A graduate’s first job – who benefits most?

Welcome to this week’sDiscuss HR, the HR blog written by members of Human Resources UK.

Well this week the grouphas been discussing HR like no other week. Today’s article comes hot on the heels of yesterday’s networking eventsin London and Bristol and will shortly be followed by tonight’s event inBirmingham. By the end of today over 100 of our members will have met! So,thank you to all of you who attended.

Today’s article is anexceptionally relevant piece due to the current state of the recruitmentmarket.  It is rare that a week goes bywithout further figures highlighting the poor state of the graduate recruitmentmarket.  Today experienced career coachand engagement specialist Paul Goring looks at who is the main beneficiary of agraduate job; the graduate or the employer? (Ed Scrivener)

A graduate’s first job –who benefits most?

So, the recession is badfor the graduate job market we hear; less jobs than ever before (AGR survey2010 says vacancies down by 25%), the average salary seems to have been stuckat £25,000 for a couple of years and the number of graduates competing for eachjob is rising all of the time.

Student debt is puttingincreasing pressure on salary expectations and job security concerns mean thateven where graduates are in work the majority constantly looking for the nextstep in their careers (70% in a recent US survey). We are constantly having ourheart strings tugged by the media and student bodies about how tough it is outthere for new graduates but perhaps we should take some time to ask thecritical question; what about the poor old employers? Admittedly being joblessand having high turnover and poor ROI are very different problems.

I have recruited in the UKand Europe for global financial services and FMCG businesses and graduaterecruitment remains, in my opinion, the toughest recruitment decision toconsistently get right. Why? Well, because in my view, UK graduate candidatesparticularly are still demonstrably undercooked in terms of their employabilityskills and their aspirations.   Also, training demands are typicallyGeneration Y and their global career mobility means picking and keeping theright candidate is getting tougher and tougher.

When recruiting a graduate,one has comparably the least amount of tangible evidence to go on, especiallywhere the essential work experience bit is missing. Plus, one often faces acandidate across the interview table / room who, more often than not, does notreally know what you want, or how to show you that they have it....

Hired 1,200 graduates recently

The large recruiters ofgraduate talent compete, as they always have done, for the top talent with suitablylarge budgets.  They have well grooved employer brand,attraction, selection and retention strategy and are prepared to lose candidatesalong the way to get the people their business needs. The big players know thatthere will be wastage along the way and that their ROI calculation is based onthe number that stay, move into senior roles and thrive. 

My concern is for thesmaller, less frequent, graduate recruiters. If you want to recruit say 1-5graduates a year, if you have a fixed small budget and you are not in The TimesTop 100 Graduate Employers, how do you start and how do you expect to retainyour talent and is it all worth it?

Making an impact with themost brand savvy generation that has ever lived is tough.  Some companies, through genius advertising(Prêt a Manger a few years back) or quirky careers fair strategies, make theconnection but it is really tough to pre-empt and positively answer thequestion ‘who?’ when graduates see your vacancies. Perhaps the brand of theemployer is just as crucial as phone, shoes, clothes and car? 

The relationship betweenrecruiter (employer) and graduate employee has evolved at an alarming pace overthe past 10 years. Just as there is an ongoing desire to achieve the strongestA Level (Highers) results and Degree classification possible, it seems that thefight is now on to obtain employment with the most creditable blue chip companyor household brand company, as quickly as possible, since that seems to bewhere the superficial career kudos lies. The loyalty factor to the firstemployer is receding at a rate which must make the employers question theirexpenditure and look closely at their ROI.

Creating a talentpipe-line is, of course, completely necessary when any business looks at theirstaff demographics, age top heavy senior positions and lowering retirement ages.  But there is no point having a talentpipeline if the talent never reaches its destination or if the pipe-linesprings a leak – that can be an expensive business!

