Eric asks: Having worked with a recruiter, what was your experience with interview preparation? Interview preparation is part of the recruiting process. I am interested to hear your experience about the type and amount of interview preparation you received from recruiters you have worked with.
Specifically:
How much time did the recruiter spend in preparation?
What did the recruiter do to prepare you?
What was the content of the preparation?
How well prepared did you feel going into the interview?
Is this different between a Retained Recruiter (receives a fixed fee up front to fill the position) or a Contingency Recruiter (receives a fee only if his/her candidate is hired).
In answer:
I think 95 candidates out of any 100 asked the same question would say "what preparation?"
In background, most recruiters start as fixed fee trainee's with most of their fee paid up front by the employer, and its a volume approach to processes and complete as many filled jobs as possible in the shortest possible time scale. These jobs are mainly skills dependent - ie, you have the skills, qualifications or experience or not - and hence not a lot of interview preparation is required.
Hence, when these recruiters move on to contingency fee placements they often employ the same fixed fee learnt procedures - as many placements as possible in the shortest possible time scale. This creates problems for both the candidate, as well as the employer - often both complain about a mutual lack of briefing, and hence unsuitability.
A good recruiter should give a candidate adequate pre-vetting, briefing and preparation before they meet the potential employer. It is in their interest, both in terms of fee note billings and reputation with the employer/customer. How much time is that - I would question the recruiters selection criteria and the candidates suitability if that was more than one/two telephone interviews of about one hour in total, and one/two physical meetings again of around one hour each before the candidate meets the potential employer: either the capability and fit is there or not, but most candidates need some briefing and preparation
If a recruiter approaches you about a position, then I always suggest to candidates that their first question should be "where did you get my details from," and another should be "and how do you/your company get paid?" A more motivated and focused recruiter - normally on a contingency fee - will be paid more after the chosen candidate is in place, rather than before. If its a fixed fee recruitment process with most monies paid before placement, then expect to be treated like a piece of meat going through a grinder - my sincere apologies on behalf of my chosen profession.
Good Luck!
Showing posts with label recruitment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label recruitment. Show all posts
Friday, 8 August 2008
Graduate school recruiting
Andre asks: I sit on a Advisory Board for a upcoming school of business in the south. (School already has a top 25 medical program & and strong local business recruiting effort) I wanted to see how I could get other top firms around the country to consider recruiting at the School (It has a top accounting program and an Up and coming Finance Program - it is also known for attracting top minority talent)
In answer:
An excellent technique I've used is to identify alumni at different companies who can serve as advocates for your program. An internal champion can go a long way towards creating visibility for a school, much less providing internship and job opportunities to current students.
Good Luck!
In answer:
An excellent technique I've used is to identify alumni at different companies who can serve as advocates for your program. An internal champion can go a long way towards creating visibility for a school, much less providing internship and job opportunities to current students.
Good Luck!
Which are the main competencies to assess an executive search consultant?
Adina asks: Which are the main competencies to assess an executive search consultant?
In answer:
There are certain key skills that they must have, without which they can not perform and hence deliver.
The most important skill is communication, that's in both engaging with the client (and questioning their requirements - executive search consultants/head hunters don't just take briefs!), as well as their personal and professional networks to most likely deliver the right candidate in a reasonable time scale.
Secondly, there are professional skills. A track record of closure, and a personal ownership over a "taking the brief and staffing it out" corporate process - the fee's are high for a reason of time purchase/delivery on strategy, not a brand. By essence, this means you are buying a sophisticated "sales" person, but the signs of that are seen by a strong love of networking delivered through a disciplined and detailed approach.
In answer:
There are certain key skills that they must have, without which they can not perform and hence deliver.
The most important skill is communication, that's in both engaging with the client (and questioning their requirements - executive search consultants/head hunters don't just take briefs!), as well as their personal and professional networks to most likely deliver the right candidate in a reasonable time scale.
Secondly, there are professional skills. A track record of closure, and a personal ownership over a "taking the brief and staffing it out" corporate process - the fee's are high for a reason of time purchase/delivery on strategy, not a brand. By essence, this means you are buying a sophisticated "sales" person, but the signs of that are seen by a strong love of networking delivered through a disciplined and detailed approach.
Why are so many people so sloppy in writing their CVs and Resumes?
Dominic, a fellow head hunter asks: As a headhunter I read a lot of CVs. Too many are very badly written, with poor grammar, really appalling use of multiple fonts, bad formatting, and occasionally we get blue CVs. Some CVs talk more of hobbies and interests, sport is particularly bad here, with some people giving the impression that they are sportsmen who occasionally take a break from running, skiing or hitting a ball to drop in to the office. CVs are important, yet many people do not put the effort into preparing a CV that they would to filling in a minor form.
In answer:
It is a reflection of the modern through away society which has little memory - except, this time its their career they are playing with.
People don't realise they need to change their attitude when they become a job seeker or applicant - they think we know how wonderful, great, superb, etc they are. The answer is - we would if you could portray yourself correctly, through the communications we review of you: your CV/Resume, your telephone manner, your letter writing and how often/when you interact with us.
Hence, all we see as Recruiters and HR people is the result of that unchanged attitude - poor presentation at multiple levels, and cliched phrases cut and pasted from some online freebie web guidance site, or hastily copied from their best friend. Yes, I have had an applicant who claimed to be both an expert diver in the resume, and yet in interview admitted their greatest fear was swimming - they had simply taken the soft copy of their best friends resume, and just inserted their name and high school!
When even the world's worst speller can learn in 30 seconds how turn on spell check - is it any wonder that your application is turned down when you can't? It just reads to us on the reviewing side not as a spelling mistake, but as "I don't care about me or my career!"
In answer:
It is a reflection of the modern through away society which has little memory - except, this time its their career they are playing with.
People don't realise they need to change their attitude when they become a job seeker or applicant - they think we know how wonderful, great, superb, etc they are. The answer is - we would if you could portray yourself correctly, through the communications we review of you: your CV/Resume, your telephone manner, your letter writing and how often/when you interact with us.
Hence, all we see as Recruiters and HR people is the result of that unchanged attitude - poor presentation at multiple levels, and cliched phrases cut and pasted from some online freebie web guidance site, or hastily copied from their best friend. Yes, I have had an applicant who claimed to be both an expert diver in the resume, and yet in interview admitted their greatest fear was swimming - they had simply taken the soft copy of their best friends resume, and just inserted their name and high school!
When even the world's worst speller can learn in 30 seconds how turn on spell check - is it any wonder that your application is turned down when you can't? It just reads to us on the reviewing side not as a spelling mistake, but as "I don't care about me or my career!"
Friday, 1 August 2008
Should I speak to the recruiter who called me?
Margie asks: A recruiter contacted me by phone, and I figured, why not have a phone interview even though I'm not actively looking. It's been over a decade since I've been in this position. Does anyone have any advice for when you meet with a recruiter? Do they charge you if they find a job and you're interested (or actually change jobs due to their contacting you)? What kind of questions are they likely to ask? Thanks for your advice.
