It was a good one this week, with the gobby Melissa Cohen finally getting her comeuppance and hearing those famous dreaded words... "You're Fired!" Frankly, I thought she was so utterly horrible in last week's episode that I was hoping her team would fail so that I would have the pleasure of seeing her fired, but - somehow - she managed to grab victory and so my plans were thwarted for another seven days. Her performance this week, for a self-acclaimed pitching master, was dismal, finally leading to her departure from the show. So what did we learn about Melissa? That she liked to boast, and claim her prowess in an area that she obviously couldn't - and didn't - deliver on? Melissa learnt the hard way that she should have been able to back up her claims with action, rather than letting herself, and her team, down when it came to the crunch. One of the things to take away from this is the importance of setting expectations. If you say you can do something, whether you can or not, people will expect you to do it. If the expectation to achieve is unrealistic, you won't be meet your targets, and will disappoint those to whom you made the promise. If you set yourself, and your employer/ colleagues, realistic expectations, then you will always be able to deliver, and if you manage to exceed those targets, all the better! The thing about Melissa was that she bigged up her sales abilities so much, and had so much to prove, that when she fell flat on her face we all felt a little glow of happiness at her misfortune. Her braggishness wasn't helped any by her personality flaws, unfortunately. Volunteering to be the project manager - well, forcing her way into the position - once was enough for all of us, but she then tries to bulldoze her way into it for a second week. That girl certainly wanted to prove something, to herself as well as Lord Sugar. I would have thought that scraping through by the skin of her teeth in the bakery task would have allowed her to sit back and relax knowing she didn't have to stand in the firing line as PM again, but who knew she'd be such a glutton for punishment? Perhaps it was to gain more attention from Lord Sugar, perhaps to win back the respect of her team mates. Who knows? One thing's for sure, Melissa won't be missed by anyone in the Apprentice house, from what we've seen.
Nobody could fail to be surprised, and amused, by Melissa's parting shot in the boardroom, accusing Jamie and Stuart of ganging up on her. As she stormed out, both men followed her to say their goodbyes, only to be met with a refusal to shake hands and told that she had nothing to say to them. Sulky? Moi? It made her look BAD - childish, stroppy and petulant. If you were a potential employer, what on earth would you think after seeing THAT performance? I expect better from my 6-year old, let alone a grown "professional". Always beware of parting gestures, lest you burn your bridges, because you never know who might be watching. The same goes in other situations - watch what you say and never take it for granted that you haven't been observed. For example, people who turn up for an interview and are rude or short with the receptionist, only to discover later that they were dealing with the partner of the hiring manager, or have been watched whilst in the waiting area (I know of companies who routinely do this to observe behaviour). There are those who have made crass or inappropriate comments about a former boss or colleague, only to find that they are an acquaintance or family member of an interviewer. The list goes on. Loose lips and all that...
Finally, who couldn't help but cringe at Stuart "The Brand" Baggs' unintentional rudeness to the Baby Glow lady? The tactless, agressively questioning whippersnapper lost Synergy the chance to sell the innovative product, which eventually resulted in a huge win for Apollo, who won the bid and grossed £995,000k of orders for Liz, who pitched impeccably throughout. Baggsy didn't MEAN to be be insulting, but his unintentional ill behaviour contributed massively to the team's failure. We should all keep in mind that treating people badly without thinking of the consequences is a dangerous thing to do - who wants to be the one with foot in mouth disease all the time?!
I think that's all I have to "conversate" with you for now... I'm off to watch a re-run of "The Apprentice: You're Fired" and have another laugh at Ms Cohen's expense. I never thought gloating could be this much fun...
Friday, 29 October 2010
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
The Apprentice and The Importance of Background Checking
The Apprentice is well underway with two episodes having come and gone, and Alan Sugar (now Lord Sugar rather than Suralan) has the uneviable task of trying to control the latest batch of self-proclaimed business geniuses.
Even before the sixteen erstwhile candidates hit our TV screens, reports of skullduggery and scandal had hit the press. It has been revealed that five of the competitors for the apprenticeship to Britain's most belligerant boss have been hiding a dark past. First up is Christopher Farrell, ex-marine turned mortgage broker turned... criminal. Not only has he been sacked for fraud, he has also been convicted of possessing offensive weapons - and is now hiding out in Spain. According to the makers of the show, Talkback Thames, a CRB check was done on Christopher, but before he attended court last year. Next up is the charming Joanna Riley, who was convicted of racially abusing 3 taxi drivers after a drunken night out. Mouthy Melissa Cohen has also fallen on the wrong side of the law, namely for a credit card fraud carried out when she was 19. Shibby Robati, surgeon, has in the past been issued with a formal warning for unprofessional conduct, which doesn't bode well for any would-be patients. Finaly, it was revealed after last Wednesday's show that Stella English, the successful project manager for the boy's team, has a past as a "gangster's moll", according to The Mirror.
