Use technology to survey staff
June 4, 2008
I’ve just read about an ingenious way of carrying out a staff consultation exercise. Ladbrokes used software programmed into their till system to carry out a benefits survey with all their shop workers. In just 10 days, more than 2,300 employees responded to the survey, enabling the company to assess which benefits employees value.
This is a really good example of how technology can be used to make staff consultation accessible and easy to carry out. Most employees have very busy lives at work and any application that makes it quicker and easier to respond to a staff survey will improve the response rate. This is something I have found when conducting surveys at work – many online surveying software packages are very easy to use and quite inexpensive (survey monkey for example is free up to a certain number of questions so brilliant for short surveys). The best thing about these packages is that they can collate the data for you as well, and you can usually export the information into a spreadsheet, rather than having to collate loads of data by hand.
Surveying staff is a useful technique to find out what’s going on within the organisation and what you can do to improve the experience for employees, and can therefore aid staff retention. However it will be pointless carrying out a survey if it is unlikely that employees have the time or the inclination to complete it, and it is necessary therefore to try to create the most accessible surveying technique possible.
Get managers involved with new employees!
May 26, 2008
Sharing the responsibility for learning and development of employees between line managers and HR is a great idea!
When a new employee starts, we give them a set induction plan for the week. At the end of the week we hold an evaluation meeting where we can ask how the induction has been and if they feel they need to go over any areas they feel they are not 100% sure on.
We then hold a meeting at the end of week 2 and week 3 and then do a 1 month, 3 month and 6 month review.
In the past, this has all been down to the HR department when in fact it should be the responsibility of the line manager to liaise with the new employee.
After the 1 month review, the employee doesnt really meet with the HR department again so its crucial that the manager gives the employee time to speak to them about how they are settling in and if they need more help in certain areas.
We have also decided to involve managers in the interviewing process so that they can decide exactly who they would like to join their team.
If managers are not involved with the recruitment of employees or the learning and development in your company, then i definitely think that you should start this now!
The duty to make reasonable adjustments
May 9, 2008
A recent case highlights the important duty on employees to make reasonable adjustments to the working environment for disabled employees. Owen Brooking, a trainee police officer was found to have been bullied by bosses and colleagues at work due to his dyslexia, to the point where he felt he had no option but to resign. The compensation that could be available to Brooking could reach £500,000, due to the potential loss of a career in the police that could have lasted up to 30 years. An important point made by the tribunal was that employers need to recognise that it is their responsibility to make reasonable adjustments, although the employee may offer suggestions.
So what are considered reasonable adjustments? The tribunal would look at things like how easy it is to make the necessary changes, how expensive the adjustments would be, and the relative size and capacity of the company. For example, it might be considered unreasonable to expect a very small company with a small turnover to install a disabled lift into a building for wheelchair users, however in Brooking’s case it would not have been difficult or costly to put measures into place to enable him to carry out the duties of his job. I used to work with someone who was dyslexic, and she was able to carry out her job by asking a colleague to check her work when it needed to be accurate, for example correspondence with a client or a presentation. For day to day communication internally, it was not a problem that there were some errors.
Another aspect of disability discrimination legislation is that the employee does not necessarily have to tell an employer that they are disabled, but employers need to be careful of making assumptions. Where an employee has not informed an employer of their disability but this is ‘obvious’, they can still be liable. What constitutes ‘obvious’ is clearly a grey area. Policies and procedures will always help with these sorts of issues, for example an employer might ask all employees to complete a form stating any disabilities or any other conditions that the employer needs to know about on their commencement, then any necessary adjustments can be investigated. Also, following clear discipline and performance management procedures will help employers to identify where employees may appear to have a conduct or performance issue that is in fact related to a disability (this could be relevant in cases of mental illness for example, where the disability is not obvious).
As always, employers should seek legal (and where needed, medical) advice when dealing with these sorts of issues.
Technology contributes to long hours syndrome
May 8, 2008
After my mini rant of yesterday about the Apprentice, I didn’t get to watch it last night in the end, but I did see something interesting on the news that said that employees who have company laptops, mobile phones and blackberries work on average 20 days more than other employees per year – that’s basically all your holidays gone! This is because people are available constantly and because they are able to access their work information from nearly anywhere.
