Reputation Management - Look After Your Temps!

Over recent years, I’ve had many conversations with hiring managers in which they’ve asked about the reputation their departments hold within the market as an employer. These questions will often come at a time when a firm is struggling to attract candidates for what should be a relatively straight forward vacancy to fill, and I’ve had a couple of these conversations just recently.

On both occasions the hiring managers were concerned that a negative message may have been filtering out to the market from temporary workers they’ve had working within their teams within the last year. This may or may not have been the case, but it highlights an extremely important consideration for managing your employer reputation: LOOK AFTER YOUR TEMPS!

Recent legislation (the Agency Worker Regulations) has ensured that temporary workers are assured of equal treatment to comparable permanent employees in terms of their pay, annual leave and access to employer facilities, but legislation can only go so far.

When it comes to how welcome they are made to feel, how much time is invested in getting to know them and to what extent they are made to feel part of a team, temporary workers will experience vastly different approaches from one employer to the next, and even between different departments within the same firm.

These temporary workers may only be with an employer for a matter of weeks, but during that time they will have formed an opinion on whether the department they’ve been working in is one they’d recommend or one they’d advise others to steer clear of. Naturally their views may not always be taken as gospel, but people talk, and ‘career temps’ will already know and come in to contact with a huge number of potential hires for your firm as they move from one assignment to the next.

So, if you use interim staff in your firm, consider how much time you invest in making them feel welcome, and consider how other team members will engage with them also – do they know why they’re joining? Might they feel threatened and unwilling to assist them as a result?

Treated well, a temporary worker can make a significant positive impact on your employer reputation.

Social Recruiting - let's get some perspective...

Although I like to think of myself as a modern day recruiter, and one who embraces the world of social media (both personally and professionally), I can’t help thinking that there is a huge amount of information and advice for recruiters online that will only help a very small proportion of the industry, and actually have a detrimental effect on the performance of others.

I hold a dual role at Balance Recruitment. I’m an owner/Director of the business and I am therefore jointly responsible for the promotion of our brand, our culture and for ensuring we achieve and maintain a positive reputation with all those we come in to contact with. I also carry out a full 360 recruiter role, representing a niche client base, sourcing candidates and managing all the really easy stuff (ahem) that goes in between.

Whilst wearing both hats, I feel it’s vital to keep abreast of new networks/tools/techniques to utilise the internet for the benefit of the business, but I also need to guard against investment of time in networks that just aren’t ever likely to yield returns. But this is where there’s a problem, because with each new social network online, there seems to be a blog somewhere telling recruiters that they should be using it or risk getting left behind.

So on the one hand, agency and search recruiters are working hard to stay ahead of the competition from in-house recruiters and RPO’s, whilst at the same time they’re being told that they should also be spending an untold amount of time on the development of peripheral social branding even just to keep up?

As I see it, too many recruitment or business focussed social media experts place the readers of their blogs in a position of being behind the curve, without considering how generic and non-targeted the advice they’re providing to a broad recruitment industry audience actually is. So whilst it may well be fair (I assume!) to admonish a specialist online marketing & design recruitment business for not having a Pinterest or Instagram presence, does this also mean an IT recruiter should be scouring the internet for stylish photos of server storage racks too?

Sure, some of the social networks are clearly beneficial to recruiters, whilst others may have great success for specific sectors and career disciplines (online, creative and marketing usually), but there are plenty for which, I suspect, the majority of recruiters will never really see enough return from the investment of time they put in.

The dangers of one stage interview processes

For recruiters, recruitment processes with just one stage of interviewing can be very appealing. Less time spent arranging interviews, and generally a quick process to manage with fewer decision makers for the applicant to please/upset. In most cases however, this is a false economy.

It may be convenient for an employer to reduce the time spent interviewing during busy periods or for urgent hiring requirements, and in some instances, such as when it’s for an interim assignment it’s also convenient and anticipated by the potential employee. But in other cases, these one stage processes often do not provide the opportunity for potential candidates to build up enough of a connection to the employer or hiring manager.

Recent recruitment industry surveys in the UK have shown that whilst demand for staff is on the increase, the availability of candidates is decreasing, which inevitably means that jobseekers who are actively interviewing will have more options to consider. Whilst on the one hand it’s important to move quickly in order to secure high calibre candidates, if the focus is all on speed of hire, the candidate engagement process will be compromised, which could lead to offers being rejected as candidates join competitor businesses.

