Posted by: Jo Jordan on: July 4, 2009
One of the biggest complaints we hear from businesses is that they cannot hire the skills they want in the UK market. It’s called the talent war.
I want to show you a simple calculation I did for someone that might explain what is giving you a headache in your recruitment and selection.
This little firm was looking for ‘partners’ to work in a role similar to agents or franchisees. Their partners don’t have to have any particular qualification, so they should be easy to recruit. After a little thinking and talking, this is what we came up with.
Now we can add some figures to this model and here is where you might get a surprise.
Let me remind you of some figures.
These splits correspond to 3 standard deviations on the right hand side of a normal curve. You might recall that? We could use finer divides but we will start with these to get a preliminary fix on where we are going.
The people we are looking for do not have to be super intelligent. University and above is at the 83:17 divide. We are happy at the 50:50 divide. Below that, people may have trouble filling in commercial documents.
We are looking for someone who stood out in some way – played at the highest levels of school sport, for example, or raised a lot of money for charity, or even did well at academics. Probably at the 97:3 split. Someone who took a big prize at school.
These people don’t wait for someone to tell them what to do. They work things out and find new opportunties. They aren’t people for the sausage-machine of institutions. They are the people who make us think, “I wish I had done that”, or “How did you think of that?” And they view setbacks as adventures. 97:3
Unsual levels of integrity and sincerity. At least once in their lives, they’ve done something properly when people around them were spinning, skiving or taking shortchuts. 97:3
There are 30 million people in UK of working age. How many of them fit this description and are candidates for our recruitment and selection drive?
Half of them have the intelligence required: 15 million
3% of the top half of intelligent people are very energetic and persistent : 450 000
3% of these have unusual levels of entrepreneurial spirit or curiosity: 13 500
3% of these have the commitment to integrity that we need: 405
Well, first of all let’s look at turnover. It is usually 14% a year in the UK and that includes the high churn sectors like hospitality and catering. Even if we bump up the turnover rate arbitrarily to 20% for the recession, we have only (.2 x 400) =80 people in our group who are looking for a job.
And of course some of these are doctors and lawyers, and some people are in the wrong sectors or wrong part of UK. They are not available to be recruited or selected by us.
Not many left are there?
I am used to the process of selection and to these numbers, yet they still shock me. So please find my error and dm me. I am hoping you will find my mistake because the numbers are shocking.
My point – and it is a serious point - is that you cannot have one demanding requirement after another.
There simply aren’t enough people in the UK to meet your demanding needs.
There aren’t enough exceptional people in the economy to run it if is based on exceptional talent.
Ruthless in thinking about selection from the candidate’s point-of-view.
No one taught you that at uni, did they? Yep, we like to keep some secrets to ourselves.
But now, it’s yours.
Review your HR specifications. And keep it real. Let your competitors be the ones to live in the world of make-believe.
Posted by: Jo Jordan on: July 3, 2009
I am a serial migrant and one thing you learn “on the road” is that every community has phrases and ideas that are deeply coded. They simply don’t mean what they sound as if they mean.
When I first arrived in UK, I heard people saying “Bless”, quite a lot. I even asked someone what they meant.
It was a dumb thing to do, of course. When he said “Bless”, he was saying “Oh sod off, I can’t be bothered with your troubles.” He certainly wasn’t going to translate accurately.
He said he was commiserating. And no, he did not follow through on what I was asking him to do and what I though he was obliged to do. Lol.
I remember someone returning from UK to Zimbabwe after studying for four years here and he told us seriously that he was going to study face recognition because it was important in jury trials.
I remember looking around the room and thinking, “Who is going to tell him?” No one spoke up, so I said as gently as I could, “X, we don’t have juries in Zimbabwe.”
And we don’t have juries in Zimbabwe not because of the current troubles but because we have Roman-Dutch law. So does South Africa, and oddly Sri Lanka.
Because of this difference, I am always on the look out for things that I just “don’t get” – where I might be jumping the wrong way because I grew up in another system.
Look at this quotation from a famous US lawyer, Newton Minow.
“After 35 years, I have finished a comprehensive study of European comparative law. In Germany, under the law, everything is prohibited, except that which is permitted. In France, under the law, everything is permitted, except that which is prohibited. In the Soviet Union, under the law, everything is prohibited, including that which is permitted. And in Italy, under the law, everything is permitted, especially that which is prohibited.“[9]
It is my understanding that Roman law fits into the German camp. Unless I am allowed to do it, I can’t.
