Part of the Equalities act which came into force last year is that it is now possible to use positive action at the point of selection in a recruitment process.  On a practical level this means if there are two equally qualified people at the end of the recruitment process, then it is lawful to choose one over the other, if they are from an under represented group. There is a great article by Emma Bartlett explaining this in detail http://www.recruiter.co.uk/positive-action-in-recruitment/1009192.article

This is a key step in encouraging a more diverse workforce, although has inevitably caused strong feelings both for and against.

The “pointless legislation” group see this as over complicated and even “unfair”, as in their eyes it potentially discriminates against groups who are not under-represented eg white males. But surely this is missing the point? It is easy to bemoan anti discrimination legislation when you have not experienced what it is like to be part of a minority group.

If we had a situation where all recruitment was done on merit then we wouldn’t need such legislation – but we don’t!

Even now we come across managers, who ask at interview whether a woman intends to have children, businesses who ask what a candidate’s parents do for a living and we even see interview notes making inappropriate comments about why someone should be hired or not hired – often based on looks or perceived sexual orientation.

We need legislation to drive a change in behaviour and anything that makes our business world fairer is surely worthwhile?

I have recently been in the fortunate position of being able to recruit two new members of staff for my small organisation. I have been struck yet again by just how important the right recruitment and selection process is – get it right and you will reap returns far in excess of the financial investment you make, but get it wrong and it can be an expensive and time consuming mistake.

For both roles we received a large number of applications, so using a clear and specific person specification as my criteria to score against was key. I was disappointed at how many of the applicants failed to describe how they met the specification, but fortunately I had more than enough good candidates to interview, so I looked for the ones that also had some added value to give to the organisation and my team. Those were the ones that I wanted to see in person.

The interview itself was vital in testing the candidates to see how well they could evidence, with practical examples, the statements on their application form. It was also a chance to see characteristics that cannot readily be demonstrated on paper – enthusiasm, aptitude and flexibility. I needed to give careful thought to my questions, in order to give the candidates a fair chance to demonstrate the qualities I was looking for. I also never interview alone, preferring to have one or two colleagues who may look at the candidates from a different perspective.

In both processes, we were faced with a difficult decision between two strong candidates. This is where understanding the added value that candidates can bring, together with the ‘fit’ with the philosophies and values of the organisation, helped to steer us towards our final choice.

So, I now have two new members of staff to induct and that gives me a sense of anticipation and enthusiasm. There are no guarantees that I have got it right – that’s where making the best use of the probation period comes in – but I do know that I have done everything I can to make the recruitment and selection process a success.

Thank goodness for people like Mark Staniland, Director of Hays careers transition service!  He has challenged people in the private sector who hold the view that those with a public sector background can’t make the transition to the private sector.  I agree entirely with his comment that this is “stereotypical and old fashioned”. 

For sure there will be some people who struggle with such a move, but there are also plenty of people in the private sector who do not have the qualities or skills to succeed in public sector life. 

I would like to think I am one of those people who have made the transition successfully and now enjoy my role as a Director in a privately owned consultancy, working across private, public and not for profit sectors.  After fifteen years in the public sector, I will admit to initially being highly motivated by how quickly decisions could be made in the private sector and turned into actions without lots of laborious red tape.  But that excitement soon turned to consternation, as I was regularly seeing private sector businesses making huge and costly mistakes, because they hadn’t thought things through properly.  I am not saying this never happens in the public sector (as that would be stereotyping!) but it certainly happens less.  

If only both sectors could get the right balance; being able to blend the often entrepreneurial and creative style found in the private sector with the measured thoughtfulness the public sector approach can bring. 

Worryingly, a survey published last month by the Financial Times and Barclays Corporate showed that 52% of private sector companies in the UK said they were are not interested in hiring people, who have lost their jobs in the public sector.

This is such stereotypical and outdated thinking – surely each candidate should be judged on their own merits, regardless of background? I bet the companies surveyed all have Recruitment & Selection policies that talk about not pre-judging candidates too...

Make sure you don’t fall into the trap of pre judging – you may end up missing out…

I was about to have a rant about The Apprentice’s penultimate episode – the interviews - when I read the article by Emma Haslett in Management Today which summed it all up very succinctly! http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/bulletin/mtdailybulletin/article/1047032/the-apprentice-interview-round-smell-rat/

The episode did make good telly, but was a million miles away from good, fair interviewing. Interviewing should be about getting the best from someone, not playing power games and trying to trip candidates up. I really thought those techniques had gone out with the 80’s!

Alan Sugar should be holding himself up as a role model for aspiring business people and setting high standards for people to strive for.
But the way Claude Littner and co interviewed was aggressive and highly subjective, with no level playing field from which to evaluate candidates.

If in any doubt, best practice interviewing should

• Be a two way process – the candidate is making a decision about your organisation as much as you are about them
• Be objective and fair – not a bit of a chat, where the interviewer chucks in a few favourite questions and then decides if you “fit” or not (for “fit” usually read “are a clone of what already exists in the team” or “you like the same football team as the interviewer”)
• Use a clear person spec to measure candidate’s suitability against
• Use questions that test a candidates’ suitability against the agreed person spec – and avoid asking about things that have no bearing on the candidate’s ability to do the job  (how confident are you and your team about the implications of the Equalities Act for example?)
• Use opening questions that are the same for each candidate – to give that level playing field

As we head into 2011 and the war for talent continues to be waged across every sector, this would be a good time to review your managers’ interviewing skills and ensure that yours is a truly fair and objective process that gets you the best candidates … and not “just a chat” or a chance to play “good cop bad cop”!