For the instances when time is at a premium, adding in a 15 minute telephone interview to the recruitment process can make all the difference, even if only for the preferred applicant. It adds another layer of selection in to the process, giving the candidate confidence that they’re being selected on merit, not just availability, and crucially it allows them time to reflect on the opportunity after their first meeting, so they can follow up with any questions or raise any potential concerns they might have. The chances of them accepting any offer would undoubtedly increase and potentially save the employer having to go back to the drawing board.

Do you agree, or you do feel one interview should be sufficient to identify and attract the right candidate to your business? Please add your thoughts below. 

Financial Recruitment Continues to Make Gains (Guest Blog)

A guest blog from James McCaffrey - with a number of years of accounting experience, James now focusses on recruitment and the financial jobs market, writing for Total Jobs.

As recently documented in the latest edition of Balance Recruitment’s Quarterly Update, financial recruitment is continuing to make gains. The latest update also pointed out that there had been an increase in the number of vacancies in the financial sector, coinciding with a demand for more staff – especially those with backgrounds as Analysts or within Billing, Revenue, and financial reporting.

In a recent Google Hangout for Total Jobs, Tom Newcombe, a leading journalist for HR magazine also agreed that growth was taking place in the financial sector, pointing to figures from PWC which highlighted that by 2020, there could be an additional 200,000 financial jobs vacancies which could contribute to a 3% growth in GDP- but only if the financial sector can improve regulation.

These figures hold relevance for the wider financial industry too, as the recession has forced businesses to increase their focus on due diligence, accuracy and transparency- and in recognising the importance of sufficient monitoring; the financial sector, and indeed the financial departments across all industries have made a demonstrable commitment to tidying up processes across the board. It’s this commitment that is reflected not only in the increased number of vacancies, but also in the roles that are currently high in demand. In the same session, Jane Clarke, Head of Campus Recruitment at Barclays Bank, also noted that over the next year, the biggest intake of new graduates would be in the fields of compliance and legal capabilities, roles centred on analysis, monitoring and managing processes efficiently.

There have long been calls for more transparency in business, especially when it comes to balancing the books and reporting on performance – now that more businesses are making a commitment to delivering on transparency, they are starting to recognise the vital importance of hiring teams of skilled people who can deliver the processes, monitoring and accurate reporting that will go into making sure that finances are in order and that balance sheets add up.

When businesses can present themselves to the public, stakeholders and potential investors, as well as potential staff that they are committed to honesty and thorough processes, it helps to boost the reputation of company, making it more attractive for business opportunities and skilled jobseekers – the figures reflect the truism that investing more in staff makes sense for all areas of business. Jane also pointed out that graduates who had been studying during the worst phases of the recession were keen to ensure that they found work in companies that were seen to have honest practices – in as much as companies of all sizes have re-evaluated their recruiting criteria since the worst days of the crisis, jobseekers are also showing a desire to work for a company which has a will to organise its finances and processes too. 

Personal Profiles on a CV - do it right or don't do it at all

I referred to Personal Profiles on a blog late last year giving advice on writing an effective CV, and said I’d come back to the subject in a separate blog soon. I may be stretching the definition of “soon” leaving it 10 months, but here goes…

The first question to consider about Personal Profiles on a CV is whether it’s worth having one at all, and that’s a debate on which I could argue for either side. Having been a recruiter for well over 10 years now, I wouldn’t like to guess how many CV’s I’ve reviewed in my time, but let’s just say it’s a lot. From those, I would argue that the majority of the CV’s which have Personal Profiles would stand no less chance of progressing with an application if the Personal Profile were removed.

There are two main approaches people take with these profiles:

1.       Opinion based about the personal qualities the individual believes they hold, which they wish to share

2.       Factual about the experience and informative about the specific career focus of the individual

The problem with the first approach is that the reader/hirer is often offered no real evidence to back up the claims made in these profiles, and can therefore only be satisfied that this is just how the individual would like to appear. Claims to be hardworking and proactive are worthless if examples are not provided, and it’s far better to include this information where it might be expected elsewhere on the CV – when detailing your experience/achievements within your employment history.

The other common problem with this approach is that the same qualities/attributes are nearly always used.

“I enjoy working in a team but work equally well on my own”

If this is a phrase you recognise from your own CV, don’t worry you’re not alone (trust me!), but it may be worth taking it off for something a little more original.

