AMBriefing

8.00am jan 02

EX INES

8.00am jan 02

EX PLESAMforum

AMforum

AMforum

AMforum

AMBriefing

8.00am jan 02

C PUS

AMFORUM

HIRE PURPOSEA REPORT ON THE FIRST AM FORUM MEETING OF SENIOR IN-HOUSE RECRUITERS

23rd January 2014 | Coq d’Argent, LondonWork Group, in partnership with The FIRM

PAGE 2 | HIRE PURPOSEAMBriefing

8.00am jan 02

EX INES

8.00am jan 02

EX PLESAMforum

AMforum

AMforum

AMforum

AMBriefing

8.00am jan 02

C PUS

AMFORUM

Yes there were recruitment agencies but these were broadly cv houses with candidate screening services. When I left the function for business education 20 years later those of us who remained committed to an in-house operation were a minority.

Ten years on and the pendulum swings back towards a mixed economy where the debate is now about ‘what goes where?’ This paper makes for interesting reading, not just as a record of how debates change over time but also in what is still hotly contested. What strikes me from the discussions and the recorded insights from various participants is that first, there is a need to be very clear on what requires in-house control, direction and handling – in other words what is genuinely value adding; and secondly, that there is a real need for those responsible for resourcing outcomes to become familiar with how to manage, measure and evaluate the quality of the channels that are now used by recruiters and job seekers alike. There is a risk with the unfamiliar that choose to abdicate rather than outsource and in the digital space we should take time to reflect on how confident we really are to evaluate what is happening and direct what needs change.

My reflection on what follows is that regardless of where you are and what you decide going forward, ensuring you have made the compelling case for the value you add to the business and that you then have right capabilities in-house to deliver the best outcomes remains a major challenge.”

Professor Chris Bones

WHEN I STARTED IN HR IN THE EARLY 1980S OUTSOURCING RECRUITMENT WAS YET TO COME.

‘‘

HIRE PURPOSE | PAGE 3AMBriefing

8.00am jan 02

EX INES

8.00am jan 02

EX PLESAMforum

AMforum

AMforum

AMforum

AMBriefing

8.00am jan 02

C PUS

AMFORUM

Making the case for in-house recruitment 4

Insider stories 10

The ins and outs of resourcing 16

Mostly insource 18

Mostly outsource 19

50/50 – depending on circumstances 20

50/50 – where opinions differed 21

Afterword by Simon Howard, Chairman of Work Group 22

Final thought from The FIRM 23

CONTENTS

PAGE 4 | HIRE PURPOSE AMBriefing

8.00am jan 02

EX INES

8.00am jan 02

EX PLESAMforum

AMforum

AMforum

AMforum

AMBriefing

8.00am jan 02

C PUS

AMFORUM

MAKING THE CASE FOR IN-HOUSE RECRUITMENTTHERE ARE MANY REASONS WHY COMPANIES HAVE DECIDED TO BUCK THE

OUTSOURCING TREND AND BRING RECRUITMENT BACK INTO THE COMPANY.

In the opening half of the session, we explored some of the justifications for this. On the

following pages we explore the strengths and weaknesses of these as arguments for in-house

recruitment, based on the contributions of participants around the room.

Our participant group included some people using recruitment process outsourcing (RPO)

providers, some using a partially outsourced model, but also some who had entirely in-house

recruitment functions. Significantly, there was some debate over the extent to which

weaknesses in outsourced elements were intrinsic, or perhaps could be due to a poor

provider or poor contract management. This brings things back to the overarching point that

priorities both for and against in-house alter depending on the size of the business and the

scale of the resourcing challenge.

HIRE PURPOSE | PAGE 5AMBriefing

8.00am jan 02

EX INES

8.00am jan 02

EX PLESAMforum

AMforum

AMforum

AMforum

AMBriefing

8.00am jan 02

C PUS

AMFORUM

I COULD MEET THOSE METRICS BY HIRING THE LOCAL PAPER BOY

‘‘‘‘

AMBriefing

8.00am jan 02

EX INES

8.00am jan 02

EX PLESAMforum

AMforum

AMforum

AMforum

AMBriefing

8.00am jan 02

C PUS

AMFORUM

Alignment to business strategy

Probably the most universally popular justification for bringing

recruitment in-house was alignment to the wider business

strategy. Most people felt that even embedded outsourced

providers are not “part of the tribe”, so they won’t be able to

identify with the employer in the way that the in-house team

does. Because in-house teams know the business better, they

also “know how to attract the right talent”. RPOs can have their

own agendas, so conflicts of interest emerge. People agreed

that the relationship between business and RPO can be good,

but it’s built on contracts and formal scopes rather than organic,

office-based interaction. So there’s not as much opportunity to

really get to know the ins and outs of a business and identify

with its fortunes and challenges.

