Recruitment and Selection â the Great Neglected ... - Cardiff University

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Two key questions then are what drives the choice between formation or acquisition and between internal labour markets and external labour markets? In making these choices, an organisation’s options are liable to be constrained by the attractiveness of the job opportunities it has on offer. If the supply of labour, particularly good quality labour, is finite there will be a relative pecking order between organisations, sectors and occupations (see below). For example, one trade-off that the employer has to think about is that between the relative costs of recruitment and retention. In much of the HRM literature high levels of labour turnover are seen as a ‘bad thing’ (Gallagher and O’Leary, 2007) and its cost to the firm is stressed. For example, the CIPD’s (2008) Annual Survey Report on Recruitment, Retention and Turnover indicated that the estimated average expenses associated with filling a single vacancy were £4,667 (rising to £5,800 when labour costs were factored in), and that 70 per cent of respondents to the survey thought that loss of staff was having a negative impact on business performance. However, there is another side to this coin. In some instances (and given the data we have it is very hard to know how many) high levels of turnover, rather than indicating a failure of personnel management may reflect a conscious and calculated strategic trade-off between the cost of better pay, better working conditions, better designed and more interesting (although perhaps less productive) jobs versus the costs of R&S and the availability of labour (Beynon et al, 2002). For example, Lloyd (2007) provides an account of how the ready availability of appropriately qualified staff, not least recent graduates whose training costs have not been borne directly by employers, allows companies in the fitness industry to accept high levels of staff turnover and fashion R&S strategies to take account of this abundant supply of labour. Turnover will also get rid of burnt out staff, which are sometimes deemed an inevitable consequence of a favoured model of work organisation and job design that centres on stressful and repetitive work with little opportunity for progression (Beynon et al, 2002: 152-3). Thus, R&S activity levels may often be higher in a firm with a mass of low paid workers doing unattractive jobs, either within the organisation itself, or among the pool of agency workers from which the organisation draws staff to fill some or all of these positions (Beynon et al, 2002: 152-3). As Asset Skills (the SSC for the property services, housing, cleaning and facilities management sector) observes of the cleaning industry in its 2006 Skill Needs Assessment for the UK: 20
Turnover within cleaning staff is frequently reported as being very high with an average of three months length of stay often quoted. A case study produced by Asset Skills Research Team in 2005 reported an annual staff turnover rate of 70% amongst larger companies in the sector. Pay is considered to be an important factor in this. However, other factors impact on high turnover rates including the recruitment skills of employers, lack of long time (sic) investment in staff, staff shortages (which increase poaching), level of work intensity, management styles, and poor earnings potential. (Asset Skills, 2006: 7) In industries and occupations where high levels of turnover are liable to be endemic, and where employers have become resigned to this, or even encourage it, there is liable to be an impact on how they design such jobs in order to increase standardisation and hence ease the process of staff replacement, and on their willingness to offer training to such employees (see EKOS Consulting, 2006). At the same time, although the large, rigid organisational hierarchies that were associated with ILMs have thinned and flattened over the last two decades, there are signs that at least some large employers within sectors such as retailing and banking still offer opportunities for progression, albeit considerably more limited and spanning a smaller number of rungs in the organisational structure than of old (Grimshaw et al, 2002). Consequently, like the ‘death of the career’ and the end of the ‘job for life’ (Nolan and Wood, 2003), the demise of the internal labour market has possibly been overplayed. This fact notwithstanding, one key shift that does seem to be occurring is the growing impact of a large supply of graduate entrants to the labour market as a result of the expansion of higher education. The ready supply of relatively highly qualified young labour in the external labour market appears, at least in some organisations, to be reducing opportunities for existing workers to move up from the shop floor (Lloyd et al, 2008). This in turn has implications for occupational, and ultimately social, mobility (Keep and Mayhew, 2004). Furthermore, it is important to note that a counterbalance to some of the problems employers faced with R&S in the relatively tight labour market of 2000- 2008 was created by the growing influx of migrant labour, not least from the EU accession states. This was seen as an important component in meeting employers’ staffing needs and one that allowed organisations in less ‘attractive’ sectors to acquire a quality of labour that would be impossible within the home labour market. 21
Page 1: ISSN 1466-1535 Recruitment and Sele
Page 5: Abstract The purpose of this paper
Page 8 and 9: 2008; Shury et al, 2008). In the ma
Page 10 and 11: the most important weaknesses in ou
Page 12 and 13: • Manual dexterity, tool usage an
Page 14 and 15: 2006; Bowles and Gintis, 2002; Osbo
Page 16 and 17: inspectorate. A vocational qualific
Page 18 and 19: liable to be adopted as they presen
Page 20 and 21: generally viewed as two-fold. First
Page 22 and 23: part founded on a very optimistic (
Page 24 and 25: demand’ (Gallagher and O’Leary,
Page 28 and 29: As noted above, one of the key cons
Page 30 and 31: the rear. The same rules apply to s
Page 32 and 33: In the next generation, the only so
Page 34 and 35: lower/no qualifications to enter in
Page 36 and 37: and 3 (Keep, 2009b). Put bluntly, t
Page 38 and 39: shopfloor to supervisory and then m
Page 40 and 41: scale surveys and tries to delve in
Page 42 and 43: Edwards, P., and Ram, M. 2006. ‘S
Page 44 and 45: Jackson, M. 2001. ‘Meritocracy, e
Page 46 and 47: Machin, S., and Vignoles, A. 2001.
Page 48 and 49: Schuller, T. 2004. ‘Education and

Recruitment and Selection â the Great Neglected ... - Cardiff University

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?

Recruitment and Selection â the Great Neglected ... - Cardiff University