In answer:
Yes, why not - plus you could get a free career review and an view on what's out there/how much you could be paid.
The format's pretty standard (you, your skills, your ambitions):
1. A review of your employment history.
2. A review of non-work related (volunteer, etc) history that is applicable.
3. A review of the geographic area you want to look in.
4. A review of the industry you're interested in.
5. A review of the role you are looking for (which does not necessarily have to be associated to your past experience, though your skill-base needs to transfer easily).
6. A review of your salary expectations, and other 'perk' expectations.
From the above, a lot of dynamic questions can arise, but this is usually the starting point for any discussions with a recruiter.
The cost to you in a western environment should be free - it usually is the hiring company that pays; while engagement fee's payable by candidate are quite common in Eastern cultures. The payment plan can differ in several ways, but the majority of recruiters work on behalf of the hiring company to hire talent, and is thus why they compensate a recruiter for hired individuals.
However, one caution - once you are one their dBase, its hard to get removed. And often, some new recruitment agents are paid to collect CV/Resume's to build the companies portfolio of candidates. The key engagement questions for you are:
(A) how did you get my details (get as specific and hard nosed on this as you want - legally you can in Europe about any cold call)
(B) is there any cost to me for this service; if not, how do you get renumerated?
(C) is there a specific post you are seeking to fulfill; if not, why approach me?
(D) can you confirm that if I wish my details to be removed from your dBase and systems at any point, I can do so and that you will fully comply?
(E) please confirm the above in writing on your companies letterhead, with a list of suggested meeting dates
Good Luck!
In answer:
Yes, why not - plus you could get a free career review and an view on what's out there/how much you could be paid.
The format's pretty standard (you, your skills, your ambitions):
1. A review of your employment history.
2. A review of non-work related (volunteer, etc) history that is applicable.
3. A review of the geographic area you want to look in.
4. A review of the industry you're interested in.
5. A review of the role you are looking for (which does not necessarily have to be associated to your past experience, though your skill-base needs to transfer easily).
6. A review of your salary expectations, and other 'perk' expectations.
From the above, a lot of dynamic questions can arise, but this is usually the starting point for any discussions with a recruiter.
The cost to you in a western environment should be free - it usually is the hiring company that pays; while engagement fee's payable by candidate are quite common in Eastern cultures. The payment plan can differ in several ways, but the majority of recruiters work on behalf of the hiring company to hire talent, and is thus why they compensate a recruiter for hired individuals.
However, one caution - once you are one their dBase, its hard to get removed. And often, some new recruitment agents are paid to collect CV/Resume's to build the companies portfolio of candidates. The key engagement questions for you are:
(A) how did you get my details (get as specific and hard nosed on this as you want - legally you can in Europe about any cold call)
(B) is there any cost to me for this service; if not, how do you get renumerated?
(C) is there a specific post you are seeking to fulfill; if not, why approach me?
(D) can you confirm that if I wish my details to be removed from your dBase and systems at any point, I can do so and that you will fully comply?
(E) please confirm the above in writing on your companies letterhead, with a list of suggested meeting dates
Good Luck!
Thursday, 31 July 2008
Who is the customer in recruitment?
Simon asks: Drucker always asked "Who is your customer?". When undertaking strategic planning within a recruitment agency environment do you believe the customer is the candidate or the client? Can strategic planning be successful when you consider both groups as customers when they often have opposing needs/wants?
In answer:
- In pure theory: both the recruiting organisation and the candidate
- In practice: the HR manager, the recruiting manager, and the candidate
- In reality: there would be no "customer" if there was no need to fill a vacancy, so the hiring company
In the old days, recruiters considered both their dBase of candidates and their client contacts value able assets. In these days of the internet and domination of the market with the likes of Monster et al, the pure "fill the vacancy fast" ethic has meant the customer is where the money is. This is often - always true in low wage sectors, reduces as you go up the pay scale - to the detriment of candidates, who now feel like paper pawns pushed across a recruiters desk.
The new internet world has empowered the employer as a customer, but I think in many real ways for most it has made the candidate a virtual and disposable commodity. Its not a way I would wish to be treated personally as a candidate, and its something we try hard to avoid at Ajiri
In answer:
- In pure theory: both the recruiting organisation and the candidate
- In practice: the HR manager, the recruiting manager, and the candidate
- In reality: there would be no "customer" if there was no need to fill a vacancy, so the hiring company
In the old days, recruiters considered both their dBase of candidates and their client contacts value able assets. In these days of the internet and domination of the market with the likes of Monster et al, the pure "fill the vacancy fast" ethic has meant the customer is where the money is. This is often - always true in low wage sectors, reduces as you go up the pay scale - to the detriment of candidates, who now feel like paper pawns pushed across a recruiters desk.
The new internet world has empowered the employer as a customer, but I think in many real ways for most it has made the candidate a virtual and disposable commodity. Its not a way I would wish to be treated personally as a candidate, and its something we try hard to avoid at Ajiri
Tuesday, 29 July 2008
Recruiting for the Small or Home Business
Tim writes: In my experience as the owner/director of 3 small businesses I have found that the best way to recruit staff is through word of mouth or from existing contacts (people we know). I find these routes to be the most practical for the follwoing reasons.
1. We are a small team and the person will need to fit into an almost family-like environment.
2. We have a good idea of the skills needed and the sort of person who would fit in.
3. We don't have a budget to spend on a recruitment agency.
4. We do have the time and skills to interview the candidates.
5. We cannot offer a high salary but we do offer perks (free language holidays abroad, for example)
6. We also have the added advantage in Italy of being able to start people off on a trial work-experience for a few months for little or nothing.
7. Sometimes the right person is someone we know and who is actually looking for the kind of job we are trying to fill. We just have to realise who they are.
8. People who we know and live near to us will have less travel time to work. This is a very important factor in Italy.
What do you other small business owners think or do?
In Answer:
Tim - good words!
Most recruiters will take any brief, but the issue as you point out comes down in small scale organisations to as much about "fit (in team)" as "function."
I have a hard rule now not to deal with organisations below 30 employees for permanent placements. Often, below that line the business is still run in the spirit and fashion of the original and successful owner - who hence does want to change a successful system for fear of failure, and who wants people who do things their way; and there are as many off-agenda issues outside as on job description. Bringing in a recruitment company means often they will advertise the place, which means getting into more regulation - small companies often have weak HR procedures, only found out when an ambulance chasing lawyer or bitter ex-employee wreak their wroth. I find the pensions policy question is the easiest test of depth of HR procedures - "what" being the normal answer!
I think what you have suggested is the best way of recruiting for a small company - fit is far more important, and the wrong personality will be at least three times as costly as average stat's state, probably more like ten in reality.
