Sirona Says

Doctors are just like Hiring Managers!

I had the pleasure the other day of sitting in front of a consultant doctor in a hospital (not for me I might add), and observed his actions (or rather lack of actions!)
I have to say that as bright and clever as they are, I have come to the conclusion that doctors are just no different to your average hiring manager I have come across in my career.

Why? Two words - professional dis-respect

What is one of THE most annoying and disappointing things a hiring manager does at an interview (apart from not turning his Blackberry off)? They show the candidate absolutely no respect by not even bothering to read the candidates CV before an interview. They then proceed to read it through at the start of the interview, at the same time as asking the very lame, 'so tell me about yourself' question. It is so shallow and totally transparent, and yet they think it is perfectly acceptable. WRONG!!! It shows total professional dis-respect!!

Now let's go back to the doctor.
At the first meeting a few months ago, he took copious amounts of (albeit illegible) notes regarding the medical problem. For over twenty minutes he quizzed, questioned and proposed ideas. In short, he was efficient and instilled faith that he would do his best to help.
Roll on to the meeting this week with the same doctor. Can you guess where I am going with this? He proceeded to ask all the same questions again. It was so obvious that he hadn't even read his own notes, that it was just laughable! Within seconds, any credibility he had was destroyed. He just showed professional dis-respect, to his patient.

What really hacks me off with both examples is that it isn't a one off. How many times have either of these happened to you? I will bet, more than a couple!
All they would have to do is to take a few minutes before an interview or a consultation just to read through the notes or CV....that's all! Just think what the difference that would make!

So come on all you doctors and hiring managers, start treating people with respect, and we might all start showing some in return!!

Arrgghh! Why are candidates still being muppets at interviews?

This a mini-rant is born out of frustration and disbelief! Yesterday I spent the day with a client during one of their interview events. What I witnessed at the actual interview stages, was both unforgivable and unbelievable - from the candidates being interviewed -  in this current climate of large amounts of unemployment.
As a 'recruitment dinosaur' (someone who has been in the industry for 20+ years!) I have briefed more candidates than I care to remember on interview techniques and expectation - you could say, I tend to overbrief candidates - although you can never give a candidate too much information! So when I sat there yesterday listening to the responses to some standard 'every interview has them' questions, I was completely stunned with the answers given....or rather lack of answers!! And bear in mind here, that 99% of the candidates interviewed all had 2:1 degrees and above, and all really wanted it as their dream job!

There were three questions that nearly every interview asks, and yesterday was no different:

1. What are your strengths and/or weaknesses?
2. What motivates you? (or What gets you out of bed in the morning?)
3. Why do you want this job?

The answers varied from bad to awful to zero (Yes! One graduate couldn't even unbelievably answer the second question!!)

So my message is a simple one - if you are attending interviews for a new job, make sure you PREPARE FOR THE INTERVIEW otherwise you are completely wasting both yours and the company's time by even attending in the first place. You might as well just go and sit on a park bench and talk to the ducks, for all the good it is going to do!

Don't be a muppet - you know these questions (and other obvious ones) will be asked of you, so make sure that have thought about it, and what you are going to say in reply. These are basic, bog-standard interview questions, they are not exactly a curve ball question - but many many people sitting in an interview screw them up time and time again!  If you are really stuck (or being really thick) then Google it - many others have written the perfect answers for these questions.

Answer them well, and it will impress the interviewer;  answer them badly and you can go back to talking to the ducks - again, again and again!!

Nameless CV's: Have the CIPD and REC lost the plot?

Are we going to be seeing political correctness going to start taking over the recruitment industry?  Well watch this space because an article I read today, might just be the start!
The article was about a new radical proposal by "Lynne Featherstone MP - the Liberal Democrat spokeswoman for equality" - (surely if she should be the spokesperson for equality...it is equality after all!!).
The proposal is to ban names from job applications to prevent discrimination - and worryingly it has been backed by both the CIPD (Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development) and REC (Recruitment and Employment Confederation).
This "equality MP person" proposed an amendment (view full proposal here) to the Equality Bill at its second reading last week, which said job candidates should avoid putting their names on written applications to prevent employers gleaning any information about sex, race or age prior to interview.

