Battle Scorecard

view Cases

  • 2 Won
  • 8 Lost
  • £650,720,000 Saved
  • £1534224164 Cost

Get Hiring Right and Have a Nice Day

Thursday, July 19, 2007   

If you’ve ever had a job when you’ve wondered why on earth one or more of your colleagues was hired by the firm, you’ll get this.

  

The same goes for the increasing number of you who see gaps in the workforce around you, heaping pressure on everyone else. 

Hiring the right people sits - for better or for worse - behind everything that happens at work.   If you're surrounded by the right people, then you can cope with just about everything.  If you're not...... well, you Know exactly what I mean!

Maybe your firm has everything right, but your suppliers have hiring challenges that aren’t helped by the way they go about attracting the right level of talent?  Insofar as your customers’ experience goes, if you can’t deliver something on price, on time, on quality because of a supplier issue, then your supplier's hiring problems are your problems!

How about outside of the workplace?  As consumers I would suggest that everyone who reads this will have experienced what happens when organisations get their hiring right or wrong.  

What about training and day to day management and development of employees you might ask; surely that effects our experience just as much as hiring in the right raw material, so to speak?  Of course it does -  and that training and day to day management is carried out or devised by someone else who was recruited into the organisation.  Everything, for better or worse, can be traced back to a hiring issue - just about.

The one exception would be where hiring and day to day events are dictated by a company owner. 

I’m going to start sounding like an advert for Jim Collins at this rate, but it all starts with the right kind of leadership.  Anyone who wants evidence for the argument that responsibility for ensuring that best hiring practice is followed by the organisation should fall to the CEO / MD, need look no further than the five year research into top performing organisations that Collins’ and his colleagues carried out.

In terms of organisational performance, according to the LSC, 30% of roles are either permanently vacant due to skills shortages, or taken by someone technically incompetent at their job.  Point being, if 100% of organisations in the UK brought their hiring practice into line with the modern labour market, then 3 out of 10 would still be without the people they need, so you might still be exeriencing the kind of problems this article refers to.

However, in my experience, so few companies have yet to take all of the right action on hiring practice, that the opportunity to gain a competitive advantage through people is wide open for anyone who wishes to take it.

Get the boss on board with hiring practice and help everyone to a better experience of your organisation - more likely than not starting with your own!

 

 

© Copyright www.ftwoan.org 2007 - please credit where shared or reproduced.

Categories:

Skip to Comments

Comments so far

Tuesday, September 11, 2007 by Peter Schofield

SF - this is EXACTLY the type of problem this campaign seeks to highlight; no real correlation between the inherent opportunity and the aspirations of the type of people your employer mistakenly believed it wanted.

The losses you describe are captured nowhere in neither the company accounts or within conventional metrics.

The losses are so thinly veiled it reminds me of the scene in Monty Python's Life of Brian, when the Romans under John Cleese search the house for members of the Judean People's Front!

Tuesday, September 11, 2007 by SF

I am commenting from the point of view of being the wrong person hired! I was sat there wondering why on earth the company hired me!!!

After graduating in mathematics I applied online for a few positions and had the inevitable call from a large recruitment consultancy who "specialise" in dealing with people like myself and, although the job I applied for was no longer available, they had something which was right up my street.

I am an ambitious sort of person who takes pride in doing a good job and being able to visbly see the results of my work. I was interviewed and offered a position with a major Insurance company working within the statistical department supporting the actuaries. I was assured that this was a position that had significant career development and would lead into business influencing positions.

Of course this is not what happened. It was a support function and nothing more and worse, never would be. There was no opportunity of moving directly into the actuary work (which it turns out I found boring anyway but not the point!).

Now, take my situation and mulitply it by 8. That is the number of mathematics grads taken on at the same time by same department. That is roughly £30,000 of recruitment in one go. Into one small department within a very large division of a massive company. After 2 years, I was the last of the original 8 to leave (I wanted to get 2 years on my CV with the same company). All the gaps were filled with candidates of a similar level to myself. Therefore extra recruitment costs, extra training costs and absolutely nothing to show for it except for some fresh faced grads. This small department within a large division of a massive company had spent hundreds of thousands of pounds on nothing! Replicate that across the whole company and there is literally millions upon millions of pounds being wasted every year due to poor recruitment practise!

The problem? They massively over specked the role and recruited enthusiastic, very well educated and hungry individuals to do a job that was crying out for someone who wanted to take home a basic wage week in week out and be happy doing just that.

The point? Hiring the wrong people was massively demotivating for all parties involved and an extremely costly mistake to make for the business. There was an attitude that the company had to have highly qualified individuals within the company and that this could only have a positive effect.

Since I left, this company has had to make over 3,000 redundancies to cut operational costs.