Back in 2008, there was outrage when Lee McQueen, the eventual winner, was discovered to have lied on his CV about his educational achievements, and was only caught out in the final episodes during the gruelling interview round. Some people felt he should have been ejected at that point, but Sugar decided to hire rather than fire. So how did it go from educational overstatement on a CV to full-on criminal past - without being discovered during the background checks? If Talkback Thames didn't manage to pick up any of these people's pasts before the dirt was dished to the press, then what hope is there for the rest of us? It brings up the whole issue of screening, and who we should look to to provide background information on candidates. In any recruitment process, background checks are very important, to find out more about the candidate's personal and professional life. Even more crucial are criminal checks for those working or potentially working with children or vulnerable adults. There are companies who charge for the service of carrying out checks, and getting references etc, but how can the rest of us ensure that we dig deep into the pasts of our candidates to make sure no nasty surprises come to light further down the line? We can only ask as many questions as we can during the telephone screening, and then the face to face interviews, and try to wheedle out anything that might set alarm bells ringing. But how can we ensure that skeletons don't start throwing themselves out of cupboards after the interview process? And can we?
I tell you what, if all this is happening at this stage, I am very excited about what we could find out by the end! It could be anything... Roll on Episode 3, and roll on all the juicily gossip-filled articles of The Mirror, The Mail et al.
Even before the sixteen erstwhile candidates hit our TV screens, reports of skullduggery and scandal had hit the press. It has been revealed that five of the competitors for the apprenticeship to Britain's most belligerant boss have been hiding a dark past. First up is Christopher Farrell, ex-marine turned mortgage broker turned... criminal. Not only has he been sacked for fraud, he has also been convicted of possessing offensive weapons - and is now hiding out in Spain. According to the makers of the show, Talkback Thames, a CRB check was done on Christopher, but before he attended court last year. Next up is the charming Joanna Riley, who was convicted of racially abusing 3 taxi drivers after a drunken night out. Mouthy Melissa Cohen has also fallen on the wrong side of the law, namely for a credit card fraud carried out when she was 19. Shibby Robati, surgeon, has in the past been issued with a formal warning for unprofessional conduct, which doesn't bode well for any would-be patients. Finaly, it was revealed after last Wednesday's show that Stella English, the successful project manager for the boy's team, has a past as a "gangster's moll", according to The Mirror.
Back in 2008, there was outrage when Lee McQueen, the eventual winner, was discovered to have lied on his CV about his educational achievements, and was only caught out in the final episodes during the gruelling interview round. Some people felt he should have been ejected at that point, but Sugar decided to hire rather than fire. So how did it go from educational overstatement on a CV to full-on criminal past - without being discovered during the background checks? If Talkback Thames didn't manage to pick up any of these people's pasts before the dirt was dished to the press, then what hope is there for the rest of us? It brings up the whole issue of screening, and who we should look to to provide background information on candidates. In any recruitment process, background checks are very important, to find out more about the candidate's personal and professional life. Even more crucial are criminal checks for those working or potentially working with children or vulnerable adults. There are companies who charge for the service of carrying out checks, and getting references etc, but how can the rest of us ensure that we dig deep into the pasts of our candidates to make sure no nasty surprises come to light further down the line? We can only ask as many questions as we can during the telephone screening, and then the face to face interviews, and try to wheedle out anything that might set alarm bells ringing. But how can we ensure that skeletons don't start throwing themselves out of cupboards after the interview process? And can we?
I tell you what, if all this is happening at this stage, I am very excited about what we could find out by the end! It could be anything... Roll on Episode 3, and roll on all the juicily gossip-filled articles of The Mirror, The Mail et al.
Tuesday, 12 October 2010
Recruitment Roundup and Hard Labour....
There's been a few interesting snippets of recruitment news recently, so I thought I'd do a little round up this week, to make a change.
Bad news - the jobs market saw a slow down in September, with permanent placements rising at the weakest rate for a year, according to a report by REC and KPMG. Permanent salary growth dropped to a 10-month low and temporary pay dropped slightly for the first time in 9 months, leading to worries about the threat of rising unemployment. In contrast, demand for IT staff has risen in the last quarter, with permanent placements up 8% and contracts up 11%. The available applicants has decreased as the ratio between demand and supply has changed, with 1.2 applicants per job. IT advertisment for roles has risen over the past 4 quarters and now stands at the highest level since Q4 2008.
Better news - the 2011 Census is going to create 35,000 jobs across England and Wales. The one-day special will see people in a variety of roles, both full and part time, visiting people in their local areas to provide help and support to make sure that everyone can complete and return the Census questionnaire.