This is quite a tricky situation because this problem basically conflicts completely with one of the main benefits of having these kinds of technologies. Opportunities for flexible working arrangements, such as home working are greatly increased by mobile technology, and in theory can allow workers to have a greater work-life balance, but it appears to be having the opposite effect for many people. I know how tempting it can be when you’re at home to just do ‘5 minutes’ work that turns into a lot longer – I do it all the time and I haven’t even got a computer or internet access at home, I just scribble on note pads. I imagine if I was able to access my work from home I’d be doing even more bits of work here and there all the time. Also, if you’ve got a blackberry it’s tempting to keep checking what messages have come through when you’re not in work.
I’m not sure what the answer is to this – on the one hand you want to provide these technologies for employees, not just for flexible working but for staff who may go out to client meetings or work between locations, but there is a clear need to ensure they aren’t working ridiculous hours or experiencing burn out from not having a break from their jobs. A clear policy on this issue would probably be a good place to start, explaining what the equipment is to be used for. But I think this is quite often a cultural issue – and if there’s an embedded long hours culture then it can put pressure on staff to carry out work at home. So the change really needs to take place from the top, and this is where I think HR may face difficulty in trying to reduce the negative effects of mobile technologies.
Take a leaf out of Sir Alan’s book for recruitment!
May 7, 2008
I watched last week’s episode of The Apprentice the other day, and it struck me that getting potential staff to do a task and observing them is actually a good way of determining what they would be like in the job. Obviously the scale of the projects they do on the show is unrealistic for normal business but it really does show the true colours of a person in those difficult and stressful situations.
If the selection was in my hands I don’t think I’d take any of them on – certainly not that bunch of complete nitwits who actually thought that sending CARDS to inform people in a friendly way about environmental issues was a good idea! I’m no green expert but as soon as they started working on it I was practically screaming at the telly ‘the whole point is to reduce waste not create more you morons!’, a point which was rather more eloquently raised by Margaret then Sir Alan later in the programme.
Anyway the point is that group exercises in the recruitment process are a more down to earth alternative to the grand schemes cooked up by the makers of the Apprentice. You can observe the communication skills used within the group and the way people interact, as well as important points such as recognising their own weaknesses and other people’s strengths – the main reason this week’s candidate got fired.
Coming up with an exercise can be quite difficult – you could base it on the kind of situation the candidates would face in the role, or use a totally unrelated game or exercise. If you google group recruitment exercises you’ll probably get loads of good ideas, also businessballs is a good resource for stuff like this. You need to get information on what you should be observing as well as what to ask them to do, as there will be specific competencies relating to the various exercises. Training observers in carrying out this role is also important.
I’m going to watch the next Apprentice tonight, can’t wait to see what ridiculous things the fame hungry cretins get up to this time…
Brand bashing bloggers
May 4, 2008
Yesterday I wrote about employer branding, and how it can be used to improve recruitment and retention activities at companies. However, I’ve just read about a great example of how an employer brand could be crushed with the use of one little tool that we all use every day – the internet.
This was an article about the poor working conditions in the gaming industry – mainly in the US. The long working hours and unreasonable pressure put on employees at Electronic Arts (EA), particularly around the launch time of a new game, was broadcast to the whole world in a blog post by the wife of an employee. The article, ‘EA Spouse’, revealed how Erin Hoffman’s husband was on the verge of going under from working “9am to 10pm, seven days a week, with the occasional Saturday evening off for good behavior”. The blog post , which was written three years ago and is still famous today opened up a huge debate in the industry, and has led to “substantial progress” and an industry watchdog website that Hoffman runs herself. This is great for the employees working in this industry, but highlights just how easy it would be for one or two disgruntled employees or members of their families to blow apart a false employer brand in the last place you want this to happen – on the world wide web.
So, as I said yesterday, developing a realistic value base for your brand and ensuring any issues are resolved before you put it out there is probably a good idea, unless you want to spend a big budget on a really impressive campaign only for someone to effectively flush all your money down the toilet, from the comfort of their bedroom!
Employer branding - what’s that then?
May 3, 2008
I’ve been hearing the phrase ‘Employer Branding’ for ages now, without really understanding what on earth it is. So, after doing a little background reading into the subject, it’s now something I’m quite interested in, and think it could have more to it than just another one of those “hr-speak” fads that come around more often than a government department re-shuffle.