It’s my opinion therefore that the first approach is worth avoiding altogether. The second approach can be useful to give the recruiter/hiring manager a brief summary of the individual’s experience and career focus, and displays that the potential employee can communicate pertinent information in a concise manner. An example would be as follows:

·         I am a 2012 CIMA Qualified Management Accountant with experience gained within the Legal sector, including financial analysis, budget preparation and supervision of an Assistant Accountant. I am now seeking a more commercial role in a larger international firm where I can improve my business partnering skills.

The third approach (not having one at all) is also an option, as long as it’s very clear from the rest of your CV what experience you hold and that the career path you are following is evident.

Do you agree or have a different viewpoint you’d like to share? Please be bold and add your thoughts/comments below!

Interviewing and attracting passive talent...

This is a subject I’ve been meaning to write about for a while, but I’ve been prompted in to action after seeing the following Tweet last week:

If you're asking passive talent "So tell me why you want to work here..." You're Doing It Wrong. #facepalm #talent42
— Amybeth Hale (@researchgoddess) June 27, 2013

‘Passive talent’ is a phrase I’m sure anyone involved in recruitment & hiring will be very familiar with, but for the benefit of those new to hiring, it’s a catch-all phrase to describe high calibre potential employees who are not actively looking for a career move, but who might move if the right opportunity were to find them.

It’s widely accepted that around 80% of the workforce in the UK (or 79% worldwide according to those in the know at LinkedIn) fall in to the category of being ‘passive’, whilst the remainder are those who are proactively searching for a move.

When searching for the best available talent for a vacancy, it therefore makes sense to be fishing from both ponds, rather than just posting an advert online and hoping that the best candidate will fall within the 20%. Another widely held view is that the 80% contains a higher proportion of quality candidates – those who are most effective in their given role, and are therefore well rewarded and happier in their existing employment.

All common sense so far, but when it comes to actually engaging with ‘passive talent’ many employers fail to adapt their communications and interview questions accordingly to reflect the fact that they are the pursuers and not vice versa - as highlighted so well in the Tweet above. Incidentally, accordingly to her Twitter bio, Amybeth is a 'Senior Talent Sourcer' for Microsoft in the US - a business and brand which I'm sure doesn't exactly struggle to attract potential hires.

These candidates do not expect to answer why they want to work for your organisation or why they want to leave their current employer (certainly at first stage interview). They might not want to do either…  yet!

They must have some level of interest to have made it through to interview, but there is still work to be done to move them from being merely interested on an exploratory level to being prepared to leave a job they were otherwise happy in to join your firm.

If the individual has been introduced via a recruiter/head-hunter you have an advantage. The recruiter should be able to provide more information on what makes the applicant tick – what would appeal to them, and what their current position might lack.

Things to consider:

·   

    Standard interview questions: do these need adapting? Instead of ‘Why do you want to work for us?’, how about: ‘What would you be looking for from an organisation if you were to move from your current employer?’

·   The interview process: does the direct line manager typically get involved at first stage interview? If not, this needs to change. The candidate will want to see who they would be working for if they’re to take the process any further. Could you also bring in someone who would work in the team alongside the individual, who can champion the business to them on  a peer-to-peer level?

·   Selling the opportunity: have the interviewers been briefed on how to sell the company and the opportunity they can offer? Do they all know there is more of a need to do so?

In summary, I’m not suggesting you should have to jump through hoops to entice someone to your organisation, but by recognising an individual is already content in their current position and making a few tweaks accordingly to the interview process, you are more likely to secure the best available talent for your business when the opportunity arises.

Do you have any tips/advice for employers looking to attract passive talent? Or any related experience you’d like to share. If so, please add to the comments below…

#AskBalance - Career Advice for accountancy and finance

Back in April, we started a new 'ask the expert'-style feature at Balance Recruitment - #AskBalance

First up as our resident expert was Tony Vickers. Tony heads up our accounting division recruiting in to Commerce & Industry. He has this year been crowned 'Best Permanent Consultant' at the Global Recruiters Awards, and 'Recruiter of the Year' in the Recruiter Awards for Excellence.

See below one of the questions answered by Tony, and click here to see the full feature. 


I'm a qualified accountant looking for my first role in industry.  What are my options?

