According to Interjobs.co.uk, up to 70% of vacancies are classed as hidden, resulting in job seekers spending the majority of their time chasing the 30% of visible vacancies, where thousands of others are also concentrating their time.[1]This makes the visible vacancies far more competitive than hidden vacancies, leaving you with less chance of getting the post.
One example of this was a recent advertisement for a transport magazine editor. An applicant, who had seen the advertisement on all the appropriate journalism websites, told The People Bulletin that he had applied, along with many other applicants, and, after several weeks of no response, eventually received an email explaining: ‘thank you for your application, but we have decided to offer the position to a friend of the outgoing editor.” It may well be that this particular individual was indeed the most suitable and qualified applicant for the job and that a fair assessment process was conducted. However, the wording of the rejection letter was ill-advised to say the least.
Another rejection letter from a PR agency was more constructive and indicative of correct procedures being followed:
‘We had 350-plus applications, many from high-achieving individuals with experience, credentials and CVs which very closely aligned to our requirements. Many of these people had put a lot of effort into their applications and done a great deal of research on us; one of them was even advising a client’s competitor in 2009 and through the application of very smart strategy caused us a few headaches and won our respect at that time – her application jumped out at us, as I am sure you will understand. You should not be discouraged that on this occasion we were unable to take your application further; I am grateful for your interest in our company and wish you all the best in finding a suitable position.’
It is not unusual for specialist knowledge positions (for example investment banking) to be filled as a result of a quiet chat over a lunch with the prospective employer asking the target employee (usually from a rival firm) if they ‘know of anyone suitable’ who ‘understands how we work’.
So at what point does the use of ‘informal networks’ become counter-productive or even discriminatory? Professor Ronald Quaid covered some of this ground in his article ‘It’s who you know’.[2] He summarises research in the 1970s: ‘weak ties’ (such as links to acquaintances and colleagues) are better for getting a job than ‘strong ties’ (like links to relatives and close friends). He goes on to point out that ‘Work at Edinburgh Napier’s Employment Research Institute has found that the overall effectiveness of informal methods as a means of linking jobseekers and employers can lead to problems.’
This is confirmed in another piece of research by Sayani Basu in May 2009[3] in which he discusses the relationship between nepotism, favourtism and overall employee engagement and stress levels.
While employers may see personal contacts and informal networks as a useful source of candidates that may be more aligned with the skills and competencies required (and possibly delivering a saving on headhunter and recruitment agency costs, not to mention internal time trawling through hundreds of CVs), it is vital they put that individual through the same recruitment process as any other candidate. This is set out in Neil Gill’s article: I’ve started so I’ll finish’ where he explains how to go about litigation-proof recruitment.[4]
Back in April 2009, the former Health Secretary Alan Milburn commissioned a report: Unleashing aspiration – the final report of the panel on fair access to the professions.[5] The report observes: ‘Fair selection is essential to improving access to the professions. Improved efforts at school, college and university may help to equip young people with the right skills and ambition to become professionals but without the proper recruitment practices and commitment from the professions they will not have the opportunity to compete fairly for professional employment.’ It also makes the point that internships, while a valuable gateway to top jobs, have a built in inequality when it comes to access because not all social groups can afford to work for free.
It is, however, unlikely that the forthcoming Public Spending Review will include provision for the recommended Social Mobility Commission – unless it can be demonstrated this could lower the claimant count. However, the more basic issue of ensuring recruitment processes (including that for internships) are fair and transparent remains.
[1] www.interjobs.co.uk/searching/hidden.html
[2] www.apbusinesscontacts.com/the_people_bulletin-pb_7/whoyouknow.aspx
[3] http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1409089
[4] www.apbusinesscontacts.com/hr-pb_7/recruitment-started.aspx
[5] www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/227102/fair-access.pdf