Recruitment. Is it a cost or an investment?
by Paul on July 16, 2012 | Attraction, Recruitment | Shortlink: http://chttr.in/91
Perhaps we should ask G4S who are probably wondering whether they’ll pay the ultimate price for getting things so wrong on the Olympic security contract. Depending on which report you read, they’re gonna be in for between £30 and £50 million by the time they’ve covered their costs and compensated the government who will now have to draft in the military to keep the games safe. But it doesn’t end there, G4S stock has plummeted since Friday and their brand (possibly even brand GB) has also taken a severe battering. With such challenges to overcome, it might be time for them to dust off operation “Prisoners on the loose” which saw them change their name from Group4 after they rose to notoriety in the mid 90′s after a series of security blunders, some of which resulted in prisoners escaping whilst in their custody. How easily they appear to have shaken off a reputation for incompetence and win yet another high profile contract to balls up!
What we don’t know is on what basis they won the contract in the first place, perhaps they were doomed to fail from the beginning. I say that as someone who spent ten long years of my life navigating my way through extensive, unwieldy government procurement processes. More often then not suppliers are kept at arms length throughout the tendering process, so G4S were probably bidding blind, based on best guesses and estimates, rather then real consultancy and sound data. Submissions will have been scored against criteria which won’t have made much sense, and was most probably heavily weighted around the cheapest deal.
But surely recruitment ought to be different? It’s not like buying commodities or stock. It really is an investment, it’s an investment from both sides and needs to be taken seriously. I’ve lost count of all the “back to the floor” type programmes I’ve watched over the years which almost always conclude with a moment of epiphany from the top brass…”we have some amazing people breaking their balls for us in this company, but we treat them like crap and ask them to make do with resources that aren’t up to the job. If we treat them better, provide them with the right tools, listen to and respect them, our customers will be the ones to benefit – and we can sit back and watch the profits rise”
Good recruitment doesn’t start and end with filling a vacancy. Good recruitment is about creating a great place to work. A place where employees are valued and supported to be their best. A client of ours summed this up nicely the other day when they told me their business isn’t just about profit, it’s about doing the right thing. And sometimes doing the right thing is about making investments whose returns can’t be measured on the balance sheet. Your brand and reputation is what’s really at stake when you decide to recruit, who could possibly argue that this is something not worth an investment. The trick is to select the right partners to work with, to come to a shared view on what will make the campaign successful, how success will be measured and a robust project plan to ensure everything can be delivered on time. To succeed is to realise the investment. To fail is to be left to count the cost.




3 Comments
Think you are broadly right, but in truth no matter who won the contract it would be difficult to deliver. There was a requirement for a huge number of low-paid employees who had to go through significant vetting procedures for a short duration opportunity for employment.
Just to deliver the numbers required, G4S had to start recruitment 18 months ago. And it doesn’t take a genius to work out that recruiting someone 18 months in advance for a six-week job is gonna result in quite high attrition rates. Applications with any skills are more than likely going to find other employment in the meantime, and then not bother with fulfilling their G4S work.
Even recruiting three months ago is far too long to recruit for a six week contract. Most people who will accept short-term work want to start immediately, or certainly within the next month.
So, although I think G4S have handled it badly, I think it was a doomed exercise from the beginning.
I agree with Olly. I think all the points you make Paul about creating a great place to work are correct but I don’t think this is the issue when you are recruiting such short term contracts. Success in this project is down to sophisticated operational management. It’s the planning that will either help you suceed or fail and if they hadn’t thought through fundemental issues as Olly describes then they already had an uphill struggle. This is campaign recruitment at it’s most tough, and success is only achieved through great planning, operational management and MI. What a shame for both the UK and G4S that they have fallen so far short.
Glad to spark a bit of healthy debate! And I agree with both points of view which is unusual for Blog posts!
Recruitment is too often thought of only in terms of the process, but as Olly points out, who in their right mind is gonna hang around for months after screening only to take up a 6 week assignment. It was probably a mission impossible in the first place. A job for the army and police from day 1?