And one of the most talked about pieces of recruitment news from the past week - should prisoners be made to work 40-hour weeks? The Justice secretay, Ken Clarke, says that they should. He believes that, rather than live a life of "enforced... idleness", they should be working in order to pay some compensation to victims. He told the Conservative Party Conference in Birmingham las week that prisoners shoule be working 9-5 jobs in order to learn and trade or new skills, alongside putting one pound in every five in a fund for victims. Clarke wants private firms to create jobs, allowing money to be earned to cover prison costs, pay benefits to prisoners' families, and possibly kept in trust for release. He said that prisons should be turned into places of "purposeful hard work" and make sure victims have some restitution. Raising the earnings (averaging £8 per week) for prisoners would provide incentives for those who work, whilst also going some way towards svaing the £2 billion that the Ministry of Justice is looking to slash from their budget.
So will it work? I think so, if the right companies can be found to employ prisoners in such large numbers. Whilst there's no doubt that working will enhance a prisoner's future prospects as well as improve their self esteem and give them the opportunity to contribute to society, whether or not they will actually want to work is another issue. The new planes will not be enforced, rather down to choice as is already the case with prison workers. Whether you believe in bringing back the days of the chain-gangs, or have a more liberal stance on the matter, this could be a good idea - as long as it can be put into place with enough private employers prepared to, or able to, provide jobs for those behind bars. In fact, in the USA, there are already over 100 private companies working with prisoners as part of the Prison Industry Employment Certification Program. Whilst they have to pay them the minimum wage, they save a fortune on taxes, health care and vacation time. The number of prisoners taking part has doubled over the past decade, so it seems that we may be about to follow suit in what could be a very successful enterprise. And some of US grumble about being shackled to the desk....
Bad news - the jobs market saw a slow down in September, with permanent placements rising at the weakest rate for a year, according to a report by REC and KPMG. Permanent salary growth dropped to a 10-month low and temporary pay dropped slightly for the first time in 9 months, leading to worries about the threat of rising unemployment. In contrast, demand for IT staff has risen in the last quarter, with permanent placements up 8% and contracts up 11%. The available applicants has decreased as the ratio between demand and supply has changed, with 1.2 applicants per job. IT advertisment for roles has risen over the past 4 quarters and now stands at the highest level since Q4 2008.
Better news - the 2011 Census is going to create 35,000 jobs across England and Wales. The one-day special will see people in a variety of roles, both full and part time, visiting people in their local areas to provide help and support to make sure that everyone can complete and return the Census questionnaire.
And one of the most talked about pieces of recruitment news from the past week - should prisoners be made to work 40-hour weeks? The Justice secretay, Ken Clarke, says that they should. He believes that, rather than live a life of "enforced... idleness", they should be working in order to pay some compensation to victims. He told the Conservative Party Conference in Birmingham las week that prisoners shoule be working 9-5 jobs in order to learn and trade or new skills, alongside putting one pound in every five in a fund for victims. Clarke wants private firms to create jobs, allowing money to be earned to cover prison costs, pay benefits to prisoners' families, and possibly kept in trust for release. He said that prisons should be turned into places of "purposeful hard work" and make sure victims have some restitution. Raising the earnings (averaging £8 per week) for prisoners would provide incentives for those who work, whilst also going some way towards svaing the £2 billion that the Ministry of Justice is looking to slash from their budget.
So will it work? I think so, if the right companies can be found to employ prisoners in such large numbers. Whilst there's no doubt that working will enhance a prisoner's future prospects as well as improve their self esteem and give them the opportunity to contribute to society, whether or not they will actually want to work is another issue. The new planes will not be enforced, rather down to choice as is already the case with prison workers. Whether you believe in bringing back the days of the chain-gangs, or have a more liberal stance on the matter, this could be a good idea - as long as it can be put into place with enough private employers prepared to, or able to, provide jobs for those behind bars. In fact, in the USA, there are already over 100 private companies working with prisoners as part of the Prison Industry Employment Certification Program. Whilst they have to pay them the minimum wage, they save a fortune on taxes, health care and vacation time. The number of prisoners taking part has doubled over the past decade, so it seems that we may be about to follow suit in what could be a very successful enterprise. And some of US grumble about being shackled to the desk....
Friday, 3 September 2010
Back to school and work - oh, the horror...
It's that time again - the beginning of autumn, the start of a new school year and the return to some semblance of a routine after the heady days of summer and holidays. Some greet this with relief, especially after six weeks stuck at home with bickering, bored children, whilst others feel depressed at going back to work after a fabulous week or two spent by the pool.