The best thing I learnt on my MBA was about Anderson steps - its about how people relationships and management structures change as organisation grow. HP employ this a great deal, as no group there gets above 120 people. At the start, you need people you know and can work with as a team (Mike Southon's model is the best here for an early stage team) - you will not only know how these people work, but also a lot about them. I like applying the "coffee" test for stages up the steps: at the early stage you will know what they drink and how, which mug they use, the dates of their kids birthdays, the way they drive to work/to home, what they do on the weekends, the colour of their lounge carpet, etc. At about 30 people you'll be doing well to know what everyone drinks - hence the need for stronger management procedures, controls and corporate communications. Hence, in what you state and in my view - a lot of early stage choice has to be about fit over function. As long as you have a good tick somewhere in the basic function boxes, fit and energy can provide more - processes and roles can come later!
If you do run a sub-10 person company, and have to approach a recruiter, consider using contracting methods and temporary employment as the basis of testing fit. That won't always be possible with some positions/some candidates, but - it will be far less costly from choosing the wrong fit; and it will mean you end up with a better chance of a proven long term hire. If you use this method, don't fall for the recruiters "X% on contract, and Y% on permanent" fee's - that's two bites of the apple (its how the High Street guys make their money), and if they want a long term relationship, a bit of a discount against fee's for an exclusive relationship is wholly fair to all parties
1. We are a small team and the person will need to fit into an almost family-like environment.
2. We have a good idea of the skills needed and the sort of person who would fit in.
3. We don't have a budget to spend on a recruitment agency.
4. We do have the time and skills to interview the candidates.
5. We cannot offer a high salary but we do offer perks (free language holidays abroad, for example)
6. We also have the added advantage in Italy of being able to start people off on a trial work-experience for a few months for little or nothing.
7. Sometimes the right person is someone we know and who is actually looking for the kind of job we are trying to fill. We just have to realise who they are.
8. People who we know and live near to us will have less travel time to work. This is a very important factor in Italy.
What do you other small business owners think or do?
In Answer:
Tim - good words!
Most recruiters will take any brief, but the issue as you point out comes down in small scale organisations to as much about "fit (in team)" as "function."
I have a hard rule now not to deal with organisations below 30 employees for permanent placements. Often, below that line the business is still run in the spirit and fashion of the original and successful owner - who hence does want to change a successful system for fear of failure, and who wants people who do things their way; and there are as many off-agenda issues outside as on job description. Bringing in a recruitment company means often they will advertise the place, which means getting into more regulation - small companies often have weak HR procedures, only found out when an ambulance chasing lawyer or bitter ex-employee wreak their wroth. I find the pensions policy question is the easiest test of depth of HR procedures - "what" being the normal answer!
I think what you have suggested is the best way of recruiting for a small company - fit is far more important, and the wrong personality will be at least three times as costly as average stat's state, probably more like ten in reality.
The best thing I learnt on my MBA was about Anderson steps - its about how people relationships and management structures change as organisation grow. HP employ this a great deal, as no group there gets above 120 people. At the start, you need people you know and can work with as a team (Mike Southon's model is the best here for an early stage team) - you will not only know how these people work, but also a lot about them. I like applying the "coffee" test for stages up the steps: at the early stage you will know what they drink and how, which mug they use, the dates of their kids birthdays, the way they drive to work/to home, what they do on the weekends, the colour of their lounge carpet, etc. At about 30 people you'll be doing well to know what everyone drinks - hence the need for stronger management procedures, controls and corporate communications. Hence, in what you state and in my view - a lot of early stage choice has to be about fit over function. As long as you have a good tick somewhere in the basic function boxes, fit and energy can provide more - processes and roles can come later!
If you do run a sub-10 person company, and have to approach a recruiter, consider using contracting methods and temporary employment as the basis of testing fit. That won't always be possible with some positions/some candidates, but - it will be far less costly from choosing the wrong fit; and it will mean you end up with a better chance of a proven long term hire. If you use this method, don't fall for the recruiters "X% on contract, and Y% on permanent" fee's - that's two bites of the apple (its how the High Street guys make their money), and if they want a long term relationship, a bit of a discount against fee's for an exclusive relationship is wholly fair to all parties
Friday, 4 July 2008
How do I give someone a reference?
Often, as a recruiter, I ask candidates to provide me with references - whether the potential employer asks for them or not. The reason for this is that you get a better view of the whole candidate, over a simple interview and test approach.
In the modern world, most references are done by telephone interview, and last around 10minutes - hearing a tone of voice is better over a managed letter.
But, the thing that always amazes me is that the reference person is often more nervous than the candidate! So, here are a few tips on how to warm/be a reference for someone.
For Candidates seeking references:
First of all, candidates pick your references. I know this may sound strange, but honestly I don't want to talk to your dog walker or cycling buddy. Pick people who you have ideally worked with, or known for a long time and that you keep in touch with. Secondly, brief them - from my point of view, there's nothing worse than dumping your best friend in it, to end up with a bad reference. Thirdly, don't pick people you can't give a full briefing to - why you are looking at leaving, why you think this job is great.
For referee's:
If you are the reference point, then firstly say thank you and then: think! Say no now if you have a doubt over later. Secondly, give the candidate a set of details on which the reference taker can contact you - yes, employers do become suspicious if you give too many references. Thirdly, prepare - I often just jot a few notes down on when we meet, and the candidates history, and the date of the last time we worked together/met. Finally, you can refuse to answer any question - there is no right/wrong/have to question!
Referencing is a good way to get a view of a candidate, and as a reference point you have nothing to lose - hey, they may even offer you a job opportunity (around 15% of candidates for a recruiter come through referencing)
In the modern world, most references are done by telephone interview, and last around 10minutes - hearing a tone of voice is better over a managed letter.
But, the thing that always amazes me is that the reference person is often more nervous than the candidate! So, here are a few tips on how to warm/be a reference for someone.
For Candidates seeking references:
First of all, candidates pick your references. I know this may sound strange, but honestly I don't want to talk to your dog walker or cycling buddy. Pick people who you have ideally worked with, or known for a long time and that you keep in touch with. Secondly, brief them - from my point of view, there's nothing worse than dumping your best friend in it, to end up with a bad reference. Thirdly, don't pick people you can't give a full briefing to - why you are looking at leaving, why you think this job is great.
For referee's:
If you are the reference point, then firstly say thank you and then: think! Say no now if you have a doubt over later. Secondly, give the candidate a set of details on which the reference taker can contact you - yes, employers do become suspicious if you give too many references. Thirdly, prepare - I often just jot a few notes down on when we meet, and the candidates history, and the date of the last time we worked together/met. Finally, you can refuse to answer any question - there is no right/wrong/have to question!
Referencing is a good way to get a view of a candidate, and as a reference point you have nothing to lose - hey, they may even offer you a job opportunity (around 15% of candidates for a recruiter come through referencing)
Monday, 30 June 2008
Do employers really need recruiters?
Emrah asks: Do employers really think recruiters know better who is the best choice for them, or are they actually looking for someone to blame when choices go wrong?
In Answer:
Employers who use recruiters for EVERYTHING are probably those you don't want to work for - low wages, high turnover, poor staff relations: they need a PR company more than a recruiter!
Employers who use recruiters for specialist staff and positions, use them for developing new divisions and as part of a development strategy which includes both internal and externally sourced new blood are those to work for.
