RECRUITMENT

More documents

Recommendations

Info

GWSRR “Only a great leader or an astute or open minded leader is going to look for those qualities.” - Nicole Karagiannis. WWW.WSBA.COM.AU Continued from page 29 The 70/20/10 rule. So, 70% will be on-thejob. And that’s going to have to be led by the leadership in the organisation. There is a role for government. You didn’t include government. But I think it’s a kind of three way responsibility between the individual and industry and government – because government has a responsibility to be building the workforce that’s needed, not now but in 5 to 10 years time. And, you know, as we were all talking about 40% of the jobs that are current there today won’t be there tomorrow – and so, there is a role for government to identify: what are the areas where there’s skill shortage, where it’s going to hold back the economy of the state or the economy of the nation, and invest in – you know – it’s an investment, just like infrastructure, to invest in the skills of its people. And clearly, when we benchmark against other OECD countries, we usually fall short in the level of skills and qualifications in the workforce. David Pring: What are the top countries that lead? Alison Wood: The Scandinavian countries. Singapore. Singapore has got an unbelievable record in training. Yeah, a number of European countries. Germany is pretty well out there. And they’ve all got different approaches as to how they educate. But – so, there is that role as well. There’s the question of what proportion does each take. And the individual does need to have some responsibility too. I don’t think that we can live in a completely sort of socialist world where, you know... And I don’t think that’s the way to get the best. I mean we know that people who pay fees have higher – like, cohorts are fee paying groups at higher completion rates than cohorts that are all on commissions. And they’ve invested – and they want to see a return on their investment. Jim Taggart: I’ll come back to that question in a moment. David, in the financials, do many companies – now, bear in mind I think somewhere between 85% and 91% - the exact amount, it’s a big number – employ less than 20 people – in fact, employ less than 10 people. So, I’d like to dwell on that argument about how do they afford that. But, in your experience – and it’s vast experience – is there a provision in the financials for training and so on by firms? Is it a conscious decision by them? David Pring: I’m just trying to think if I’ve seen any profit and loss budgets that don’t have a provision for training. I can’t think of any. The question always becomes the effectiveness of training. How do you get more for the same? How do you get more for less? Those types of questions. But I don’t think there’s an organisation that doesn’t recognise the need for training. David Pring. Tom Graham: It might not have a budget. Jim Taggart: So it’s budgeted for? Tom Graham: It may or may not be, but it’s done. Jim Taggart: It’s done. Would that be 3%, 5%? And so, I’m trying to ask from the point of view – and I know it’s going to be difficult to measure and so on – but I’m just trying to get an idea because I would think that it’s a reasonably low figure. I guess that’s what I’m trying to tease out. Is it? Hardeep Girn: I’ve seen 10% in a firm that I worked. It was 10% of the department’s budget spent on training staff, year on year. But certainly, within Australia, I think it’s less. But that’s just based on personal experience. I’m not sure whether that’s something that any of you guys have picked up across the medium to large sized firms or even in smaller firms. Scott Henshaw: No, is the answer, mate, to be honest. Jim Taggart: Well let me ask you, Nicole? Can we ask you – because you employ a vast number of people and training is significant. I don’t want to know the exact amount, for privacy reasons and so on. Nicole Karagiannis: Yes. It is a small percentage. However, it’s linked back to talent management and succession planning. So, it might be a lot more – a larger amount for a high potential employee or a high performer – and a conscious decision that, if someone who’s in the high potential program or a high performing individual that you know, you’re grooming or you’re preparing that person for the next step – and you know that they’re a future leader or a future expert in XYZ, as an organisation you consciously do spend on them, even getting their Masters Degree for example – and what’s that these days? 30K – as opposed to the 1,000 per annum that other organisations budget for, for example. So, it’s consciously there – budget per individual. But it’s different amounts and different approaches per the person requesting. Jim Taggart: Joe Hockey this morning spoke at an accounting seminar/breakfast, and he was speaking about the impact of tax – what we call tax (inaudible)... on take home pay. I want to say to you, Tom: remuneration – how critical is that going forward for employer/employee relationships? Tom Graham: It’s still going to be a major concern while they’ve