Recruitment

I have been writing another novel and there is a scene within it where the main character has a job interview and it made me reflect on my experience of the recruitment processes of many companies and just how bizarre they can be.  The weirdest interview I ever had was for a supermarket several years ago now, back when I worked in retail.  The interview began as a one on one process but progressed to a group stage where we were split into groups of 5 and given several sheets of paper, elastic bands, paper-clips, and a ping pong ball and told to construct a track that the ball would freely travel one metre along.  I understand the supposed aim of this exercise is to test team building, coordination, leadership, and all the rest of the justifications the company gave but the precocious nature of the task as part of a recruitment process for a job that did not ostensibly require these skills and abilities was what ultimately led me to the conclusion that they did what they did because they could, not because they needed to, which is something I have since seen repeated by many companies.

The supermarket in question is now in trouble financially like many businesses in the UK it is being forced to reflect on its structure and is facing many problems in this regard, as well as efficiency problems; there's a very real chance by the end of this year they will disappear from the UK high street none of which surprises me in the least because of how precious the company had become in their self image.  This bullshit, and make no mistake that is exactly what this is, stands as testament to the ludicrous nature of employment.  When people ask why the likes of Amazon succeed and their high street competitors stumble, the real reason I would argue is because Amazon competes in much more hostile terms.  Whilst their business practices can be questioned, and justifiably so, their recruitment process is a lot less discriminatory, their recruitment process is efficient in that it actually centres around the nature of the role you apply for.  If you apply for a technical role, expect a technical recruitment process that will examine your ability, if you apply for a non-technical role in a warehouse you can expect an interview process that is a lot less intensive and focuses on the practical side of the job you will do. 

This precision is something high street retailers did not do, indeed during the recruitment process I referred to above for said supermarket I was asked questions about managing staff, the role applied for had no managerial functions at all not even remotely so, which made the whole series of questions completely irrelevant and again you can argue about potential and progression all you want but when the recruitment process was being attended by a large group of applicants the amount of wasted time becomes apparent when you consider the vast majority will never progress to such roles and even if they were to apply for them in future they would go through another process at that time, the company won't look back at an interview they gave years ago.

Indeed if you visit Glassdoor - a website devoted to transparency in recruitment processes, where candidates past and present can share details of the recruitment process, those who have applied for warehouse roles working with Amazon are quite clear that the interview process is largely centred around availability for work, if you get an interview you've pretty much got a job waiting for you already.  This 'interview as an offer' type of employment is something I have also witnessed first hand with a number of employers notably call centres which take pretty much anyone who applies and puts them through their basic training to find out if they can do the job itself. 

Whilst I concede there are problems that arise from offering a job to everyone who applies, there has to be some balance and a degree of seriousness incorporated into recruitment processes.  If you actually want a company to succeed it needs to be willing to take on staff who don't necessarily tick every box but have the potential to do so, and there needs to be an acceptance that many existing employees aren't necessarily in the right job.  Mistakes can be made in all scenarios and it is often the case that people end up in positions they aren't suited for, it seems most companies in this situation either fail to recognise this or are reluctant to do anything to rectify the situation.

I admit there are regulations that can make it difficult or restrictive for the employer to tackle these situations, particularly if they become apparent long after probation periods or temporary contracts turn to permanent contracts, but it is not impossible to redeploy staff, to change their job duties, or to give them additional training so that they can actually become competent in their roles.  All of these things however cost money and most employers it seems use the excuse of not wanting to pay for such processes, I do wonder how much those employers actually lose through inefficiency and how many potential employees they miss out on because of their practices.  If there's one thing monopolization actually achieves it is that it forces competitors to actually compete, those that fail to put the effort into competing ultimately fail as a business and go under, that is the precipice upon which the supermarket in question now stands and if it falls I will have zero sympathy for them for the simple fact that I believe they brought it on themselves.