Basically, the theory behind employer branding follows the normal branding idea - companies market their services based on their brand – that which separates them from all the other companies offering the same product or service. Some come to mind very easily - think ‘every little helps’ or ‘this is not just Christmas food…’ (said in sexy voice with sensual music) - I’m sure you know which companies I’m talking about. Employer branding combines the company brand, and the way it manages its people, to develop and promote that special something that makes the company different to work for from its competitors, to stand out in the labour market. I know that one of the companies referred to earlier have developed a strong employer brand that relates well to their company brand, and the two work together very effectively. As I’ve probably mentioned before, the labour market is extremely tight and competitive at the moment, especially for highly skilled workers in industries where there is a lack of skills, such as IT, as well as for strong senior management candidates. Companies (not least the one I work for) are spending vast amount of money on recruitment agencies and advertising. So it’s clear why employer branding has suddenly become such a major concern.
But branding isn’t something that’s just for recruitment – it should be about the whole employment experience. If employees of a company are asked what it is like to work there, their answer should mirror the brand being promoted externally; otherwise you’re going to end up with a lot of new recruits who leave after a short period in a role that’s totally different to what they were expecting, as well as serious satisfaction and retention problems with your existing workforce. So working towards a brand should probably start from the very inside of the organisation – what is it about this place that makes us unique and brilliant? It links very well with the company vision and values (see my article on the Virgin Vision from March). I reckon this analysis could actually throw up problems with the way the company is managed that need to be resolved before you can start to develop any idea of what the brand is.
The CIPD website has loads of information about this subject, and is probably a really good place to start when thinking about how your company might use the idea of a brand for its employees and not just for customers (some website areas are only accessible to members though). It’s something I think I’ll be thinking about a lot in the near future.
Frustration with recruitment agencies!
April 15, 2008
I’m sick to death of working with recruitment agencies. Honestly, if I could do without them then I really would but in the current labour climate, the industry I work in and the increase in competition from agencies for candidates there’s no option but for me to use them for at least some of the high volume of recruitment I’m doing this year.
I’ve just had yet another heated conversation with a recruitment consultant following an interview that was a complete waste of mine and my colleague’s time, as the candidate (who came for a sales position) didn’t even know what we did as a company, hadn’t been given any information on us and had been ‘led to believe’ that he would not be able to make any sales for a couple of months (which is complete rubbish)! He’d really been sold the job well I must say.
This incident, together with other, has made me wonder who is the client for a recruitment agency? The candidate or the recruiting company? The consultant’s excuse for the candidate’s confusion over what we did as a company was that he had been put forward for several different positions and had got them mixed up. I’m not certain this is true, but in any case that’s not really allayed my concerns about the agency’s service anyway. Many agencies wouldn’t ‘double book’ a candidate for more than one position at a time as it can create a conflict of interest and affect the long term relationship between them and the client, but obviously this isn’t the case for all of them. I understand that the recruitment consultant has a dual responsibility to two clients on either side of the table; the candidate and the recruiting company, but surely honesty and integrity is the best way forward for developing strong and lasting relationships with both. If an agency is wishing to put forward a candidate for more than one role, they should give a company a limited time to make a decision on that person, and make it clear that after this time they might lose them to another company: that’s a fair system for everyone. The recruitment industry has a bad rep in terms of qualities such as honesty and integrity, and we all joke about recruitment consultants in the same way as we do about other perceived ‘nasties’ such as estate agents. With my recent experience, it’s not difficult to see why.
Perhaps I need to re-read my own advice from a couple of months ago on working with recruitment agencies!
Sales recruitment woes!
April 4, 2008
I’m recruiting for a telesales role at the moment and finding it really difficult to get candidates to even attend an interview, never mind find people who have the right experience and skills for the job. The sales industry, I have found, is really fast moving and if you don’t grab the right people and entice them as soon as you can, they’re gone in a flash. They all seem to have so many new job possibilities at any one time that the drop out rate for recruitment activities is proving to be really high. I’ve been told this is quite common with this kind of role, and that at the moment its a ‘candidate’s market’, but it doesn’t make the situation any less frustrating.
I’ve found this recruitment drive to be as much of a sales job for me as it will be for the employees we take on, as I’m having to work really hard just to try to get the candidate interested enough to come and see what it’s like here, and I don’t think there’s anything about the company or the role that should be putting people off. It seems that the candidates are less likely in this type of role than others to attend a few different interviews to compare the possibilities – unless they’re not very good they go ‘off the market’ within a really short space of time, or so I am being told by the increasing number of recruitment agencies I have involved so far.
