Job review sites, useful or useless

The eggs are no longer just in the employers basket

Despite the recession of 2008 and a very high ratio of applicants to job roles,  employees still have a lot of power. Employer review sites such as glassdoor.com and jobcrowd.co.uk have become extremely popular among savvy graduates and curious job searchers who need advice in choosing an organisation to work for.

Employer review sites give people the ability to look at employee reviews of popular organisations,  giving them the ability to gain a unique insight into the organisation they may be working for. The ability to check this in the past was extremely limited. Often the only chance someone had to check the credibility of a potential employer was by finding a friend or a friend of a friend who had worked at said organisation before. Assuming that that person hasn't scared you half to death with tales of axe wielding line managers individuals were given a very limited view of the organisations'. Employer review sites give information on salaries, benefits, interviews and company backgrounds.

Individuals can vote with their feet and view a summary of company reviews. These sites give people  the chance to have more of an objective view companies. It gives people the opportunity to go into organisations a with their eyes a little more open.

Companies need to be aware of the importance of the candidate experience in attraction, selection, assessment and development of staff. These opinions and experiences with the advent of employee review sites can travel very far and have the potential to be damaging for organisations.

Stepping on top of people just for a bargain? Black Friday is here to stay

Black Friday is a long standing American tradition. But what is it and how did it get to the UK shores?

What is Black Friday?
Black Friday is a day of mass sales and consumerism in America, often charted as the start of the holiday shopping season. The event occurs on the Friday after Thanksgiving (which falls on the last Thursday of November). Bargain hunters go forth and seek out deals after stuffing their gobs with turkey. Retailers such as Best Buy, Walmart and online shops all slash their prices in the hope of cashing in and making large profits.

What is  behind it?
Black Friday has its roots in 1950s Philadelphia. Apparently local police officers started to use the term to describe the busy streets and the smog created by traffic of people flocking to watch a local Army vs Navy American Football game. In the 1980s television stations and advertisers used the day to attract shoppers out on this holiday and spend their cash.

Contrary to what has been circulating though social media recently the tradition has nothing to do with slavery and has nothing to do with slave traders selling slaves at discounted prices. Some believe the term has come from the time in the year that shops make profit and move from the red (loss making) to the black (profit making).

Why is it here?
Black Friday is characterised by long queues, early starts and sometimes scenes of hysteria and violence. Black Friday was brought to the UK by Amazon and Asda in 2010, since then more and more retailers have adopted the practice. The main reason why this has been absorbed by retailers across the pond is that businesses can smell the pound signs. 2013 saw the day come into its own in the UK, charting big sales for many retailers.

A downside to all of this bargain hunting is that it sometimes causes crazy scenes of not very British like queueing and madness. Some shops opened at 12 midnight with flocks of people lining up, literally stepping on and over each other to get that marked down plasma screen TV.

Getty Images

These scenes are not what people are used to in this country.  With reports of retailers like ASOS inflating their costs in the run up to the day and then offering 30% discounts, leaving prices sometimes higher than the original ones, some people are less than happy.

Who cares?
Some people feel that the day promotes mass consumerism and greed. I'm a lover of bargains myself however, queueing, fighting and loosing sleep over some apparent lower priced goods is not really how I like to spend my time. Jumping on the discount bandwagon doesn't really make sense to me especially when it hasn't been made relevant to this audience. As Brits don't celebrate Thanksgiving, having the day after it as some kind of sales paradise is slightly strange.

What's more, if retailers are seeing this as an excuse to hoodwink and trick consumers into thinking they are getting a bargain when they are not, then i'm definitely not a fan.  Unfortunately Black Friday does look like it's here to stay so lets hope next years affair is a bit more civilised? I doubt it.

Psychometric testing over kill?

Psychometric assessments are a common trend in the selection of new candidates and are said to be used by up to 70% of employers. Psychometrics are said to help select the best candidates for the job, individuals who fit into those organisations with ease. However. is there ever a time to reduce the use of psychometric assessments altogether?

The word psychometric is derived from the Greek word for mind (psycho) and the Latin for measure (metric). Combined the term conjures up images of a world of numerical tests and pages full of symbols. Personality assessments and ability tests make up the most common forms of assessment in organisations. Over the last twenty years there has been a large increase in the use of these work tests, but are they being over used?

Organisations use psychometrics as they are reported to have good levels of predictive validity (choosing the individual who will perform the best in the job). If an individual scores highly on a test, it is argued that they will perform the best out of all candidates if given the role.  With high levels of scientific validity and reliability psychometrics tend to add a more objective element to the selection and development process.  With an increased amount of individuals applying to roles, assessments can whittle down large numbers of applicants to a more manageable number to shortlist from. 

The use of psychometrics in organisations is not wrong; however their overuse can be damaging.  I once went to an assessment day and yes it was an assessment day in every sense of the word. After emerging a few minutes late (interview no no) and getting lost in Watford relying on my google maps, I burst into a room of very unimpressed group of HR professionals. Six or seven candidates were then read the riot act, a role play and no less than three separate psychometric tests! THREE- for what was an essentially an entry level consultant role. I sat through a general personality assessment, a numerical test and some sort of test which measures your attention to detail.