And it is my understanding, that English law (I am not sure about Scots law) is in the French category. Do whatever you like. We will say if you can’t.
This is how confusion arises in practice.
When I read a sign that says “Parking is Permitted with a Permit from 10-11 and 2-3″, my first reaction is puzzlement – followed by a eh? Why would I want to park here from 10-11 and 2-3?
No, it doesn’t mean that at all. It means you can park here whenever you want, but you must
a) move your car between 10-11 and 2-3
or
b) buy a ticket.
I bet you thought that was obvious. I am still confused every time I see that sign but as it only costs 40p to park there all day it is a confusion I will put up with.
When I heard the Unions negotiating for workers to go to work in shorts during this past very hot week, I got into a Twitter conversation about the nanny state and I started to wonder if this difference accounts for differences in management style as well.
Meetings in Germanic countries are brisk. You go in armed with facts and figures and MAKE DECISIONS, quickly and definitively.
Anglo meetings swirl around this way and that with no agenda and no outcome. As an American-trained, Indian-born manager used to say in NZ (nudging me with his elbow and whispering out the side of his mouth): “Sit back and wait. We will be here for the next hour discussing process and there will be no goal”. Sure enough, for the next hour we discuss who wants what. What we are trying to achieve collectively is not mentioned at all. Who knows whate we were there for but we’ve had a spirited discussion about individual preferences.
I think I prefer a system where everything is allowed unless it is prohibited.
But possibly when you grow up in system like that you aren’t used to designing systems or spaces where things happen.
And then you get a profileration of crazy rules. 10 signs per 100 yards, or whatever the figure is for British roads.
And it also means that one of your choices in life is to sit and do nothing. Though some people are trying to prohibit that too. This illustrates my point. Designing and organizing for action is quite different from banning the few things that we may not do. Banning someone from doing X will not get them to do Y.
This thought process is starting to feel like ‘reaching’ to me. But to try to illustrate my point.
What if you simply told people to drive safely and they will be accountable for what they smash into?
What if you told people to pay their taxes but that we would display online how much they paid?
Life can be made very simple if we choose.
And we shouldn’t have to tell people what to wear to work. Really. If it is hot, wear shorts. If it is cold, wear a jumper.
Of course, if you cannot afford a change of clothes, that would be my concern. I’ve been brought up in system where managers are supposed to make things possible. We are certainly accountable if people cannot see the way forward and don’t have the resources to get there.
Have a great weekend!
Posted by: Jo Jordan on: July 3, 2009
I’ve been in UK for two years now and frankly, I find the HR documentation here well. . . what euphemism shall I use . . . undeveloped.
From time to time, I’ve been sufficiently unwise to comment – and these are the excuses I get, sometimes concurrently, a dazzling tightrope of logic.
Turnover is so high that we cannot keep up with the documentation. So we issue poor documentation or none at all.
Nobody knows what will be done in the job.
This is the system we have worked out. That must count for something.
Well, we will put in a clause “And any other task required by the Head of Department”. 90% of work comes under that clause.
I know I didn’t mention it but it is on page 56 or in the middle paragraph of an email addressed to someone else and copied to you.
I remember years ago, one of my former students asked to see me at my house on a Saturday morning. He had been given a rough talking to be a line manager at work and he didn’t really understand what he was doing wrong. “I just took him some forms to fill in,” he said,”and the the guy laid in to me”.
My reply was to ask whether he was a high-paid messenger boy. Did the organization need a graduate to move forms from one point in the organization to another?
What he needed to do was to ask the line manager questions in the line manager’s language, translate into HR-speak, fill in the form and return it to the line manager for signing.
And the line manager should look at it and look up with a shine in his eyes, and say: “Oh, that’s what this is for!”
And they should feel that scales have fallen from their eyes and they see the work they do as clearly as if someone wiped the mist off the mirror and they see themselves for the first time.
This morning I stumbled over this excellent example of a job description, and given the quality of job descriptions that I am seeing daily, I thought it would be good to flag it up and link to it.
Job description of a website owner
It says clearly
It says clearly how each task contributes to
And now you might say, I would like to but this place is just not that organized - the work changes from day-to-day.
Then that is your first job. To get it organized.
Actually, the organization is probably more organized than you think. Wipe the mist from the mirror and let them see themselves.
Just write down what they do all day and sort it out. It may take you a few hours but everything else in HR flows from there.
When the job description is clear, it is easy to
In short, you cannot do your job until you have worked out what people do on the job.