Completing your accountancy training in practice is a solid grounding for a move into industry.  Whether you qualify as an ACCA or ACA or in a small, mid tier or top 4 practice; there are plenty of options for you.  The most common move for someone at a newly qualified level would be to take a role either in internal audit, group finance or financial accounting.  It is less common for newly qualified accountants to take a first step into a commercial/analytical role which tend come once you have cut your teeth in industry in a more traditional accounting role.  Generally those FTSE 250 businesses tend to favor people with a ‘top 4’ background however this is not always the case with those training in a smaller firm tending to gain a greater breadth of experience which is valued.

Salary Expectations - how do you know what to aim for?

Having recently compiled data from across the UK for a salary survey we conducted in our Legal Accounts division (results to be published on our website in July if you’re interested!), it got me thinking about how it will affect people’s expectations of their worth. And by “worth”, I’m talking specifically about the basic salary they are paid by their employer to do the job they do.

A common mistake I see people making is relying purely on one source of information and believing that to be sufficient evidence. I do hope that our salary survey will prove to be a useful, accurate measure for employers and employees alike, but it should only be viewed as guidance. For example: the level of responsibility and day to day duties of a Management Accountant can differ widely from one firm to another, so going by a job title on a salary survey alone is not sufficient.

Another source of information that often misleads us is job vacancies. An individual might read through a job advert, mentally tick off all the duties and reach the conclusion they should therefore expect to be paid the top end of the salary bracket. Securing interviews for these positions will provide even stronger evidence that this is achievable. Of course, on some occasions this will indeed be the case, but if you’re only reaching interview stages and not securing offers, it may suggest otherwise.  

As a recruiter working in a very niche market for many years, I like to think I have a pretty accurate view of what is an achievable salary expectation from those I meet with, and when conducting interviews with jobseekers, it’s an important part of the registration process to ensure that expectations are realistic, which from time to time does involve bursting a few balloons.

Naturally, I don’t expect everyone to take my views as gospel (I’d like it, but I don’t expect it), but you can generally rely on experienced recruiters to have a good understanding of what would constitute a reasonable expectation. It’s sensible to look out for relevant salary surveys and vacancy adverts to see what might be achievable, but be wary of placing too high an emphasis on them as you might find you’re pricing yourself out of being considered for good opportunities.

Managing salary expectations in the hiring process

In the increasingly competitive “war for talent” we are experiencing in the world of recruitment these days, you’d be forgiven for being a little surprised to hear that there are employers who will go through a lengthy application and interview process and then knowingly offer their preferred candidate a salary lower than the figure they’re looking for.

Certainly it comes as a surprise to the candidate, and not a nice one. We’ve experienced it on a couple of occasions recently despite making the individual’s salary expectations explicitly clear from the outset when making the initial introduction.

It’s understandable that the employer ultimately makes the decision on how much they feel each individual is “worth” in relation to an opportunity within their business, but if there is a difference between the salary expectation of the candidate and the employers’ valuation of their skills and experience, this really should be addressed as early as possible in the hiring process to save wasted time and to improve the chances of securing the desired individual.

If it’s not dealt with until the point of offer, the underlying message sent to the jobseeker is: “we think you’re good, but not as good as you think you are” and all the faith and buy-in that has been built up during the interview process is immediately put at risk. The jobseeker, believing they’d gone through this process with their minimum expectations established, may feel undervalued and misled. There’s a high chance they’ll decline the offer and walk away from the process with a very low impression of the firm employer brand.

Managed properly this can be avoided:

• If a candidate’s salary expectation is above the level the employer is prepared to go, they shouldn’t be entering the interview process, unless it’s made clear to them that they are asking for a salary above budget and would need to lower their expectation. They may choose to walk away, but better that happen  earlier rather than later in the process.

• If the candidate is within budget range but they are pricing themselves out of the running by asking for a higher salary level than other comparable applicants in process, this should be addressed. They may not be aware they are asking for a salary level above market rate and may just need their expectations managed before reaching the end of the process.

These conversations can easily be held by recruiters who ultimately want to assist all parties in reaching a successful conclusion to the process. They should also be able to help in identifying early on if a difference in salary expectation is likely to be a deal-breaker or something that can be managed.

“Oh and one more thing; we need CV’s by 16:00 today”

Some blogs just write themselves...

Ask Balance

Do you have any questions you'd like answered in relation to recruitment, interviews or a career in accountancy?

We've launched an 'Ask Balance' feature over on the Balance Recruitment website this week, and my colleague Tony Vickers is first up in the chair. Tony has been recruiting for finance and accountancy staff in London for over 10 years, working with some of the worlds best known brands across a variety of sectors. 