got big mortgages, obviously. There’s no way we can get away from that. I will go back to what I said earlier on – when I think about the future employer, there’s two things I kept coming back to: what the employer needs to be is more flexible and a better communicator. Jim Taggart: I’m going to challenge you. When you say “more flexible”, what do you really mean by that? I might come to work tomorrow? Tom Graham: I think it’s a very important issue – the work environment. The work environment itself does not necessarily have to be an office environment as well. We talked about technology – and improved technology. And we know people work more than the standard hours. That’s a given. So, if that person says, Look, I can’t come in today, my son’s sick. Or, so other reason whatever it is. Is that such a big thing particularly if they say– but I will get the job done, it will be done from home. I would say “yes”. I believe the employer of the future - who’s going to retain those really quality people will to have to be more flexible from the work environment point of view. I really do. I think it’s already here now. You look at some of the major companies – and we touched on it very briefly earlier – they have day care facilities for children. That’s going to be more and more, you know. I can see it as a real growth area; and an opportunity to be different. That really does psychologically wonderful things for the women, particularly – but even the men – because, you know, they have the same concerns. I’ve actually had an employee of mine years ago who took two years off to look after the children, so his wife could resume her career. Employers of the future need to be more caring and understanding of employees changing priorities. David Pring: I just think there’s a real opportunity for employers as we all grapple with what our businesses are going to look like, to have a more flexible workforce because – whether it’s part time workers, older workers, younger generation who want to do things differently – as we can assemble a workforce that can expand and contract very flexibly, then we’ve got a much better way of competing, than if we’ve got a fixed workforce that the only way we can expand it is to employ more people. Now if you’ve got people that work two days a week, if you’ve got a really exciting project, they’re going to want to work three or four. And, when you don’t have an exciting project, they’re quite happy to go back to two. It gets the attention of the Gen Ys who come in and say: I’m going to do this work. And if you can provide me more interesting stuff, then I’ll pick it up and then go back. So, I think there’s a real opportunity for employers to have a more flexible workforce, rather than to say: I have to change the way I want to work to suit the workforce. I think there’s a real opportunity there to say: We can actually change our business model to be more flexible and more competitive. Alison Wood: Yeah, there’s a bulge at the top end of the workforce at the moment. And there’s a gap at the bottom end of the workforce with young people. And what it means is that younger people – good younger people – are going to be able to pick their jobs. So, companies in the future are going to have to provide the sorts of things that that generation wants, because there’s going to be few of them taking care of us in our old age. Tom Graham: Some companies will have to change their attitude about grey power and aging – there are some out there who he says, you know, you’re over 55 and that you’re past your “use by” date. I can never understand that attitude because all that knowledge and expertise is walking out of the door. David Pring: But if you can tap into that, and have more or less of it on tap, then you’ve got a much more flexible workforce – you know, more and more grey power – a different mix of workforce – and all happy to expand and contract. Jim Taggart: One of the questions I’d like to throw open to everyone is there has been very little discussion – and perhaps even thought – and I’d like to suggest this to you to consider. One of the things that we’ve omitted from our dialogue is the whole area around what I call “the global village”. And I really think that that concept has been ignored in the whole employer/employee relationships. For example, a very good friend of ours was in the Philippines last week doing business tied to his business in Australia. So, the point I’m really trying to make is not just international students or anything like that – just simply that production process – that all what I call end-to-end solutions, has taken on a very different dimension. I just thought a bit of concept around that. The traditional what we call “the invisible hand” – Adam Smith’s invisible hand and things happening in the local area and so on, I think has been dismantled. And I’m just interested in that – in the production process taking place at a global level. I just thought your comments on that. Tom Graham: They’ve already got that medical technology. That is, you can have inserted a device that tells you