I found this article via the Personnel Today website today and thought that some very interesting points were made.
Do unions and “troublesome” employees damage UKPLC in terms of productivity, competitiveness etc? I recall from working at previous organisations how time consuming, complex and moral-depleting dealing with some dismissal/misconduct cases can be. The CIPD (Chartered Institute Of Personnel And Development) conducted a survey in 2004 about managing conflicts at work. the cost to the average employer of managing conflict in the UK is nearly 450 days of management time every year – that’s pretty much equivalent to the time of two full-time managers. Managers who could be spending their time on strategic, tactical and operational work to further the business and create more profit, stability and employment opportunities.
The survey found that on average, over the twelve months prior to the survey, employers had to handle three tribunal applications along with 30 formal disciplinary and nine greivance cases over that time. Survey respondents reported that disciplinary and grievance cases take up 10.5 days in management, HR staff and in-house lawyers time per case, while preparing for a tribunal hearing taks up 12.8 days in HR, line management and in-house lawyers time.
The Dispute Resolution Regulations which came into force on the 1st of October 2004 formalise disputes at the earliest stage which, according to the FSB (Federation of Small Businesses) will actually increase the risk of conflict.
Employers have the duty to treat their employees respectfully and in accordance with the law but surely employees have a duty to act reasonably in this regard too? Where gross misconduct has occured, yes, formalisation of a complaint is reasonable and justified but surely an informal discussion between the aggrieved employee, management (and a third party if involved in the conflict) with practical and reasonable movement towards resolution is better for the employee and the business?
There has been yet another high profile incident within the City regarding an email that was circulated amongst the staff of a bank. The content of the email was apparently pictures of a female colleague in an “intimate” moment with a now certain to be, former male partner.
However, unlike previous incidences such as the Claire Swire case, the email was not widely circulated given the fierce communications policies that most companies now have in place. As you can see from the link to the Claire Swire case, the solicitors who initially forwarded the email to friends/colleagues, were subject to disciplinary action by their employers.
There are two pieces of advice to take from such stories:
1) DON’T send your partner/friends anything via email that you would not want your colleagues in IT or your departmental colleagues to read. Many employers, Lab49 included, often “google” candidates to get more information about them. Try googling the name “Claire Swire” and you will see what a prospective employer will find out about the poor woman.
2) If you are sent an inappropriate email, don’t forward it to anyone. First of all, you will probably be going against company policy and secondly, imagine how you would feel if the subject of the email was you.
The bankers from the second case where the woman has thankfully, remained anonymous, clearly had their careers in mind when considering what to do with the email. To circulate such an email is to risk your career….
It can be tough getting out of bed sometimes but knowing that I travel here each week day means that it’s not so bad! At a previous job, I used to wish my life away waiting from Friday to come around – no more! I think that the clip below shows the difference between working elsewhere and working for Lab49 – enjoy and have a great weekend.
I read an incredibly funny article in Metro (free London morning newspaper) on the train this morning. Take a look at this and let me know what you think.
Amir’s attitude just absolutely stinks. Even if Mike had received his email about salary and neglected to comment on it, Amir’s negative assumption and subsequent aggressive reaction is shocking. He really showed his true colours which saved Mike and his colleagues a good deal of time in the long run.
The bad thing for Amir is that the power of search engines such as Google means that whilst this was a relatively brief email exchange, it will live on…I often Google candidates before calling/emailing them to find out more about them and finding this kind of negative publicity would certainly make me think twice.
I receive about 200 or so emails per day mainly from candidates and as much as I try to get to every single one and respond to every question that you ask in your emails, I’m not always able to do so. Please feel free to nudge me either via email or telephone if I’m not responding quickly enough!
What a recruiter the Terminator would be! That red eye scanning thingy, exceptionally firm handshake, brutal rejection methods and lack of human element to the process!
Google, according to this article, have employed the last part of the Terminator/Recruiter hybrid in employing an algorithm to scan job applications and then rank candidates from next month. Whilst I understand that it must be difficult for Google to deal with all of the applications they must receive, surely they have enough cash to employ more recruiters to deal with the influx?
As mentioned in an earlier posting, all parties within the recruitment process have responsibilities to the other parties within that process. The candidate must be truthful in their representation of themselves and demonstrate ability, enthusiasm and great communication skills (for our line of work anyway). The recruiter must be upfront with candidates, acknowledge every application and spend an appropriate amount of time assessing each candidate.
The last part can be time consuming but it is an essential part of the role of a recruiter. Sure, an algorithm would be really helpful for the last part but the problem is that without the human element, a great candidate could be missed out altogether. A good recruiter will acknowledge that not all candidates are wholly represented by their CV’s – some may have poor CV’s but a recruiter may identify something that makes them really stand out despite the poor CV. Can we rely upon an algorithm to do this? Sure, human interaction can be flawed but is it so flawed to the point of not needing it? I think not.
Anyway, I suppose that the level of success of this algorithm will be proven one way or another within the next few months. In the meantime, Hasta La Vista baby!
I just read this article on the BBC after hearing about it this morning. B&Q a respected DIY retailer in the UK apparently asked candidates to dance, copying a managers routine, before settling down for the interview with them. How absolutely appalling!! They should have asked the candidates to freestyle rather than copy
A B&Q spokesperson said the following:
“We made it clear to all of the candidates that they did not have to take part if they did not feel comfortable and that it would not influence the recruitment process at all,” it said in a statement.” I think that most candidates would give the dancing a go (regardless of their level of comfort with it) in order to ensure that their chances of getting the job was not jeopardised so in that sense, they felt compelled to carry out an unnecessary and humiliating task.
On a serious note, it is the role of the interviewer to try to ensure that the candidate is relaxed prior to the formal part of the interview starting. Here at the Lab, we are very respectful of candidates both in the interview situation and afterward (see my earlier post regarding candidate feedback).
I can see from the B&Q article that the interviewers did have the candidates best interests at heart in terms of wanting to relax them prior to the interview but asking them to throw shapes is just an appalling and humiliating way to do it. Having been the other side of the interviewing fence on many occasions, I can see that a skilled interviewer need not resort to ill-advised ridicule in order to calm a candidate. A friendly manner, a relaxed start to the interview (encouraging a candidate to talk about something that they are very familiar with – and therefore happy to talk about) and the air of being genuinely interested go a very long way.