The continual tension will always be there between recruiters and HR departments - after dealing with months of sick leave, absent employees and accidents, the odd bit of proving your worth and having some fun on a recruitment exercise must be great for most modern HR professionals. The modern internet tools also mean that's a real value add for them over a recruiter on the average position.
The best chance of finding out which type of employer you are looking at is to ask the recruiter how many similar positions they have recruited for before, and why? Unless its a new division or new blood development, and if its in the hundreds per annum - avoid!
Good recruiters use their understanding of a company, department, and/or Team to make matches for the company. Their business development, interviewing skills, and their hard work make the difference.
Here are a couple of questions that any great recruiter should be able to speak to:
1. How do you adopt your recuiting style to fit my company's needs?
2. Describe my company's culture?
3. Tell me what candidates succeed most often at my company?
4. What interviewing strategy will you employ for this position?
A greqat recruiter has thought about and can answers these questions without skipping a beat.
In Answer:
Employers who use recruiters for EVERYTHING are probably those you don't want to work for - low wages, high turnover, poor staff relations: they need a PR company more than a recruiter!
Employers who use recruiters for specialist staff and positions, use them for developing new divisions and as part of a development strategy which includes both internal and externally sourced new blood are those to work for.
The continual tension will always be there between recruiters and HR departments - after dealing with months of sick leave, absent employees and accidents, the odd bit of proving your worth and having some fun on a recruitment exercise must be great for most modern HR professionals. The modern internet tools also mean that's a real value add for them over a recruiter on the average position.
The best chance of finding out which type of employer you are looking at is to ask the recruiter how many similar positions they have recruited for before, and why? Unless its a new division or new blood development, and if its in the hundreds per annum - avoid!
Good recruiters use their understanding of a company, department, and/or Team to make matches for the company. Their business development, interviewing skills, and their hard work make the difference.
Here are a couple of questions that any great recruiter should be able to speak to:
1. How do you adopt your recuiting style to fit my company's needs?
2. Describe my company's culture?
3. Tell me what candidates succeed most often at my company?
4. What interviewing strategy will you employ for this position?
A greqat recruiter has thought about and can answers these questions without skipping a beat.
Tuesday, 10 June 2008
Love, sex and paper clips…..
This may shock some of the Daily Mail readership, but honestly – not all that goes on in the stationery cupboard is about picking-up the heavy items, inserting the ball point pen in the desk holder, or even obtaining a few desk wipes to remove ink stains….. there is romance amongst the paper clips as well.
And in our greatly dividing and less stable family orientated society, the office is now the most favoured placed by default for finding and engaging with a new partner – about 20% of people do these days: for the men, they get closer soon; and for women, they see the whole of life gambit and not just the grooming. And that means that the office romance of the post-WW2 era of young lust is now most often replaced by the second or third time attempt for the 30 and 40 something’s to try and find Mr or Mrs or Miss perfect.
What may also shock, is that as we as a society get older, we also get more open about being LGBT – research suggests that a society which is 2% openly LGBT in our 20’s, is a full on 10% by our 50’s and 60’s – a doubling of the out rate each 20 years.
So, how is a manager supposed to cope with all this? Just sack them the first time something happens? Sorry, but if you read the last blog, that’s just a minor misdemeanour and even if you have said NO OFFICE RELATIONSHIPS there are good legal precedents which would conclude that wholly illegal if taken to court.
The first thing to do is to accept it happens – so you need to be prepared to address the issue.
The second thing to do is set up an open door policy against suitable guidelines. The problem legally is – what is an office romance, and what is infatuation turned into unwarranted pursuit? So count them all as one opportunity. Make staff aware that pursuit and harassment in the work place, particularly sexual intention or innuendo, is wholly unacceptable – make that a major breach, followed by immediate suspension and investigation. Include a separate section which says that the company understands that office romances do some times occur, and that on these occasions the two or more people involved should not conduct their romance in office time, and at an early and suitable date make their manager aware that they are having or investigating a relationship
The third thing to do is to set-up a complaints and issues procedure, publicise it - and make it fully confidential. The office romance in a small company or team can be a wholly disruptive event, and you may not be the first to spot the first signs of the extended lunch break. I once worked in an office where of the nine people in the billing team, six where having an affair with each other – and the office debate was only what the other three were going to do, and would they film the result! After two quarters of one of my customers complaining about poor billing, my services manager and I agreed to address the problem in our next review with the boss – two days before the review, he found out why the second in command of billing never complained about the billing manager, when he heard funny noises coming from the boardroom table. We never lost any customers, but the turn around of the billing function took 18months and £250,000
Once being made aware of a situation, proceed with speedy caution is the action of the day. Ask each of the participants separately for a quick chat, and investigate how work is going, family life, etc – if the subject doesn’t come up in the first conversation, then undertake the same procedure immediately with the second participant: even the third person if necessary. If the incident doesn’t come up in conversation, then arrange to re-meet informally one of the participants and raise the subject – it is, after all, either their duty to inform or they are breaking company guidelines if the relationship is created through undue pursuit or pressure.
I once became aware of a pursuit situation within my team – another manager was pursuing one of my admin staff. I raised it with her and her female manager, who advised she was aware and it was under control – we then minuted it in our and her 1to1 notes after that point. A month later, after an incident where my manager and I drove 100miles to literally rescue her from a planned company trip the other manager had arranged, I asked her to report the incident via the normal complaints procedure – which she refused. Her manager and I kept the situation under review, and unfortunately the pursuit manager was 12months later reported for a similar incident, and thankfully dismissed. If you are in such a pursuit situation or are receiving unwarranted attention, and probably feeling lonely and isolated PLEASE report it. As the manager from the above situation, there is not a period where I don’t say: “dam – could have stopped the idiot earlier” and feel wholly guilty.
What happens if you have a genuine romance, where both partners are happy and content? In these “sue the so-and-so’s first” modern climate, and as a manager now aware of an office romance, you need to take some action. Firstly, if possible, separate the working environments and teams – even if all is happy, think about the effect on co-workers in the same team. Secondly, write to both partners to formally confirm the situation, asking them to confirm that they are both willing and freely participating; and advising them that they should inform you immediately should the situation change. Thirdly, monitor the situation – ask about how things are going at the 1to1’s, and summary minute that all is well. Some American corporations are introducing “Love Contracts,” where employee’s in an office romance sign a non-disclosure release form, meaning they can’t sue the company for certain issues at work. I am not sure in UK and Europe this is yet necessary, as long as managers monitor the situation and minute the fact all is OK and both partners are in the relationship of their own free will.
And in our greatly dividing and less stable family orientated society, the office is now the most favoured placed by default for finding and engaging with a new partner – about 20% of people do these days: for the men, they get closer soon; and for women, they see the whole of life gambit and not just the grooming. And that means that the office romance of the post-WW2 era of young lust is now most often replaced by the second or third time attempt for the 30 and 40 something’s to try and find Mr or Mrs or Miss perfect.