For working mums, the return to the office is a mixed blessing. Some are sad to say goodbye to the precious time spent with their children during annual leave and cope with the before school hissy fits and the after school hyperactivity, others are just pleased to get back to normality and the school run/ commute routine. Considering that most employers offer 20-25 days holiday leave a year (on top of Bank Holidays), most of us will have had to use some other form of childcare during the summer as well as taking time off. I am extremely lucky to have parents who force me to hand over the little darlings for two weeks at a time and whisk them off to their Welsh seaside retreat. Quality. For others, holiday clubs or out-of-school childcare is the only option - but with this costing between £75 and £105 per child per week, the summer holidays can be a large additional expense for working parents. And with thousands of children starting school today, for many mums it is the first chance they have to get back to work after starting a family... offering a whole new issue of seeking flexible or part-time work. Whilst plenty of mums are happy to work full time, there are plenty more who aren't quite ready to relinquish the hold of the school run and the teatime tantrums, and they now have to enter the fierce competition to gain a part-time job as well as deal with the equally fierce competition at the school gates.
At present, part-time workers are at an all-time high, fuelled by the economy and the current unemployment crisis, with people previously in full-time work now forced to work less hours just to remain in work. Since the start of the credit crunch in August 2007, almost 100,000 mothers have been pushed back to work to make ends meet, and many of these will be part-time workers. With the cost of before and after school care and childminders so high in many areas, part-time work can be equally financially viable as full-time work once you factor these costs in. Many find jobs in shops or cafes, others as part-time administrators, secretaries or receptionists. There are always part-time jobs to be found working for local government - whether in an office or as a teaching assistant or secretary of a school. Councils offer flexibility and school jobs offer a great opportunity for part-time work which also fits in around the school holidays, thus eliminating the need for any additional childcare and the associated cost. However, the competition is huge as these jobs are highly sought after - not surprisingly - and councils now expect applicants to fill out long and sometimes difficult application forms, although some schools will accept applications direct. If you already work, don't forget that anyone with children under six is entitled to request flexible working. An increasing number of mums are turning to self employment, using existing professional expertise to go freelance, or starting up a small business.
Fitting work around children is no easy task. Ideal hours are between 9.30 and 2.30, to allow time to drop the kids off and then pick them up from school, and if you're lucky enough to land one of these jobs (as I have been), then it's plain sailing from here on in. Disregarding, of course, problems with little unanticipated matters such as inset days, sick children, family emergencies...
My kids haven't gone back to school yet. I have that pleasure yet to come, next week. Neither, as you can imagine, are desperate to return. The six year old has been ecstatic to spend all summer roaming the streets with his mates, cycling and skateboarding. He is brown from the sun as well as the dirt. The thirteen year old has been equally ecstatic to be able to lie in bed until midday and then loaf around the house playing computer games and watching documentaries. Tough luck to them, I say. If I have to go back to work whilst the Other Half gloats because he still has a few days off... Although, having said that, I'm sitting here in my comfortable office, blogging, whilst he's stuck at home refereeing between two fighting beasts, so who's having the last laugh?
(For a good range of council and school jobs, check out www.jobsgopublic.com for opportunities in your area.
For more information about working rights and entitlements, go to www.direct.gov.uk
For help and advice on working for yourself, see www.businesslink.gov.uk)
For working mums, the return to the office is a mixed blessing. Some are sad to say goodbye to the precious time spent with their children during annual leave and cope with the before school hissy fits and the after school hyperactivity, others are just pleased to get back to normality and the school run/ commute routine. Considering that most employers offer 20-25 days holiday leave a year (on top of Bank Holidays), most of us will have had to use some other form of childcare during the summer as well as taking time off. I am extremely lucky to have parents who force me to hand over the little darlings for two weeks at a time and whisk them off to their Welsh seaside retreat. Quality. For others, holiday clubs or out-of-school childcare is the only option - but with this costing between £75 and £105 per child per week, the summer holidays can be a large additional expense for working parents. And with thousands of children starting school today, for many mums it is the first chance they have to get back to work after starting a family... offering a whole new issue of seeking flexible or part-time work. Whilst plenty of mums are happy to work full time, there are plenty more who aren't quite ready to relinquish the hold of the school run and the teatime tantrums, and they now have to enter the fierce competition to gain a part-time job as well as deal with the equally fierce competition at the school gates.
