FREE ESSAY ON RECRUITMENT

RECRUITMENT

On dealing with the premiss that the practice of recruitment and selection is a long way
from the recommendations of personnel textbooks, distinction must be taken into account
between explicit recommendations and guidelines, on one hand, and, on the other, implicit
suggestions stemming from the author's own stance. The implications of distancing from,
or identification with, such explicit recommendations and implicit suggestions will be
viewed in this paper as well as forms of overt and covert resistance, or adhesion,
assumed in actual practice. Also central to the argument is what the whole issue means in
terms of both existing problems and potential future problems for the employer and the
candidate, for organizational management, the labour market and macro-economic welfare
and progress in general.
Employment decisions have traditionally been regarded as a privilege exclusive to
management. Many of the US personnel textbooks emphasize this aspect and describe the
process in terms of 'hurdles over which prospective employees have to try to leap to
avoid rejection' (Torrington and Hall, 1991:283). In the UK recruitment and selection is
an issue which has in the past kept a low profile in personnel textbooks, though the
trend has changed (e.g., Torrington and Hall, 1991, Keith Sisson, 1994), which appears to
point out to an evolution from the paternalistic perspective according to which
recruitment tends to be dominantly viewed from the angle of providing candidates for the
selector to judge.
Recommendations are being made with respect to the various stages of the process of
recruitment and selection, from approaching and seeking to interest potential candidates
to determining whether to appoint any of them. Codes of practice and guidelines for their
implementation have been produced with emphasis on different aspects, e.g., on
recruitment starting with a job description and person specification, by IPM; on fair and
efficient selection, by EOC (1986); on avoidance of sex bias in selection testing, by EOC
(1992); on avoidance of improper discrimination, by ACAS (1981) and negative bias against
age, by IPM (1993); on non-discriminatory advertising, by CRE and EOC (1977, 1985); and
on the use of cognitive and psychometric tests, by IPM and BPS (1993). 
1.
Moreover, legislation promoting equality of opportunity has underlined the importance of

using well-validated selection procedures (Torrington and Hall, 1991), and directives
such as those issued by CRE (1983) and EOC (1985) emphasize the need to comply with
anti-discrimination legislation and this way enhance opportunities to disadvantaged
groups. Greater formality will both make the concealment of racial and sexual
discrimination more difficult and will permit more effective retrospective surveillance
by senior management and bodies such as the CRE (Jenkins, 1982), thus to some extent
remedying the weakness of much of the EO literature in not frontally addressing the
different types of discriminatory decision, be it determinism, particularism, patronage
or rational-legality (Jewson & Mason, 1986). As a counter-argument, however, the
definition of the employer's role as that of implementing and monitoring formal
procedures can be seen to absolve senior staff of the responsibility for further
investigation of the causes of continuing inequality (Webb & Liff, 1988).
In fact, case studies have shown that such directives can be misused and their intention
subverted as often happens with respect to IPM's recommendations on job description and
person specification (Collinson et al., 1990: 96-108), and, furthermore, the legal 
definition of 'justifiability' is sufficiently vague for the legislation to be
ineffective; and the workforce can be manipulated into becoming management's accomplice
in discrimination (ibid.: 70-71). Some recommendations are, in themselves, not socially
and politically neutral enough to avoid ambiguity and, as such, encourage covert
discrimination. Highlighting the causes behind the problem, EOC points out that gender
discrimination is embedded in 'myths' (EOC, 1986:2), while we are also reminded that
motherhood still remains a stigma (Curran, 1988) as the general ideology of gender still
associates feminity with nurturing, and hence with servicing, which is translated
directly into specific occupational terms (Murgatroyd, 1982). Accordingly - inspite of
what has been achieved - women still face 'bottleneck' on the way to top jobs in
personnel, a situation which has been aggravated by a recent regression in the previous
upward trend for women, the latest figures standing at 44% of all personnel managers but
only 9.5% of personnel directors (PM Plus, 1994). Getting into the boardroom is not the
same as getting into the 'club', a 'glass ceiling' made difficult to shatter (BM, 1994)
by the club members themselves who may also try to psychologically manipulate women into
consenting and thus becoming accomplices of their own fate.