That said, some commented that if you set up your RPO properly,

there’s nothing an outsourced solution can’t deliver that an in-

house function provides. It does depend, however, on the quality

of the provider and effective management of the contract.

Long-term advantage

Closely aligned to the above point about business strategy, there

was substantial support for the idea that in-house teams are

more likely to look at long-term benefits for the company, rather

than short-term contractual compliance. Some felt that reputation

ownership comes from being in-house, and it affords the company

a degree of integrity that might be hard to attain through a

third-party provider. Others felt that in-house recruitment leads to

a higher quality candidate experience, candidate engagement

and employer reputation. One commented: “In-house is a long-term

strategy whereas RPOs are a tactical short-term solution.”

Ability to react to change

This was often viewed as a result of being aligned with business

strategy, and well-versed with the company, which only really

happens when you keep recruitment in-house.

“The in-house team will understand the business drive and strategy

and be able to react to change.” Teams agreed outsourced

relationships may be hamstrung by KPIs and contracts, whereas

the in-house team might have better insight into the landscape

and understand the industry in which they operate better.

Conversely, one person observed that outsourced relationships

are easier to scale up and down, and it’s easier to “get rid of”

poor-performing outsourced recruiters than it is to fire an

ineffective in-house team/team member.

This brings things back to the overarching point that priorities

(both for and against in-house) alter depending on the size of

the business and the scale of the resourcing challenge.

Time, cost and quality of hire

The most intense debate at most tables centred on the

importance of time, cost and quality of hire, and the relevance

of each shifts substantially with the differing priorities of

individual companies.

One group entirely discarded “cost of hire”, on the basis that it’s

irrelevant, or just not a top priority. “I could meet those metrics

by hiring the local paper boy”, said one. In particular, many

participants from “knowledge capital” businesses felt this was

not a significant priority. But conversely two groups did have cost

of hire in their top five factors, commenting that “this is the key

that opens the door”, and that few Finance Directors would

contemplate allocating budget without being reassured on this

factor. For some, it’s been a significant part of the justification

for setting up an in-house team and they are delivering on the

promises made.

Quality of hire was universally agreed to be important - “the

quality of hire is what CEOs are interested in rather than cost”.

But others raised the issue that often this is only partially within

the control of the recruitment team, with line managers making

final hiring decisions, sometimes in a manner that can be hard to

influence. A number of participants dryly noted that in reality this

is extremely difficult to measure, and therefore while it might

make an attractive business case to set up an in-house function,

it can be very difficult to show a measurable return against

these criteria.

Time to hire is particularly critical to project or contract-driven

businesses, often needed to scale up in specific skill areas at

very short notice. That said, if time to hire is to be kept to a

minimum, this requires active management of a talent pool

of candidates, and the extent to which an in-house team

are able to achieve this will depend on their scale, and the

frequency of opportunities they are able to offer to that group.

Some commented that in very specific skill areas where they

only have occasional roles, they are unlikely to be able to match

the speed of headhunters who are in regular contact with these

specialists. One participant commented that what you really

want to measure is “time to effectiveness” rather than

“time to hire”, but how would you measure it?

PAGE 6 | HIRE PURPOSE

AMBriefing

8.00am jan 02

EX INES

8.00am jan 02

EX PLESAMforum

AMforum

AMforum

AMforum

AMBriefing

8.00am jan 02

C PUS

AMFORUMHIRE PURPOSE | PAGE 7

AMBriefing

8.00am jan 02

EX INES

8.00am jan 02

EX PLESAMforum

AMforum

AMforum

AMforum

AMBriefing

8.00am jan 02

C PUS

AMFORUM

Interestingly, several groups commented that both speed and

cost of hire are usually the business case put forward by RPO

firms for outsourcing elements of recruitment, but the extent to

which this is true for in-house or RPO solutions will depend on

the talent pool being targeted, and the volume of recruitment.

