Wanted for Recruitment Crimes

Recently, I’ve done a couple of recruitment projects for clients. As a consequence, I’ve spent some time reviewing job adverts and recruitment processes. And I have to say, it amazes me how some organisations ever attract staff when a substantial number of adverts commit one or more of these recruitment “crimes”

  1. We’re not going to tell you who you’re applying to or where we are.

Why do recruiters think that putting out a vacancy for, say, a “manufacturing company in the North West” (or even, as I once saw, for “Anonymous Recruiter”) is likely to attract candidates?

Why wouldn’t you say who you are? Especially as we expect candidates these days to have done extensive research on the organisation if they come for interview. Who would consider buying or renting somewhere that was advertised as vaguely as “spacious property located in a large city”?

There’s a more serious point – you are potentially wasting candidates’ time. If I live in Macclesfield and find later on in the process that your company is based in Carlisle, (both in the “North West”) chances are that I’ll withdraw rather than face a 5 hour daily commute or the hassle of relocation.

  1. We won’t say how much we’re going to pay you.

Instead, we’ll put in a meaningless phrase like “£ competitive” or “attractive salary plus benefits”

You may think that your £30000 salary is ‘competitive’. The candidate you shortlist who is currently on £35000 won’t think so. If you want to be able to negotiate salary with the successful person that’s fine, but you should at least put in an indicative range so that again, you are not wasting people’s time.

  1. “We reserve the right to close the process early if we have sufficient applications”

What this says to candidates is “we’re so desperate to fill the role that we’ll take anyone who vaguely meets our criteria, so long as they apply quickly”. Your ideal candidate might not be actively job hunting; or away and not see your advert for a period; or may have missed your advert initially. If you’ve set a closing date, stick to it.

In my experience, most applications that come in on day 1 or 2 of an advert tend to be from people who haven’t thought about your role or don’t meet the specification anyway. Good candidates often want to take some time to prepare their CV and application.

  1. We have a never-ending list of ‘essential characteristics’

Having a person specification is vital to allow you to sift and shortlist candidates. Each criterion that you have will eliminate some applicants. So, the longer your list, the fewer people are likely to get through. If it’s more than 5 or 6, then chances are that no-one will meet your specification. I’ve seen job adverts with around 15 or more essential characteristics, which have led me to conclude that the person the employer wants doesn’t exist, or if they do, is probably the person who has recently quit the job.

Sadly, a lot of these practices seem prevalent in today’s recruitment market (and you’ll often see more than one in a single job advert). I’d love to hear the justification in recruitment or business terms for them, because I’m struggling to see one.

 

The 12 things HR can do for your business

Last year, I published a post which outlined the 15 things that HR should do – at a minimum – for the people who work within a business. Although I’d argue that doing these things for workers has a positive impact on employers as well, a more sceptical businessperson might wonder if and how their company would benefit from HR. After all, why would you pay for something if you aren’t getting something in return? So here are my 12 reasons why a business would want HR:

1. We’ll make sure that not only do you comply with employment laws, but that we implement them in a way that fits the business strategy and culture

2. We’ll make sure that the business is able to get the right people, in the right number, at the right time.

3. We’ll advise you on the ‘people consequences’ of any business proposals, so that you are taking decisions on the future with full knowledge of all the issues (not just the financial ones)

4. When problems occur with individuals, or groups of employees, we’ll look to find sensible, legal and effective solutions to minimise the damage to the organisation

5. We’ll be your experts in the labour market, knowing what outside factors will have an impact on helping us to deliver – or which need to be overcome to deliver – point 2 above.

6. When changes happen, we’ll understand the best way to minimise disruption and achieve what you want to set out.

7. HR isn’t your business conscience – but we will remind you that you have ethical responsibilities (and normal human emotions) that need to be factored in

8. We’re not your police either – so if we need to put in policies, systems, or procedures,  we’ll make sure they are there for a clear and understandable reason and that everyone understands the consequences of not complying

9. We’ll manage training and development, so that people in the business get the skills they need to do their jobs in a way that’s cost-effective.

10. We’ll use our specialist knowledge to support managers to manage people more effectively

11. If a problem needs a long-term solution, we won’t just offer you a quick fix

12. If there’s a new idea floating around, we’ll look for evidence that it will actually improve things before recommending you implement it

human-resources-1

Human Resources by Nick Youngson CC BY-SA 3.0 Alpha Stock Images

In (slight) defence of Dave Ulrich

HR guru/thought leader/influencer Professor Dave Ulrich of the University of Michigan has copped for a bit of a kicking from many in the profession, for this tweet issued at the end of last week.