At least on their face value, for the past two decades personnel textbooks have been
recommending equal opportunities in recruitment and selection. Rodger's 'Seven Point
Plan' (Rodger, 1970) and Fraser's 'Five-Fold Framework' (Fraser, 1971: 64-80) are
checklists which emphasize the need for a logical link between job description and person
specification. Yet, Rodger's headings 'circumstances' and 'acceptability' 'have strong
potential to be used as a cloak for improper discrimination' (Sisson, 1994:189). In
instances like this one the author of the personnel textbook is - consciously or
unconsciously, intentionally or unintentionally - an accomplice of reluctant management.
Recommendations become a vehicle of subversion of the proclaimed spirit.
Even when guidelines appear to be socially and politically sound, the identification of
requirements remains subjective when it comes to draft a job description as judgement
greatly depends on conclusions which are based on one's conceptualizations. The effect of
prejudice and bias is, therefore, difficult to control, and unfairness in shortlisting is
difficult to restrain.
2.
Other main initial steps in the recruitment and selection process offer no guarantee of
fairness. Application forms, multi-purpose as advised by Edwards (1983:64), or not, may
become a tool of discrimination as they can easily incorporate a discriminatory bias
within their highly structured framework. Letters of application and CVs appear to be
seen as of little relevance as a measure of performance in manual jobs (Duxfield,
1983:246-7) but to be regarded of great importance and possibly decisive on other kinds
of placement (Knollys, 1983: 236-8) where they are left to the assessor's subjective
evaluation. It is generally acknowledged that they are open to discriminatory use by the
employer (McIntosh and Smith, 1974). Furthermore, the use of graphology, though
controversial, is being practised in Britain (PM,1985).
Inappropriate use of screening tests is another point of concern. The use of cognitive
and psychometric tests appears to be quite popular in the UK, bearing in mind that the
production of a personality questionnaire has been financed by over fifty companies in
this country (Saville and Holdsworth Ltd, 1987). Discerning and cautious use of
psychological techniques of selection has been advocated by Rodger (1970; 1971; 1983)
while Kline (1993) is particularly concerned with 'reliability' and 'validity' as key
requirements for selection methods to be technically sound as a measure of both immediate
suitability of a candidate and also of prediction of his/her future performance, though
the former function is more highly valued by Scholarios et al. (1993). Still with respect
to psychological testing, Brotherton has drawn a distinction between measures of
'organizational performance' and 'job performance' and emphasized that successful
non-discriminatory selection requires validation based on the latter (Brotherton, 1980).
Low validity interviewing is yet another point of concern. Evidence suggests that the
single interviewer tends to be the generalized practice with respect to manual workers
(Mackay and Torrington, 1986: 38-40), while in the case of non-manual employees the
general practice is the line manager and a personnel specialist to be involved, though
this results, in practice, in one-person interviewing as personnel specialists prefer a
purely advisory role (Collinson et al., 1990). The final decision tends to be made by one
individual - usually a white middle-aged male -, which provides open ground for abuse
(Wanous, 1980; Honey, 1984; and Collinson et al., 1990) and shortlisted prospective
appointees are let down at the final interview. Not just the outcome but the way
interviews are conducted can be arbitrary, and applicants may be subjected to invasion of
privacy with questions such as on their personal life and family background or on their
political beliefs. Another aspect to consider is that, on the other hand, interviews -
particularly on a one-to-one basis - may give the applicant the opportunity to impress
beyond fact. In a study of a university milk round candidates admitted to being far from
truthfull in their statements (Keenan, 1980). The need to promote ethical awareness in
the practice of interviewing has been highlighted not only in order to improve selectors'
fairness but also to control dubious honesty from applicants (Pocock, 1989).