And writing it down allows us to check that we have a common understanding.
That is our job. To be the mirror of the organization so that we develop a common understanding and confidence in each other.
Collective efficacy, believing that the next person is competent, adds 10% to the value of an organization – and a 10% that cannot be copied by your competitor. No money in the world can buy collective efficacy. It comes from the continual work of developing confidence in each other.
And we cannot be confident of each other when we each have a different idea about what we are supposed to be doing.
It’s as simple as that.
Well, my former student’s eyes lit up as the penny dropped. He went back to work and started delivering value to his line managers.
The firm did fold eventually (but not because of him). Indeed, they kept him on to manage the redundancies. When he was done, he joined Ernst & Young as a Consultant. Then he moved to a bank and after that he started his own firm of consultants.
I hope you enjoy the job description. It is a fine example of good work.
PS I’ll tell you where the 10% comes from if you want.
Posted by: Jo Jordan on: July 1, 2009
I think all ‘noobes’ to the internet struggle with Google keywords and experienced geeks around us don’t want to come clean and say simply how the system works.
Well there is a chicken-and-egg system here. You don’t know which keywords to use until you know! Maybe you may learn something from my this little experiment of mine.
On Monday afternoon, I found a Googles Voucher in my ‘maybe sometime’ box and it was about to expire on Tuesday. So I decided to run a Googles Ad and see what 30 pounds could buy me in 24 hours.
Good luck with your experiment. Buzz me if you need help.
And sorry about the ad yesterday. I wasn’t trying to sell you anything. If you are a friend of mine, I helped you practice your interview for free!
Posted by: Jo Jordan on: June 29, 2009
The worst thing about preparing for a job interview is the time it takes. Google “job interview preparation” and it will take you a good half-an-hour just to pick out some good resources.
Then, you have to wade your way through the article. And you are no better off! It’s like learning to drive from a manual.
Down the right hand side of the screen, Google helpfully lists adverts for career coaches who help you practice for job interviews. They may save you some time.
Hmm, but no coaches who practice over the internet. I’ll do it for you, if you like.
EXECUTIVE : 100 pounds (for preparation, interview & feedback)
PROFESSIONAL: 50 pounds (for preparation, interview & feeback)
SCHOOL-LEAVER or OPERATIONAL: 33 pounds (for preparation, interview & feedback).
My professional profile is at Jo Jordan on Linkedin.
Let’s get this done!
Posted by: Jo Jordan on: June 28, 2009

Have you been listening to Michael Sandel’s Reith lectures? These are my favourite quotations from Lecture 2 on morality & politics that seem to have an intuitive bearing on the task of management.
“A politics of moral engagement is also a more inspiring ideal than a politics of avoidance . . . that our debates about justice are inescapably arguments about the good life then a politics of moral engagement is also a more promising basis for a just society.”
To determine rights we need to determine the essential nature of the activity – and “virtues worth honouring.”
Artistotle: Justice means giving people what they deserve.
“The best flutes should go to the best flute players because that’s what flutes are for.”
Can we reason about social practices in the face of disagreement?
What was the conflict really about? The reasons given in a dispute may not be the real reasons.
“Debates about the rights . . . are about the purpose of social institutions, the goods they allocate, and the virtues they honour and reward.”
We cannot make decisions on neutral grounds. . . we have to look at the version of morality that we advocate. When we referee, we are clarifying the moral purpose of an institution.
What is the sine qua non of the institution? Which interpretation of the purpose or essence “celebrates virtues worth honouring”?
“Contested moral terrain” . . . “we cannot remain neutral toward competing conceptions of the good life”.
[How do we clarify the various arguments about the 'good life' that are being put forward? Do we aid the organization by clarifying the alternative arguments and the agreement that we will enact?]
Is it possible to conduct our politics on the basis of mutual respect?
Does respect mean ignoring the opinions of others? [e.g., what most people call PC]
Robust public engagement with more moral disagreements could provide a stronger not weaker. . . basis for mutual respect.
Attend to the views of others – sometimes contesting and sometimes listening & learning.
A politics of moral engagement is also a more inspiring ideal than a politics of avoidance . . . that our debates about justice are inescapably arguments about the good life then a politics of moral engagement is also a more promising basis for a just society.
Offer reasons and listen to the reasons given in reply [Isan answer invited? Do we expect to learn?]
