With the shocking media headlines, it’s not easy to understand what is happening to the world of business right now. Further, the way that it will impact individual companies and people will depend on multiple factors.
We may all be in this storm together, but we are certainly not in the same boat. How we navigate ourselves to the other side of this crisis will involve understanding our own specific set of circumstances.
Surveys can often shed more light on what is actually happening. During the crisis, I have become quite an expert at interpreting the painstaking research of others. My goal is to try and provide insight from which others can benefit.
With that said, I would like to acknowledge Richmond Events and hopefully, if they see this, they will interpret it as a genuine endorsement of their work.
Let’s start off with a short summary of where the sentiment is focused right now:
Unsurprisingly, the concerns surrounding the economic uncertainties facing our country far outweigh all others. This overall sentiment has grown substantially in the last month.
The most significant changes reported between April to May are:
People generally are now far more worried about the long-term prospects of our economy.
Serious concern around personal financial security has overtaken fears for organisations in the short-term. As more people realise the potential impact the crisis may have on an individual level.
Whereas the results for wellbeing haven’t changed significantly, there is a gentle shift in a positive direction. More people feeling ‘slightly’ rather than ‘very/quite’ concerned for the wellbeing of both themselves and their families.
Overall, people feel that their organisations have responded well in providing adequate technology for home working. They also indicated that they and their colleagues are generally being looked after quite well. The overall perception is that the crisis has encouraged more good human behaviour than bad.
Conversely, external communication to both customers and non-customers has certainly been more difficult during the crisis.
Initial reports in April demonstrated a relatively bullish opinion around the loss of customers. However, this confidence appears to be waning with some companies now experiencing a significant loss of customers. The news of mass redundancies and job losses is increasing fears of how that will affect their own commercial relationships.
Around 40% of UK businesses either have already or plan to make salary reductions in the next 3 months. This reflects a significant shift in sentiment. The impact of Covid-19 is not going to be absorbed solely by a companies financial reports and government aid.
Over 50% of people working full-time said that they were working even harder than they were pre-COVID. The other half estimate that they are working less.
Overall, meaningful economic productivity and output across the UK is significantly down. That’s hardly shocking since the government have effectively turned the economy down to a “simmer”.
CBILS may have been a great government PR exercise initially, but it has been an unmitigated disaster, failing to finance more than 5% of the companies that have applied to it.
The Job Retention (furlough) Scheme remains the key Government assistance measure that most organisations have plugged into. Deferred VAT and Income Tax payments have been welcomed, but along with lost revenues and additional differed rents and supplier payments, there is another financial time bomb being kicked down the road for many companies that will at some point come home to roost. (yes I know I managed to get 3 metaphors into that last sentence 😊)
Subjective opinions on this topic vary dramatically. Some credible economists are predicting significantly worse to come and decades of hardship and austerity. Others are more optimistic. What they all have in common is that they just do not know. Sure this is not the first ever pandemic, nor the deadliest but that’s missing the point here.
The point is that COVID-19 is a global crisis unprecedented in the modern economy. As such, all opinion is based on assumptions and models that are based in hypothesis, not precedent.
Most scientists seem to agree that until there is an effective vaccine, the world cannot return to ‘normal’ and by then the world may have already changed for good.
The biggest challenge when it comes to getting back to normal is that what is perceived as good for the economy, may not be good for public health. This conflict has been the crux of governments policy. As the public order constraints are lifted, this problem gets transferred to the company and individual level. Naturally, this will be a hotbed for confusion and conflict.
What is very clear is that until we are all allowed back to work, the repair and recovery process for the wider economy will be constrained. Most believe that will not happen for another 3-6 months at least, according to this survey.
Every sensible organisation is taking action to protect itself and to prepare for the eventual upturn.
Unsurprisingly, preserving cashflow is of greatest importance. However, many businesses are using this opportunity to diversify their offerings and are increasing their marketing activities.
The results about remote working adaptations aren’t hugely surprising because there has been little choice in this matter. However, it will be interesting to see the longer-term impact that homeworking will have on, amongst other things, employee wellbeing & mental health, commercial property and cybersecurity and of course genuine business productivity.