Recommendations on the issue of internal or external recruitment cannot be universally
suitable. Courtis (1985:15) does not give priority to internal recruitment which in
itself presents the double advantage of being economical and encouraging career
development. However, as a counter-argument, internal recruitment can also result in a
delimitating effect for the company and injustice to the supply side of the labour
market. With respect to methods used when aiming to interest potential candidates,
deviation from 
3.
guide-lines and supporting legislation can prove to be fruitful as in the case of the
US-style 'head-hunting' and search consultancy, a practice at first hindered by UK
legislation - or its interpretation -, but recently expanding to over eight hundred
recruitment and search consultants operating in this country (Clark, 1991). High fees
result in it being used mainly at rather senior levels, thus offering the possibility of
being a means of neutralizing the tendency for females and certain other sectors of
population being met with a career ceiling at middle management level. In principle,
beneficial to both interested parties in the labour market, brokerage between them can
have double-edged consequencies such as employers falling victim to consultants who both
both exploit their privileged access to knowledge of the company's needs and reuse
candidates after they have remained with the firm for an agreed period of time.
A defensive stance against the prescriptions of textbooks is taken by line managers who
defend that recruitment can not be scientific but that it is a mixture of what they
define as gut and objectivity, as contradictory in terms as this may be. They also stress
how they are aiming in the selection process to gauge future job performance. In other
words, underlying the practices defended by line managers are certain principles which
seem to link to the organization's culture and overall corporate strategy (Wood, 1986).
Acceptability criteria thus prevail over suitability criteria. As an excuse for arbitrary
selection, the formalization of the process of selection advocated by IPM, CBI, EOC and
CRE with a view to rendering recruitment more efficient, meritocratic, consistent and
accountable, is demeaned by general line managers as being bureaucratic encumbrance
(Collinson, 1987) as an excuse for arbitrary selection. It is significant, though, that
conviction usually appears to be lacking in that the key to competitive advantage is to
get the best person for the job, who may be a woman, but the same argument gained
credibility in employer-led Opportunity 2000 launched by Prime Minister John Major in the
early 1990s (Liff, 1995).
Line managers prefer informal sources of recruitment such as word-of-mouth
recommendations or purchasing people's names off the Professional and Executive Register
and contacting them directly. This enables autonomy and unaccountability over 
the choice of successful applicant, and the stereotyped ideal recruit is white, male,
aged 30 to 40, and married, i.e. with wife, children and mortgage. This state of affairs
is difficult to change, as line managers are patriarchally elevated as the 'providers',
the organization's 'breadwinners', thus mirroring the gendered domestic division of
labour, while personnel managers and personnel advisers are equated to the 'unproductive'
female welfare and administrative role (Collinson, 1987). This downgrading and
devaluation of the sex-typed 'female' role (Legge, 1987) relegates personnel managers and
advisers within the organizational culture to a peripheral position and little or no
authority (Wood, 1986). The devolution of responsibility for human resources from
personnel specialists to line managers seems a rather negative development, but even here
it is possible to envisage favourable circumstances inasmuch, as if line managers take
responsibility for human resources issues, then EO has a better chance of being treated
more seriously (Liff, 1995).
This situation emerges against a macro-economic background in which the dominant trends
point to an increasingly more intense competition in a global market-place. In the 
UK home labour market, the 1980s period of easy recruitment due to high levels of
unemployment has given place to recruitment difficulties with current skill shortages and

4.
forecasts of a significant drop in the number of young entrants and of at least a 50%
female workforce. This situation looks bleak for those employers who fail to adopt
non-traditional methods of recruitment (Curnow, 1989), for a more proactive recruitment
strategy is required as a source of competitive advantage through a quality workforce
(Torrington & Hall, 1991), with a move towards a focus on expected outcomes rather than
procedures (Liff, 1989).
In other words, EO is not just a problem of implementation, but, in contrast, important 
parts of the process still need to be better understood, particularly at the
organizational level (Aitkenhead, 1991: 26). However, not just at organizational level.
What EO initiatives take place within organizations depends crucially upon how the
concept is understood by its members, and when organizational policy is translated into
operational procedures it has implications for a person's activities and hence for his or
her cognitive world, and the relationship between organizational procedures and
individual cognitive world is two-way (Ibid: 35-41). With respect to conceptualization, a
positive trend can be found in voices which value diversity (e.g. Copeland, 1982) and
managing diversity (e.g. Greenslade, 1991, Jackson, 1992) inasmuch as this stresses
positive aspects of difference with respect to ethnicity or with respect to gender
(Rosener, 1990), which suggests a favourable change of perspective in industrial
relations (Liff, 1995).