 

On the face of it, it’s an easy comment to criticise. Apart from the fact that not all organisations are driven by the profit motive, we can all point to companies that are “winning in the marketplace” in part by employment practices that are dodgy if not illegal – Ryanair, Amazon, Deliveroo, Sports Direct etc. It also has echoes of the 1980s attitude of ‘what’s good for the business is good for employees’

But there is an important point hidden in a badly worded tweet. We can have a bigger impact on employee wellbeing by promoting long term job security, decent wages and good working conditions than we can by well meaning but ineffective initiatives. All the “Employee Assistance Programmes” in the world won’t help the staff at House of Fraser. Organisations need to be financially secure and successful (however you define success) to be able to offer these – and HR’s role is to contribute to this, even if it’s not the most exciting or sexy part of our work.

One of the things I often challenge my CIPD students is to justify why they are making recommendations that may cost their organisations a lot of money,  if they cannot clearly articulate the benefits of doing so – and that in many cases this justification needs to be quantifiable in financial terms. Too often, we resort to hopeful statements about ill defined outcomes.

Nor is it an either/or position. Contributing to successful organisational outcomes is not at the expense of supporting employee well being. As the new CIPD profession map points out, HR professionals need to be Principles Led and Outcomes Driven. Each is as important as the other.

Maybe Dave did have a point after all?

Burying our head in the sand

There’s been a lot of reaction to the concept of ‘best practice’ in HR over the last few years –  the idea being rejected primarily because no-one can identify what these best practices are, nor is there much (if any) evidence that they work. As a result, the alternative ‘best fit’ model has gained in popularity.

Superficially, best fit has much to commend it. Our HR practices are adapted to the size, sector and most importantly the strategy of our organisation. The approach that might be taken in a large corporate services business is not the same as an SME in a manufacturing sector. But we need to take care.

One of the most well-known best-fit theories  (Schuler and Jackson 1987) suggests that when a business is cost-sensitive, HR’s approach should be to control and reduce costs. This means not just keeping wages at the lowest level to attract qualified staff, but also using very tightly defined job roles (so there is no scope for ambiguity or employee discretion), using ‘precarious’ labour (what we now tend to refer to as the gig economy), little or no training and development, and short-term performance goals. Ryanair is often cited as the ‘classic’ example of this approach in the UK.

The dangers of this approach should be obvious – and if they aren’t then yesterday’s article in the Financial Times, which exposed the working practices in the garment industry in Leicester should be top of your reading list. Taken to its extreme, it leads to unsafe working conditions, below minimum wage levels and exploitation on a large scale.

“But what can we do?” I can hear many HR professionals saying. After all these businesses won’t have HR.  But our ‘just legal but arguably unethical’ HR practices do lead to other companies taking the next step across that line. And with little current enforcement of regulations it’s all too easy to get away with ignoring basic employment law.

It is, as Canadian HR writer Jane Watson describes it, a “Wicked Problem” – and demands the same approach she suggests to tackling it. HR can’t solve the issue on its own, but neither can we pretend that we are not partly responsible for this state of affairs.

I know what I want & I know how to get it?

A common cry among HR people is that they are ignored or dismissed within their business. It’s something that in my 30 years in HR has never gone away, and forms a staple of many an HR conference. The “how do we get a seat at the table” discussion has outlasted almost every topic or fad that the profession has debated.

For me, one of the problems is that, while HR people moan to each other about not being taken ‘seriously’, we rarely ask our colleagues, who are after all our customers, what it is they want. But, after 18 years, working with a wide variety of organisations in widely diverging industries and sectors, I’ve come to the conclusion that what most want from HR is

·         To keep them legal – that means having a good knowledge of Employment Law and related regulation.

·         An understanding the business and its objectives, and the ability to devise solutions to problems that achieve this.

·         Good professional skills that no-one else in the business can provide – whether this is recruitment, employee development, handling a complex union negotiation, or an individual issue.

·         Someone who will remind them that they are dealing with other people. It’s very easy for managers to become focused on the task and forget that other human beings are involved. Pointing out the human consequences of a business decision isn’t being a “bleeding heart” – it allows better long-term decision making and planning.

·         Looking at ways things can be done, not reasons why they can’t

·         Someone who brings in expertise and knowledge from outside that can ‘add value’ to the business they are working for.

Now, I’ve never conducted a formal survey among the 125+ organisations I’ve worked with, and this view is purely based on my perceptions. So I’d welcome comments from businesses – and other HR people. Perhaps if we better understood what business wants, we might finally know how to earn the mythical seat at the table.