One important item missing from this part of the survey is the suspension or cancelling of existing commercial commitments. It is one thing to place a project on hold or even cancel it, but when that project had commenced already and stopping it constituted a legal breach, then the impact on the supply chain can be devastating. Companies in this predicament will have potentially made commitments to deliver on that project, in terms of materials and resources, but they themselves are also anticipating the revenues being generated by it, in order to meet their own obligations.
Speaking to business owners myself over the last few weeks it appears that most have experienced being involved in such scenarios, with added complexities of how to respond, because although they need the revenues, they also need to be sensitive to the long term client relationship.
This might be another part of the survey, where employees and employers might have conflicting views. Some employees might feel the personal benefits, while employers will evaluate more against productivity levels.
What it does undoubtedly prove though, is that, for many companies, we can move to a remote working environment if and when we need to and when circumstances demand it, even if we don’t adopt this as a permanent way of working.
One fact we cannot ignore is that people’s homes are not suitably set up to accommodate long term home working. There is neither adequate space or the appropriate infrastructure for the vast majority, not to mention the current set of distractions.
Employees perceptions and desires do not always marry with employers needs and requirements.
If average productivity levels are down when working from home (as they undoubtedly are in most cases), would that be suitably compensated by the reduction in office and rent costs?
Will employees WFH staff demand that the business contributes towards improving work from home conditions? Perhaps the way that people are remunerated would need to change so that it was more reflective of production levels? There are certainly more questions than answers on this one and each person and company will have their own opinions and views.
The lockdown has also highlighted many advantages and benefits of office life too, as much as it has opened up our eyes to the flexibility of home working.
The following results are self-explanatory, although I think that most sensible people agree that the government are always going to be on a hiding to nothing in these situations. How they handle the return to work process over the coming weeks is for me going to be their biggest challenge to date.
I think that we can anticipate sentiment towards opening up businesses to grow significantly over the coming weeks. Especially as employees realise the very genuine risk of long term unemployment for very large numbers of the population and that many years of austerity are the alternative.
Boris might not be everyone’s cup of tea. But, according to the opinion polls, most people think that he is doing an OK job in very challenging circumstances. However, getting the UK economy switched back on again surely now has to become the number one priority. In order to avoid an economic catastrophe.
This all needs to be done while maintaining and respecting the amazing work done by the NHS. So that we don’t undo their positive achievements. This must also be done in parallel with a sensible and cautious approach that considers and respects the Covid-19 related guidelines and protocols.
There is always a limit to what can be deduced from general surveys, but measuring the changes in these opinions over the weeks and months is an interesting barometer of sentiments in the broader business community.
Any sense that this was an unexpected holiday has been superseded with boredom and frustration. Any novelty has worn off and people want to get back to the business of growing their bottom line vs their waistline.
There is still a long way to go for this story to play itself out. We are probably in the eye of the storm right now with the true damage still to be revealed.
On a positive note, there is a lot of good and kindness coming out of people during this crisis. We are learning new ways of operating during this massive work-from-home social experiment.
Cheering those that have risen to the challenge has extended way beyond the NHS. It is truly inspiring to see the power of companies who have turned their production capabilities towards philanthropic endeavours. When the government turns the heat back up on the economy, these will be the ones to watch.
All storms eventually pass and in the wake of their destruction, painful lessons are learned and many things – not least our hands – are washed clean.
The majority of the data and graphs used in this article were sourced from a report initially produced by Richmond Events
When you think of a typical tech worker, what mental image comes into your head? If the image was of a man in his late 20s, wearing designer clothes, trainers, and maybe goofing about playing ping-pong or snooker on his lunch break — then you might have just experienced a subconscious nod to ageism.
At the same time, you can be forgiven. Because this mental picture is also largely correct. Most tech workers really are that young. In fact, they are even younger. Apart from Google’s average working force at the ripe old age of 30. Other tech giants have demographics with median ages as young as 27, 28 and 29 years of age (that is AOL, Facebook and LinkedIn respectively).
So, why do tech companies only seem to favour the very young?