Asking the question ‘whydo we recruit graduates?’ is, I think, key. Taking first job graduates is abrave move.  Yes, you get raw talent and,increasingly, the pick of a very big pool of talent but what do you actually getlong-term from that strategic decision?

I worked for an SME in the90’s and in a conversation with one of the senior managers, in my recruitmentcapacity, I questioned the suitability of a graduate scheme of 12-14 graduatesa year for a company of our size (800/850 staff). His view was simple, pointingat one of the rising stars of the business who was walking across the office,he said, ‘if we have to select, recruit, train, develop and lose 13 of the 14graduates we take on over a two year cycle, if he is the one that we keep and hemakes it, then it is worth it.’

That example comparesneatly, for me, with the emphasis on the ‘what do we get’ review of graduaterecruitment that is now more prevalent especially with many businesses feelingthe pinch of the recession and where every penny being spent is scrutinisedendlessly. Businesses simply can no longer afford to bring in 15 to get onestar and, in fact, more have to realise some tangible return beyond aspeculative investment.

Given the combination of alow retention rate, high training costs, high career aspiration levels andsalary needs, the temptation must be to sit tight and recruit second jobbersonce they have more skills, career focus and sector stability?  But their income expectations will, of course,be higher, there will no doubt be agency costs and no guarantee that you willkeep them.  Every choice seems to be atough one. 

Ernie, the fastest recruiter in the west

I guess that we are allused to the budget review process that inevitably makes us question ourstrategies, results and whether the metrics we employ to measure successactually gives us more than a simple set of statistics.  We are, as recruiters, resourcers and HRprofessionals forced to reflect on the way that we do things and question ifthere is another way and, as a result, I think increasingly the graduate marketis becoming a different place. 

Perhaps the next keyquestion is what do we want / need to get from our graduates and what do theyexpect / need to get from us? I regularly lecture at my local University on theconcept of employability and graduate recruitment. One of the best ways to getto the crux of the issue quickly with the final year students who attend is towrite on the white board, ‘What do Employers Want’ and ‘What do We Want’ withreference to their careers and especially to their first graduate job, then askingthem to construct the two lists.

When, at the end of the session,the group realises, often with great surprise and concern, that few if any ofthe entries appear on both lists, they then know that we/they have a problem.  Perhaps some of us as graduate recruiters /employers should do the same exercise to hammer home the reality of the situation. If one party wants marriage and theother a short fling, someone will get hurt.

There used to be a realcache about having a graduate scheme and many employers in the 80’s and 90’sfenced off budget, invested in elaborate training programmes and involvedsenior management figures to help nurture the talent but it seems, from where Isit, that the market is now very much bipartite.

The elite employers andstudents continue with their courtship but the rest of the market are having tofocus much more on matching not just skills and potential but also price, askingthemselves ‘how much to train and retain’ and then crucially ‘is it worth it?’

About the author

Paul was the Recruitment Manager at EndsleighInsurance until 2007 when he moved to Paris for two years and became theexternal consultant on AXA Insurances' Global Talent Acquisition StrategyReview Team which led to extensive Generation Y, Employer Brand, candidateengagement and career event research across Europe. In 2009 Paul returned tothe UK and founded Consortio Recruitment Solutions Limited, which he is atpains to emphasise is not an agency! Primarily they are focused onhelping businesses find and keep talented people through process review,employer branding focus and management skills training. Consortio are alsoactive in the FE and HE market, helping improve student employabilityskills. Paul also heads up another business, The Brand Button, this is aworkshop & training based business focusing on personal, business andcareer development through personal branding. Paul is a member of theAssociation of Graduate Recruiters, the Institute of Recruitment Professionalsand is also qualified with the British Psychological Society to Level B int.

Blog | Email | LinkedIn | Twitter | Website

*****

DiscussHR is the blog for Human Resources UK, the leading LinkedIngroup for those involved with HR in the UK. Next week’s Discuss HR will be published on Thursday 6^thOctober and will be written by Leadership Coach Dorothy Nesbitt.

