Recruitment is one of those issues that regularly tops polls of HR’s biggest headaches.
But you have to wonder whether the recruitment procedures organisations devise are actually putting off potential recruits even before they’ve started.
There are a fair few examples of non-standard recruitment methods in this week’s issue. Take charity Agapé, for example, which asks potential employees to raise a large chunk of their own salary before it will employ them (see Missionary’s position on pay is unique) – not something that will tempt many of us, although it’s arguably a unique way of attracting people with the right cultural ‘fit’ for a religious organisation.
Our Ranter (see Have a rant – HR recruitment) recounts how her experiences of being interviewed for HR jobs have been slow, shoddy and, in some cases, downright discriminatory. And our Opinion piece (see DoH quest to fill top HR job was a missed opportunity) gives an interesting insight into the baffling recruitment process currently being carried out for one of the prime jobs in HR – workforce director at the Department of Health.
Ultimately, the way candidates are contacted, interviewed and assessed – and especially the way they are rejected – has an impact on the employer brand. HR should not allow shabby and questionable recruitment practices to damage it.
ROI should not be matter of faith
The fact the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) has spent millions of pounds setting up a major new business school (see RBS invests in belief that staff development will bring returns), but has no plans to measure the return on its investment (ROI), is bound to raise a few eyebrows.
It seems surprising that an organisation such as RBS – which has led the way in linking HR metrics with business performance – should choose to apply different criteria to its leadership development training. Why should money spent on training be evaluated any differently from any kinds of investment?