Employing a woman on

[macafee2]

Originally Posted by mss

Ian - I have understood fully what is being said. The recruiting manager has made a recruiting decision. You, based on your wife's views, believe that it is the wrong decision and possibly influenced by relationships.

You are not accountable for the recruiting manager's decision nor his team's performance. In my view, it is simple as that.

I have been interviewing and making recruiting/promotion decisions during the last 32 years of my working life. I have also been impacted by the decisions of others. At the end of the day, even in a large organisation, the recruiting manager is accountable to the organisation for his decisions and his team's performance. Unless there is substantial evidence that the decision maker has abused his position/responsibility or acted contrary to the organisation's policies, practices and standards or laws, his/her decision should be recognised as professional irrespective of anyone else's views on whether the decision is a good one or otherwise.

P.S. never question another's (manager or colleague) professional integrity unless you would be willing to do so in front of an employment tribunal or a disciplinary hearing with substantial evidence to back up your claim/allegation. The latter could be the result of the other party instigating action in order to defend/protect their professional standing and reputation.

Not sure I understand you, are you saying job for the boys = employing the best person?
your right, I am going by my wife's interpretation but when she comes home and tells me the person that came second would probably do a better job then the person that came first, as the person that came first is as scatty as the person she works with who has made some serous errors, I believe her. If you choose to believe the recruiting manager was not influenced by friendship as they socialise outside work and that recruiting a new team member that is set to join a struggling team in about 9 months
is the best thing, fine. I choose to think oterwise

I would have thought the person that came second that can start "now"
is the better bet, the team are struggling now. This is not a high ranking role, not a premiership football team, it is an administration role that requires accuracy.

HR when they interview are more remote, they take into consideration the interview and application, not personal relationships. This too is a double edge sword as the best person for the role could be the worse person at interview where the manager may know how very good they are and so the best person may not get the job.

you are right, I'm not accountable for this teams performance and as long as my wife does a good job, nor is she when mistakes are made by someone else. However, being associated with a team that makes mistakes is unpleasant, been there too.

I'm sure you are aware that job application requirements can be set so that it can be difficult for people to apply, e.g. extensive knowledge of system whatever.
In case of complaint the job description is trotted out and it shows that candidate X met the requirements and y did not, all above board


Also the point of the thread was about employing someone who is on maternity leave that is not going to start for 9 months.


I have no problem challenging a work colleges integrity, been there done it and got the Tee shirt. Still remember telling someone to their face they were not good enough for the job. I also got promotion because the job advertisement was so I could get promotion, outsiders all failed.
Does not mean I agree with the process, it still sucks

Go back to the op and comment on the legal aspect and sensibility of employing, I was going to say a woman but I think men now get maternity leave so i'll say employing someone to a struggling team that will not start for 9 months.
In high ranking roles, people do get appointed to a role where the start date is months away but this is not a high ranking role.

macafee2

[macafee2]

Originally Posted by Darcydog

I remember attending a Rugby Club Dinner where the after Dinner Speaker was a Receivership Professional.

He gave a humorous and animated talk on why companies go bust. The main reason was blind obedience to those above.

The funniest examples were those of family run companies where as the company sank into decline the owners sacked all the people with REAL experience and expertise and allowed family members without a clue to run things. Leading to the inevitable hands of the Receiver.

Who, having professionally analysed what caused the business to collapse, realise who did/does what and sideline the family incompetents and brings back those that actually ran, and were flagging it up to deaf the ears of, “the company owners” before they were sacked by those same incompetent owners.

Blind obedience without challenging?

Crazy

More than that - it is a form of cowardice in my book.

along the same lines I seem to recall a leading economist saying that often those that were let go in a company, were those whos names could be remembered, often these were the names of those that were good for the company. I think her description was "people who put their head above the parapet"


macafee2

[Darcydog]

Originally Posted by macafee2

along the same lines I seem to recall a leading economist saying that often those that were let go in a company, were those whos names could be remembered, often these were the names of those that were good for the company. I think her description was "people who put their head above the parapet"


macafee2

It’s down to what is doing right as opposed to doing what is easy. And that was a true management ideal long before JK Rowling cited it.

It isn’t easy....

It does take courage and fortitude - especially if you have things like a mortgage and children. Putting ones head above the parapet is daft if those shooting at you are well armed and you are baying at the moon.

But if you are right and they are wrong - is a very different scenario....