Although the above criteria are often staple targets for the

recruitment function, at least one participant was able to tell the

room that their organisation has concluded that they were not

actually linked to business performance and that “we threw

out all the KPIs”.

Global consistency

Global consistency was quite a divisive subject, as being a key

priority for some organisations, but an irrelevance for others.

There seemed to be some consensus that global consistency would

probably be easier to achieve in-house, but that this wouldn’t

necessarily make a good business case in some organisations.

Others felt quite the opposite could be true, with RPOs

sometimes resourcing global or international contracts from one

or a few locations, versus in-house teams who would be

embedded with individual business units around the world.

In this scenario, a strength of the case for in-house recruitment

could be the ability to adapt to local recruitment markets,

rather than applying a one-size-fits-all solution into locations

where it’s not appropriate.

Ability to build talent pools

Some participants are actively building talent pools in key skill

areas, but this is a significant time commitment requiring a

substantial in-house team. There was some support for the view

that if this is possible to achieve, the business benefits from

having a direct relationship with this talent pool rather than

through a third party. But for many, this remains an unrealistic

target for them to achieve in most of the skillsets they recruit,

and this would often be an advantage for external recruiters

with a specialist focus.

Insight into talent landscape

Again, the extent to which this could be achieved depended

largely on the scale of the in-house function and the diversity of

roles they recruit for. In businesses which recruit from a small

number of disciplines, this can be a significant advantage of

in-house recruitment, but for those recruiting a far larger number

of disciplines, they would be far less likely to achieve this.

Better candidate experience

This featured in many groups’ top five. Some people view better

candidate experience as a contribution to process effectiveness,

and quality of hire. “From the first touch with people, you can’t

afford to delegate contact with key talent, because it’s the quality

of the people that makes the difference”. Someone noted,

“At some stage in the process, candidates realise the person

they’re talking to is not one of us, and the level of engagement is

correspondingly lower, until they feel they are interacting with the

actual business.” People discussed that the more direct contact

applicants have with the company, the better their reputation is:

a long-term advantage. “There’s a lot to be said for direct hire,”

said one attendee, explaining that it feeds into reputation and

engagement of high-quality candidates: “We see better retention

and better performance when we direct hire.”

Wider reach of employer brand

No-one placed this in their top five in-house priorities. There

was confusion amongst some as to why this was there at all,

as widening reach of brand isn’t necessarily an outcome of

in-house recruitment. Very divisive conversation around

employer branding took place during the “swingometer” activity.

Debate was sparked over whether employer brand should

ever be in-house, let alone “widened” by in-house recruiters.

“We’d never do that”, said one group member. Some felt that

professionals should provide this non-core area of knowledge,

while others contested. “There’s no way any company I know

would ever outsource employer branding, they’d firmly hold on

to it because the responsibility for success is theirs only.”

PAGE 8 | HIRE PURPOSE

AMBriefing

8.00am jan 02

EX INES

8.00am jan 02

EX PLESAMforum

AMforum

AMforum

AMforum

AMBriefing

8.00am jan 02

C PUS

AMFORUM

FROM THE FIRST TOUCH WITH PEOPLE, YOU CAN’T

AFFORD TO DELEGATE CONTACT WITH KEY TALENT, BECAUSE IT’S THE QUALITY

OF THE PEOPLE THAT MAKES THE DIFFERENCE.

‘‘‘‘

HIRE PURPOSE | PAGE 9

INSIDER STORIES

WHEN I JOINED, THEY SHOWED ME THE £100,000 COFFEE MUG...

‘‘‘‘

AMBriefing

8.00am jan 02

EX INES

8.00am jan 02

EX PLESAMforum

AMforum

AMforum

AMforum

AMBriefing

8.00am jan 02

C PUS

AMFORUMPAGE 10 | HIRE PURPOSE

“When I joined Mintel, I was shown the £100,000 coffee mug. In the

previous year, we’d spent £100,000 with a recruitment consultancy,

but none of the candidates had stayed for long. But they did send

us a free mug.

The reason this was happening was that we have a lot of very niche

roles, so agencies were sending through CVs as soon as they had

a vaguely plausible technical match, even if the people weren’t really

suited to the role. Actually, that’s much more than a cost problem,

as managers were wasting time on inappropriate interviews,

and ultimately offering roles out of frustration.

Over three years, we managed to get from 100% agency to only

a handful of roles. We manage a much better talent pipeline of

people through LinkedIn groups. But there’s a tricky issue there –

how long can you keep someone in a pipeline without having

a job to offer them?