The tech companies have long been suspected of ageism. But the truth is this discrimination isn’t so much of a suspicion as it is an overt mentality. As the founder of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg put it so succinctly back in 2007: “young people are just smarter”.
The overarching philosophy among tech companies appears to be that millennials are the cultural epicentre for Big Tech. Ageist discrimination is, according to Gareth Jones, the CEO of the UK-based tech company Headstart, even worse when it comes to the computer coding side of things. For some reason, ageism flies under the discrimination radar. The reason the sort of ageing culture described here is allowed to persist is, is because it just doesn’t seem as sensitive of an issue next to other discriminations — such as those to do with gender and race.
The apparent ubiquitous nature of ageism in our tech culture — and our wider working culture at large — has even prompted the director of operations at Age Diversity Forum, Paul Owen, to refer to it as “the biggest area of bias [today] receiving the lowest level of attention”.
Ageism might be pervasive, but it cannot last forever. It is an unsustainable discrimination. The reason being is that our society is ageing. In order to remain functional, Big Tech will not only have to open its doors to older employees, it will also have to fight to retain them.
The UK government’s own figures predict that by 2025 a third of the workforce will be 50 years or older. By the end of the decade, they will actually be the largest demographic. In some areas, we can already see the ageing demographic creeping up. For example, the average age for workers in mining and quarrying is a few decimal points shy of 45 years old. While the median age for a UK engineer, in general, is 42.
Fortunately, some businesses are starting to get wise of the impending tsunami of older workers. They are reconsidering age-old preconceptions about what it means to be young and old in a place of work. In a sobering series of surveys, the company Aviva discovered that about half of its 60-years-and-older employees did not want to retire. They only considered retiring because they felt pressured to do so, due to their age. On top of that, nearly 40 per cent reported ageism to be a real barrier to progress.
But there was some good news. In fact, the most interesting statistic the Aviva surveys picked up was this one: that people in their 60s generally appear more motivated at work than their 40 and 50-year-old counterparts.
New studies, like the Aviva surveys with their surprising conclusions, are helping to open new doors on how we look at the bigger picture. Of how society, age, and work all interact with one another. An important cultural shift occurred in 2017 with the government’s “Fuller Working Lives” report from the Department for Work and Pensions.
In the report, it was recognised that nearly a million unemployed over-50-year-olds would be keen on returning to work if the right support mechanisms were in place. That is, a standing army of a million people ready to fill skills shortages and bring invaluable corporate memory with them back into the economy. “Corporate Memory” being a buzzword for the lifetime of knowledge that older workers no doubt have.
This “missing million” might even be a necessary lifeline for some sectors. For example, the UK engineering sector has been haemorrhaging employees for over four years and is facing a steep recruitment crisis.
The recruitment crisis might explain why some engineering companies are already one step ahead of the game. They have actively changed their working hours and recruitment policies to attract veteran employees.
One example is Tideway, the company currently building a ‘Super Sewer’ under the Thames River in London. Tideway established a so-called ‘Returner’ programme back in 2015, that allows over-55s to transition slowly back into work. Another example can be found with the company Landmarc, which sources a quarter of all its labour from over-55s. It mostly recruits former military workers who already have a good knowledge of engineering. Both Landmarc and Tideway utilise flexible hours and transition phases to draw in the older crowds.
Another, more universal option, might be to bring in what’s known as a “Midlife MOT”. This phrase has its origins as a seemingly unremarkable comment — with barely a paragraph of its own — in the government’s Independent Review Of The State Pension Age report of 2017. A Midlife MOT basically gives over-45s a mixture of face-to-face consultations, lectures, access to e-learning tools, and even financial advice to prepare them for the next career-phase of life.
When Aviva introduced the Midlife MOT to its own staff, it was an enormous success with a 94 per cent enrolment rate. The enthusiasm here speaks volumes. It suggests that ageing workers really are looking for support to help orientate themselves for better working prospects.