He has been shortlisted for the 'Agency Recruiter of the Year' Award at this years Recruiter Awards for Excellence, and is eager to take your questions. 

Get involved here: #AskBalance

Job Boards and the battle for quantity over quality...

With the threat of social media networks moving in on their territory, job boards have had to work a little harder recently to convince their clients (e.g. recruiters and direct employers) that their services are still as valuable as ever and that their well established business models can withstand the threat posed by LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook.

This is most notably evident through the significant increase on advertising spend to increase the number of job seekers registering on their sites. The campaigns seem to be working, with a number of job boards boasting record traffic statistics.

So what does this mean for the clients who advertise vacancies on their sites? Does it improve their chances of finding the best candidates? Possibly. Does it mean they will receive more applications? Certainly. Does it mean they’ll spend more time filtering out irrelevant applicants? Definitely. Quantity is assured, quality isn’t.

One job board even seems to actively promote the ‘spray and pray’ method of searching for work in their TV campaign, implying that a wholesale change in career profession is achieved as simply as sending your CV off for something that catches your interest!

Ask any recruiter what they dislike about using job boards and they’ll all tell you the same thing; too many irrelevant applications. Job board users can send their CV’s to countless vacancies in no time, regardless if they do not have the experience requested in the vacancy advert.  Very few recruiters will tell you they just want even more applications.

There is also a logical argument to say that this focus on volume has a negative impact on the job seekers who use the job boards in the manner intended. Relevant applicants will inevitably get overlooked from time to time when their CV’s are buried in amongst hundreds of irrelevant applications.

So what do I think job boards could do to improve their services? Here are a few suggestions:

·         If a job seeker is applying for a very wide range of different role types, at salary levels that indicate a reasonable level of previous experience might required, send a ‘yellow card’ email, asking them to be more realistic with their applications, or face restrictions on the number of applications they can make.

·         Limit the number of applications job seekers can make daily. This might be a bit extreme, but it would encourage job seekers to spend more time reading through adverts to see if they have a realistic chance of being considered.

·         Universal use of filtering questions. Some job boards have this feature, but couldn’t they all allow the advertisers to pose some yes/no experience questions that filter out unsuccessful applicants?

·         Require more information to be entered manually by the job seeker for each application (to reduce spamming). Adding a layer of process in to the application process will take more effort on the job seekers part. Perhaps allow the vacancy advertiser the option to add a specific question field, relating to the advert (e.g. ‘please describe your involvement in a systems upgrade project’).

So when I receive a promotional email from a job board telling me that their new TV advertising campaign is about to start, I now find my finger pressing the delete button before I’ve reached the end of the first sentence.

What do you think of the above suggestions? Would they improve service for you as a recruiter/hiring manager? Or would they be too restrictive as a job seeker? Or have you got any better suggestions? Please comment below…

LinkedIn's Endorsements feature - users will decide its fate...

I’ve read a number of articles/blogs recently discussing the pros and cons of the Endorsements feature on Linkedin, so I thought I’d throw my opinion in to the ring.

The theory behind its introduction makes sense to me. It’s a quick and easy way to publicly verify the skills and expertise of a contact you’ve worked with or done business with. Not as personal and informative as a written recommendation, but still a testimonial of sorts and one we’re all grateful to receive when it’s from someone we know.

One of the major problems is how the feature is promoted on the site. Linkedin have made it too quick and easy to endorse multiple contacts with one mouse click when prompted.  This significantly dilutes the credibility of the function and actively encourages users to endorse their connections for skills and expertise they may not possess.

Another big argument from the doubters is that they’re receiving endorsements from people they’ve never even met or had business dealings with. In the article:  Why I Think LinkedIn Endorsements Will Be Dead By The End Of The Year the author states that he’s had five endorsements that very day from complete strangers, and as a result feels the feature is doomed to fail.

This is where there seems to be some misguided criticism of the feature in my opinion. Only first tier connections can endorse you, so if you don’t want to give strangers the ability to endorse you, don’t connect with them in the first place. Linkedin can’t be held accountable for being unable to distinguish between your real life connections and the open networkers you connect with on the site to build a bigger network. *I’ve literally just had a notification of an endorsement come through as I typed this (I promise!), and guess what – it’s from a stranger with ‘LION’ in their surname. I assume they’re just hoping for a reciprocal endorsement back, but it’s not going to happen.