We don’t try to do everything in-house, but we do more than most

in collaboration with our PR and marketing teams – which works

well because I hired almost all of them! One of the key parts of our

success has been to be very public about what we’re doing internally.

Everyone knows what we’re focusing on, and with direct support

from the CEO, recruitment is at the forefront of eyeryone’s agenda.” Simon Hollowood, Mintel International Group

AMBriefing

8.00am jan 02

EX INES

8.00am jan 02

EX PLESAMforum

AMforum

AMforum

AMforum

AMBriefing

8.00am jan 02

C PUS

AMFORUMHIRE PURPOSE | PAGE 11

AMBriefing

8.00am jan 02

EX INES

8.00am jan 02

EX PLESAMforum

AMforum

AMforum

AMforum

AMBriefing

8.00am jan 02

C PUS

AMFORUM

“I’ve been in recruitment for seventeen years, and in-house for the

last twelve of those. I joined Skype four years ago just as we were

acquired by a VC Consortium and starting to prepare for an IPO,

which meant a lot of pressure on Staffing to ramp up hiring really

quickly without compromising on quality, which is easier said than

done! Then just as we were getting ready to IPO, we were acquired

by Microsoft, which was fantastic for Skype but required our team

to completely re-engineer our recruitment model to align it more

closely to Microsoft, again without any loss in quality and quantity.

It’s been a busy few years!

During this time, Skype’s definition of recruitment value has

changed, which has allowed us to evolve the recruitment team

significantly, not just in terms of size but in terms of capability and

competence. We’re successfully shifting the conversation away

from the numbers-only focus of the early days to conversations

about what will also deliver competitive advantage to Skype and

to Microsoft over the medium to long term. We’re still on a journey

and we’re not there yet, but we are changing the way we drive

commercial success within Skype.” Gavin Russell, Skype

PAGE 12 | HIRE PURPOSE

AMBriefing

8.00am jan 02

EX INES

8.00am jan 02

EX PLESAMforum

AMforum

AMforum

AMforum

AMBriefing

8.00am jan 02

C PUS

AMFORUM

“Recruitment used to be a pretty reactive role – waiting for responses

to roll in from job boards. Now it’s hugely pro-active – chasing down

the talent your business needs and calling them directly.

It was interesting discussing the difference between RPO and

in-house, but I’m not sure it necessarily has to be as different as

some people think. I used to run lots of outsourced IT contracts,

for example, and despite the same terms, you’d get very different

behaviour from providers.

At Symantec, having recruitment in-house is part of a wider

strategy to bring functions back in-house – for example IT’s come

back in too. That said, we still have to convince individual hiring

managers to drop agencies and use us instead.

One thing we do which works really well is that the recruitment

team go on secondments, or even on training courses, with client

departments. It gives us a level of insight into the roles that an

external agency couldn’t match, and candidates can tell we know

about the specific team we’re talking about, rather than just the

company in general.

The hardest thing in many ways is getting the parts of the business

to acknowledge when you’ve achieved something good or overcome

a tricky problem. If they’re not paying for your time, they don’t

always realise how much it took!” Martin Dangerfield, Symantec

HIRE PURPOSE | PAGE 13

AMBriefing

8.00am jan 02

EX INES

8.00am jan 02

EX PLESAMforum

AMforum

AMforum

AMforum

AMBriefing

8.00am jan 02

C PUS

AMFORUMPAGE 14 | HIRE PURPOSE

AMBriefing

8.00am jan 02

EX INES

8.00am jan 02

EX PLESAMforum

AMforum

AMforum

AMforum

AMBriefing

8.00am jan 02

C PUS

AMFORUM

“It’s an exciting time at the John Lewis Partnership, as we’re

launching our new Resourcing Operations Centre in May. It forms

part of our shared service division, Partnership Services. It makes

sense to pull all our services across the Partnership together, and

although there’s a lot to do it feels like a fantastic team effort, with a

defined goal that will deliver a great candidate experience and

service to the business.

The Resourcing team will be structured into three areas: strategy,

delivery and account management. Organising it this way means

the delivery team attract and select top talent into the Partnership,

whilst the account management team work closely with the hiring

managers, planning peak campaigns and feeding back to the

delivery team, and the strategy team deliver the cutting edge

systems and process developments.