What may also shock, is that as we as a society get older, we also get more open about being LGBT – research suggests that a society which is 2% openly LGBT in our 20’s, is a full on 10% by our 50’s and 60’s – a doubling of the out rate each 20 years.
So, how is a manager supposed to cope with all this? Just sack them the first time something happens? Sorry, but if you read the last blog, that’s just a minor misdemeanour and even if you have said NO OFFICE RELATIONSHIPS there are good legal precedents which would conclude that wholly illegal if taken to court.
The first thing to do is to accept it happens – so you need to be prepared to address the issue.
The second thing to do is set up an open door policy against suitable guidelines. The problem legally is – what is an office romance, and what is infatuation turned into unwarranted pursuit? So count them all as one opportunity. Make staff aware that pursuit and harassment in the work place, particularly sexual intention or innuendo, is wholly unacceptable – make that a major breach, followed by immediate suspension and investigation. Include a separate section which says that the company understands that office romances do some times occur, and that on these occasions the two or more people involved should not conduct their romance in office time, and at an early and suitable date make their manager aware that they are having or investigating a relationship
The third thing to do is to set-up a complaints and issues procedure, publicise it - and make it fully confidential. The office romance in a small company or team can be a wholly disruptive event, and you may not be the first to spot the first signs of the extended lunch break. I once worked in an office where of the nine people in the billing team, six where having an affair with each other – and the office debate was only what the other three were going to do, and would they film the result! After two quarters of one of my customers complaining about poor billing, my services manager and I agreed to address the problem in our next review with the boss – two days before the review, he found out why the second in command of billing never complained about the billing manager, when he heard funny noises coming from the boardroom table. We never lost any customers, but the turn around of the billing function took 18months and £250,000
Once being made aware of a situation, proceed with speedy caution is the action of the day. Ask each of the participants separately for a quick chat, and investigate how work is going, family life, etc – if the subject doesn’t come up in the first conversation, then undertake the same procedure immediately with the second participant: even the third person if necessary. If the incident doesn’t come up in conversation, then arrange to re-meet informally one of the participants and raise the subject – it is, after all, either their duty to inform or they are breaking company guidelines if the relationship is created through undue pursuit or pressure.
I once became aware of a pursuit situation within my team – another manager was pursuing one of my admin staff. I raised it with her and her female manager, who advised she was aware and it was under control – we then minuted it in our and her 1to1 notes after that point. A month later, after an incident where my manager and I drove 100miles to literally rescue her from a planned company trip the other manager had arranged, I asked her to report the incident via the normal complaints procedure – which she refused. Her manager and I kept the situation under review, and unfortunately the pursuit manager was 12months later reported for a similar incident, and thankfully dismissed. If you are in such a pursuit situation or are receiving unwarranted attention, and probably feeling lonely and isolated PLEASE report it. As the manager from the above situation, there is not a period where I don’t say: “dam – could have stopped the idiot earlier” and feel wholly guilty.
What happens if you have a genuine romance, where both partners are happy and content? In these “sue the so-and-so’s first” modern climate, and as a manager now aware of an office romance, you need to take some action. Firstly, if possible, separate the working environments and teams – even if all is happy, think about the effect on co-workers in the same team. Secondly, write to both partners to formally confirm the situation, asking them to confirm that they are both willing and freely participating; and advising them that they should inform you immediately should the situation change. Thirdly, monitor the situation – ask about how things are going at the 1to1’s, and summary minute that all is well. Some American corporations are introducing “Love Contracts,” where employee’s in an office romance sign a non-disclosure release form, meaning they can’t sue the company for certain issues at work. I am not sure in UK and Europe this is yet necessary, as long as managers monitor the situation and minute the fact all is OK and both partners are in the relationship of their own free will.
Friday, 23 May 2008
Drugs, football – and succession management
The US sprinter Antonio Pettigrew was in court in San Francisco last week, in the trial of athletics coach Trevor Graham, who has presently denied charges of lying to US federal authorities. The court heard Pettigrew testifying that Graham encouraged him to inject human growth hormone and EPO, both banned substances, from 1997. Pettigrew testified he soon began buying the drugs from Angel Heredia, an admitted steroids dealer, and his performance showed a remarkable improvement as a result:
So, from Pettigrew’s statement we have further confirmation that drugs are in sport, and that they enhance performance. And what does Pettigrew do now for a living – he’s a coach at the University of North Carolina.
I have always been a believer in the trickle-down theory of education and management: that staff will learn from their managers, and act/react in the same way as those above them. In psychology, this is called “soldiering.”
In football last week, Sir Alex Ferguson won his second European Cup, what is presently known as the Champion’s League. But although that now means he is just one win away from Bob Paisley’s record, could Ferguson’s long term legacy be even greater?
Shankly raised Paisley to be a better manager than himself; Paisley in turn raised Ronnie Moran (best forgotten), but also taught Kevin Keegan, Graeme Souness, Phil Neal and Emlyn Hughes, who all went on to be managers – none though with much success.
Ferguson has so far taught Carlos Queros, who in his single season at Real Madrid failed miserably by their high standards – he’s now back as Ferguson’s side, and most likely to succeed his boss. But more remarkably, of Ferguson’s playing side Mark Hughes, Steve Bruce and Roy Keane are presently Premier League managers, while Steve Coppell was until two weeks ago. Paul Ince – who played for both Ferguson’s United and Roy Evan’s Liverpool – is presently the most sought after manager in the lower English leagues.
So, what will Antonia Pettigrew’s legacy be to his own athletics students – could it be “take drugs, run faster – cause that’s how I did it;” or will it be “don’t take drugs, or like me you’ll end up in court and have to probably give your medals back.”
Often, companies when they recruit miss two things – what they are recruiting (not just a set of skills, but an investment in their own future. Look for skills plus potential coach/managers); and the most obvious – why are they recruiting? Vodafone today took one of the bravest leaps, by announcing the promotion of Vittorio Colao to succeed Arun Sarin as CEO - a job he was passed over for when Sarin originally took the job, and was then rehired after two years away from the company. If your company needs a skills leap or change, then external candidates make sense – but just another piece of muscle for the sales team or the board room really sounds like there’s a poor coach at the centre of the team: and then you really ought to be looking to hire there first, not elsewhere to cover up that person’s failing as a coach for the next generation, and the companies future.
I was running incredible times as I was preparing for track meets," Pettigrew said during 30 minutes of testimony. I was able to recover faster.
So, from Pettigrew’s statement we have further confirmation that drugs are in sport, and that they enhance performance. And what does Pettigrew do now for a living – he’s a coach at the University of North Carolina.
I have always been a believer in the trickle-down theory of education and management: that staff will learn from their managers, and act/react in the same way as those above them. In psychology, this is called “soldiering.”
In football last week, Sir Alex Ferguson won his second European Cup, what is presently known as the Champion’s League. But although that now means he is just one win away from Bob Paisley’s record, could Ferguson’s long term legacy be even greater?
Shankly raised Paisley to be a better manager than himself; Paisley in turn raised Ronnie Moran (best forgotten), but also taught Kevin Keegan, Graeme Souness, Phil Neal and Emlyn Hughes, who all went on to be managers – none though with much success.