There are dogmatic secularists just as there are dogmatic secularists
Re: Barack Obama. Hunger for spiritual discourse and bring it to bear on public life. [Is it so repulsive to bring spirituality into discussions of work? Presumably only if no answer is invited - which is why CCTV cameras are offensive and why it is so satsifying when the security apparatus is filmed committing misdeeds.]
We don’t know in advance what the moral argument will be. Hence we need to open the discussion to all sectors of the community. [Diversity = talking to people who are unfamiliar and scary.]
Change takes place when people are persuaded by circumstances and the debates taking place around them . . . ambitious engagement with what the good life is . . .
[Can we ask people at work about the good life? I think David Cooperrider does in Appreciative Inquiry. But the answers may change our strategy as we clarify the essential activity of our institution, as we resolve tensions about the 'goods we allocate', and under stand the 'virtues we celebrate honour and reward.' And this discussion is ongoing because we don't know what the next discussion will reveal. So we need an organizational design - itself subject to debate - which allows us to clarify and act - clarify and act. That is consistent with Weick's work, is it not?]
Does the general argument apply to workplaces? Why does Sandel think this is soooo important? There may be issues to resolve but a high level change to politics is separate argument that might require a large problem to justify engagement. Phrased alternatively – who might argue against Sandel and what would their argument be?
Where do we debate the ‘essential activity’ of work, the ‘goods we allocate’ and the virtues we celebrate, honour and reward? Are the virtues we honour and reward still worth celebrating? I think many authors would say not and that many if not most of us feel a deep weariness about the social insitution of work. We would dearly love to have the notion of work revitalised.
So then how does Sandel’s work fit in with the work of David Whyte, Otto Scharmer? I suspect they would like it. Do they quote each other?
I’d love to hear your thoughts if you have any. Sandel’s Reith lectures are available on BBC as podcasts – about 45 minutes each with question time. The next one is on Tuesday 30 June 2009 at 9am BST. That’s around midday in Washington, DC where he will be speaking.
Posted by: Jo Jordan on: June 27, 2009
I just read a post about the closing of “defined benefit” pension schemes that we hear about in the news, and the rather old news that public pensions are not funded – meaning – we are expecting today’s children to grow into adults and pay us out of their NI contributions – to put it starkly.
I started writing a tutorial on pensions and what you should know about your own fund. In my experience, people pay 6% of their own money in and their employer pays as much, if not more.
But few people, including white collar professionals have any idea where the money goes, or whether they will ever get it back.
I’ve deleted the tutorial, though, because I felt as if I was spreading alarm & despondency and though I know more than most people, I am not an actuary. So I’ll make this deal.
If you want to contact me, I’ll walk you through the questions you should be asking.
Grab your pension handbook, scan the contents, and I’ll walk your through the sections you should be looking for. You can read the whole thing when you understand the framework.
What I wanted to say on the post but got blocked by blogspot’s sign in (give us the option of typing in our blog name would you – open id often crashes), is that we should get over our personal screaming heeby-jeebies and start structuring the debate about pensions as a wider issue.
It is great to think that a pension will give us a fabulous old age, and some people are living royally, but how many people have benefited? In UK and world wide?
What are we deeply committed to doing for older people? And how widespread is that agreement? Are we honouring that commitment?
For a start, why do we assume that we should stop work at 65. It was notworthy that in The Economist debate this week, 80% of people voted to raise or abolish the retirement age. .
Most people don’t understand that public pensions are unfunded. For the most part, the NI contributions of today pay for the pensions for tomorrow.
Has the younger generation, whom we outnumber, agreed to pay us? Are we increasing the likelihood that they will want to and/or will the economic ability to deliver?
When we pay into a pension fund we are agreeing to something that will happen in 40, 50, 60, 70 years ahead. Can we predict that far?
Perhaps we need another way of thinking about funding old age?
In crude terms, it has gone to people who have already retired and a lot has been lost in the credit crunch.
What interests me though, is where our pension funds were/are invested. When I put in 6% of my salary and my employer puts in another 8% say, I am actually paying a ‘tax’ of 14%.
The money goes into a fund and, because of its size, becomes capital. It is available to companies as capital to grow and expand.
And it is available to governments to borrow (gilts) to fund roads, schools, etc. They promise to pay it back out of future taxes – hopefully from an economy that is bigger and healthier, but of course, may not be.
And best of all, the goverment borrows from its citizens rather than from sovereign funds in other countries (government surpluses in other countries.)
Who is using them to invest? Who was investing banks involved in derivatives, etc?