At present, part-time workers are at an all-time high, fuelled by the economy and the current unemployment crisis, with people previously in full-time work now forced to work less hours just to remain in work. Since the start of the credit crunch in August 2007, almost 100,000 mothers have been pushed back to work to make ends meet, and many of these will be part-time workers. With the cost of before and after school care and childminders so high in many areas, part-time work can be equally financially viable as full-time work once you factor these costs in. Many find jobs in shops or cafes, others as part-time administrators, secretaries or receptionists. There are always part-time jobs to be found working for local government - whether in an office or as a teaching assistant or secretary of a school. Councils offer flexibility and school jobs offer a great opportunity for part-time work which also fits in around the school holidays, thus eliminating the need for any additional childcare and the associated cost. However, the competition is huge as these jobs are highly sought after - not surprisingly - and councils now expect applicants to fill out long and sometimes difficult application forms, although some schools will accept applications direct. If you already work, don't forget that anyone with children under six is entitled to request flexible working. An increasing number of mums are turning to self employment, using existing professional expertise to go freelance, or starting up a small business.
Fitting work around children is no easy task. Ideal hours are between 9.30 and 2.30, to allow time to drop the kids off and then pick them up from school, and if you're lucky enough to land one of these jobs (as I have been), then it's plain sailing from here on in. Disregarding, of course, problems with little unanticipated matters such as inset days, sick children, family emergencies...
My kids haven't gone back to school yet. I have that pleasure yet to come, next week. Neither, as you can imagine, are desperate to return. The six year old has been ecstatic to spend all summer roaming the streets with his mates, cycling and skateboarding. He is brown from the sun as well as the dirt. The thirteen year old has been equally ecstatic to be able to lie in bed until midday and then loaf around the house playing computer games and watching documentaries. Tough luck to them, I say. If I have to go back to work whilst the Other Half gloats because he still has a few days off... Although, having said that, I'm sitting here in my comfortable office, blogging, whilst he's stuck at home refereeing between two fighting beasts, so who's having the last laugh?
(For a good range of council and school jobs, check out www.jobsgopublic.com for opportunities in your area.
For more information about working rights and entitlements, go to www.direct.gov.uk
For help and advice on working for yourself, see www.businesslink.gov.uk)
Monday, 16 August 2010
Poor performance in the workplace - let's share the blame...
Although the World Cup is well over, memories of England's crushing defeat were still fresh in the minds of the nation last week. Players were warned that they may be booed at the friendly against Hungary on Wednesday by disillusioned fans who felt that they had been let down by the squad's poor performance. Steven Gerrard, the current Captain, was even quoted saying that he would boo his own team if he was a fan - not very reassuring. Luckily, England went on to win the Hungary match 2-1, to an underfilled Wembley's delight. How humiliating it would have been to be publicly booed and jeered for failing to do a decent job, and how lucky for England that they finally upped their game and played some good football. Some people feel they got away lightly after embarrassing us all (yet again) at the world cup. The North Korean team, however, didn't. They were shamed during a six hour public enquiry after they failed to win any of their three World Cup group games. The whole squad was forced onto a stage at the People's Palace of Culture, and critised by the Sports Minister, Pak Myong-chol, in front of a 400-strong crowd. Their coach, Kim Jong-hun, was allegedly made to work as a builder and expelled from the Worker's Party of Korea. Some may say that England deserved no less...
But who is to blame for poor performance? The players? Coaches? Managers? In the past, the blame for England's underperformance has always been laid firmly at the feet of the manager. Yet, we have seen three managers come and go in quick succession - all of whom are rubbish? The one constant is the team. On the other hand, you could say that the team cannot do well without being properly managed, and they have been unlucky in having three incompetent managers in a row. North Korea's leaders kindly shared out the blame between the coach and the players, perhaps recognising the fact that a team effort means that everyone is responsible in some way for a successful - or unsuccessful - outcome. Fabio Cappello has apologised for England's rubbish playing in the World Cup, admitting that he knew they wouldn't be fit for the tournament before the games started, after a tiring summer schedule, at the pre-training camp. The fans had such high hopes for some victory, whilst the manager knew that this would be unlikely. And yet he is still managing the team, in essence being rewarded with the chance of running England for Euro 2012 as well as a big fat paypacket - this for a man who admits he underperforms. So who do we really blame? Fabio Cappello, for not making the training work for the team? The gruelling summer season in club football? The players for not making sure they were up to the task? Nick Powell of Sky News says that there are plenty of reasons that England's national squads are struggling to play a good game. He cites poor youth training, too many matches and over-emphasis on club football as just some of the problems facing English football. So, it seems we can blame the organisation just as much as the players and managers.
