequently posts cartoons via Flickr. These cartoons often deal with workplace culture, the economy, and other topics we could all use a laugh about. Here are three favorites:

A nice distraction (or, depending on your opinion, time-waster) for the week’s halfway point.

A new survey measuring employee confidence has found that the average age “at which people feel totally confident and comfortable about their skills at work is 37 – after 30,000 hours in the job.” The survey also makes reference to the fact that many employees don’t feel satisfied with their work until they reach the age of 50. (It should be noted, however, that these figures are from a British survey, so results may differ across the pond.)

What I’d like to know is, what happens if you switch jobs? We at the CATS Software office are no strangers to changing career paths (previous incarnations of our employees include a construction worker, as well as an Indian chief and a police officer). So how can one pinpoint or even approximate the distance to total workplace confidence? I think that perhaps the pearl of wisdom to be taken from this information is that getting comfortable with your work and skills takes time, and it’s important to be patient with yourself, your coworkers, and your management.