Other strategies involve further challenging our preconceptions. At the beginning of this article, you were asked to think of a typical tech worker. Now think of a typical apprentice. The chances are, you thought of someone barely out of school. But actually, most apprentices tend to be a fair bit older. Over 40 per cent of them are 25 years or older, for example. It is now becoming more common for apprentices to be in their 50s or 60s. In fact, learning as an apprentice can be a great opportunity for an older worker as they start to ease their transition out of full-time work. Allowing them to learn new skills in other or similar job roles.
Finally, we should learn to avoid certain buzzwords that are ageist in nature. Sometimes without us even realising it. Terms such as “recent graduate” or “digital native” in job descriptions, for example. They are essentially a way of saying if you are old don’t bother, we haven’t even thought about you.
Like all societal struggles for change, confining ageism to the history books will not be easy. It also won’t disappear overnight. But by educating ourselves to the challenge, spreading the message to others, and showing our support and encouraging strategies like those listed above, ageism will be undone quicker than we might realise.
This article was written by Neil Wright, a writer and researcher for RJ Lifts, an lift engineering and maintenance company located in Stoke-on-Trent, UK.
We start off mental health awareness week with a post covering the most important topic that faces Recruiters at the earliest stages of the recruitment process – the legality of mental health related questions during the interview process.
Mental health is a difficult question for recruiters to bring up at interviews. Many organisations are afraid to go anywhere near the topic due to the possible legal repercussions. The Equalities Act 2010 makes it illegal to discriminate based on disabilities, with mental health falling under the category.
This makes it illegal to base a hiring decision on the candidate’s responses to questions related to mental illness. Candidates are also not obligated to disclose mental health issues at interviews, even if they are asked.
– If the role has a legitimate need to carry out mental health screening i.e. for national security purposes
– When there is a concern on the candidate’s wellbeing during the recruitment process or their employment
– To find out if they are able to deal with the potentially stressful or hazardous work environments
– To find out if reasonable adjustments need to be made for the application process
Mental health related questions are only allowed during the onboarding process in the form of health questionnaires if a job offer has been made and accepted. All responses provided regarding mental health should be used to offer available support for the employee. Options such as flexible working hours, adjusted work-loads or extended sick leave can all be used to accommodate employees with mental health issues.
Being aware of mental health issues and providing an accommodating environment will have a positive effect on staff performance and retention, cutting down on absenteeism and staff turnover.
Simon Bean – Recruitment Connection
Smart Recruit Online offers an award-winning talent attraction software that will transform your recruitment strategy.
To book a demo with us and learn more about what our technology can do for your business, click here.
Wording in Your Job Advert and Discrimination by Elizabeth Babafemi, B.Eng MCIPD – MBA – Doctoral PhD Student
If we only recruited people from a certain age range, race or gender, life would be pretty dull!! I once saw an advert that read: the company is looking to recruit an individual with “at least seven years’ experience (preferably continuous)”
It is arguably discriminatory on the grounds of age and, possibly, sex. The fact that the advertisement specifies a requirement for individuals with “at least seven years’” experience invariably means that older applicants are more advantaged than younger applicants since they are more likely to have at least that level of experience. Furthermore, the fact that seven years’ continuous experience is stated to be preferable arguably means that women are being put at a disadvantage because they are more likely to have had a break in employment (to care for children, for example) than their male counterparts.
The legislation can be a somewhat difficult and blurry area to understand, especially as many employers are unaware of how the wording in their job advert can be seen as discriminatory. It is no wonder you may have heard a number of cases about businesses and companies facing legal action over discrimination in their job advert.
Below is by no means a definitive list, and there are a number of other ‘protected characteristics’ which should be carefully considered when drafting a job advert, particularly, of course, if they are requirements for the job.
If in doubt, keep the language neutral. That way you may ensure you don’t miss out on the right candidate for the role and that you keep your recruitment equal, and inclusive.
Over the years, I have seen some ads state: ‘English must be your first language’. Admittedly the jobs being advertised are writing jobs that require a certain ability with words, but surely the question of whether English is your first or second language should not come into it. Could you not be someone who speaks both languages equally fluently?
Some job boards are visited by lots of people from foreign countries, I would be more inclined to interpret ‘English must be your first language’ as ‘no foreigners please’.