This was an example of psychometric test overkill! Not only did I as a candidate feel exhausted, fed up and BORED, I left feeling confused at the sheer volume of testing that I had to endure. This feeling was not made any better by the fact that I have a qualification and training in psychometric  testing.

To alleviate candidate stress, confusion and disaffection selection phases need to be transparent. HR professionals and hiring managers should communicate the reasons behind the use of tests and not just throw them in as a “nice to have”.  To evaluate their use organisations should:

• Read the job description carefully, or if you are writing the description, make sure you have what you want in a candidate there on the paper. Highlight the aspects of the job where the candidates need to be tested and consult with psychometrically trained individuals and a layman to see if it passes the common sense test.
• Will the use of psychometric assessments enhance the selection process? Will it allow you to hire the best candidate?
•  Make sure the tests compliment other selection techniques, e.g. if you are using a competency based interview in a technical role, complimenting this with a non verbal reasoning test or any other technical test would be a good pairing.
• Relying too much on these methods can reduce candidate experience turn it into a long winded rigmarole. To reduce the anxiety faced by candidates communicate the purpose of the use of the assessments; give them feedback regardless of whether it is requested in a non judgemental environment. Encourage them to apply to other roles; you never know when they can be useful.

In summary psychometric tests should assist the selection process, not overshadow or complicate it. Using these powerful tools in combination with other selection methods is best practice as they should never be used alone. As the HR professional or hiring manager, try and manage the candidate experience and work out if you are getting the best out of the individual in order to find the best individual for the job. 

How to handle job rejections

You have found a job you like,  you have read the description, perfect! You spend a few hours writing your covering letter and your CV. With a high level of anticipation you press send. A few days later you open the email, it begins:

“Thank you for applying to the [insert role]. Due to a large number of applications which closely fit the job description and experience required, we regret to inform you that you haven’t been successful for the current role. Due to the number of applications we cannot offer you individual feedback. We wish you every success in your future job search”.

WE WISH YOU VERY SUCCESS IN YOUR JOB SEARCH?! – when you refuse to give me feedback, how can I improve my job search?

Being a veteran job searcher, I am tired, tired of automated rejection emails, tired of the circus of job applications, tired of what seems like a 'waste of time' applications with rejections within mere hours.

How did things turn into this? Churning applications out like a machine, not an individual but just a jumble of key words and a list of qualifications. Forget the nuances and an individuals personality, it seems that all the employer is concerned about is the potential candidates ability to tick a myriad of dull boxes, or jump through awkwardly positioned hoops. I say, enough!- I'm through with the whole darn thing.

Employers, HR professionals and recruiters it doesn't have to be like this. I understand that you do get a vast amount of applications for each role (sometimes hundreds or thousands). However try and make the application process as easy and informative as possible. It doesn't have to be cheap, free and easy, it can be a meaningful encounter for all if managed correctly.

So HR departments:

•  Try and reach as many candidates as possible, go through agencies (if you have the budget), Tweet and Facebook your search, the wider your search, the bigger the potential pool of excellent candidates
• Be realistic in job descriptions make sure you include the actual day to day aspects of the job. Don't try and make the job sound more appealing to others by fabricating or exaggerating elements of the role
• Try and give feedback- even if its one line- I'm sure that there's software that exists that can do that for you? If not someone invent one!
• Ditch the automated email which sounds highly patronising and insulting, it usually translates to the candidate as, "we found better people than you so don't bother us by asking for feedback because we don't have time to hear your whining".

Candidates

• Tailor your CV as much as you can, so for each role. Edit your personal statement to mirror what's on the job description. If this means having several versions of your CV on your computer than so be it.
• Be as realistic as possible, get as many people as you can to view your CV/ just someone that you trust. In most cases each person will say completely different things, if you cannot deal with criticism or rejection than possible stay away from this step but it is very important
• Do not mispell company or individauls names, your CV will go straight in the bin
• Try and remain as positive as possible- this can be done with a support system of people who are familiar with the job climat when looking for a job. They will offer you the best support and guidance
• Most importantly- keep going- something will happen eventually!

Benefits Street: excellent documentary or poverty porn?

Channel 4 has another reality TV show, expose, documentary.  Move over My big Fat Gypsy Wedding, Benefits Street is the new kid on the block. The documentary makers from Channel 4 spent over a year filming on a street in Winson Green, Birmingham UK where it claims the majority of over 99 inhabitants on James Turner Street are claiming government benefits.  

Many people have criticised the show as 'poverty porn', a way for us "have somes" can stare and jeer at the Dickensian style baddies, draining the state of all of our hard working money. The episodes focus on different themes, episode 1 introduced some main characters of the street, including white Dee, a matriarch of the street whipping everyone into shape and black Dee a woman on the verge of eviction and frustrated at the lack of employment opportunities. 