The earning potential for this role is fantastic, but I’m finding candidates do not necessarily believe me when I explain how it works as many have been burned before by employers promising the earth and then introducing loads of conditions before any money can be made. I’ve just had a look at the statistics and in the last couple of weeks I’ve had three applicants disappear off the face of the earth before we can even attempt a phone interview, two that sound really interested on the phone but fail to answer their phone after this, and one who looked like a great prospect that did not turn up for a face to face interview, with no contact whatsoever to explain why. I’m not sure if it’s just me, but I’m astounded by the number of recruitment candidates I have come across recently that have no manners! If I was pulling out of an interview for whatever reason, there’s no way I would not get in contact with that company to let them know what was going on, it’s just common courtesy.
I’d be really interested if anyone else has faced these issues and if there’s any advice they can give me.
Jips for jobs?
April 3, 2008
I’ve just read an article and blog on the guardian website that suggested that prospective employees should be given the employment version of the Home Information Pack (Hip) that home vendors are now required to provide. The Job Information Pack (Jip) would provide the candidate with a ‘warts and all’ set of in-depth information including the company culture, the reason the predecessor to the job left and exit interview feedback from that person. The reason for this argument was that many people end up in situations where they move to what they perceive to be their dream job and subsequently find out there are major issues that were not indicated at interview stage, such as company politics, funding difficulties, dysfunctional teams or Neanderthal management attitudes.
Having a Jip would help jobseekers make more informed choices about the roles they are moving to – but on the flip side some employers would end up with no staff! In theory though, the Jip should be good for employers as well as potential staff as this should encourage companies to resolve issues rather than leaving them to fester when introducing new staff. Also, employing quality people only for them to leave soon after is worse in many ways than not finding the right staff in the first place – as retention problems can affect the morale and motivation of the existing staff.
I have experienced this situation myself as a candidate only last year – the job sounded fabulous, the organisation really supportive and forward thinking and the managers I met in the interview were the type of people I could see myself working really well with. However the reality of the job was the biggest nightmare ever. The internal structures of the organisation were a shambles, and there were major staff shortages in every department with no commitment from senior management to increase staff levels. The organisation was so bureaucratic that almost every decision needed authorisation from the CEO, despite there being 1600 staff and about an 8 level management structure, and on top of all this the CEO was obsessed with tendering for every single new contract available, with no strategic approach to choice or timing, and no planning systems for how the organisation would cope with the increasing size. The operational staff numbers had almost doubled in 18 months, whilst the central services had stayed the same size. I hated every minute and left after three months. The next role I went to, whilst not without its problems as with any job, has proven to be closer to the impression I gained at the interview, although I feel that this is as much down to my stringent questioning at the interview, having been burned badly, than the willingness of the interviewer to impart relevant information about the types of scary demons I might encounter. I do feel that whilst organisations should maybe try to give as honest a picture of the company as possible to the candidate, the responsibility should not all be on the employer. Interviews are a two way process – the candidate should be finding out about the company as well as the other way around, and each candidate will have different ideas of what is attractive about a prospective job. Whilst a Jip might tell an applicant for a HR role that there are problems with employee turnover, they may view this as a challenge, but then arrive on the first day and be mortified by something else that wasn’t even considered for the Jip. Candidates need to think about what it is they are looking for and what they want to avoid – and use the interview to assess this. This is what I learned the hard way and I guess experience counts for a lot.
I have also been on the other side of the coin. After the recruitment of an employee in one particular department, a number of problems suddenly arose that were completely unexpected, and I almost ended up feeling as if I had mis-sold the role to the candidate as I had not given a warts and all account of what they would be faced with, simply because I hadn’t realised. This experience made me think that in the future I would try not to recruit someone into a role when there were problems that could not be solved by that person, but sometimes you just cannot predict the way a situation will develop. Also, you don’t always have the choice or influence to be able to refuse to recruit new staff into problematic situations.
I don’t think Jips are a good idea – at the end of the day they cannot be an equivalent of Hips, because the ‘product’ is different. Hips tell the prospective buyer about issues they might have to resolve when they buy the house – this is quite easily rectifiable at the point of sale by negotiating a lower price relevant to the likely cost of the remedial work. If a prospective employee receives a Jip that looks like a dodgy buy, what can they do? I suppose in theory they could negotiate a bonus or increase if they come in and resolve the problems, but I bet nine times out of ten the issues aren’t relating to their specific role.
I do however think the theory behind the concept is a worthy one. People should not be employed in a role where they are not going to a) be able to do it and b) enjoy it. If the reasons for this are the problems within the organisation then addressing this is more important than getting bums on seats, because sooner or later the same issues will start to affect existing staff if they haven’t already.