What are we coming to that we have to all become faceless autobots in the workplace? If you take this approach of taking the name off, then don't stop there. Your address, school and even the subjects you choose at exams could then be classed as clues to give a candidates culture away. And don't also forget the company that they first started work for either - typically, most first jobs are close to home - that will need to be removed. We already have the situation where older job seekers are cutting off half of their CV's for fear of age discrimination, so will that then happen for every job seeker?
A CV is supposed to be a good representation of a candidate applying for a specific job, but soon there will be so much information missing or deliberately omitted, that they will become useless as a selection tool!!

This does not get to the bottom of any of the discrimination that occurs in the workplace. All the time there are people involved in the recruitment place then discrimination will always occur - and before you draw breath to launch a tirade at me for that, let me explain what I mean.
There are the obvious forms of discrimination that are all governed by laws - age, sex, race etc etc but what I am referring to is personal choice discrimination that happens every single day by recruiters everywhere. Discrimination is probably too harsh a word -  experience and choice based on previous successes and failures are a better explanation.
Recruiters (corporate recruiters or agency recruiters alike) are always looking to find the best candidate they can for any role, and they use their knowledge and experience to make informed decisions about the suitability of candidates for a role. They make choices. They are making the selection decisions. People like Lynne Featherstone MP, would probably say that they then discriminating against the candidates that fail to get an interview!! 
The fact of the matter is that employing companies want the best candidate for their job, irrespective of what they look like, where they come from or how old they are.

Do we really have to go down the route of 'cleansing' every job application? Have things got that bad?

Isn't it really a case of  these 'people with good ideas'  - MP's -  getting out from behind their big fat desks and actually stepping into the real world? When was the last time Lynne Featherstone MP was actually involved in recruitment? When did she last get involved in short listing, selecting and interviewing candidates? .......I don't know for sure, but I can have a very good guess!!!
If they did that for once in a while, then the world of political correctness wouldn't be quite so bad!!

Don't tolerate poor retail staff - replace them while you can!

This is a message for all the retailers out there in the high street that persist in allowing shocking levels of customer service and staff attitude towards customers.

Memo

To: Retailers in the High Street
From: Disillusioned Customer

The recession has firmly taken hold of retail high streets everywhere. Many retailers have unfortunately gone out of business, releasing many good staff into the marketplace.
When was the last time you (as a retailer) actually looked at the quality of your staff?
When did you last reprimand one of your till operators for being rude to customers, disrespectful to their needs or even worse adopting a real "don't give a sh*t" attitude?
Let me guess....probably never!

Many retail staff really can't be bothered and are just going through the motions at work to receive their wages at the end of the week. They don't care about the service they give and (seemingly) even less about the customers they serve. This is costing retailers like you, business, and driving people further online - me included!! 

Why don't actually take an interest in improving the quality and calibre of your staff? You have the opportunity to recruit some good people in the market at the moment - good skilled retail staff, that actually want to work and serve your customers to the best of their ability.

It isn't even hard to recruit these people - a simple poster in the window is probably all you need as a retailer at the moment - word will quickly get around.

I know, getting rid of existing staff isn't pleasant and takes time, but just think of the upside. You will actually have staff that want to work in your shop, and engage with your customers in the right way, to encourage them to return and spend money in your store next time.

So my message is a simple one.

If you have staff that can't be bothered, and are consistently underperforming, then make sure you can't be bothered with them. Go out and recruit better, more enthusiastic new staff that actually want to work............because you can. Make the most of the availability of the talent out there at the moment, and improve your service to your customers at the same time!!

Don't sack 6000 HR staff, Mr Brown - send them where they are needed most

Today I have penned an open letter to the leader of our country, with a solution to one of his upcoming problems - 6000 potential HR job losses from within the Government.