In conclusion, the past few decades have seen the development of recommendations on
recruitment and selection which challenge the traditional outlook of employment matters
as a prerogative of management decision and the prospective employee as a relatively
passive object of employer's judgement. Personnel textbooks, codes of practice 
and anti-discriminatory legislation have put the focus on EO for women, ethnic and other
disadvantaged groups. Such prescriptions appear to be seen by the employer as a conflict
of interests with his managerial strategy and a threat to his established position of
authority and privilege. This has been the reaction of the white male manager. Some of
the prescriptions themselves have been informed by the cognitive framework of the white
male culture and thus, intentionally or unintentionally, rendered less efficient in their
formulation. Others have been, and continue to be, subverted in practice by false
compliance. In either case EO principles are defeated, and a self-reproducing phenomenon
persists of acceptability over suitability in the recruitment and selection process. 
This status quo poses a complex problem which affects, more immediately, both the
recruiter and the candidate and, at a larger scale, the whole economic scene. Mainly
preoccupied with repressing change, the employer appears to be reluctant to consider that
this same change can be to his own advantage, inasmuch as it will promote a recruitment
and selection approach which could contribute not only to a fairer but also to a more
cost-effective decision making. As far as the employer is concerned, the felt problem
appears to be the outside pressure put on him to change, while the real problem appears
to be his difficulty in evolving cognitively. Managerial refusal in a more effective
staffing will have far-reaching consequencies as it will render organizations inadequate
to compete in an increasingly global market, a problem of major repercussions, if a
proactive response is not given to the need for a quality workforce 
that will guarantee competitiveness through quality goods and services.
5.
On the supply side of the labour market the problem of discrimination has been felt so
acutely as to prompt the overall awareness that led to the recommendations in question. A
foreseable demographic change seems to favour the previously excluded groups so 
far as it may result in more of a seller's market for labour which should, in turn,
encourage the labour buyer to concentrate on outcomes rather than on procedure; and this
shift away from the focus on procedure may help reduce antagonism and elusive compliance.
Another opening can be seen in the fact that literature has become possible on diversity
as a positive asset to be profitably managed, a development which remains, however,
problematic so far as it may also be perceived and resisted as a social issue. It is
nevertheless a landmark in industrial relations evolution in what it represents of a
two-way interaction between the cognitive world of both assessors and assessed, on one
side, and, on the other, textbook recommendations and related formal directives. However,
ambiguity and ambivalence persist at each stage of evolution and progress towards a more
just and effective management of human resources, and evidence presented above - as in
the case of Opportunity 2000 - suggests that, paradoxically and dangerously, the
promotion of objective recruitment and selection on merit is resorting, for credibility,
to being implemented within the traditional recruiter's framework of conceptualization
Bibliography
REFERENCES
ACAS 1981: Recruitment and Selection. Advisory Booklet n? 6. London: Advisory,
Conciliation and Arbitration Service.
Aitkenhead, M. & Liff, S. (1991): The Effectiveness of Equal Opportunity Policies. In
Firth-Cozens, J. & West, M A. (eds): Women at Work, Psychological and Organizational
Perspectives. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
BM 1994, The Glass Ceiling. Business Matters video Series. In Equality & Diversity course
1994-5, Week 6. University of Warwick.
Brotherton, C. (1980): Paradigms of Selection Validation. Journal of Occupational
Psychology, 53, March, 73-9.
Clark, T. (1991): A survey and critique of selection methods used by executive
recruitment consultancies in management recruitment. Paper presented to the 1992
Occupational Psychology Conference of the British Psychological Society.
Collinson, D. (1987): The 'Safe-between' Candidate , Personnel Management, May
Collinson D., Knights, D. & Collinson, M (1990): Managing to Discriminate. London:
Routledge.
Copeland, L. (1988): Making the Most of Cultural Differences at the Workplace. Personnel,
June, 52-60.
Courtis, J. (1985): The IPM Guide to Cost-effective Recruitment, 2nd ed. London:
Institute of Personnel Management.
Curnow, B. (1989): Recruit, retrain, retain; personnel management and the three Rs,
Personnel Management, Nov. 40-7.
Curran, M. (1988): Gender and Recruitment: People and Places in the Labour Market. Work,
Employment & Society, vol 2, n? 3.