Accountability: are we getting it right?

Welcome to this week’s Discuss HR.

Today thousands of teenagers have been put out of their misery.  Unfortunately Jedward haven’t retired, but the latest A level results have been published with many attending University and hopefully being the next generation of HR – for those that didn’t get the results they wished a career in recruitment is always an option!  In recent weeks we have seen the darker side of a very small section of teenagers (and more besides) and numerous debates have arisen as to who is accountable.  Today Dorothy Nesbit looks at accountability in both social and HR contexts.  (Ed Scrivener)

Accountability:  are we getting it right?

A similar site recently greeted Dorothy

On Monday evening, 8^th August I was at home in a quiet side-road in the suburbs of South East London when I became aware that there were far more people on the pavements than I am used to seeing.  Looking down the street towards the Shopping Centre (which is just two minutes walk away) I was shocked to see a line of police officers carrying riot shields.  I watched the scenes that unfolded, which culminated in two cars being set alight before the young men and women involved moved on.

The implications for the organisations we work for have, without doubt, been significant.  A variety of organisations (magistrates’ courts, prisons, the police etc.) have played a very direct role in restoring law and order.  Retailers have been coping with damage to their property as well as the cost of stolen goods.  Diverse employers have had to make decisions about employees who have been identified as participants in the riots.

The rhetoric of politicians has been predictable.  Prime Minister David Cameron, following his first emergency meeting, was quick to condemn the acts of rioters, setting up a moral dichotomy between the bad guys and the good guys (those who took part in the riots and those who were in some way affected by their actions or involved in responding to them).  Having quickly coined the term “broken Britain” he laid out plans on Monday to “turn around the lives of the 120,000 most troubled families” by the next election.  As well as recognising the direct impact on many organisations of last week’s riots I invite you to consider what politicians’ responses tell us about the dos and don’ts of accountability.

Accountability is a tricky term, with multiple meanings and applications.  The banking crisis in 2008 highlighted questions of accountability between organisations – the banks to governments, for example, and governments to their electorate.  Within organisations, it raised questions of who is accountable to whom – and how to hold people to account.  When we get accountability wrong, we mask the problems of our organisations even whilst appearing to take action.  This is the “sound and fury” approach to accountability, characterised by vociferous complaints and maybe even decisive action – without ever taking long enough to get to the root causes of a problem or issue.  It has its benefits – at least on the surface:  in particular, it can protect an organisation’s leaders from the pain and vulnerability that comes with owning their mistakes.

When we get it right, something deeper and more lasting occurs.  Accountability is no longer a matter of blame and condemnation when something goes wrong.  It is an ongoing dialogue between parties (a manager and employee, one team and another, or members of the Board) about desired aims and outcomes, who will do what and when in order to move towards those desired outcomes, what’s working and what’s not working and what needs to happen next.  In an accountable organisation, for example, feedback at annual appraisal time comes as no surprise and is openly shared as the basis of a discussion, rather than given under the cover of anonymity as a stick used to beat the unsuspecting employee.

It seems to me that there is a paradox at work at the heart of every effective system of accountability.  When we strip out blame we create the opportunity for a deeper and more productive mutual dialogue because we make it safe to be “in the wrong”.  At the same time, in a true system of accountability, each party knows that it may be them who has the hardest lessons to learn.  By creating safety for everyone involved we make it possible to engage in the very depth of the dialogue needed to hold people to account.  In other words, true accountability is safe – but not the easy option.

If our country’s politicians act with wisdom in their response to the recent riots, they will understand that the louder the sound and fury, the more key people are likely to be let off the hook.  I hope they will take time to investigate the complex factors which, together, stimulated the riots and to take the most difficult learning for themselves as well as to mete out justice to others.  Closer to home I wonder, how has your business been affected by the riots?  What do you see as the key lessons in organisations if they want, truly, to create effective systems of accountability?  And what is the role of HR in facilitating accountability in their organisations?