If you were an employer, would you offer a pension fund. I am not sure I would. I would invest in employees’ education. My greatest concern would that they are very flexible with multiple skills and multiple languages followed by the ability to run their own businesses. That’s the most ethical solution that I can think of.
But if there were no pension funds, who will supply investment capital? Who does have access to large dollops of money that we call capital?
Right locals -fill me in. Tell me how it works here!
Posted by: Jo Jordan on: June 25, 2009
Gee, I have been so buried in writing proposals, I no longer have any idea of which day or week it is. Rather literally. But it is in writing proposals that we realise just how inefficient the market economy is. All these people marketing, selling, bidding, cajoling. Do we really increase the value of the economy this way? Isn’t this time wasting much like the perennial security guard at every doorway in a third world country. Doing nothing, going nowhere? Don’t you get incensed at the waste of your time? Let me explain further why it affects everyone. You, me. Our sons. Our daughters.
You all know the concept of a “flexible labour market“, don’t you? If not follow the link to a clearly written A level crib sheet.
Flexible labour markets are based on the idea that a good market “clears”. A market is good if I can bring my tomatoes and customers come and buy them.
The price is not determined in advance. The price is allowed to change with supply (number of people selling) and demand (number of people buying). And as we all know, at the end of the day, the price can drop significantly as sellers contemplate no sale. Equally, the best stuff will sell at a higher price early in the morning.
When we come to labour markets, the idea is that you and I, sellers of labour can go to the market and sell our goods, that is, our time and expertise. If there is a good market, we will be bought, when we want to be bought; and buyers will find someone to buy, when they want someone to buy.
Of course, labour markets are not 100% flexible. We are blocked in by contracts. The employer guarantees to give you work and to pay you on time. You guarantee to do work and have to give notice if you want to change employers.
Some labour markets are very inflexible. I believe in the UK, 30 years ago, I we wanted to move a telephone in a student dormitory, it would be a nightmare. Why? A telephone technician wasn’t be allowed to screw the device onto the wall. That was the carpenter’s job. If this story is not 100% accurate, then it was similar.
The “defined benefit” pension scheme also adds rigidity to the markets.
A defined benefit (DB) scheme means we pay in a fixed % of a our salary today for the right to draw a pension at a given age (usually 65) at 66% of our average of last three year’s salary (or similar calculation).
The importance to this calculation to what I am saying today is not the pension, much as it is on everyone’s minds, but that the 66% was based on an assumption of working for 40 years out of 60 for one employer (starting in your early twenties).
Here you can see the legacy of rigid labour markets that we haven’t sorted out, even in theory.
Implicit in your monthly donation of a fixed %, is that you will stay for 40 years. If you leave before then, you will pay a heavy financial penalty.
So most people stay. Every year, some people retire and we can replace those with 20 year olds while everyone moves up a notch. Neat?
Yes it is, BUT
. . . this model doesn’t allow for radical changes in skill. And it only works when people do retire – which they haven’t been the case with the bulge of the baby boomers. Of course now the boomers are approaching retirement, organizations running this model will suddenly need to take on a lot of young people, some of whom will not be able to get the experience they need quickly enough to replace people who are leaving.
Equally, if you have to take people on for 40 years, as an employer you may think twice. It is much more convenient to be able to ask someone to leave when you have no work for them or cannot afford to may them.
So employers like a “flexible” labour market. They want it to be easy to ask people to leave.
And the payoff for us is that
The downside is that we haven’t thought this through.
Pensions and in the States, health insurance, are tied to employement. So employees are unable to move.
If employers don’t provide these benefits, an underclass of employees develops. In the trade this is aptly called the secondary labour market – cheap and disposable.
My biggest concern is that when a labour market is massively flexible, how do employees – that is you and me – the sellers of labour, see far enough ahead to know what to invest in?
Of course this is an issue in all business. How do farmers know how many tomatoes to plant? How does Warren Buffet know what stocks & shares to buy on the stock market?
They do it in three ways:
Think of third world farmers contracting with FairTrade to sell you coffee. They are doing it less for the price and more the stability of the contract.
Think of third world farmers who adopt mobile phones at the speed of light because they can find out prices readily in local and international markets.
So why then do we assume
My question today, and I hope some people can answer it, as I am a noobe in this part of the world, is
which politiccal parties have an explicit agenda to make sure each and every person has sufficient information to make informed decisions about the investment in skill.
I don’t think governement has to make decisions about our investments for us. But it does need to make sure there is an environment in which institutions who repesent us emerge (and do their job well).
Where does a young person in the UK and the USA find out this information?
Recent Comments