Duxfield, P. (1983): Sales Staff. In Ungerson, B. (ed.) Recruitment Handbook, 3rd edn. 
6.
Aldershot: Gower, 239-47.
Edwards, B. J. (1983): Application Forms. In Ungerson, B. (ed.) Recruitment Handbook, 3rd
edn. Aldershot: Gower, 64-82.
EOC 1986: Fair and Efficient Selection: guidance of EO policies in recruitment and
selection procedures. Manchester: Equal Opportunities Commission.
Fordham, K. G. (1983): Job Advertising. In Ungerson, B. (ed.) Recruitment Handbook, 3rd
edn. Aldershot: Gower, 46-63.
Fraser, J. M. (1971): Introduction to Personnel Management. London: Nelson.
Honey, J. (1984): Accents at Work. Personnel Management, January, 16, 1, 18-21. 
Jenkins, R. (1982): Mangers, Recruitment Procedures and Black Workers. Working Papers on
Ethnic Relations, n? 18. SSRC Research Unit on Ethnic Relations.
Jewson, N. & Mason, D. (1986): Modes of Discrimination in the Recruitment Process:
Formalisation, Fairness ans Efficiency. Sociology, vol. 20 n?1.
Keenan, T. (1980): Recruitment on the campus: a closer look at tools of the trade.
Personnel Management, March
Kline, P. (1993): The Handbook of Psychological Testing. London: Routledge.
Knollys, J. G. (1983): Clerical Staff. In Ungerson, B. (ed.) Recruitment Handbook, 3rd
edn. Aldershot: Gower, 230-8.
Legge, K. (1987): Women in personnel management: uphill climb or downhill slide?. In
Spencer, A. & Palmore, D. (eds), In a Man's World, London: Tavistock
Lewis, C. (1985): Employee Selection. London: Jutchinson.
Liff, S. (1989): Assessing Equal Opportunities Policies. Personnel Review, 18, 1, 27-34.
Liff, S. (1995 (to appear)): Continuing Patterns of Discrimination in a Context of Formal
Equality. In Edwards, P K (ed): Industrial Relations: Theory and Practice in Britain.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Mackay, L. & Torrington, D. (1986): The Changing Nature of Personnel Management. London:
Institute of Personnel Management.
McIntosh, N. & Smith, D. (1974): The Extent of Racial Discrimination. PEP Broadsheet,
547. London: Political and Economic Planning. 
Murgatroyd, L. (1982): Gender and Occupational Stratification. Sociological Review, 30.
Parkinson, E. N. (1986): Parkinson's Law. London: Sidgewick & Jackson.
PM (1985): Graphology. Personnel Management, March. 
Pocock, P. (1989): Is business ethics a contradition in terms?, Personnel Management,
November
Ray, M. (1980): Recruitment Advertising. London: Institute of Personnel Management.
Roger, A. (1970): The Seven Point Plan, 3rd edn. London: National Foundation for
Education Research.
Roger, A. (1971): Recent Trends in Personnel Selection. NIIP Bulletin, Spring, 3. 
Roger, A. (1983): Using Interviews in Personnel Selection. In Ungerson, B. (ed.)
Recruitment Handbook, 3rd edn. Aldershot: Gower, 161-77. 
Saville and Holdsworth Ltd 1987: Consultants Publicity Booklet. London: Saville and
Holdsworth.
Scholarios, D. M., Johnson, C. D. & Zeisner, J. (1993): Maximising the efficiency of
personnel assignment. Paper presented to the annual Occupational Psychology conference of
the British Psychological Society. Brighton.
Sisson, K. (1994): Personnel Management. Oxford: Blackwell Business.
Torrington, D. & Chapman, J. (1983): Personnel Management, 2nd edn. London: 
7.
Prentice Hall.
Torrington, D. & Hall, L (1991): Personnel Management - A New Approach. London: Prentice
Hall. 
Wanous, J. P. (1980): Organizational Entry. Reading; MA: Addison-Wesley.
Webb, J, & Liff, S. (1988): Play the White Man: The social construction of fairness and
competition in equal opportunity Policies, The Sociological Review, 3,3. 
Wood, S. (1986): Personnel Management and Recruitment, Public Relations, 15, 2.