Off the pitch, and into the office. Poor performance in the workplace is just as much a problem, albeit one not witnessed and judged by the nation. Where does the blame lie for us normal people who don't achieve what we should? - and where does it stop short of being a problem and becoming a sacking offence... much like many of us felt that Cappello's was? Personnel Today report that employers lose £32m a year tolerated poor performance, with the most popular way of dealing with this being to "manage them out". Poor performance obviously needs to be dealt with, but how? Issues such as health reasons and workplace stress need to be look at as a reason for underperforming, rather than just incapability - or refusal - to carry out the tasks required. Failure to perform through negligence, laziness or insubordination counts as misconduct, and is a sacking offence. The problem with underperforming staff is the knock-on effect on everyone else - teams being affected and not delivering, other staff taking up the slack, managers who lay unreasonable demands on their juniors to hide their own substandard performance. Personnel Today emphasise the importance of nipping performance issues in the bud, and handling them in a way that works to solve them, rather than blame and dismiss the individual. Minor issues should be dealt with informally, giving the employee the chance to explain and agree necessary improvements. If formal proceedings commence, the employer should investigate underlying capability. More importantly, the employer should provide additional support, supervision and training where required, along with agreed timescales for improvement. Most people don't mean to, or want to, underachieve - or get sacked - after all. Unlike the Head of Hr for Cable & Wireless, Bernard Buckley, who fired 85% of his underperforming team within a week of starting, most employers are looking to retain and improve their staff rather than get rid of them!
Perhaps, then, we should stop talking about who to blame for poor performance, and start thinking about who can improve it. If employers, managers and staff can work together to boost performance (and morale), then this is surely the best way forward. Maybe Fabio Cappello can work with his squad to pull themselves together for the next Euros, and avoid the backlash of public opinion after the very disappointing performance seen in this World Cup.
That, or we need to bring back public flogging....
But who is to blame for poor performance? The players? Coaches? Managers? In the past, the blame for England's underperformance has always been laid firmly at the feet of the manager. Yet, we have seen three managers come and go in quick succession - all of whom are rubbish? The one constant is the team. On the other hand, you could say that the team cannot do well without being properly managed, and they have been unlucky in having three incompetent managers in a row. North Korea's leaders kindly shared out the blame between the coach and the players, perhaps recognising the fact that a team effort means that everyone is responsible in some way for a successful - or unsuccessful - outcome. Fabio Cappello has apologised for England's rubbish playing in the World Cup, admitting that he knew they wouldn't be fit for the tournament before the games started, after a tiring summer schedule, at the pre-training camp. The fans had such high hopes for some victory, whilst the manager knew that this would be unlikely. And yet he is still managing the team, in essence being rewarded with the chance of running England for Euro 2012 as well as a big fat paypacket - this for a man who admits he underperforms. So who do we really blame? Fabio Cappello, for not making the training work for the team? The gruelling summer season in club football? The players for not making sure they were up to the task? Nick Powell of Sky News says that there are plenty of reasons that England's national squads are struggling to play a good game. He cites poor youth training, too many matches and over-emphasis on club football as just some of the problems facing English football. So, it seems we can blame the organisation just as much as the players and managers.
Off the pitch, and into the office. Poor performance in the workplace is just as much a problem, albeit one not witnessed and judged by the nation. Where does the blame lie for us normal people who don't achieve what we should? - and where does it stop short of being a problem and becoming a sacking offence... much like many of us felt that Cappello's was? Personnel Today report that employers lose £32m a year tolerated poor performance, with the most popular way of dealing with this being to "manage them out". Poor performance obviously needs to be dealt with, but how? Issues such as health reasons and workplace stress need to be look at as a reason for underperforming, rather than just incapability - or refusal - to carry out the tasks required. Failure to perform through negligence, laziness or insubordination counts as misconduct, and is a sacking offence. The problem with underperforming staff is the knock-on effect on everyone else - teams being affected and not delivering, other staff taking up the slack, managers who lay unreasonable demands on their juniors to hide their own substandard performance. Personnel Today emphasise the importance of nipping performance issues in the bud, and handling them in a way that works to solve them, rather than blame and dismiss the individual. Minor issues should be dealt with informally, giving the employee the chance to explain and agree necessary improvements. If formal proceedings commence, the employer should investigate underlying capability. More importantly, the employer should provide additional support, supervision and training where required, along with agreed timescales for improvement. Most people don't mean to, or want to, underachieve - or get sacked - after all. Unlike the Head of Hr for Cable & Wireless, Bernard Buckley, who fired 85% of his underperforming team within a week of starting, most employers are looking to retain and improve their staff rather than get rid of them!
Perhaps, then, we should stop talking about who to blame for poor performance, and start thinking about who can improve it. If employers, managers and staff can work together to boost performance (and morale), then this is surely the best way forward. Maybe Fabio Cappello can work with his squad to pull themselves together for the next Euros, and avoid the backlash of public opinion after the very disappointing performance seen in this World Cup.
That, or we need to bring back public flogging....
