Tag Archives: recruitment

The Games People Play

Posted on by • Posted in HR Thoughts, Work Related Posts • Tagged , , , • 1 Comment

Warning: The following post contains spoilers relating to Season 2 of The Traitors (UK).Don’t read on if you don’t want to know what happens.

Like many people in the UK, I’ve been gripped by reality show The Traitors over recent weeks. For anyone who’s not seen it, the premise is simple – a group of 22 people stay in a castle, with 3 of them secretly nominated as Traitors, the others known as Faithful. Each day a round table discussion, to identify who might be a traitor, is held where the contestant with the most votes is banished. Each night the Traitors can ‘murder’ a contestant who is then eliminated from the game.( If a traitor is identified, the remaining traitors do have the option to recruit a faithful rather than murder). By the final day, if a Traitor remains they take the entire prize pot, if only Faithful remain they share the prize between them.

So what’s that got to do with people management, I hear you ask? Quite a lot, surprisingly. Here are 5 HR lessons from The Traitors

  • You cannot make decisions on ‘gut feel’

Every day, the contestants who were favourites for banishment were ones who people had become suspicious of. It might be that they were too quiet,  too loud, said the wrong thing or just on the first impression they had given others. How may times have you interviewed a job candidate who has been selected or rejected on exactly those criteria? It’s well known that interviews conducted in this way have a hopeless success rate and The Traitors proved that – they found no traitors at the round-table except when another Traitor used their inside knowledge to betray one of their colleagues.

  • Diversity initiatives mean nothing if the underlying culture is still wrong.

The Traitors contestants were possible the most diverse you could find – there were people of all races, sexuality, age and disability. Yet the Traitors themselves became a very male dominated group who (I suspect unconsciously) targeted the women in the group for murder. This came to a head when eventual winner (and traitor) Harry explained that the reason Faithful contestant Diane had been murdered was because she was “getting too clever, so she had to go”. Similarly non-white traitors were set up to be betrayed. Even presenter Claudia Winkleman commented on the ‘boys club’ atmosphere. It shows that changing entrenched attitudes and culture is a lot more difficult that simply a few diversity activities, even if on the face of it they seem to be successful.

  • It’s very difficult to go against charismatic characters.

Traitor Paul was early on voted the ‘most popular’ in the group, and used this position of being liked and respected to his advantage to deflect suspicion onto others. The other contestants put more weight on his views, many refused to entertain the idea that he might be a Traitor, and it empowered him to take calculated risks secure in the knowledge he would not be challenged. How many times in a work environment have you seen people defer to a powerful boss, even when they know the boss is wrong?  Being a charismatic leader is not a good thing if the leader’s intentions are bad.

  • Whistleblowing requires courage

In the same vein, one particular contestant  (Jas) identified two of the traitors relatively early on, but was reluctant to voice his suspicions for fear of potential reprisals. Even at the end, when it was inevitable, he still raised his concerns in a hesitant fashion. It is a worthwhile reminder that despite legal protections, whistleblowers are still often unwilling to go against the group because of the personal consequences, and why HR people should always be supportive.

  • Teamwork works – but only if everyone is working to the same end.

To increase the prize pot, contestants had to undertake “missions” that required them to work together. Being a traitor or faithful did not matter as the common aim was to win as much money as possible. When this worked (particularly in the final challenge) it was a text-book example of how effective teams support each other and work effectively. Where it didn’t (particularly where contestants were able to win themselves individual protection from murder), team members had to balance their own agenda with the group objectives. Often in a work environment we’ll see the same – people pushing individual gain against team targets.

So at the end of the day, The Traitors is a reality show designed for entertainment. But it does provide some useful pointers of how people behave in group situations – just like they do in work.

No Jab No Care Home Job?

Posted on by • Posted in HR Thoughts, HR Tips for Business and Charities • Tagged , , , , • Leave a comment

There’s been much in the media today about the fact that the Government is to ‘require’ care workers to have the Covid-19 vaccination in order to continue working in front line support. Those who don’t will either have to be moved into work that doesn’t bring them into contact with residents or dismissed.

While the employment law implications are one which may worry business owners, the decision throws up a whole series of HR issues for that particular sector – ones which may also have implications for a lot of employers in the broader health/social care sector (which includes many of my charity clients)

Firstly, it’s important to remember that no vaccination is required by law in the UK.  The often quoted example that ‘doctors and nurses must have a Hepatitis B vaccination’ is based on clinical guidance issued by Public Health England which is then adopted by individual NHS and other healthcare employers as part of their health and safety policy/risk assessment process.  

If the government introduce a specific law (which would take some time to go through the parliamentary processes) or regulation (which wouldn’t) then sacking someone who fails to comply would be fair in law as a ‘statutory restriction’. (Update 21/6/21 – the change will be introduced by regulation, effective October 2021) An employer must still go through a fair process – exploring redeployment options before taking a decision to dismiss – and a dismissal would be with contractual or statutory notice.

If however they introduce the new rules as (prescriptive) guidance then it will be down to the individual employer to build them into their health and safety policy and recruitment guidelines.  While employers would be expected to follow them, it would be very difficult to justify dismissing someone (or not recruit someone) using the statutory restriction argument. Employers would probably have to rely on the catch all “some other substantial reason”, again ensuring that they dismiss with appropriate notice.

In addition to the risk of potential unfair dismissal claims, the sector already faces serious staff shortages with some estimates that there are 100000+ vacancies at the moment. The prospect of sacking otherwise competent staff at a time when it is difficult to recruit, and reducing further the number of prospective job candidates, is likely to cause further problems.

Care businesses will also need to communicate the changes clearly and effectively to staff; take time to collect appropriate vaccination records; perhaps give time off for people to be vaccinated; and ensure that staff understand the consequences of not being vaccinated. This is particularly important for the small number of people who are advised not to have the vaccination because of a health condition, which may mean there are also disability discrimination issues to be addressed.

None of this is to say that the aim of having all care home workers vaccinated (or indeed health and social care staff more generally) is a bad one. But we have seen too many instances in recent years of rushed new regulations being implemented without proper thought-through consequences, and subsequently having to be amended or repealed, for employers to be confident that another hastily announced policy will be any more effective.

Wanted for Recruitment Crimes

Posted on by • Posted in HR Thoughts, Work Related Posts • Tagged , , , • Leave a comment

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 Magic of a Kind Word?

Posted on by • Posted in HR Thoughts, HR Tips for Business and Charities, Work Related Posts • Tagged , , , • Leave a comment

 

Recent reports have suggested that the Government is considering proposals to make it a legal requirement for an employer to provide a reference for a current or past employee. The rationale appears to be that some employers have used the threat of not providing a reference to ‘silence’ complaints of harassment, especially by women. The proposal has been welcomed by some and criticised in other quarters.

But the question that we should really be asking is why on earth we still, in 2019, expect references anyway?

References were historically designed to allow upper class Victorians to assess the honesty of potential servants. Many a Victorian novel features the ultimate threat of dismissing a servant without a reference – meaning that they would be unemployable in the future. They date back to a world in which employers could operate a closed shop and exclude those who were undesirable – not necessarily dishonest. Given that diversity and inclusion are something the HR profession is supposedly promoting, is persisting with an outdated nineteenth century domestic service practice really a good idea?

And even if you don’t accept that argument, what do references tell us anyway? If I write a glowing reference for Employee X, who worked in my small, flexible organisation, how does that help a new employer  – which is far larger, with a much more bureaucratic and ‘command and control’ culture, assess whether she can do a different job in that company? How does knowing that Employee Y had 10 days off sick in the last year help you manage their attendance in a new company?

The problem is that too many employers use references as an easy get out for their own poor recruitment decisions. “Why did we take him on?” is a frequent question after an employee has left or been dismissed. “Well, his references were good” is an equally frequent reply (usually from HR). It’s as if a reference conveys some sort of magic guarantee of good performance, in the same way that some ancient peoples believed that the hooting of an owl before sowing seeds would guarantee a good crop.

I’m aware that there are some sectors where legally a reference is required (schools, financial organisations etc). But for everyone else, surely the time would be better spent on a more thorough recruitment process, rather than simply generating meaningless paperwork to justify our own decision-making inadequacies. (And as an additional benefit, it couldn’t be used as a threat against employees who do make legitimate complaints)

Image result for victorian servant image copyright free

 

Overeducated and Underskilled – is it Recruiters’ fault?

Posted on by • Posted in HR Thoughts, HR Tips for Business and Charities • Tagged , , , • Leave a comment

Yesterday’s report by the Office for National Statistics that “31% of graduates are ‘over-educated’ for their job” has attracted a lot of attention, especially given the apparent conundrum that businesses are constantly complaining that people lack the right skills for the jobs.

There are a lot of issues here – including the question of whether the education system’s purpose is simply to provide trained labour for business; the consequences of the expansion of the university system; and even the philosophical question of whether it’s possible to be ‘over-educated’.

However, I want to concentrate on one factor which business has direct control over: recruitment. It seems to me that part of the problem is either laziness or ignorance on the part of those who manage recruitment.

The ONS report makes what I consider the same error as many businesses – to confuse education levels with skills. And as a result, we get what the CIPD’s David D’Souza describes as ‘weak signals’ in the labour market.

Too many recruiters will simply add in the phrase “degree-level educated” as an easy way to sift candidates, without even thinking about whether the skills or knowledge a degree brings are relevant to the job being advertised.

Take for example a recent job I saw advertised, for a Project Manager. It was in a very specialist sector and yet the first requirement in the person specification was to hold a degree. Not a specific, job related degree, but any degree. Given that many companies use automated sifting systems as part of their recruitment process, they would presumably reject someone without a degree but who had very relevant experience, but someone with a degree in a totally unrelated subject (let’s say Mediaeval History) would make it through to the next stage.  When they came to review the shortlist, hiring managers would no doubt tut about the shortage of good candidates.

Degrees are important in certain situations – particularly when we want people to demonstrate a certain level of independently verified knowledge of a subject. But in most cases we need to be understand what skills and knowledge a degree demonstrates; whether our job role actually requires these; and if there are other ways candidates can demonstrate that they possess these skills and knowledge.

Of course, this takes more time than the simple “just put out the advert on the job board” approach. But as I’ve argued repeatedly, recruitment is a major investment decision (especially in small businesses) and it’s worth taking a little more time to get the right person rather than making lazy assumptions.

College graduate students