About the author

Dorothy Nesbit, Leadership Coach, unleashes innate leadership potential through powerful, compassionate and authentic relationships.
Blog | Email | LinkedIn | Twitter | Website

*****

Discuss HR is the blog for Human Resources UK, the leading LinkedIn group for those involved with HR in the UK.  Next week’s Discuss HR will be published on Thursday 25^th August and will be written by HR Consultant John Hepworth.

Do we expect too much from our line managers?

Welcome to this week’s Discuss HR.

We are delighted to welcome Janice Caplan today as our latest guest writer.  Janice is an expert on all things talent management and is the author of “The Value of Talent: Promoting talent across the organization” (Ed Scrivener)

Do we expect too much from our line managers?

The thing about clichés is that there is often an underlying truth to them; so people really are a company’s greatest asset and people management really is a critical part of the line manager’s role. These two observations are now clichés because they are self-evident and don’t say enough to be interesting; after all, a manager is employed to direct the work of a group of people.

However, it is interesting to find how important the relationship is that lies behind just managing people. CIPD commissioned research from Bath University[1] to assess the changing role of the line manager. Initial findings showed employees who feel positive about their relationship with their line manager are more likely to have higher levels of job satisfaction, commitment and loyalty – which are in turn associated with higher levels of discretionary behaviour and with higher performance. Discretionary behaviour is defined as that which goes beyond the requirements of the job to give the extra performance that can boost ‘the bottom line’.

In spite of this, only 22% of the 760 respondents to the ACE International HR Barometer 2011 are confident that their line managers own their people management responsibilities.[2]

But what do line managers have to do to raise levels of performance? To answer this, let us turn the question around to look at it from the employee’s perspective.

We all have two main needs that are fundamental to our relationship with our employer; these are meaningful conversations, and meaningful opportunity.

Meaningful conversations address the four questions that everyone needs answering: how am I doing? What happens next? How will I get there? How will I be rewarded?

Meaningful opportunity relates to the experience necessary to develop your capabilities.

For some people, meaningful opportunity means ambition, promotion and development opportunities that will move them towards their long-term aspirations. These people may include future leaders or those who can take on critical roles. But most organisations will also have people who carry out essential tasks but who do not want to be promoted: they are happy where they are. They too need and deserve development and are important to the business. Their line managers must encourage them, coach them and provide them with opportunities to remain up-to-date, to perform tasks better and to adapt to change: no job stays the same for long.

This idea of meaningful opportunity takes us on to two great organisational myths that line managers hold to, and that need to be dispelled. One is that learning and development is all about training while the other, addressed above, is that a career is only about promotion.

There is still a tendency to view learning and development as being about going on a training course; and managers also tend to view development as training that helps the person improve their current performance. Both of these ideas are wrong or, at best, severely limited. In fact, 70% of learning and development comes from work experience and only 10% from training. But, for someone to gain new skills and behaviours from their work experience, they need to be given appropriate work to challenge and stretch them, accompanied by support and guidance to perform the new tasks successfully, and the space and support to be able to reflect on what they’ve learned.

In order to have these conversations the line manager has a responsibility to set standards of performance and assess if these have been met. If you are to achieve high performance throughout your organisation, it is vital that line managers can differentiate between high and satisfactory performance. High performers want recognition; satisfactory performers need feedback to help them raise performance. When managers clearly and consistently recognise standards of performance, this raises performance generally, and makes poor performance more easily recognisable and dealt with.

This all places a significant workload and responsibility on the line manager. But whereas in hierarchical organisations employing command and control management, line managers had clear responsibilities for their direct reports and closely supervised their work, now their role is more complex, with wider spans of control. They often understand less of the detail of what their people do. Moreover, those people increasingly work in virtual, global teams, matrix structures, flat hierarchies, or in different project teams. In this new world of lighter touch, direct contact is less frequent.