Ferguson has so far taught Carlos Queros, who in his single season at Real Madrid failed miserably by their high standards – he’s now back as Ferguson’s side, and most likely to succeed his boss. But more remarkably, of Ferguson’s playing side Mark Hughes, Steve Bruce and Roy Keane are presently Premier League managers, while Steve Coppell was until two weeks ago. Paul Ince – who played for both Ferguson’s United and Roy Evan’s Liverpool – is presently the most sought after manager in the lower English leagues.
So, what will Antonia Pettigrew’s legacy be to his own athletics students – could it be “take drugs, run faster – cause that’s how I did it;” or will it be “don’t take drugs, or like me you’ll end up in court and have to probably give your medals back.”
Often, companies when they recruit miss two things – what they are recruiting (not just a set of skills, but an investment in their own future. Look for skills plus potential coach/managers); and the most obvious – why are they recruiting? Vodafone today took one of the bravest leaps, by announcing the promotion of Vittorio Colao to succeed Arun Sarin as CEO - a job he was passed over for when Sarin originally took the job, and was then rehired after two years away from the company. If your company needs a skills leap or change, then external candidates make sense – but just another piece of muscle for the sales team or the board room really sounds like there’s a poor coach at the centre of the team: and then you really ought to be looking to hire there first, not elsewhere to cover up that person’s failing as a coach for the next generation, and the companies future.
Tuesday, 20 May 2008
Five reasons why you don't need a recruiter…..
Many employers, particularly in these days of the well connected internet and Monster, Jobsite, etc; wonder why they need to employ a recruitment company? The answer is - you don't. It's a free market, and you just don't need to - its really your choice. So here are five reasons why employers and candidates don't need to go via a recruitment company
Employers:
1. All the CV's are on the market via the internet - true, that's the theory by about 2012. But even if that were true, only about 1/3 of the target audience who could fit your requirements will actually be on the internet advertising themselves. One third will be happily employed because they are good at what they do (but could leave if the right offer came along - problem is, they work for your competitor); and one third will be looking but not shouting about it from the internet because of the reaction from their presently happy employer
2. Everyone knows about and respects my company - your customers must do: they pay you money. Your employee's are a far more fickle bunch, and if the wage cheque didn't turn up next month, would happily join the third with their CV's on the internet! Also, do you tell your competitors everything about what you are doing? Thought not - so how do you expect to attract people to your wonderful new project that requires new skills?
3. I pay great wages - probably true, particularly if you take note of one or more of the many surveys that are regularly posted by various employment or industry organisations. But, does the size of the wage packet wholly sum up your organisation? And when you pay a better basic and have nicer offices, a better car package and include health care - over your nearest competitor - is that taken into account in those surveys?
4. I know what people fit into my organisation - yes, you wholly do: you and you alone can make that decision - it's the most important decision to be made around your business and its ability to survive. And we all know that beneath that gruff and hard business like exterior you are a really nice person. But - now, rather than selling your business to your customers, you need to sell you and your businesses future to your potential employee's - that a different sell, and a far softer one of getting to know people over a period of time. Where as, you need someone next month who will perform from day1
5. Recruiters charge huge fee's - yes, so always choose one if you must use one who specialises in your sector, is REC registered, and who's fee's are NOT wholly payable before the new employee starts, and are fully refundable if the employee leaves within a reasonable period. Mind you, if you do decide to DIY and make the wrong decision, then chances are you will have trebled the chances of the new employee leaving, and hence incurring total costs equivalent to around three times their basic wage costs.
Here are the same five concerns from the candidates position:
1. I don't want to put my CV on the internet because I don't want to upset my current and very reasonable employer
2. I don't know about that company whose advert I saw in the Sunday Newspapers/on the internet
3. The package looks reasonable, but I need to know if they cover other issues like healthcare - plus I have a holiday coming up
4. I have heard some bad things about them in the past, so not sure I will fit in there. Plus, where are they going at present?
5. Recruiters charge huge fee's and just leave you once their fee's are paid - a REC registered recruiter should negotiate for you, and check you are making the agreed targets. Hence, a reasonable question to ask any recruiter when they approach you is "And if I take the job, how will you get paid?"
Employers:
Here are the same five concerns from the candidates position:
Tuesday, 13 May 2008
Unprofessional sledgehammer to crack a nut......
As an engineer, its a great time - lots of things which couldn't be, now can be.
But, as a business person and as a consumer/buyer, there are some things which just prove that often, even when something is possible, it really shouldn't be taken to market - hence, the sledgehammer to crack a nut principle!
In example - peoplecompare.co.uk It is so "cool," and launches in July 2008, claiming to be: the UK's first ever recruitment comparison tool of its kind in which employers are provided with a fast and effective way to compare people for employment from a number of recruitment companies in a quick one-step easy process. Further...... For a small annual fee recruitment companies enjoy cost-effective genuine enquiries from employers on a regular basis throughout the year. Many have been quick to get onboard and take advantage of the site's introductory offer of just £150 (+vat) which covers one year's subscription to the site and includes account creation, Logo upload, and an initial amount of credits to get started.
Wow, that is so wonderful for both sides, its amazing that no one ever thought about creating that before......
Woops, they did - its called the Recruitment and Employment Confederation Directory of Members. It's free for anyone to use, but for recruiters to join and be listed they have to be members of professional body REC - so it ensures quality (less than half of recruiters in the UK are REC qualified and registered). The cost of joining REC - one course of about £1,000, and an annualised membership fee of around £150 plus some refresher courses - which provides your clients with industry level insurance and a mediation option.
Does peoplecompare.co.uk offer similar? No, just £150 annualised fee to recruiters, and nothing to employers except a Yell.com listing and a set of prices comparisons which don't mean a lot.......
The nice thing about being a capitalist is that, the machine quickly removes the un-thought-through chaff: anyone for a bet on how long peoplecompare.co.uk will last - single digits only, bets in days or months?
But, as a business person and as a consumer/buyer, there are some things which just prove that often, even when something is possible, it really shouldn't be taken to market - hence, the sledgehammer to crack a nut principle!
In example - peoplecompare.co.uk It is so "cool," and launches in July 2008, claiming to be: the UK's first ever recruitment comparison tool of its kind in which employers are provided with a fast and effective way to compare people for employment from a number of recruitment companies in a quick one-step easy process. Further...... For a small annual fee recruitment companies enjoy cost-effective genuine enquiries from employers on a regular basis throughout the year. Many have been quick to get onboard and take advantage of the site's introductory offer of just £150 (+vat) which covers one year's subscription to the site and includes account creation, Logo upload, and an initial amount of credits to get started.
Wow, that is so wonderful for both sides, its amazing that no one ever thought about creating that before......
Woops, they did - its called the Recruitment and Employment Confederation Directory of Members. It's free for anyone to use, but for recruiters to join and be listed they have to be members of professional body REC - so it ensures quality (less than half of recruiters in the UK are REC qualified and registered). The cost of joining REC - one course of about £1,000, and an annualised membership fee of around £150 plus some refresher courses - which provides your clients with industry level insurance and a mediation option.