To attract the right quality of applicants, we should get our adverting process right. We should plan and carefully consider the content and design of the job advert. We should also identify the most suitable media for advertising the job in order to reach an appropriate audience.
There are lots of rules around writing job adverts, mostly based around best practice to attract candidates. But certain rules are there to ensure you don’t fall foul of discrimination law.
Only use phrases like ‘recent graduate’ or ‘highly experienced’ when these are actual requirements of the job. This could discriminate against younger or older people who might not have had the opportunity to get certain qualifications.
You can specify that the successful applicant will be from a particular group if it’s a requirement of the job. For example, people under 18 cannot legally sell alcohol.
As much as you might want to balance up your gender heavy department with a member of the opposite sex, this is strictly forbidden to ask for within a job advert.
Gender-specific terms could also be problematic. Using ‘bar maid’ or ‘handyman’, for instance, implies that the job is only available to one or other sex. ‘German-speaking sales rep’ should be used over ‘German sales rep’, because it would be discriminatory single out one nationality, if it’s just the language skill that’s needed.
There are certain roles where there is a genuine occupational need for an employee to be of a certain gender, such as within single sex institutions like hospitals and prisons. You are never allowed to consider that hiring one gender may provide a benefit in terms of physical performance, unless that performance is of a thematic nature (such as the need for a male to play Father Christmas).
a) It is vital to prepare a job description and person specification as these can provide us with a useful basis for designing a job advertisement.
b) All forms of job advert are covered by the Equality Act 2010.
If you are a disabled person
If an employer does advertise a job, they must not state or imply that a job is unsuitable for disabled people generally or for a disabled person with a particular type of impairment, unless there is a very clear job-related reason for this.
An employer is advertising for somebody to deliver parcels on their own; the advertisement states that the successful applicant will have to drive and be able to lift the parcels. The need to drive is clearly required for the job. Although it may exclude some disabled people e.g. those with a sight impairment, it would not exclude all disabled people. It would therefore be wrong – and discriminatory – to put ‘unsuitable for disabled people’ in the job advert.
c) Employers must not publish adverts that indicate, or could reasonably indicate, an intention to discriminate.
For example: An employer advertises for a ‘waitress’. To avoid direct discrimination because of sex, they should advertise for ‘waiting staff’ or ‘waiter or waitress’. The job title you use should therefore never be gender specific – ‘waitress’, ‘salesman’ and ‘manageress’ are all terms that fall foul of the law.
d) Adverts should contain enough information about the job and the organisation to help applicants decide if they are suited to the job.
e) Adverts must not target applicants with a particular protected characteristic, unless this is an occupational requirement or lawful positive action. Positive action may be used to encourage applications from under-represented groups
f) Relying upon ‘word of mouth’ recruitment has the potential to indirectly discriminate.
A large employer recruits workers to driving jobs through word of mouth. This results in everyone who has a driving job being a member of the same few families or a friend of these families. All the family members and their friends are white, despite the workplace being in an area of high ethnic minority population. Unless the employer can objectively justify the way drivers are recruited, this is likely to be indirect discrimination because of race.
g) Employers may be liable for the discriminatory actions of third parties, who are advertising on their behalf.
h) Employers must not put pressure on third parties to discriminate in the recruitment process.
Age discrimination is an area to consider when writing job adverts, and it is one of the biggest changes in process that most employers will have to go through in order to comply with all discrimination regulations. The rules now not only cover stipulating upper or lower age limits for job applicants, but also implied terms such as ‘youthful’, ‘dynamic’ or ‘mature’. All these terms could be seen as excluding someone from applying for a role based on their age.
Even asking for a certain level of experience from candidates could be deemed as discriminating against someone who hasn’t had the opportunity to gain that experience as they are too young. There are plenty of ways of rephrasing your job advert, such as asking for candidates who have demonstrated a certain task, but putting a number of years on how long they have taken to achieve that task is definitely out of the question.
i) Employers must provide temporary agency workers/fixed term employees with information on relevant job vacancies.
Other examples: A job advert requiring that applicants must be clean shaven could put members of some religious groups at a disadvantage. However, if this is fully justified by stating that it could be a genuine hygiene risk if individuals handle food, then this criterion would then be lawful.