So there is a conflict between employees need for meaningful conversations and meaningful opportunity, on the one hand, and line managers being overloaded with chores, inadequately supported and often displaced from close contact on the other. Can we reconcile this conflict? There is no one answer to fit every situation, but there are three basic rules of thumb.

The first is that everyone must have a clearly designated line manager who has ownership and accountability for their performance, reward and career. Failure to do this leads to poor motivation, and eventually to the person leaving because they have not been given sufficient opportunity.

The second is that management of people must be a shared process. The line manager retains ownership and accountability but may manage the input of several people into reviewing performance, or deciding on the next move. This may be achieved through regular meetings to share information about people, roles, performance, and aspirations. In global businesses, conference calls and online meetings may have to substitute. However achieved, such coordination is essential if the organisation is to achieve the rapid talent mobility that is needed in our fast-moving world.

The third is that HR must support the line manager. This is through providing backup to deal with poor performers, assistance with development of interpersonal and coaching skills, and backup to deal with high performers, and those with high aspirations. On this latter point, HR with its wider view of the organisation is best placed to ensure appropriate, organisation-wide opportunities are opened to those who want them, and merit them. Line manager assessment and development should be focused on meaningful conversations, meaningful opportunity, and the differentiation between high and satisfactory performance.

Overlaying these issues is the problem of messages communicated through the reality of the pay system conflicting with those contained in talent management and in learning and development programmes. In other words, the organisation is paying for one thing, but hoping for another and, through the confusion and lack of clarity, probably getting something else again. Consider this example[3]: a professional services firm found that the behaviours their pay and promotion system encouraged, focused line managers’ efforts on revenue and client relationships, at the expense of good people management. This was creating dissatisfaction amongst their staff, which led to higher than desired staff turnover, and was impacting adversely on client service. Training and communications programmes aimed at driving better people management were failing because the messages of the reward programmes won through. An effort to align the reward system with the talent management messages turned this situation around and resulted in better bottom line business performance. Perhaps I should rephrase and repeat that sentence – HR created higher profits for the business.

I find that few organisations have really changed their infrastructure to meet the changing role of the line manager in our new world organisation. We need to put in place structures, processes and training that recognise that line management is not the one-on-one, linear relationship it used to be, and as a result demands a much higher level of relationship management, between managers and their people, and between managers about their people. At the same time we must focus on what matters. Time and again, I come across line managers groaning under the weight of appraisal forms, procedures manuals, recruitment requisitions, absence records, etcetera. I find them having to deal with someone’s disappointment, or anger about a pay award over which they had no input. Recently, in one organisation, several directors showed me filing cabinets full of 360-degree reviews about which they had never had feedback or support. I could go on. These are processes for HR, not for line managers. Scrap them, or redesign them all around just one criterion:

…will this help line managers have meaningful conversations and open meaningful opportunity?

This will focus line managers on what matters, so that we can then expect more from them.

About the author

Janice Caplan: Founding Partner The Scala Group, author of “The Value of Talent: Promoting Talent Management Across the Organization, Kogan Page 2011. Scala works in a strategic alliance with Salans LLP Employment Law Group, and Higher Talent Executive Search to provide a full, ‘joined-up’ HR advisory service.

*****

Discuss HR is the blog for Human Resources UK, the leading LinkedIn group for those involved with HR in the UK.  Next week’s Discuss HR will be published on Thursday 18^th August and will be written by Leadership Coach Dorothy Nesbitt.

---

[1] HUTCHINSON, S. and PURCELL, J. (2003) Bringing policies to life: the vital role of front line managers in people management. Executive briefing. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. 

[2] ACE International HR Barometer run in UK by The Scala Group, and supported by Salans LLP Employment Law Group, and Higher Talent. Executive Summary available from www.thescalagroup.co.uk

[3] The Value of Talent: Promoting Talent Management Across the Organization, Caplan, J, Kogan Page 2011.