Gordon Brown
Prime Minister
The Prime Ministers Office
10 Downing Street
London
SW1A 2AA

Dear Mr Brown,

For some time now, you are your Government seem to be having a problem countering the exponentially rising tide of unemployment in the UK. Unfortunately due to the 'creative way' the economy has been managed over the last few years, this problem doesn't seem to be slowing down any time soon.

As a man who has declared himself as the next Messiah and 'Saver of The Modern World', you seem to have spared little thought to the millions of people that are now unemployed and looking for work in an economy where so few jobs exist. Both yourself are Mr Darling seem very capable of creating theories and strategies to get hundreds of thousands of unemployed people - particularly the younger members of the working population - back to work. But you seem to have forgotten that you need to actually do something with all this hot air, and not just inflate another hot air balloon with it! The unemployed people want to know 'how' and 'when', and not more self publicising scriptures of fantasy.

As someone who does care passionately about the lack of advice and guidance the unemployed people are given, I believe that there is a solution that you could implement that would help make a real difference.

Last year you appointed former Logica chairman Martin Read is to head the Government's effort to streamline its information technology. This Operational Efficiency Programme is targeted to improve efficiency in back-office operations across all the Government departments and Quangos. in it he proposed introducing central-wide shared services to try and replicate the typical cost savings you would expect in the private sector of between 30-70%. The implication of this would mean the displacement of nearly 6000 HR jobs across the UK.

The great news, Mr Brown, is that you don't have to spend hundreds of £1000's in redundancy payments because you could use their skills in the Government body where they are most needed - the Job Centre Network!
Currently you have a complete lack of skills and competency within the Job Centre Network, with completely unqualified individuals dispensing advice and support to the unemployed. Why not transfer all the 'surplus' HR resources out into the Job Centre Network, to help train and develop the skill level of your employees at the sharp end of the unemployment crisis?
The cost cutting will be country wide, and the need for support is also country wide, as is the need to not spend any more public money on inflated redundancy payments. It makes absolute sense to allow these HR professionals to help the Government where they need it most, in developing it's own talent for the future, and investing in its own staff training programme.

Now I know, this course of action may prove a little uncomfortable for you, as you will actually have to make some difficult decisions. So what you can do is the decision to another scapegoat -  Mr Darling or Mr Balls spring to mind, call it a 'new initiative' and there you have a potentially £multi-million saving to announce.

Then once again you can put on your sandals and white robes and 'believe' that you have again helped and saved millions of people!

Yours begrudgingly

A representative of the people

PS. The Bristol Balloon Festival is on the 9th August, and the organisers want to know if you will be free this year as they have a gas shortage?

The 'Slippery Shoulder' advice given by Job Centres and Outplacement Companies

I have had many phone calls over the last few weeks from my local Yellow Pages, from job seekers looking for work. Now I don't have a big spread in the directory, just a one line entry, so to be getting these calls is unusual. What is even more disturbing to me is why they are calling, and then more importantly what they say when they call.

Bad advice from the Outplacement Companies and Job Centres

The common theme for many of my calls is the source of their advice - outplacement firms or outplacement consultants.
I would like to start by saying, that I have absolutely no problem with the fact that job seekers are calling me looking for work. The fact is they are probably in the minority by actually being proactive, but it is great that they have called in the first place.
Obviously, one of the first things I ask is why are they calling me. All of them have found themselves out of work and they had been 'told' to call every agency in the (local) Yellow Pages and register with them for work!
The answer to who told them to call, has been the same - a couple of outplacement firms and the job centre.

The problem is that both parties - the outplacement firms and the Job Centre, probably believe that they have done their job well in advising these job seekers to do this - the Job Centre can tick another box on their 'helped a job seeker form', while the outplacement firm can invoice for 'another' person they have 'helped'. The trouble is with this form of slippery shoulder advice is that it is totally rubbish, meaningless and a waste of time.

Recruitment money down the drain with the NHS Purchasing And Supply Agency (PASA))

A few weeks ago I wrote about the NHS RFI for Recruitment Services, and that it was proving very difficult to complete.
Well today the saga continues.