We’ve assembled a really well-balanced team with mixed experiences

– we have a wealth of experience from across the business and new

Partners that bring a wide range of skills and experience.

The plan is that this joint service will make it easier to build talent pools

the whole John Lewis Partnership can use, and also help people

who work here move around within the business. We’ve already

made massive investments in systems to help people internally

and externally find the right roles for them.

With only a few weeks to go live now, we’re really looking forward

to seeing it all in action!” Jenni Workman, John Lewis Partnership

HIRE PURPOSE | PAGE 15

THE INS AND OUTS OF RESOURCINGBUY EXPERTISE? OR RENT EXPERTISE?

The particular issue for debate was to what extent these should be in-house activities,

and when it was pragmatic to outsource these to a third party – whether a boutique specialist

or an RPO provider.

This is a critical strategic issue for many of our participants, as it dictates what skills they

need to add to their team through training or hiring, and what skills they will never need

enough to have within their function. Ultimately, this is a question of whether you buy

expertise, or rent expertise.

There were some issues where people generally agreed, some where people differed

due to the circumstances and scale of their recruitment, and some where people differed

philosophically and strategically.

AMBriefing

8.00am jan 02

EX INES

8.00am jan 02

EX PLESAMforum

AMforum

AMforum

AMforum

AMBriefing

8.00am jan 02

C PUS

AMFORUMPAGE 16 | HIRE PURPOSE

Social media

Role design

Channel strategy

Executive search

Application screening

Telephone interviewing

Assessment delivery

Website management

Employer brand

Exit interviews

Strategic workforce planning

Succession planning

Process management

Onboarding

Compensation and benefi ts

Offer management

Hiring manager training

INSOURCE

MIDDLE-ISH

OUTSOURCEATS management

Market insight

Website creation

Job board/media management

Comms/ad creation

Application handling

Assessment design

Psychometric assessment

AMBriefing

8.00am jan 02

EX INES

8.00am jan 02

EX PLESAMforum

AMforum

AMforum

AMforum

AMBriefing

8.00am jan 02

C PUS

AMFORUMHIRE PURPOSE | PAGE 17

MOSTLY INSOURCEStrategic workforce planning

Given that our earlier discussions had identified that alignment

with strategy is critical to the case for in-house recruitment, it’s

not surprising that this was seen by the overwhelming majority of

participants as a function that must be fulfilled in-house. Some

suggested that it can be worth engaging external consultants

to assist in this process, but only in an advisory capacity.

Succession planning

Although most participants were agreed this should take place

in-house as part of the workforce planning, many felt that in

reality they didn’t have sufficient resources to be fulfilling this

function. One commented that this isn’t something that would be

outsourced, but if there isn’t capacity for it to be done in house,

it generally isn’t done at all.

Process management

Possibly related to the fact that people were relatively positive

about outsourcing many other components of the process, there

was a strong consensus that the overall process needed to be

controlled in-house. Where opinions differed, it was largely an

issue of resource, rather than philosophy on this issue.

Onboarding

Many participants didn’t actually have control of this process

– as it’s often fulfilled by other HR or L&D professionals within

the business. That said, there was a clear majority in favour of

delivering this in-house, even if parts of the communications

and materials might be created by an external partner.

Compensation and benefits

At least one group felt that this shouldn’t fall within the

recruitment function, but most felt that this should be held

internally. From discussions, this is often a critical negotiating

point with senior hires, and many felt it was critical they were

able to influence what’s on offer to these high-worth individuals.

Offer management

Most participants are already undertaking the offer management

function (although some commented there are administrative

elements that might be done by a third party). Again, it was felt

that this is a critical stage for the success of the recruitment

function, and most would prefer to have it within their direct control.

Hiring manager training

Although a few participants did use external parties, the vast

majority felt this was a critical opportunity to engage with the line

managers who are ultimately their customer base. It offers

another opportunity for recruiters to gain further insight into the

priorities and preferences of these stakeholders, but it also

ensures that those stakeholders are conducting interviews in

a manner that is consistent with the employer brand.

AMBriefing

8.00am jan 02

EX INES

8.00am jan 02

EX PLESAMforum

AMforum

AMforum

AMforum

AMBriefing

8.00am jan 02

C PUS

AMFORUMPAGE 18 | HIRE PURPOSE

MOSTLY OUTSOURCEATS management

Most groups placed this one as an external activity relatively

rapidly. Few felt they had the expertise in-house to select,

customise or manage the ATS systems available, although

clearly this is a process they would need to participate in

heavily to ensure it is fit for purpose.