Monday, 19 July 2010
Grow your own
I've been getting into growing my own veg recently. As much a shock to me as to everyone who knows me as an anti-gardener and the unwitting murderer of many a pot plant, I have started to enjoy the process. The lazy planting of seeds in rich compost-filled pots out in the sunshine - even more fun if the children help - and the loving watering in. The excitement of checking for fresh green shoots or buds of fruit every day, the gentle watering with my brand new watering can, and the joy at finding that first tomato, or potato shoot. So far, we have eaten our own lettuce and rocket, have eight teeny tomatoes waiting to ripen, and have leafy pots of radishes, peppers and potatoes waiting for the right time to be harvested. The only things not growing at the moment are the strawberries - but I have handed over all responsibility to my boys, so we may not get anything... It's such a rewarding experience to see all the different plants bloom and grow in different ways, after being nurtured and cared for. I am hoping to add some dwarf patio runner beans to my collection soon, as well as some more tomato plants.
And all this got me thinking about the need to nurture, and the different ways in which recruiters need to nurture their candidates. You wouldn't just chuck a tomato plant in some soil and leave it, hoping for rain to water it and keep it alive (well, you might do but it isn't advised!), so why do some recruiters just send someone's CV over to the client and hope for the best? Candidates need to be treated with love, like my radishes. There isn't a one-size-fits-all way to deal with candidates - everyone is different, with different needs, aspirations and desires. Just as tomatoes need lots of water, some tomato feed and a bamboo stick to keep them upright, some candidates need to have their confidence boosted, and guidance to the right sort of job. Potatoes can be chucked in a bag full of compost and as long as you water them regularly are usually OK, much as some candidates are happy with a quick chat to clarify a role and the client, and then for you to send their CV over. And this is before we even get to the interview stage, the most important part of the whole process for candidate, client and recruiter.
This is where the nurturing can really pay off. Any recruiter worth his or her salt knows the importance of prepping the candidate for the interview. Everyone has their own techniques as interviewer or interviewee, and all companies have their own way of conducting interviews. This is where the recruiter's expertise and knowledge comes in, where we can add value to the candidate's experience by talking them through what to expect, what type of interview it will be and so on. Like my poor peppers, whose leaves wilt in the hot sun and who need to be revived with regular drinks of water, candidates will also wither under the spotlight unless cared for beforehand. Candidates need to be fully prepared for the interview, and nurtured towards maximum confidence and best performance. While some people feel comfortable being interviewed and can cope under any circumstances, some need a lot more gentle handling and to know every last detail of the company/ interview styles and interviewer's personality. Unless we take the time to understand what the individual candidate needs, we cannot care for them in the right way.
And don't forget to carry on the nurturing after harvest time - whether successful or not! Keep in touch with successful candidates once they have started their new job. Keep in touch with unsuccessful candidates... offer them useful feedback and listen to their experience, so that next time things hopefully have a different outcome. Treat your candidates as you would treat your veg - with love - and they will reward you with the fruit of your toil. Nuture and care for them, and you will see the difference. Just as I do with my home growns.
Speaking of which, must dash - I forgot to water the tomatoes last night...
And all this got me thinking about the need to nurture, and the different ways in which recruiters need to nurture their candidates. You wouldn't just chuck a tomato plant in some soil and leave it, hoping for rain to water it and keep it alive (well, you might do but it isn't advised!), so why do some recruiters just send someone's CV over to the client and hope for the best? Candidates need to be treated with love, like my radishes. There isn't a one-size-fits-all way to deal with candidates - everyone is different, with different needs, aspirations and desires. Just as tomatoes need lots of water, some tomato feed and a bamboo stick to keep them upright, some candidates need to have their confidence boosted, and guidance to the right sort of job. Potatoes can be chucked in a bag full of compost and as long as you water them regularly are usually OK, much as some candidates are happy with a quick chat to clarify a role and the client, and then for you to send their CV over. And this is before we even get to the interview stage, the most important part of the whole process for candidate, client and recruiter.
This is where the nurturing can really pay off. Any recruiter worth his or her salt knows the importance of prepping the candidate for the interview. Everyone has their own techniques as interviewer or interviewee, and all companies have their own way of conducting interviews. This is where the recruiter's expertise and knowledge comes in, where we can add value to the candidate's experience by talking them through what to expect, what type of interview it will be and so on. Like my poor peppers, whose leaves wilt in the hot sun and who need to be revived with regular drinks of water, candidates will also wither under the spotlight unless cared for beforehand. Candidates need to be fully prepared for the interview, and nurtured towards maximum confidence and best performance. While some people feel comfortable being interviewed and can cope under any circumstances, some need a lot more gentle handling and to know every last detail of the company/ interview styles and interviewer's personality. Unless we take the time to understand what the individual candidate needs, we cannot care for them in the right way.
And don't forget to carry on the nurturing after harvest time - whether successful or not! Keep in touch with successful candidates once they have started their new job. Keep in touch with unsuccessful candidates... offer them useful feedback and listen to their experience, so that next time things hopefully have a different outcome. Treat your candidates as you would treat your veg - with love - and they will reward you with the fruit of your toil. Nuture and care for them, and you will see the difference. Just as I do with my home growns.