So how can it be improved? It’s quite simple – by improving it ourselves. If everyone takes the initiative and some time out to endorse their real life contacts for the specific skills you know they possess, a much more accurate picture of an individuals expertise will eventually be reflected in the data.

The same goes for any site you use with user generated reviews and endorsements. Do you read the reviews on Amazon, ebay and TripAdvisor before making purchases/reservations for example? If you use it, get involved too. Contribute your reviews and experiences also and make it even better for everyone. The same applies to Linkedin Recommendations and Endorsements.

Procurement Guest Blog: Apples with Apples

A guest blog today from my colleague Craig Williams. Craig is a Senior Consultant within Balance Recruitment, joining us last year to set up our Procurement Division. He’s had a very hectic and successful start to life at Balance, which is covered here in his first guest blog:

Apples with Apples

Having returned from a sabbatical overseas last year – which saw me taking a cargo ship from London to Buenos Aires and from there, travelling through South America and then over to SE Asia (this time flying!) I returned to London ready to re-enter the niche recruitment sector of Procurement & Supply Chain and joined Balance to set up the division, complimenting their existing presence within accountancy & finance.

A year down the line and these are my thoughts so far…

Having once been told that Procurement, from a recruitment point of view, is relatively straight-forward and having spent a number of years recruiting for senior accounting positions in London, I was looking forward to the challenge of exploring this new and important business area, a business function rapidly coming to the fore due to the straitened times we are currently experiencing throughout the globe.

I had the benefit of already knowing a fairly large network of well regarded procurement professionals personally and through my connections in finance, all of whom were more than happy to talk through what they do – the knowledge share would cost me a glass of wine or two, though being a fan of good wine I felt that was a good exchange! One friend, when summarising what Procurement professionals actually do, rather succinctly commented that ‘…in a nutshell we compare apples with apples and we buy stuff…’.

Having dealt with finance for so long, a market well furnished with specialist recruitment consultants, I was pleasantly surprised to find that procurement professionals were much more open to spending time with me discussing their profession – being recognised as a potential supplier to an organisation certainly helped open doors during my initial few months and I quickly found myself working on several mandates for a well-known technology business. I was quickly able to fill three out of five of the roles given to me - a great boost to my confidence whilst developing my understanding of this new sector.

However, many of the roles I have subsequently been working on have been challenging and far from straight-forward! A high profile IT Category Manager position I was instructed on late last year required an extremely rare beast, though through persistent searching and networking with existing contacts, I was able to track down the elusive individual my client was hoping to find, and placed them in to an interesting ongoing interim assignment. There’s no better way to build strong relationships with clients than by placing these difficult to fill roles that other recruiters have long given up on.

Before long I was running several mandates, working with new and existing Balance Recruitment clients; for example an Interim HR/Professional Services Category Managers for a global media business – the remit being to shape their global contingent workforce, a great opportunity for the right person who would essentially be in the spotlight – not just here in London but also within their New York headquarters. I’ve also had the opportunity to partner with Global law firms, large engineering businesses and transport organisations all bringing fresh challenges and increasing my knowledge of the Procurement profession day by day. During each piece of recruitment I’ve met with some amazing practitioners along the way, building a large network of professionals across a variety of industries.

So it’s “so far so good” and I’m thoroughly enjoying my role establishing Balance as high quality recruiter for Procurement staff.

Apple anyone?

Yahoo and the flexible working debate...

Since publishing my last blog on flexible working, the topic has hit the headlines in a big way with debate raging amongst the business community on the pros & cons of working from home. I’d love to say it was my blog that triggered all this, but I suspect it may have had slightly more to do with the leaked internal memo from an HR representative at Yahoo, informing their staff that the business was putting an end to all “work from home arrangements”.  

The tone of the memo suggests that flexible working isn't working at Yahoo, and the move was to encourage greater collaboration between staff by working side by side – literally.

This bold move, driven by CEO, Marissa Mayer, has been widely criticised as being a backwards step, with accusations that Mayer is “out of touch” with the modern working demographic (not helped by reports that she paid to have a personal nursery built adjacent to her offices in order to be closer to her son).

There have subsequently been numerous blogs and articles quoting unnamed members of Yahoo staff who've said that people have indeed been abusing the system and that the move is a necessary change in culture to help weed out the slackers who are holding the business back.

(Photo by Chiot's Run)

So what will be the outcome of this change at Yahoo? There may well be an improvement in output from some of those who have slacked off when unsupervised, but are these really employees you’d want to retain in a business? If they’re just plain lazy, presumably they’ll now just take their foot off the gas at the first opportunity anyway; when their manager is away, for example. Or on lunch. Or in meetings. Are they really going to be monitored around the clock?