Market insight

Although a few participants have some capabilities in this area,

most agreed that a specialist third party will generally have

access to information sources not available to an in-house

market researcher. Opinion was split as to whether the analysis

should be done in-house or externally, as there are advantages

to knowing the business context, but conversely advantages to

a dispassionate analysis of the data. At very large organisations,

however, there may be a case for bringing this into the

recruitment function.

Website creation and Comms/job ad creation

Almost all participants were using a third party to create

communications materials, whether ads or websites. In some

cases, participants were unsure if their external partner

sub-contracted this out further to another company. There was

little enthusiasm for bringing this in-house, with some people

commenting that specialist agencies offer a creative

environment which would be hard to replicate in-house,

even if the relevant skillsets could be hired.

Job board/media management

A clear majority felt that external specialist media buyers would

have stronger relationships with the relevant media, and volumes

of purchasing which would enable them to get a better deal than

by going direct. One commented that digital media in particular

often involves negotiating complex packages of different

inventory, and that this requires specialist knowledge to

purchase effectively. That said, many participants have existing

direct relationships with one or two critical media providers,

such as LinkedIn.

Application handling

Few felt they had the capacity in their team to deal with any kind

of high-volume application handling, and for those running

annual campaigns, access to the flexible resources available

from an external party was seen as critical.

Assessment design and Psychometric assessment

Few participants had any Chartered Occupational Psychologists

on their team, and therefore most felt it was appropriate to

outsource technical activities like this to specialist providers.

In some cases, this is done through hiring a specialist on a

fixed-term contract or project basis, however in most cases

people are using an external company which can not only

provide this service, but also quality check the resulting work.

AMBriefing

8.00am jan 02

EX INES

8.00am jan 02

EX PLESAMforum

AMforum

AMforum

AMforum

AMBriefing

8.00am jan 02

C PUS

AMFORUMHIRE PURPOSE | PAGE 19

50/50 – DEPENDING ON CIRCUMSTANCES

Role design/job descriptions

For large-scale, junior level campaigns, such as graduate

recruitment, many felt that this could well be outsourced to a

specialist in the area. But at senior level, many felt that this must

be done in-house, as it would require an extensive

understanding of the business context. It’s worth noting that

some felt this should be done in-house at all levels, but in

businesses with many specialist roles this would be hard to

achieve without a detailed understanding of each of these areas.

Channel strategy

Although earlier we saw that people were happy to outsource

media buying to external parties, channel strategy was seen as

a more nuanced issue. In many cases, large-scale campaigns

like graduates or apprentices would be largely done by external

parties, but for senior level roles it’s more likely that this is

determined in-house in partnership with the hiring manager.

Executive search

Many recruiters are already effectively fulfilling executive search

for many roles, but most tables had a debate about the trickier

issue of highly specialist roles. For roles that are recruited

infrequently (either due to seniority or rarity), it was felt that an

external party might well be able to fulfil this more effectively

than an in-house team. In a few cases, people were using an

executive research company to produce a hybrid solution –

the research and sourcing done externally, but then the contact

and recruitment done internally.

Application screening

Again, this is largely a scale and/or seniority issue. For large

campaigns with clear gross disqualifiers (e.g. graduates and

degree qualifications), this is generally done externally, but for

more senior or specialist recruitment there was far more

nervousness about allowing an external party to undertake this

role. For those with no large-scale hiring programmes, this can

be fulfilled in-house, but it does require an admin function within

the recruitment team if it’s not going to become overwhelmingly

time-consuming for those who should be focused on other tasks.

Telephone interviewing

As with the above, this was largely an issue of scale and

resource. Participants were happy to outsource this activity on

high-volume campaigns, but preferred to keep it in-house for

senior roles. This was also their preference for specialist roles

where even rejected applicants can play a critical role in

building an understanding of the talent landscape.

Assessment delivery

Assessments were generally conducted in-house at senior

level, but at more junior levels many people were using external

providers to at least some extent. A few participants were

also using external consultants right up to senior level – for

example using one external consultant on a panel of three for

assessments to provide expertise and ensure best practice

is followed.