Avoid gender-based discrimination: Ensure your job title doesn’t include terms like “waitress”, “admin girl”, “mail man” or “salesman”. That way you won’t find yourself in hot water.
Avoid racial discrimination: Even if the ability to speak a foreign language is critical to the role, it’s the proficiency in the language as opposed to one’s country of origin that is key. So “the ability to speak Mandarin is essential” is far more favourable than “you must be Chinese”.
Avoid age discrimination: Never mention an age requirement or refer to a specific number of years someone has worked in a particular field … ever.
Questions you can’t ask when recruiting: You must not ask candidates about protected characteristics and their health; if they’re married, single or in a civil partnership; if they have children or plan to have children.
You can ask about health or disability if: There are necessary requirements of the job that can’t be met with reasonable adjustments; you’re finding out if someone needs help to take part in a selection test or interview; you’re using ‘positive action’ to recruit a disabled person
Date of birth: You shouldn’t ask someone for their date of birth on an application form. People selecting candidates for interview or interviewing shouldn’t be influenced by someone’s age. You can include a question on date of birth as part of an equality monitoring form if you use one.
Criminal convictions: Applicants don’t have to tell you about criminal convictions if they’re spent. You must treat the applicant as if the conviction has not happened, and cannot refuse to employ the person because of their conviction. There are some areas of employment that are exempt from this rule, e.g schools.
Trade union membership: You must not use membership of a trade union as a factor in deciding whether to employ someone.
Disabled people: When recruiting you can treat a disabled person more favourably than a non-disabled person because of their disability.
There have been some interesting developments in case law surrounding job advertisements. A few years ago, the employment tribunal held that a job advertisement stating that a particular teaching role “would suit candidates in the first five years of their career” was indirectly discriminatory on grounds of age since more experienced (and hence older) applicants were put at a disadvantage (Rainbow v Milton Keynes Council 1200104/2007, 2 June 2008).
In that case, the employer tried to justify the wording in its advert by claiming that it had financial constraints and essentially could not afford to employ someone of the claimant’s seniority for the role in question. However, it did not provide any detailed evidence to show this and did not demonstrate that other types of financial strategy had been taken into account to achieve a similar cost-saving. The tribunal rejected the employer’s argument because there was a lack of evidence of the cost issue, the employer had not explored other cost saving measures and costs was the sole justification put forward by the employer.
The upshot of that case was that if employers are to rely on cost as a defence, they should combine it with other reasons and also provide evidence to support their arguments – a mere assertion of costs as a reason is not good enough. The European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) in the past held that there does not need to be an identifiable victim or complainant for there to be a successful claim of direct discrimination against a company (Centrum voor gelijkheid van kansen en voor racismebestrijding v Firma Feryn NV C-54/07). The facts of that case were quite extreme. A director of the Belgian company in question (which specialised in the installation of doors) made a public statement to the Belgian media that the company would not employ Moroccans as its customers did not want immigrants in their homes. Proceedings were brought by the Belgian equivalent of the Equality and Human Rights Commission in the UK.
The ECJ held that the company’s public statement was direct discrimination contrary to the EU Race Discrimination Directive, even though no individual had brought a claim as a result of it. The court rejected the argument that there could not be direct discrimination where the employer did not actually act on the discriminatory statement. The statement had a humiliating and demoralising effect on the people of the ethnic origin in question who would have been interested in applying for the position. It would also discourage such people from applying and was therefore discriminatory. In the UK, it is already unlawful to publish advertisements that display an employer’s discriminatory recruitment practices. However, although this case is likely to have a limited impact in the UK because the Equality and Human Rights Commission does not have the power to bring a claim against employers where there is no identifiable complainant, employers should still be alive to the issue and consider the wording of their job advertisements very carefully.
*This entry was posted in Pulse and was written by Elizabeth Babafemi, B.Eng MCIPD – MBA – Doctoral PhD Student
Smart Recruit Online offers an award-winning talent attraction software that will streamline and revolutionise your recruitment strategy.
To find out how we can tailor our services to match your recruitment needs, including reducing selection bias, click here.