And what about those employees who are currently productive when working from home? Will they be even more productive in the workplace? Or will they just resent the change in circumstance and look elsewhere, to join a business that trusts them enough to allow them to retain their current working arrangements? That could signal a mass exodus of talent if so, and when hiring to replace these individuals, Yahoo is unlikely to appeal to those looking for a degree of flexibility on work/life balance.

To me, a blanket ban on working from home seems a step too far. Flexible working is a privilege that requires trust between employer and employee, but managed properly it can and will work for most businesses. It may mean getting everyone together for face to face meetings on a regular basis, and there may be limitations on the percentage of time individuals can spend away from the office, but there is usually a balance that can work for all parties. And if someone just can’t motivate themselves to work from home, they should be given the opportunity to work in the office or to find work elsewhere. Why let them spoil the system for everyone else?

Flexible working - why it should be embraced

As a business owner myself, I can fully understand why the term ‘flexible working’ doesn't sit all that comfortably when raised by a prospective employee during an interview process.

Do they just want more annual leave than our current benefits package allows? Or are they planning to work from home where they might have the TV on in the background or have a cat fighting for their attention by strolling across the keyboard? 

Whatever the immediate thoughts might be, for a lot of firms and managers, they’re often negative and focus on the lack of control over productivity levels. These are of course completely valid concerns and to be fully open to flexible working, a firm will need to carry out thorough reviews on any negative impact changes could bring and to also assess what levels of flexibility they can accommodate. Dismissing it out of hand however could be equally as negative in the long run. 

The Recruitment & Employment Confederation (REC) recently carried out a Flexible Working Commission, and came to the conclusion that, although the UK already has a far more flexible workforce than our European neighbours, there is still huge opportunity to be gained from further embracing flexible working options. 

The attraction and retention of top talent will be significantly enhanced if employees have more scope to influence their work/life balance without having to move jobs to secure it. The UK is facing an emerging talent crisis and, as the ‘war for talent’ intensifies, the opportunity is there for early adopters of flexible working to steal a march on their competition.

Employee productivity levels can also be positively improved. A large scale pilot scheme by telecoms giant O2 earlier this year reportedly concluded that by offering staff the opportunity to work from home they were able to significantly improve productivity. Staff were better rested from cutting out commuting time each day and were generally happier with more time to spend with their families or to pursue leisure activities.

A common misconception is that the requirement for flexible working is almost exclusively influenced by childcare logistics. Although this is and always has been a factor, the demand is being driven by the lifestyle choices of many different groups, and does not always involve a reduction in total hours worked.

So what challenges would flexible working bring for your business? There are plenty of businesses already embracing it and others that are actively looking at how they can make it work for them. Is your firm one of them or do you feel it’s not for you? Please share your comments below.

Managing salary expectations in the hiring process

In the increasingly competitive “war for talent” we are experiencing in the world of hiring these days, you’d be forgiven for being a little surprised to hear that there are employers who will go through a lengthy application and interview process and then knowingly offer their preferred candidate a salary lower than the figure they’re looking for.

Certainly it comes as a surprise to the candidate, and not a nice one, but it happens and we’ve experienced it on a couple of occasions recently despite making the individual’s salary expectations explicitly clear from the outset when making the initial introduction.

It’s understandable that the employer ultimately makes the decision on how much they feel each individual is “worth” in relation to an opportunity within their business, but if there is a difference between the salary expectation of the candidate and the employers’ valuation of their skills and experience, this really should be addressed as early as possible in the hiring process to save wasted time and to improve the chances of securing the desired individual.

 If it’s not dealt with until the point of offer, the underlying message sent to the jobseeker is: “we think you’re good, but not as good as you think you are” and all the faith and buy-in that has been built up during the interview process is immediately put at risk. The jobseeker, believing they’d gone through this process with their minimum expectations established, can feel undervalued and at worst, misled. There’s a high chance they’ll decline the offer and walk away from the process with a very low impression of the firm employer brand. 

Managed properly this can be avoided:

• ·         If a candidate’s salary expectation is above the level the employer is prepared to go, they shouldn’t be entering the interview process, unless it’s made clear to them that they are asking for a salary above budget and would need to lower their expectation. They may choose to walk away, but better that happen now than later in the process. 

