A long-running debate on the “CIPD member” Linked In form was prompted by a recruitment ad for HR jobs that showed the above image of a man ripping his shirt open to reveal a super-hero costume underneath, with “HR” instead of a Superman logo. The text had jokey references to super- hero powers and wearing your underpants over your normal clothes. (See the original advertisement at http://www.woodgroup-psn.com/careers/hr-hero.aspx. )
Overall opinion seemed to favour seeing the ad as an innocent use of humour, rather than intentionally sexist. The whole debate prompted another question to me; “Is targeting a sector of the labour market legitimate marketing, or indirect discrimination?”
In the UK, the law allows employers to advertise jobs in media that might be read by minority groups, if these are under-represented in your workforce. But with that limited exception, the law assumes that all other aspects of recruitment, and more importantly, employment will be on a non-discriminatory basis. Leading on from that, is there any scope for legitimate targeting of certain demographic groups that could not be viewed as discrimination?
If you have read any other of my blogs on employment marketing, you will know that the marketing of employment is a much wider topic that employer branding in recruitment. We will use benefits policy as a starting point. Let’s assume I am in the lucky position of being able to improve the benefits package for the employees. I’ve considered the available budget, and have a choice of two initiatives to propose to senior management:-
a) We offer free gym membership, and a “pick your own device” policy on business mobiles, allowing them to choose i-Phones, android phones, Blackberrys, etc. OR
b) We increase the employer contribution to the pension scheme by 1.5% of salary.
Whichever option we go for will be available to the whole workforce, but which demographic group is going to favour which? The first option is targeted to appeal to a younger age group, the pension improvement targets the older worker. If my company was operating a flexible benefits scheme there would be no problem, but assume we do not have that means of avoiding the problem.
It seems logical to choose the benefits to suit the workforce you have got. Look at the age profile, and if you have lots of young employees, go for the gym-and-phone package. If you have lots of middle-aged and older employees, the pension improvement would be welcomed. But does that approach then become a self-fulfilling prophecy? If you have a benefits policy geared to the needs of one age group, it becomes easier to recruit and retain that age group, and makes your employment product less appealing to the other.
There is probably a similar dichotomy on maternity and childcare provision between sectors that traditionally employ a high proportion of women, such as publishing and healthcare, and those that traditionally employ a low proportion of women, such as engineering. Organisations in the former sectors are likely to offer enhanced childcare and maternity benefits, whilst those in the latter are more likely to offer only the statutory minima.
Whilst most organisations will claim that they are keen to attract applicants from all sectors of the population, it will take a bigger commitment of resources to offer employment policies and benefits that would appeal to the groups that an organisation has not historically catered for. You might feel that the factors determining which demographic groups are attracted to you industry is beyond your control, and so just gear your policies to the existing workforce. ( “ Nursing will always appeal to women more than men” “Web design is a young person’s game”). It is possible to break out of the self-fulfilling prophecy, but you can’t tinker around at the edges. For example, Ford (UK) and Jaguar / Land Rover both offer a year on full pay to women taking maternity leave, a generous improvement on the UK’s statutory 6 weeks at 90% earnings, then 33 weeks on the statutory £135.45.
Another example of targeting a sector of the workforce that has made recent news is the nationality of who serves your coffee. The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson recently complained that British workers were not getting jobs in coffee shops and those companies should do more to attract local workers ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9249748/Why-do-foreigners-get-all-the-jobs-asks-Boris-Johnson.html ).
At about the same time, Pret a Manger, the coffee and sandwiches chain were publicising their recruitment and selection procedures. (http://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/pm/articles/2002/05/6749.htm ) Most of these were sound robust and fair; competency-based interviews, and an on-the-job experience day, but the final selection process is a ballot by the existing team members. The branch manager cannot over-ride that decision. I think there might be a possibility that teams might be tempted to base “compatibility” on similarity of national or ethnic background.
I am not advocating that organisations should use targeting to exclude any particular demographic group, nor accusing any particular companies of doing so. Targeting your employment product to meet the needs of certain groups is essential to maximise your success in recruiting and retaining them. I think the principled way to use it is to define the target group initially and fundamentally by the skills that they have which your organisation needs. If that group would prefer gym membership to a higher pension contribution from the company, then you need to respond to their priorities.