After starting the procurement project in November 2008 by (probably started much earlier internally), and starting to issue RFI to 200+ recruitment agencies on the supply list to the NHS, they have now decided that they got it wrong!!
So five months later, they are scrapping the RFI they issued and are starting again!! They sent this email out today:

Thank you for your co-operation and tender submissions throughout the current tender process for the supply of professional, administrative and support service, temporary, interim, contract and fixed-term staff, tender reference CM/AAC/08/4979.
Whilst most of the Public Contracts Regulations 2006 do not apply to this procurement, NHS PASA is under an obligation to comply with the fundamental principles of non-discrimination and transparency.

In a review of this procurement process it appears that NHS PASA may not have been sufficiently transparent in relation to the criteria used at the pre-qualification (PQQ) stage of the procurement. NHS PASA has therefore decided to cancel the current tender and to restart the procurement process.

It is not NHS PASA’s intention to significantly change the requirement in the new tender and therefore it is not anticipated that there will be significant additional work for suppliers in resubmitting a bid. It is anticipated that an OJEU will be published in May 2009.

Now correct me me here, but who is actually paying for this monumental cock-up? All of us tax payers?

Why is it that highly paid procurement professionals (well the senior ones in the NHS anyway) can make such a bloody big mistake? This was a 96 page pre-qualification questionnaire document that companies will have taken weeks and weeks to complete. Some of these recruitment agencies would be relying on securing these contracts to stay in business (maybe even keep a line of funding), and for the NHS just to start again is unforgivable!
So they have wasted  everyone's time and money for five months.....but it is ok because they won't lose their jobs, or have to deal with any fallout from it, they will just carry on as normal, working their 9-5 jobs making life hell for any suppliers wanting to work with them!!!

Maybe it is me just being sceptical, but maybe they did it deliberately to keep themselves in a job?

Also, what is the betting that they will screw the margins down even more on the 'next' contract to pay for their big screw up! Guaranteed the NHS PASA won't end up paying for it, it will be the poor recruitment agencies....again!

Is this guy for real? - "Man gets lucky after 1,000 job applications"

 

A fellow tweeter - @alexstrang - this morning made me aware (on Twitter of course) of this story, that actually got featured on the BBC this morning.

What a title - "Man gets lucky after 1,000 job applications"!! It gets your attention doesn't it?

But what is it with the media in this recession - do they really go out of their way to give people the worst impression of the job market? What sort of message is this going to give out to the 100's of thousands of job seekers? 

This is a story that is not normal or even indicative of the job market - it is, in my opinion, another example of extreme journalism!

Now I don't know the individual concerned, Jeff Scott, and I certainly wish him well now he has found a new job, but please don't tell me that he applied for 1000 jobs that he was qualified or suitable for!
If he had then you have to ask a very basic question - did the 1000 employer actually feel sorry for him?

Just to give you some context: Jeff returned to the UK after working overseas for almost 10 years, he became caught in the middle of the economic downturn and was forced to apply for more than 1,000 jobs before he eventually found work. After working in property and finance in Egypt and Greece, where he owned an underwater videography company, Mr Scott decided to return to Surrey in September last year. The full story can be read here.

What this highlights that you just can't spray your CV everywhere and pray that someone will hire you - it just doesn't happen! What Jeff failed to understand was that recruiting companies now have choice - in fact they have way too much choice of candidates looking for work. So they will only select job seekers that are aligned to the jobs they are recruiting for.
Why would a company hire someone for a meat packers role who had no experience of anything similar at all? Before you say, anyway can do those jobs - they can't! It takes certain types of individuals with the right attitude to do these types of jobs, and as a recruiter you want to find people who will likely stay in the actual job. What they don't want is people just 'trying it',  because the chances are, they will leave very soon, and the recruiter is back to square one.
So typically they go for individuals that have related experiences - they provide a better benchmark of potential success. And sorry but underwater filming and meat packing are quite on the same level!!

So desperation might have been Jeff's motivation, but to be honest he was probably wasting his time completely with the majority of the 1000 jobs he applied for!!

What he did do was realise that it is your network that is likely to help you find that job. He joined Twitter and Facebook and made contact with previous colleagues. That is the first thing he should have done, but I am glad it paid off in the end for him.