• ·         If the candidate is within budget range but they are pricing themselves out of the running by asking for a higher salary level than other comparable applicants in process, this should be addressed as soon as this becomes clear. They may not be aware they are asking for a salary level above market rate and may just need their expectations managed before reaching the end of the process.

These conversations can easily be held by recruiters who ultimately want to assist all parties in reaching a successful conclusion to the process. They should also be able to help in identifying early on if a difference in salary expectation is likely to be a deal-breaker or something that can be managed.

The urgency compromise in Recruitment/Hiring

Having had over 10 years experience of working within recruitment, I can safely say that timing is everything when it comes to a firm successfully managing a hiring process.  Unfortunately I need to add that the majority of firms fail to recognise this and demand urgency when it’s not required and then expect patience when they should be acting quickly.

The outcome can greatly impact the calibre of candidates that are put forward for vacancies by recruiters, and can lead to employers missing out on talent they were hoping to secure.

On many occasions I have been instructed with a vacancy on a Wednesday or Thursday and have been told that the hiring manager is hoping to have CV’s through by the weekend. A shortlist has been sent to the hiring manager within this timescale, but then there has been no feedback on the CV’s until later the following week, or even longer in some cases.

This to me is wasted time. If the hiring manager is prepared to wait a week before reviewing CV’s and arranging interviews, they could have allowed the recruiter another week to spend time finding the best available candidates for their shortlist. Admittedly a good recruiter will already have an existing database of jobseekers and will be able to react quickly, but a good recruiter should also be able to go to the market to find new talent who may be even closer to the requirements of the role and produce a definitive shortlist at the end of this process.

A good proportion of the vacancies we have filled within my business have been with applicants who were not actively looking for their next move at the time. Having been approached and briefed about a suitable role however, they have considered the opportunity, met with us to discuss it in more detail and have gone ahead with an application. This process can rarely happen within 24-48 hours and rushing to receive CV’s will therefore rule out the largest potential candidate market available; those who aren’t actively looking (yet!).

There is also a high chance of missing out on candidates altogether when encouraging recruiters to send through only readily available applicants and then taking too long before reviewing CV’s. These candidates are likely to be very active in their job search and, even if they are still available a week or two down the line, they may not want to arrange further interviews if they’re already progressing to final stages elsewhere. This can put a supposedly “urgent” process back to the drawing board two to three weeks after it started.

The recruitment process rarely runs completely smoothly as there are too many variables affecting the outcome and causing delays. The whole process is generally a task that needs to be completed in addition to the hiring manager’s already busy workload. It’s therefore extremely important to put in place a realistic timetable for the recruitment process, and if you want to attract the best talent for your firm it may be worth allowing a little more time for a thorough search to be carried out before asking to review CV’s from a recruiter.

If you've enjoyed this blog, please do share any comments/views/experiences you've had in relation to this topic below. 

Is January a good time to search for a new job?

There’s a simple answer to this question: Yes

However, there’s also a longer answer which is: Yes, and so is February, March, April etc… through to (and including) December

Common belief is that the best time of year to be looking for a new job is after the New Year, when people have resolutions to uphold and the job market kicks off after a lull. ‘New Year, New Career’ is a corny cliché that will be trumpeted by recruiters up and down the land in January. I’d agree that this is definitely a good time to look, but in reality, with the exception of the week either side of Christmas, I don’t believe there’s ever really a bad time to be looking.

There will be some disciplines and industries that have well defined seasonal peaks and troughs, but if you work in a core business support or operational function such as Accounting, Marketing, HR, IT or suchlike, the majority of employers manage to keep you busy all year round, and therefore if you decide to find a new job elsewhere, to immigrate or retire, they’re going to need to replace you fairly quickly.

In a niche market, certain roles will from time to time have unpredictable surges of activity in the job market. For example, if just two or three Chief Legal Cashier vacancies arise in close proximity, this area will likely see a flurry of activity for a few months whilst people move around the industry leaving vacancies behind them. This could happen at any time during the year.

Generally, if you have reached the point where you feel you need to start looking for new opportunities, right then is your best time to start the search, regardless of what month we are in. Your ideal next job can arise at any given time, but if you’re not looking because you’re waiting for a perceived busy period, you might never even know about it.  Even better still is to establish contact with an experienced recruiter who knows your specialist area and who can help to identify your next step on the career ladder even before you've started to look.

Do you agree, or do your experiences suggest otherwise? Please share your comments below.