while you walk around how you are functioning and sends out warning signs. Alison Wood: Because, in the future, it’s true: job roles will change – so that there’ll be a whole lot of things that can be done by artificial intelligence or by computers that are currently being done by people. There’ll still be the hands-on things. But even a lot of the hands-on things – things that you’d really, really believe you need a person in, in the future you probably won’t. So, we’re having to change a lot of our training around those kinds of changes. I’ll just give you an example from my own industry – from education. So – and it comes back to your point: there’s a huge middle class in China. We’ve got training partners in China. We deliver in China with six different colleges over there and we do in Korea as well. There is a huge, huge middle class in the whole of South East Asia and China that want to learn Australian qualifications in English. That makes them global citizens. That makes them completely portable. And what Tom Graham. Continued on page 31 30 WESTERN SYDNEY BUSINESS ACCESS SEPTEMBER 2015
GWSRR “I read a really good line. It says: learning has no end date. And it stays with me all the time.” - Jim Taggart. WWW.WSBA.COM.AU Nicole Karagiannis. Tom Graham and Alison Wood. Continued from page 30 that means is that a whole lot of stuff that’s currently being done onshore will be done offshore at a fraction of the price, which has already been happening for years anyway. But it will, you know, escalate. And it means that, you know, anybody – English is the passport. So people want that training. Jim Taggart: Yeah. It’s the currency. Alison Wood: And in ASEAN countries, they’re starting to develop up their qualifications which are portable across ASEAN states. And the qualification framework they’re using is the Australian one because it fits. So, you know, I mean in the future it really is going to be – which is why in TAFE – and certainly I know with kids in University too – my daughter’s one of them – every second person studies International Studies and have an opportunity to study abroad for a year. So, my daughter’s off to Japan next year. And that is how those kids are going to maintain their employability – having that global experience. Jim Taggart: And thank you for sharing that, because that’s really where I was going down with the “invisible hand” and Adam Smith – that the global village now – knowledge, skill development is a much wider passport and things. It’s quite interesting. In a number of schools, Mandarin and other language – sorry – in NSW language is declining. This is important because it’s dealing with skills. It’s skill development. And yet, in a number of schools, they’ve taken that on as a mandate within their curriculum and so on. And particularly in primary schools. That’s critical in terms of employer/employee development. And that’s why I started leading with a question, by saying: it is the employer’s role to pay for training – or is it? Where does it become the ownership of the individual to do that? And I think Scott you were talking about that. But it’s really interesting – that whole migration and change. Hardeep Girn: Can I just say these couple of points? One is going back to the previous comment on the global village, but also the role of the government and the role of the employer. If there is going to be economic success at the state level, at the national or at an international level, then certainly the government and the employer needs to put their hand in their pocket to ensure that the employees get what they need to develop not just the organisation, but where they’re entering into new markets – be it that they’re going to be learning a new language or a new skill or a new craft. I think that employees do have to consider that they can’t have a fully flexible work environment because there’s a lot of other forces at play where there’s a lot of labour, a lot of people who are talented, there are a lot of people who are, applying for the same type of job. So, I wouldn’t want to figure a guess on what’s the average number of applicants per job. But I would imagine it’s quite significant across most sectors at the moment given the low unemployment rate. So, with overseas students as well, the education is delivered more online. There is a global demand for that type of education. I’m interested to hear more on what TAFE are doing in other markets – not just in China, but in India... Alison Wood: Yeah. It’s huge. It’s huge. There are a lot of opportunities there. Just one other point there. And that maybe again, it’s a difference between the tertiary sector – the Universities and vocational education and training – has been is that we are moving vocational training into a marketised system where the student chooses what they wish to train in. We weren’t like that previously. When we were mainly subsidised by the government, the government set the areas. Well, we assisted in using you know data access – economic data – and we would say we need this many people in this industry area and this