THERE WERE A NUMBER OF TOPICS ON WHICH EITHER DIFFERENT GROUPS

CAME TO OPPOSITE CONCLUSIONS, OR INDEED WITHIN THE GROUP THERE

WAS AN AGREED POSITION OF “IT DEPENDS”. IN MOST CASES, THE CRITICAL

FACTORS ARE THE SENIORITY OR SCALE OF THE ROLES IN QUESTION.

AMBriefing

8.00am jan 02

EX INES

8.00am jan 02

EX PLESAMforum

AMforum

AMforum

AMforum

AMBriefing

8.00am jan 02

C PUS

AMFORUMPAGE 20 | HIRE PURPOSE

50/50 – WHERE OPINIONS DIFFERED

Social media

Social media is critical to the recruitment strategies of most

companies, but there were significant differences of opinion

about whether this meant using a specialist external provider,

or managing it entirely in-house. As one participant noted, “we

manage our LinkedIn presence in-house because it’s important,

but I’m not sure we’re getting as much out of it as we should”.

Professor Bones joined the debate on this issue, observing

that if it’s a critical channel, it may no longer be appropriate

to accept a lack of knowledge or expertise on the issue.

There seemed to be even greater complexity when examining

different “social media” channels, with the PR or Customer

Relations teams “owning” presence on networks like Facebook

or Twitter, but Recruitment retaining control of LinkedIn.

The reality is, it can be hard to define whether a channel is

primarily about customers/clients or recruitment.

Some felt very strongly that if content is going to be current and

authentic, it must be generated internally. Others were equally

adamant that the detailed knowledge of the platform in question

that specialist providers offer outweighs this.

Website management

In a closely related issue, most were clear that their recruitment

website, or the careers page of their corporate website,

plays a critical role in their external face to market. Reasons for

preferring an outsourced solution included specialist expertise

again, but in some cases also a faster or more responsive

service than would be available from the internal website team.

Conversely, many felt that it would be utterly unacceptable

to rely on an external party to manage this critical part of the

company’s image, even if they use an external party to design

the careers page.

Employer brand

In probably the most dramatic difference of opinion, some

felt that the employer brand could only possibly be authentic

if it was developed in-house, while others felt that such an

important task should only be undertaken by communications

professionals with extensive experience of developing these

for many different organisations.

Discussions revealed a substantial variety in terms of in-house

expertise in this area, with some confident in their abilities to

develop and manage an employer brand with little or no outside

help, and others equally clear that while they would be involved

in commissioning and briefing a provider, they would not be

confident to undertake the bulk of the task. Interestingly, this

didn’t seem to be related to the size of the recruitment function

or organisation, with large and small organisations on both sides

of the debate.

Exit interviews

Some participants felt that the subject matter of exit interviews

was sufficiently complex or confidential that they could only be

conducted internally, but others felt very strongly that an external

party would bring an objectivity and independence that would

allow interviewees to be more honest.

THERE WERE A FEW TOPICS DISCUSSED WHERE THE DIFFERENCE OF

OPINION WAS NOT ABOUT PRAGMATISM OR CIRCUMSTANCES, BUT ABOUT

A FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF HOW THIS SHOULD

BE DONE.

AMBriefing

8.00am jan 02

EX INES

8.00am jan 02

EX PLESAMforum

AMforum

AMforum

AMforum

AMBriefing

8.00am jan 02

C PUS

AMFORUMHIRE PURPOSE | PAGE 21

AMBriefing

8.00am jan 02

EX INES

8.00am jan 02

EX PLESAMforum

AMforum

AMforum

AMforum

AMBriefing

8.00am jan 02

C PUS

AMFORUM

You don’t have to read too many headlines to see that life is returning to normal: House prices are booming; there’s parental outcry at the price of overseas holidays during half term (an unthinkable squeal during The Crisis) and skills shortages are back in the news. Again.

Of course skills shortages have always been an endemic feature of the British economy, and one way or another we’ve managed to muddle through. But this time the headlines might just be heralding an altogether new challenge for UK employers:an unbridgeable talent gap.

It’s all about the big numbers and it’s beginning to look like something of a perfect storm for recruiters. Put simply, rising demand for skills could not have come at a worse time, because on the supply side the working population is entering a period of accelerating contraction. And there are three big drivers behind this:

First, we’ve known about it for years, but the baby-boomers are reaching retirement age at record rates. Most still have comfortable pensions – especially the more highly skilled, and so there is little temptation to stay on. You may have read about ‘working until you’re 70’ but the ‘working-longer’ generations have yet to hit their fi fties. The time has come when employers must face up to the fact that the demographic time bomb is beginning to explode.