Speaking of which, must dash - I forgot to water the tomatoes last night...
Wednesday, 30 June 2010
New government, new unemployment, no New Deal?
With the new Cleggeron government, we all looked forward to renewed economic growth, efficient spending and an improvement in unemployment figures. Unluckily, since Dave and Nick decided to cut spending on everything worthwhile, it seems that even more people are at risk of losing their jobs. A leaked treasury report - publicised by The Guardian - revealed that 1.3m jobs could go by 2015, 120,000 of these from the public sector. Although the government say that experts predict a fall in unemployement and a rise in employment, many are dubious. The TUC General Secretary, Brendan Barber, warned of 80's reminiscent dole queues, widespread poverty and a widening north-south divide. There was a 7.9% drop in unemployment to 2.47m in the three months to April, and over the quarter an increase of 23,000 - less than expected. Jobseekers Allowance claims fell by 30,900 to under 1.5m, the fourth consecutive monthly decline. I don't know about you, but I find it confusing to be told that unemployment has risen whilst JSA claims have dropped - are people therefore not claiming even though they are out of work? Or are they, instead, claiming allowances such as Income Support, or Employment and Support Allowance (preciously Incapacity Benefit) due to illness or disability? More worryingly, there was an increase of 85,000 to 772,000 people who have been out of work for over 12 months - the highest since April 1997. One million young people are unemployed and struggling to even start a job or career.
Those of us who are lucky enough to remain employed are still suffering from the backlash of the credit crunch. Whilst we all hoped for house prices to drop and stabilise, they have again started to rise, even if only by 0.1% in June. This still means that the average house price in the UK is £170,111. Compared to the average salary of £25,428 (£489 per week), this is still high enough to prevent first time buyers and those on low incomes from getting mortgages. Although pay rose in the quarter to April, by 1.9%, this was still well under the retail inflation rate of 5.1%. The cost of living is rising for everyone, and it is the unemployed that are worst hit.
Speaking of unemployed, it looks like Fabio Capello might be on his way out. It's still too painful to talk about the England v Germany fiasco that was Sunday afternoon's entertainment, but suffice to say it seems likely that he will be sacked, albeit with a massive golden handshake. Perhaps one of the worst ways to be sacked, publicly... but you can't help feeling he deserves it. Other great public sackings include General Stanley McChrystal, the former staff of Lehman Brothers and Chelsea Taylor, a 16 year old waitress who was sacked via... wait for it... Facebook. How embarrassing. Still, she can always sign on and benefit from one of the government New Deal back to work schemes. Oh no, she can't, can she? Because they're all on hold pending the new government's decision about whether to carry on with them or not. Of course, it would make perfect sense to scrap such schemes, just when even more people are doomed to be put out to pasture over the coming year and years.
I was under the impression that the Tory-Lib Dem government had some cunning plans to boost the economy and drastically lower unemployement figures. So I can only hope the Cameron-Clegg marriage knows what it's doing... before we start to feel nostalgic for Gordon and his New Deals.
Those of us who are lucky enough to remain employed are still suffering from the backlash of the credit crunch. Whilst we all hoped for house prices to drop and stabilise, they have again started to rise, even if only by 0.1% in June. This still means that the average house price in the UK is £170,111. Compared to the average salary of £25,428 (£489 per week), this is still high enough to prevent first time buyers and those on low incomes from getting mortgages. Although pay rose in the quarter to April, by 1.9%, this was still well under the retail inflation rate of 5.1%. The cost of living is rising for everyone, and it is the unemployed that are worst hit.
Speaking of unemployed, it looks like Fabio Capello might be on his way out. It's still too painful to talk about the England v Germany fiasco that was Sunday afternoon's entertainment, but suffice to say it seems likely that he will be sacked, albeit with a massive golden handshake. Perhaps one of the worst ways to be sacked, publicly... but you can't help feeling he deserves it. Other great public sackings include General Stanley McChrystal, the former staff of Lehman Brothers and Chelsea Taylor, a 16 year old waitress who was sacked via... wait for it... Facebook. How embarrassing. Still, she can always sign on and benefit from one of the government New Deal back to work schemes. Oh no, she can't, can she? Because they're all on hold pending the new government's decision about whether to carry on with them or not. Of course, it would make perfect sense to scrap such schemes, just when even more people are doomed to be put out to pasture over the coming year and years.
I was under the impression that the Tory-Lib Dem government had some cunning plans to boost the economy and drastically lower unemployement figures. So I can only hope the Cameron-Clegg marriage knows what it's doing... before we start to feel nostalgic for Gordon and his New Deals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