[MSS]

Originally Posted by macafee2

Not sure I understand you, are you saying job for the boys = employing the best person?
your right, I am going by my wife's interpretation but when she comes home and tells me the person that came second would probably do a better job then the person that came first, as the person that came first is as scatty as the person she works with who has made some serous errors, I believe her. If you choose to believe the recruiting manager was not influenced by friendship as they socialise outside work and that recruiting a new team member that is set to join a struggling team in about 9 months
is the best thing, fine. I choose to think oterwise

I would have thought the person that came second that can start "now"
is the better bet, the team are struggling now. This is not a high ranking role, not a premiership football team, it is an administration role that requires accuracy.

HR when they interview are more remote, they take into consideration the interview and application, not personal relationships. This too is a double edge sword as the best person for the role could be the worse person at interview where the manager may know how very good they are and so the best person may not get the job.

you are right, I'm not accountable for this teams performance and as long as my wife does a good job, nor is she when mistakes are made by someone else. However, being associated with a team that makes mistakes is unpleasant, been there too.

I'm sure you are aware that job application requirements can be set so that it can be difficult for people to apply, e.g. extensive knowledge of system whatever.
In case of complaint the job description is trotted out and it shows that candidate X met the requirements and y did not, all above board


Also the point of the thread was about employing someone who is on maternity leave that is not going to start for 9 months.


I have no problem challenging a work colleges integrity, been there done it and got the Tee shirt. Still remember telling someone to their face they were not good enough for the job. I also got promotion because the job advertisement was so I could get promotion, outsiders all failed.
Does not mean I agree with the process, it still sucks

Go back to the op and comment on the legal aspect and sensibility of employing, I was going to say a woman but I think men now get maternity leave so i'll say employing someone to a struggling team that will not start for 9 months.
In high ranking roles, people do get appointed to a role where the start date is months away but this is not a high ranking role.

macafee2

I'll respond a few of the points in your post Ian.

1. I am not saying that one person would be more suitable than the other. I am not in a position to do so. What I am saying is that nor are you. Unless I have missed something in your post, you are making assumptions about the success criteria at the interview and disagreeing with the decision of the manager. That in itself is OK, but broadcasting it is not if the manager or the appointee can be identified from your post. In my view that could be a possibility for anyone who knew your wife at work.

2. Companies have management hierarchies for a reason - to facilitate decision making and accountability. Employees should respect the hierarchy and associated empowerment or, if they cannot, chose a different employer. If they disagree with a decision, then company processes should be followed to request/instigate a review.

3. To comment on another worker's capabilities in a way that undermines or questions their capability in the eyes of others who know them is a definite no no. The person doing so could find themselves the subject of a grievance and disciplinary process.

4. As for the legality of employing (or not) a person on maternity leave, I am not a legal person, but my understanding is that they cannot be denied a role (i.e. discriminated against) by virtue of being on maternity leave. There would have to be exceptional operational reasons for doing so.

5. Interview criteria as often broad and go well beyond whether a person will be able to do the job technically. The criteria will often include the individual's impact on the team's dynamics an their ling-term viability as employees. Unless you are aware of the criteria, I don't see how you can comment on what it was and whether effectively applied.

6. A manager is in his/her position of responsibility for a reason - their capability and a higher manager's decision to appoint. Not respecting that is no better than not respecting a subordinate.

7. Not all jobs go to the boys - many appointments are the result of genuine, thorough and consistent application of well thought through criteria.

[macafee2]

Originally Posted by mss

I'll respond a few of the points in your post Ian.

1. I am not saying that one person would be more suitable than the other. I am not in a position to do so. What I am saying is that nor are you. Unless I have missed something in your post, you are making assumptions about the success criteria at the interview and disagreeing with the decision of the manager. That in itself is OK, but broadcasting it is not if the manager or the appointee can be identified from your post. In my view that could be a possibility for anyone who knew your wife at work.

2. Companies have management hierarchies for a reason - to facilitate decision making and accountability. Employees should respect the hierarchy and associated empowerment or, if they cannot, chose a different employer. If they disagree with a decision, then company processes should be followed to request/instigate a review.

3. To comment on another worker's capabilities in a way that undermines or questions their capability in the eyes of others who know them is a definite no no. The person doing so could find themselves the subject of a grievance and disciplinary process.