many in this – and that’s what we were paid to deliver. So, we had a performance agreement and we delivered. So I know when I worked at Ultimo, we only ever offered 70 places in fashion design. We always had over a thousand applicants. So, the system that we’ve moved into now is it’s a student driven system – the same as the Universities. So, that’s why there are enough journalists being trained by Universities every year as the number of positions in Australia. The same with lawyers. And the same in our area. Now we have got ekes of people enrolled in fashion design because that’s the student demand and that’s how – it’s an entitlement system. That is an issue. On a personal level I think that there needs to be more engineering around how subsidies are used and how governments direct subsidies to be used. And I believe it should happen in Universities as well as in vocational training, because at the moment we’ve got a lot of unemployed graduates. 40% of University graduates are still unemployed after six months of completing their Degree. Michael Walls: Is that across all Degrees – all different types of Degrees? All over the place? Alison Wood: That’s a high level statistic, so it varies. But I know that there’s far too many law graduates at the moment. Tom Graham: Exactly. Alison Wood: So, you know, we’ve got a huge skill shortage coming up in construction, plumbing – any of the traditional trades. No parents want their kids to go into those. They’re all aspirational. They want them to have the University Degrees and go into those areas. But in fact there’s going to be huge skill shortage areas where we’re not going to have enough. Hardeep Girn: And even the migrant test has those skills at the top – the carpentry, the plumbing, etc. Alison Wood: That’s right. That’s why. Hardeep Girn: It’s not the lawyers that the country needs. Jim Taggart: Ok We are coming to the end of our session here today so I’m just going to call on Hardeep to sum up what this has meant for him. Hardeep, please? Hardeep Girn: It’s around the value proposition. For employees as well as employers. And it comes back down to the key skills. So, in changing times, you do need to be able to communicate well. You do need to be able to have the confidence. And certainly, the capability internally and externally is so important. I think there is an abundance of technical knowledge out there. And I think our competitive edge as a society and as a country is what we develop as individuals through personal development. That’s the reason we put this course together in the first place, to ensure that those skills that are slowly declining around communication, confidence and capability, aren’t forgotten. The danger is, as more people see technical knowledge as a commodity in what they’re selling and doing, that you don’t have a point of difference. And you have to have a point of difference in business; otherwise, we won’t be successful. Jim Taggart: Hardeep, on behalf of Access, a very huge vote of thanks to Know My Business, one of your very successful businesses. It’s been a great time of interaction. I think it’s been very real and very timely. All of you have come together with intelligent comment. And I say that most sincerely. And that’s the first time that I’ve said that. David’s been at many of those. So have you and so has Michael. I’ve thoroughly enjoyed listening and reflecting upon what each of you have said. So again, on behalf of Access and Know My Business, Hardeep, thank you so much for your attendance and support this afternoon. Thank you. The GWSRR in action. WESTERN SYDNEY BUSINESS ACCESS SEPTEMBER 2015 31
Page 1 and 2: ISSUE 53 September 2015 FOUNDED IN
Page 3 and 4: NEWS WWW.WSBA.COM.AU WHAT’S IN A
Page 5 and 6: NEWS Glenn’s health wake-up call
Page 7 and 8: NEWS WWW.WSBA.COM.AU Campbelltown C
Page 9 and 10: SEATS SELLING FAST BOOK NOW Steer y
Page 11 and 12: NEWS WWW.WSBA.COM.AU Camellia our n
Page 13 and 14: FEATURE WWW.WSBA.COM.AU Is customer
Page 15 and 16: NEWS WWW.WSBA.COM.AU All eyes on We
Page 17 and 18: COMMENTARY The 3 Cs - communication
Page 19 and 20: WELCOME By David Pring Welcome to t
Page 21 and 22: Thinking Beyond today Positioning f
Page 23 and 24: Legal solutions delivered different
Page 25 and 26: Welcome to the Greater Western Sydn
Page 27 and 28: GWSRR “I think that’s the scien
Page 29: GWSRR “The work environment doesn
Page 33 and 34: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT Why encour
Page 35 and 36: END OF YEAR FUNCTIONS WWW.WSBA.COM.
Page 37 and 38: Wedding Packages Complete Packages
Page 39 and 40: A New Sports Bar at Maharaja’s If
Page 41 and 42: MUSIC WWW.WSBA.COM.AU U2’s contin
Page 43 and 44: WOMEN IN BUSINESS WWW.WSBA.COM.AU O
Page 45 and 46: WESTERN SYDNEY BUSINESS ACCESS SEPT
Page 47 and 48: ENTERTAINMENT WWW.WSBA.COM.AU Wharf
Page 49 and 50: CHILDSCENE Five things every guilty
Page 51 and 52: ARTS WWW.WSBA.COM.AU Frightfully go
Page 53 and 54: HEALTH WWW.WSBA.COM.AU Five reasons
Page 55 and 56: NORTH FACING SPACIOUS 1,2 AND 3 BED

RECRUITMENT

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?