Second, politicians could not have chosen worse timing to start choking off the supply of talented and qualifi ed migrant workers. For decades, skilled Australians, Kiwis, South Africans, Canadians, Americans – you name it – have boosted the

poorly qualifi ed (by comparison) output of our own education system. But that infl ow of talented migrants is now becoming a trickle and it’s already being felt in the IT, accounting, fi nance and health sectors, where temp and contract pay rates are booming. So there’s no easy fi x for the time bomb here.

The third culprit is the employers themselves. During ‘The Crisis’ collectively they, or rather we, have not been bringing young people into the workforce in suffi cient numbers. Where is the class of ’08 or ’09, who now have fi ve solid years’ experience behind them? Answer: they were never hired in the fi rst place, or at least not in suffi cient numbers – and nor in any year since. Hence employers’ short-term hiring horizons have only made a bad situation worse.

So there you have it: Demography, politics and short- termism all conspiring to create an unbridgeable talent gap. And the next headlines to expect? ‘Wage infl ation threatens growth’ and ‘Uncompetitive UK sees more jobs go abroad’. And before too long, The FIRM members will be arguing for increased budgets.

Simon Howard is the Chairman and a founder of Work Group

WHY A LOOMING TALENT GAP STRENGTHENS THE CASE FOR MORE INVESTMENT IN RESOURCING.

PAGE 22 | HIRE PURPOSE

AMBriefing

8.00am jan 02

EX INES

8.00am jan 02

EX PLESAMforum

AMforum

AMforum

AMforum

AMBriefing

8.00am jan 02

C PUS

AMFORUM

FINAL THOUGHT FROM THE FIRMWe are delighted to have partnered with Work Group on our inaugural

AM Forum breakfast meeting. The role of in-house recruitment is one that

is continually debated and it will be fascinating to track this conversation

moving forwards as we see trends for insourcing and outsourcing shift

and evolve.

It was great to see the pro-active debate amongst our senior members

and the open conversations were refreshing and insightful.

We would like to thank all at Work for making the session possible and

we hope the AM Forum series will continue to grow and form a key part

of our membership events calendar moving forwards.

Gary Franklin & Emma Mirrington, founders of The FIRM

HIRE PURPOSE | PAGE 23

AMBriefing

8.00am jan 02

EX INES

8.00am jan 02

EX PLESAMforum

AMforum

AMforum

AMforum

AMBriefing

8.00am jan 02

C PUS

AMFORUM

Event designed and report compiled by Work Group

www.workcomms.com

Sinead Tyro / AMEC

Finola Gallagher / Anchura Partners

Jeremy Russon / AXA

Maria McLachlan / Barclays

Claire Darnell / Barclays

Lauren King / Barclays

Daniel Whitehead / BlackRock

Richard Essex / Broadbean

Clair Bush / Broadbean

Melanie Hayes / Care UK

Kate Bugler / Co-operative Group

Sarah Dingwell / Coutts

Ed Kent-Jones / cph

Tim Le Maire / Cushman & Wakefield

Gemma Lockhart / Essence

Mardi Smouha / Eversheds

Kevin Keegan / Fidessa

Heather Mancini /

Hult International Business School

Ruth Loftus /

Hult International Business School

Graham Butler / ISIS Equity Partners

Jessica Leupolz / ITV

Jenni Workman / John Lewis Partnership

Colin Crowley / KCOM

Chris Whitaker / KCOM

Simon Hollowood /

Mintel International Group

Helena Gray / Net-a-Porter

Michael Queally / News Corporation

Glenn Lindley / Pearson

Gillian Ong / Pearson

Elaine Marron / PwC

Sarah Ridley / Qualcomm

Carl du Plessis / Royal Mail

Rachel Taylor / Sally Beauty

Joanne Zadro / Schroders

Harvey Levene / Shell

Gavin Russell / Skype

Martin Dangerfield / Symantec

Chad Horne / TalkTalk

Lewis Turner / Tim Group

Claire Wragg / True North

Brian Dean / Vodafone

Emma Jones / Wipro

Amber Shankland / Wipro

Catherine Schlieben / WorldPay

Andrea Kirby

Krysta Gough

WITH THANKS TO ALL THE PARTICIPANTS: