For the last eight weeks - and come to think of it, for the last several years - I have been watching the Apprentice and getting increasingly irritated with the prevailing view amongst the potential apprentices that it is "OK to be a git/b*****d/asshole...it's only business". Why?! Why is it seemingly acceptable to step on the throat of those around you as long as it is in the name of business success (and by "business success", read "making a quick profit")?
Well, paradoxically it seems as though we like them. Despite being self absorbed, arrogant, manipulative and having a grandiose sense of entitlement, we seem programmed to find such people fascinating - but only for a short time. Even though we know that they are self-centred, excessively dominant and potentially hostile, we are drawn to them like moths to a flame.
Psychological research in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (Jan 2010) backs this up with some interesting findings. It seems as though those individuals with narcissistic traits (ego, vanity, conceit and selfishness - i.e. your archetypal apprentice wannabe) make excellent first impressions. Their sense of entitlement is admired and their charm, confidence, verbal fluency and ruthlessness win people over.
However, such traits will eventually be uncovered for what they are - style over substance. The power to influence, inspire and motivate others to follow your lead is a far more powerful trait and one that leads to lasting success. Consider the new slant to The Apprentice this year in which Lord Sugar is seeking a partner to start up a new business venture. Being nasty, selfish and manipulative may be the norm in larger corporations but they will certainly not help smaller businesses to grow. In fact, building close, caring relationships with your colleagues and customer base can be the deciding factor between long-term success and failure.
Lord Sugar would do well to consider whether he is in it for the 'quick buck' - in which case his narcissistic cronies will probably be ideal; or whether he wants to employ a leader who can win the hearts and minds of customers and staff alike. Time will tell, I guess.
Earlier this week, Labour leadership candidate Diane Abbott is quoted as saying public sector cuts have the "potential to set back race relations and black and ethnic minority communities by a generation." Specifically, she warned that a "last in, first out" approach to redundancies would hit black and female workers particularly hard, presumably given the nature of positive action in recent years. Aside from the "doom and gloom" feel to her statement, I broadly agree; accurate, objective and transparent assessment regardless of time in post is essential to ensuring fair and unbiased selection decisions.
The sad irony is that cutbacks are just as likely
to affect HR budgets as they will headcount and money available for objective assessment will be first to go.
So, where does this leave us?
Employee's perceptions of fairness at the current time will be particularly important. As companies look to reduce headcount, the process by which decisions are made over an individual's future with the organisation will have a significant impact on the subsequent performance of such individuals.
It is critical that organisations employ objective, valid, fair, inclusive and most importantly transparent selection procedures when looking at who is to stay and who, unfortunately, is to go.
Whether the approach is based on appraisal data, competency-based interviewing, assessment centres, or the like, organisations are morally obliged to ensure the process is objective, robust, based on justifiable criteria, inclusive of all groups, and above all cost effective.
Clearly, it is this last point that will resonate with most organisations feeling the pinch of recent governmental cuts. The knee-jerk reaction will be to cut all selection processes and go with a "last in, first out" approach. Unfortunately, by using such an approach, there is a significant risk of injecting bias associated with ill-defined criteria, inconsistent assessment processes and subjective interpretation of performance.
By extension, the apparent cost-saving of "streamlined" assessment is far outweighed by the longer term costs of unfair selection.
As my mum used to say, "do it right, or don't do it at all".
The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority has this week unveiled its new regime for governing what MPs can and cannot reasonably reclaim as expenses. Whilst in general the recommendations sound justified and sensible, it has left me a little confused over the decision to allow MPs to employ one family member as a way of achieving “value for money”.
This is not because I believe that there should be a blanket ban of employing spouses, more that the subject of the decision (and the subsequent debate) is irrelevant.
To ensure “value of money”, the onus is on the MP to recruit the right person for the job, regardless of who they are. Objective, fair and transparent selection has the greatest predictive validity and best return on investment. It is about ‘best fit’, not convenience or familial relationship.
Broadly, MPs should be considering the following:
Firstly, defining clear and justifiable criteria that have direct relevance to the requirements of the role.
Secondly, implementing an objective, transparent and robust assessment process to evaluate candidates’ skills and motivations against the criteria required.
In doing so, the chosen individual is far more likely to be committed and productive.
Whilst it is quite possible that the MP’s family member might very well be the best person for the job, stating that MPs can employ ‘Cousin Nick’ because he will deliver “value for money” is a fallacy. Personally, I’d rather they spend the money on duck-houses; it’s cheaper in the long run.
Feed
Time for a rant...
Earlier this week, Labour leadership candidate Diane Abbott is quoted as saying public sector cuts have the "