Does peoplecompare.co.uk offer similar? No, just £150 annualised fee to recruiters, and nothing to employers except a Yell.com listing and a set of prices comparisons which don't mean a lot.......
The nice thing about being a capitalist is that, the machine quickly removes the un-thought-through chaff: anyone for a bet on how long peoplecompare.co.uk will last - single digits only, bets in days or months?
Wednesday, 23 April 2008
Web 2.0 and recruitment - its about the "hunt/find - and check!"
I read this article this morning, and thought - "does he know what's going on?" And then I thought - "Hmm: its just a piece of seminar fodder!"
The reality of recruiters, and even employers using web 2.0 is - they already do. We just often at present don't use it to advertise vacancies.....
In a previous blog, I wrote about how much information there is now out there in the public information space, and how social networking (Web 2.0) was being used by recruiters and employers to more thoroughly vet applicants. Only last week, I coached a pre-grad University student on how grooming and possibly hiding her Facebook and MySpace pages may assist her in both finding employment and on being vetted.
What really amazed me about the article was that, as in example a member of LinkedIn LION's where an outsized proportion of members are recruiters; they join because of who they want to connect to in both potential candidates as well as other recruiters, so that they can both more easily find people and check them out.
So, just to repeat - if you are looking for a job on either permanent or contract basis, and have a professional pitch to make: just watch what you have about yourselves on your Web 2.0 pages. Honestly, Google and social networking is a god-send in the recruitment market!
The reality of recruiters, and even employers using web 2.0 is - they already do. We just often at present don't use it to advertise vacancies.....
In a previous blog, I wrote about how much information there is now out there in the public information space, and how social networking (Web 2.0) was being used by recruiters and employers to more thoroughly vet applicants. Only last week, I coached a pre-grad University student on how grooming and possibly hiding her Facebook and MySpace pages may assist her in both finding employment and on being vetted.
What really amazed me about the article was that, as in example a member of LinkedIn LION's where an outsized proportion of members are recruiters; they join because of who they want to connect to in both potential candidates as well as other recruiters, so that they can both more easily find people and check them out.
So, just to repeat - if you are looking for a job on either permanent or contract basis, and have a professional pitch to make: just watch what you have about yourselves on your Web 2.0 pages. Honestly, Google and social networking is a god-send in the recruitment market!
Tuesday, 4 March 2008
Hint - wash before you interview (I am amazed I ever had to write that)
This article from leading sector publication Recruiter magazine from a REC survey got me thinking - who turns up for an interview before washing?
Personal hygiene has been cited as a key problem among job hunters with 47% of recruiters questioned that they had received negative feedback from employers on this, according to a survey by the Recruitment and Employment Confederation (REC). The survey also revealed anecdotes such as a candidate turning up in a ball gown for an interview with a fashion company, another candidate claimed he was very proficient at Sony PlayStation, several candidates tried to charm their interviewer by offering them sweets and one candidate was too vain to wear her glasses at interview and mistook a cupboard for the exit on her way out. Almost all respondents (93%) had received feedback from employers about a job hunter's interview appearance with 16-20 year olds identified as the worst offenders for dressing inappropriately. Casual clothing was an issue according to 63% of recruiters with one-in-four (23%) mentioning inappropriate footwear, one in three (29%) citing revealing clothing and one in five (19%), excessive jewellery.
I think the best I have had so far are the motorcyclist who got wet in his dry suit (lovely wet patch under his £500 suit jacket), and the guy who had just eatten Chinese noddles for the first time in ages - and had splattered sauce all over his shirt, jacket, trousers, hair, shoe's......
And they wonder why I had out an interview preparation sheet before I ever send anyone for interview...... ;)
Personal hygiene has been cited as a key problem among job hunters with 47% of recruiters questioned that they had received negative feedback from employers on this, according to a survey by the Recruitment and Employment Confederation (REC). The survey also revealed anecdotes such as a candidate turning up in a ball gown for an interview with a fashion company, another candidate claimed he was very proficient at Sony PlayStation, several candidates tried to charm their interviewer by offering them sweets and one candidate was too vain to wear her glasses at interview and mistook a cupboard for the exit on her way out. Almost all respondents (93%) had received feedback from employers about a job hunter's interview appearance with 16-20 year olds identified as the worst offenders for dressing inappropriately. Casual clothing was an issue according to 63% of recruiters with one-in-four (23%) mentioning inappropriate footwear, one in three (29%) citing revealing clothing and one in five (19%), excessive jewellery.
I think the best I have had so far are the motorcyclist who got wet in his dry suit (lovely wet patch under his £500 suit jacket), and the guy who had just eatten Chinese noddles for the first time in ages - and had splattered sauce all over his shirt, jacket, trousers, hair, shoe's......
And they wonder why I had out an interview preparation sheet before I ever send anyone for interview...... ;)
Wednesday, 27 February 2008
Online social networking - costing UK companies £6.5M AND as unstoppable as gravity?
From the recruiters stand point, I have watched the debate on online social networks with some interest.....
It's the bain of corporate life - sucking precious hours from the day, and distracting employees to a 24hr water cooler conversation
It's an essential of modern life - as much part of life as texting, pop music and fast food
For the recruiter, its a godsend! As this article suggests, ANY employer who now doesn't Google all applicants is missing out on essential information. I interviewed a guy a few months back, who on his CV and a few background checks seemed a 10 out of 10 applicant - however, his MySpace page suggested he enjoyed a regular joint and the odd bit of white powder: oh, and an active social life at the local swingers club.
I personally still believe that all should have the right to a private life, and what goes on behind closed doors/in the bedroom is your choice as a consenting adult. But if you plaster it all over the web, what would you do if you were the employer?
I pointed out to my interviewee that there was much information on him in the public domain, and much as though drugs were more acceptable and part of modern life, the employer I was searching for as a result of their customer contract required all employee's and hence applicants to under take a drug test on application, and then after at the customers behest. This generally meant that applicants would need to be drug free for at least three months prior to the test, bar the odd joint trace element - could he make that standard? He understood the requirement, and withdrew his application.
I think employers blocking social networks is quite a childish and naive manner in which to address something which is quite essential to the lives of those under 30. I remember when internet access first became widely available to all employees in my former corporate employer, and they introduced a "key word" blocker which meant that (for instance) search strings associated with sex were blocked. My innovative group of engineers found that searching on related words they found in Roget's Thesaurus allowed to still access such sites - not that they wanted to, they just wanted to prove it could be done.
Today, the number of young people coming into the market is reducing, due to a highly decreased birth rate. Hence, employers wanting new recruits need to take broader attitudes to attracting and retaining employees - cellphone bans in entire campuses, lunching at desks (because there's no where else to go), and bans on social networking sites all add up to signs of an oppressive/control freak employer. Getting employees to recognise the problems of ringing cellphones to customers and their work mates, providing some form of rest area or access to online entertainment/education, advising on monitoring of networks and expecting employees to only use social networks and MSN messenger during break times - are all signs of an employer trusting employee's to be adults and make sensible choices. Happy employees attract more happy productive employees, and put recruiters out of a job (Ha - if only! Its interesting to think I have a job because of a low birth rate, and people wanting career development...)