4. As for the legality of employing (or not) a person on maternity leave, I am not a legal person, but my understanding is that they cannot be denied a role (i.e. discriminated against) by virtue of being on maternity leave. There would have to be exceptional operational reasons for doing so.

5. Interview criteria as often broad and go well beyond whether a person will be able to do the job technically. The criteria will often include the individual's impact on the team's dynamics an their ling-term viability as employees. Unless you are aware of the criteria, I don't see how you can comment on what it was and whether effectively applied.

6. A manager is in his/her position of responsibility for a reason - their capability and a higher manager's decision to appoint. Not respecting that is no better than not respecting a subordinate.

7. Not all jobs go to the boys - many appointments are the result of genuine, thorough and consistent application of well thought through criteria.

totally agree with point 7.
point 4 was the jest of the original post.

macafee2

[Darcydog]

I think the real issue is management style. Large organisations tend to “breed” Q2 type people that basically lay in a trench and hope problems resolve themselves. They also follow orders blindly and like to tell others how hard they work. Time served is confused with true experience and ability.

You often hear in these situations the words “I have 30 years experience”. The reality is usually that this person has 1 years of experience that is now 30 years old.

I groaned when reading in a post above that the system was set up so that “most senior person” was earmarked for the senior post and could complain if overlooked for a post.

It still happens I’m sure but thankfully much more rare now.

[topman]

Interesting that you say the person selected is a similar personality to the manager. We often like people who are like ourselves. Its not conscious thing, it's an unconscious bias.

It's often not something done on purpose, it's a need to fit in and it's easier if you can relate to them. That need to fit isn't limited to those new to a role. Those well established feel that need to fit in as well.

[MSS]

Management competence is a bit like getting old - most people irrespective of their age feel that they are still young and old age starts about 10 years above themselves.

The same is true of management competence - most people believe that they are excellent and incompetence starts at the level above them. They never stop to consider what those below them might be thinking!

Ditto what is reasonable.

[MSS]

Ian - seeing your posts about your daughter's recent achievement, it go me thinking.

Ref: https://the75andztclub.co.uk/forum/s...d.php?t=294929

Given that she is a female and married, it is reasonable to assume that on the balance of probabilities she may one day need to take time off work on maternity leave.

This is a genuine question - how would you and more importantly she feel if she is passed over for a job/promotion because she is on maternity leave and one of her colleagues believes that she is "nothing very special". Further, that this colleague says this to her face and broadcasts it on a public forum (be it without directly identifying your daughter).

Would you consider this other person's actions to be just and within his/her rights or potentially verging on the unreasonable.

I am genuinely interested in how you would feel when in different shoes.

P.S. I am a trained/accredited interviewer in competence based interviewing techniques (the current preference in the HR profession) as well as more traditional techniques and have interviewed/recruited/promoted circa 10-12 people for jobs almost every year of my working life until my retirement last August. I have also personally built and lead (not managed) teams of 10-123 professional engineers/project managers over time so feel that I have some degree of understanding of workplace dynamics in small and large organisations as well being able to identify individuals who would contribute positively or negatively to a team's coherence of purpose and performance.

[macafee2]

Originally Posted by mss

Ian - seeing your posts about your daughter's recent achievement, it go me thinking.

Ref: https://the75andztclub.co.uk/forum/s...d.php?t=294929

Given that she is a female and married, it is reasonable to assume that on the balance of probabilities she may one day need to take time off work on maternity leave.

This is a genuine question - how would you and more importantly she feel if she is passed over for a job/promotion because she is on maternity leave and one of her colleagues believes that she is "nothing very special". Further, that this colleague says this to her face and broadcasts it on a public forum (be it without directly identifying your daughter).

Would you consider this other person's actions to be just and within his/her rights or potentially verging on the unreasonable.

I am genuinely interested in how you would feel when in different shoes.

P.S. I am a trained/accredited interviewer in competence based interviewing techniques (the current preference in the HR profession) as well as more traditional techniques and have interviewed/recruited/promoted circa 10-12 people for jobs almost every year of my working life until my retirement last August. I have also personally built and lead (not managed) teams of 10-123 professional engineers/project managers over time so feel that I have some degree of understanding of workplace dynamics in small and large organisations as well being able to identify individuals who would contribute positively or negatively to a team's coherence of purpose and performance.

It is not possible to accurately answer your question until the situation occurs.
Her colleagues like anyone else are entitled to their opinions.

macafee2