Jeff's advice is correct,“You should just be tenacious, don’t let people get you down. Look at your strengths and your contacts and people you worked with years ago.”

It is just a shame that he didn't follow his own advice to start with - then he may not have made the BBC news with such a dis-proportioned story!

Failed CEO of Woolworths + No recruitment knowledge = Mybizpeople, his new job board........obviously!!

What is the macabre fascination that we have in the UK with failures? Why do we seem to seem to reward executives that have performed badly and why do other business executives seem to think this is ok to do? Have we developed failure lemmings, transfixed by media reputations and media spin, rather than looking at reality?
So, where I am going with this? Well, after reading an article in The Sunday Times yesterday, I was amazed to see that the ex-CEO of Woolworths - the biggest retail failure in UK history, costing 27,000+ people their jobs in Woolworths, and countless 1000's other jobs with linked failures like Zavvi etc - now wants to set up a recruitment site for job seeking executives!! This is the CEO that took Woolworths to the edge of the cliff, only for them to fall spectacularly off it last year. (Just for the record - and any lawyers -  he was asked to resign in june 2008, because he was doing such a poor job in his role as CEO)

Let me just get this right - Trevor Bish-Jones, the ex-CEO - who was a failure in Woolworths, is looking for support among the management community to use his new job board, Mypeoplebiz. For Woolworths to fail as badly as it did, demonstrates (in my opinion), poor vision, poor leadership and more importantly very poor recruitment of his senior management team! Now he wants to use this 'great' recruitment knowledge to help others!!!

Where is his recruitment credibility? Where is his recruitment track record? Does he really think that he can beat established job boards, just because he is who he is?'

My message to any executives looking for work is a simple one - stick to websites and networks that deliver results - make sure you are using LinkedIn for your networking; use a top exec recruitment site like Exec-Appointments or Executives in the Web - don't whatever you do, don't give credence to another of the UK's celebrated failures who thinks the recruitment industry is an easy sector to make money in!

The Five Point Plan to create 400,000 new jobs..........really? More like fiction to me!

 

I was writing a post for another blog this morning, and in doing so came across this initiative by the FSB - Federation of Small Business -  to create new jobs and encourage job retention.

I have no issue with the organisation as a political body, with their heavy clout when it comes to lobbying - but I do have to question some of the ways they think they can create new jobs and retain jobs.

Here is their approach in their own words:

Summary of the FSB’s Five Point Plan The FSB’s Five Point Plan for job retention and creation proposes a mixture of practical measures, which if implemented now, could help retain and create jobs. These measures could, in the medium term, generate over 400,000 jobs.
1. Cut payroll taxes
2. Simplify access to public procurement contracts
3. Declare a moratorium on business regulation
4. Promote part-time work through tax exemptions
5. Simplify and promote apprenticeships

If you want to read further about this 'amazing' plan Download FSB 5 point Plan for Job Creation and Retention  but don't expect too much!

Personally, I was very disappointed with this plan and approach. For an organisation that is supposed to represent business, and help them, this for me is a big cop out. It is political posturing, and represents no practical advice what so ever!! 
Business wants help now. It doesn't want help in the medium term, they may not survive until then!

What practical measures here will create the 400,000 jobs? Apprenticeships? - I hope so but the appetite from business has been very poor so far.  It doesn't matter how many apprenticeships you create if you don't have the work to fund then time to train people.

Cutting payroll taxes, might keep the odd employee employed a little longer, but will it honestly make much of a difference - I think it will just add to the profits (or help reduce the losses) of a business. They will still have to lay off staff.

Simplifying procurement contracts - what does that mean? It will now only take 3 years to get work out of the procurement process, after you have filled in 400 pages of qualifying documents!

Promoting part-time work through tax exemptions - it will help, but the Government will have to change the laws to make it happen. And will this REALLY help? Has the drop in VAT really helped many businesses?......not really!

And please tell me where 400,00 jobs come from - do they really have an idea? More like a fiction novel to me!