So, back to the debate - is social networking "As much part of life as texting, pop music and fast food" and something "We can no more prevent them than we can prevent gravity. So we might as well get used to using them effectively."
For the recruiter, its a godsend! As this article suggests, ANY employer who now doesn't Google all applicants is missing out on essential information. I interviewed a guy a few months back, who on his CV and a few background checks seemed a 10 out of 10 applicant - however, his MySpace page suggested he enjoyed a regular joint and the odd bit of white powder: oh, and an active social life at the local swingers club.
I personally still believe that all should have the right to a private life, and what goes on behind closed doors/in the bedroom is your choice as a consenting adult. But if you plaster it all over the web, what would you do if you were the employer?
I pointed out to my interviewee that there was much information on him in the public domain, and much as though drugs were more acceptable and part of modern life, the employer I was searching for as a result of their customer contract required all employee's and hence applicants to under take a drug test on application, and then after at the customers behest. This generally meant that applicants would need to be drug free for at least three months prior to the test, bar the odd joint trace element - could he make that standard? He understood the requirement, and withdrew his application.
I think employers blocking social networks is quite a childish and naive manner in which to address something which is quite essential to the lives of those under 30. I remember when internet access first became widely available to all employees in my former corporate employer, and they introduced a "key word" blocker which meant that (for instance) search strings associated with sex were blocked. My innovative group of engineers found that searching on related words they found in Roget's Thesaurus allowed to still access such sites - not that they wanted to, they just wanted to prove it could be done.
Today, the number of young people coming into the market is reducing, due to a highly decreased birth rate. Hence, employers wanting new recruits need to take broader attitudes to attracting and retaining employees - cellphone bans in entire campuses, lunching at desks (because there's no where else to go), and bans on social networking sites all add up to signs of an oppressive/control freak employer. Getting employees to recognise the problems of ringing cellphones to customers and their work mates, providing some form of rest area or access to online entertainment/education, advising on monitoring of networks and expecting employees to only use social networks and MSN messenger during break times - are all signs of an employer trusting employee's to be adults and make sensible choices. Happy employees attract more happy productive employees, and put recruiters out of a job (Ha - if only! Its interesting to think I have a job because of a low birth rate, and people wanting career development...)
So, back to the debate - is social networking "As much part of life as texting, pop music and fast food" and something "We can no more prevent them than we can prevent gravity. So we might as well get used to using them effectively."
Thursday, 24 January 2008
Online social networking - costing UK companies £6.5M AND as unstoppable as gravity?
From the recruiters stand point, I have watched the debate on online social networks with some interest.....
It's the bain of corporate life - sucking precious hours from the day, and distracting employees to a 24hr water cooler conversation
It's an essential of modern life - as much part of life as texting, pop music and fast food
For the recruiter, its a godsend! As this article suggests, ANY employer who now doesn't Google all applicants is missing out on essential information. I interviewed a guy a few months back, who on his CV and a few background checks seemed a 10 out of 10 applicant - however, his MySpace page suggested he enjoyed a regular joint and the odd bit of white powder: oh, and an active social life at the local swingers club.
I personally still believe that all should have the right to a private life, and what goes on behind closed doors/in the bedroom is your choice as a consenting adult. But if you plaster it all over the web, what would you do if you were the employer?
I pointed out to my interviewee that there was much information on him in the public domain, and much as though drugs were more acceptable and part of modern life, the employer I was searching for as a result of their customer contract required all employee's and hence applicants to under take a drug test on application, and then after at the customers behest. This generally meant that applicants would need to be drug free for at least three months prior to the test - could he make that standard? He understood the requirement, and withdrew his application.
I think employers blocking social networks is quite a childish and naive manner in which to address something which is quite essential to the lives of those under 30. I remember when internet access first became widely available to all employees in my former corporate employer, and they introduced a "key word" blocker which meant that (for instance) search strings associated with sex were blocked. My innovative group of engineers found that searching on related words they found in Roget's Thesaurus allowed to still access such sites - not that they wanted to, they just wanted to prove it could be done.
Today, the number of young people coming into the market is reducing, due to a highly decreased birth rate. Hence, employers wanting new recruits need to take broader attitudes to attracting and retaining employees - cellphone bans in entire campuses, lunching at desks (because there's no where else to go), and bans on social networking sites all add up to signs of an oppressive/control freak employer. Getting employees to recognise the problems of ringing cellphones to customers and their work mates, providing some form of rest area or access to online entertainment/education, advising on monitoring of networks and expecting employees to only use social networks and MSN messenger during break times - are all signs of an employer trusting employee's to be adults and make sensible choices. Happy employees attract more happy productive employees, and put recruiters out of a job (Ha - if only! Its interesting to think I have a job because of a low birth rate, and people wanting career development...)
For the recruiter, its a godsend! As this article suggests, ANY employer who now doesn't Google all applicants is missing out on essential information. I interviewed a guy a few months back, who on his CV and a few background checks seemed a 10 out of 10 applicant - however, his MySpace page suggested he enjoyed a regular joint and the odd bit of white powder: oh, and an active social life at the local swingers club.
I personally still believe that all should have the right to a private life, and what goes on behind closed doors/in the bedroom is your choice as a consenting adult. But if you plaster it all over the web, what would you do if you were the employer?
I pointed out to my interviewee that there was much information on him in the public domain, and much as though drugs were more acceptable and part of modern life, the employer I was searching for as a result of their customer contract required all employee's and hence applicants to under take a drug test on application, and then after at the customers behest. This generally meant that applicants would need to be drug free for at least three months prior to the test - could he make that standard? He understood the requirement, and withdrew his application.
I think employers blocking social networks is quite a childish and naive manner in which to address something which is quite essential to the lives of those under 30. I remember when internet access first became widely available to all employees in my former corporate employer, and they introduced a "key word" blocker which meant that (for instance) search strings associated with sex were blocked. My innovative group of engineers found that searching on related words they found in Roget's Thesaurus allowed to still access such sites - not that they wanted to, they just wanted to prove it could be done.
Today, the number of young people coming into the market is reducing, due to a highly decreased birth rate. Hence, employers wanting new recruits need to take broader attitudes to attracting and retaining employees - cellphone bans in entire campuses, lunching at desks (because there's no where else to go), and bans on social networking sites all add up to signs of an oppressive/control freak employer. Getting employees to recognise the problems of ringing cellphones to customers and their work mates, providing some form of rest area or access to online entertainment/education, advising on monitoring of networks and expecting employees to only use social networks and MSN messenger during break times - are all signs of an employer trusting employee's to be adults and make sensible choices. Happy employees attract more happy productive employees, and put recruiters out of a job (Ha - if only! Its interesting to think I have a job because of a low birth rate, and people wanting career development...)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