The episode was also extremely controversial as it depicted a just released from Jail Danny and his junkie friend Fungi on an expedition to find loot to sell for drugs. It showed Danny creating an alarm proof bag and depicted him breaking the security tag for the stolen goods on a bus. Episode 2 showed the cultural mix on the street by featuring a group of Romanians entrepreneurially trying to make ends meet by selling scrap metal much to the dismay of other residents annoyed at the mess this caused.

The show is an interesting depiction of a modern street with problems, but these issues are not so different from those in wealthier, middle class neighborhoods such as: unemployment, absent fathers, immigration, integration, drug abuse and crime. These issues are not just social ills of the less fortunate, they occur in normal people too, just behind closed doors. The show shows a street where people can group together, help each other out. Struggling heroin addict Fungi could always call on white Dee to help him with his benefits claims and hold money for him.  

                                 

Episode 1 showed a gentleman Smoggy who offered basic amenities such as soap, milk and hot chocolate all for 50p. He noticed that many people including himself were struggling and took advantage of a gap on the market. Since the show aired he has been offered three jobs. Some people have said the show portrays a negative image of people on benefits. I know people who live on benefits and they don't live like this. I also spent 3 years living in Birmingham and didn't see evidence "scroungers". People who claim benefits are everywhere, in every city and town in the UK. What the show does do is shows its perspective of what some people on benefits go through and what they face.  

The show has had some major criticism, incensing conservative MPs to use the show as political fodder, cries of child exploitation, claims of poverty porn. I think I understand what the show is trying to do, show people on benefits and how day to day life is for them warts and all, but does it go too far? One thing that is portrayed is the community spirit people helping each other out like an episode of Eastenders, but maybe they should all go and just get a job.

Emailphobia

I'm going to confess something to you, something strange and something I thought was unusual. I have major work related EMAIL ANXIETY, yes e-mail anxiety. It starts before I get to work, where I envisage the number and type of emails I may have waiting for me in my inbox. The questions, requests and advice, the reports, unfinished work and other things, sometimes haunt me hours before I even get there. The fear or attaching the wrong document, or forgetting to attach the correct document to the e-mail, the repercussions can be utterly devastating.   The worst email anxiety episode may occur when returning from a few days off or holiday, there can be hundreds, even thousands of them lurking in your inbox.

I think that this form of communication in work places although convenient, quick and easy but I am sure too much of it is unhealthy. Hiding behind emails instead of picking up the phone or actually talking to the person next to you is sometimes a systematic trend of modern work environments.I encourage work places to rely less on the dreaded email, talk to colleagues face to face, pick up the telephone. Of course it is necessary to have a paper trail some times to save your bacon for proof if something dodgy does occur, but it shouldn't be relied upon.

So those of you that think that I am exaggerating, e-mail anxiety  is a REAL thing and work places should do every thing they can to minimise this.These things can be:

• Talking face to face?
• In meetings discussing as much as can be verbally and using emails to confirm and support prior information. 
• Picking up the phone for a short conversation

Following these tips may minimise the hundreds of emails that you may get. 

Do workplaces focus too much on perfection?

During an episode of Celebrity Masterchef earlier on this year, I came across a curious phenomenon. The head chef said to the celebrity that each plate that he/she produce should be perfect, flawless and consistently the same. It then dawned on me, is this even possible in an environment that is hot, highly pressured and loud?   Having worked in probably too many organisations (I blame the recession), public, private and charities I have observed a trend, a trend that has really started to disturb me; this trend is the obsession of managers to expect their employees to be "perfect". To eliminate mistakes, to consistently produce the same winning formula, but to improve and to strive for better all of the time, but is this too much to ask? As unpredictable as humans are and a constantly changing working environment with goal posts moving, is it realistic to expect perfection everyday? Or is it more realistic to allow employees to make and learn from their mistakes so as to work in a comfortable environment?

I am no philosopher, but I don't think we can be perfect consistently and especially not in the work place. Insisting on this is unrealistic in often confined, restricted employment environments with rigid job descriptions and archaic management structures is probably not a good idea. Focusing on perfect work I believe is not only destructive, can be short sighted and highly counter productive. Insistence on perfection can increase mistakes, increase anxiety, reduce productivity, decrease motivation and overall job satisfaction.

Instead I feel that work places should endeavour to minimise and  embrace mistakes. Allow employees to  learn from and develop strategies to prevent mistakes harming the productivity of the organisation.  A theory of organisational learning by a couple of researchers Argyris and Schon (1978), double and single loop learning suggests that organisations should try and eliminate mistakes before they happen in order for them to grow and develop effectively. In eliminating mistakes before they happen, an organisation has to learn from previous mistakes that have been made, perhaps from individuals, groups and the organisation as a whole.

So I think organisations should:

• Create an environment that is open and allows employees to make mistakes but have a forum to learn from them 
• Empower staff and allow them to create new ideas and allow them to implement them
• Open communication channels to make it easier for employees to share concerns
• Make work environments less formal in order to make work less stressful
• Praise staff when needed and  have development points for staff in 1-1s and appraisals
• Give employees time to absorb tasks, new environments and new ways of doing things 

I think if these things are done I believe staff will naturally begin to reduce mistakes and become more productive and happy.