Candidates interviewing employers

Hi Catherine

You seem to have several hypotheses:

* Many workplaces are dysfunctional,
* That is the cause of productivity and mental health suffering
* Candidates will become more aware of how to spot a dysfunctional workplace
* Candidates will start interviewing employers as a result.

For a 7000 word dissertation, I’d suggest you pick one hypothesis. I would also think about how you will gather data and analyse it to see if it supports your hypothesis or not. I think you will struggle to carry out a credible piece of research if you want to investigate broad trends in society such as these.

I tend to agree with Elizabeth that your scope is too wide and too far ranging to get down to 7,000 words - just a literature review would probably go way over that on that range.

The one where I think you could add most value and conduct a good piece of work is Elizabeth's 4th question. As Peter says there is always an element of recruitment being a two way process. I wonder if you could design some research that tested this and see if it varied with level/seniority, age , gender etc? Also what actual triggers or signs potential employees were looking for - and where in the process these were?

Is it "interviews" or a number of signs along the way? How much research do candidates actually do on employers (and again does this vary?)

How much weight do candidates put on some/all of the various bench marks (Best Companies, IiP etc) and if an employer has these how does it affect their decision making process?

Is Glassdoor any more than a niche of a niche in the UK?

How equal is the recruitment process for some/many candidates - my experience is that very few people offered a job turn it down - is this because they pre select out the process earlier (and if so when/why) or is it because candidates are willing to ignore even pretty big warning signs on culture fit to get that job?

7000 words will rush by

Hi Ray, thanks. I think it's more about
- Are more types of candidates raising more challenging questions in interviews as a result of review sites, blogs and information about work practices?
- Are employers preparing for this or not?
I do think people are becoming more informed about what a good workplace should look like. Look at the popularity of TED talks for example and there are a lot of talks about workplace practices on there.

I get the impression you have already decided on your conclusions and are working back from there. There's nothing wrong in using your dissertation research to test a pet theory provided you go about it using the methodology and methods specified by your university. Would an analyisis of Glassdoor etc reviews count as original research and meet your dissertation requirements? I don't see much scope there to demonstrate your skill with quantitative methods. You are clearly very interested in these ideas - always a plus before you get stuck into the research! - but I'd keep checking back that you don't allow your interests to lure you off the main topic (and you do need a main topic) and into citing unreliable sources.

Sorry Catherine, but like colleagues I feel there is a fundamental flaw in your suppositions here. While candidates are increasingly able to review employers due to internet informative resources, most candidates ability to analyse the data they obtain meaningfully is limited; their ability to form meaningful (and suitably framed) questions is even more limited, and employers' investment in answering the questions they might be asked by candidates is almost negligible.

You seem to be suggesting that, instead, candidates should (and will) focus on data analysis, formulate searching, investigative questioning of corporate stability, and seek flawlessly accurate summations of working conditions, practice, and management strategies from their prospective new bosses as a primary objective.

I do not see that as a realistic, or productive, proposal.

Being a smart interviewee is not the objective. Interviewing smart interviewees is not the objective; getting the right people with the right knowledge about the job you want them to do IS. As is being able to do the job you're interviewing for!

As has already been pointed out: Truly dysfunctional businesses don't survive. In addition, dysfunctionality does not happen overnight, it is a continuum with a millions shades of grey from functionality to dysfunctionality and in anything but the smallest businesses, growing dysfunctionality (caused by , say, a given problem, group of employee, or manager(s)) is counteracted by others, immediately or in response to its growing significance. Almost by definition, it is not a stable (or sustainable) -state

So why would it be of any value for anyone to become a passed-master at avoiding being hired by a dysfunctional workplace, when the sensible (and productive) alternative objective is to actually become good at the job you're interviewing for? Because if the employer then hires functional people (like you) it won't be (or remain) dysfunctional; will it?

...and how many employers do you believe would sit still for a candidate at interview asking them a stream of searching and (again by definition) impertinent questions about their (dys)functionality and still have the slightest wish or intent to appoint them?

As Peter rightly said earlier: "Interviewing is a two-way street", but its relevance and objective for the employer is not to struggle through their candidate's grilling; it is to fill its current vacancy with a talented and able employee who expresses an enthusiasm to work for the company,

(Not a conditional concession to do so based on statistics from "Glassdoor" or the like).

So the best moment to research and decide whether a company is worth working for (on any grounds) is always going to be before you fill out the application form, not when you're each crossing the final "t"s an dotting "i"s at the end of your otherwise successful interview.

P

Hi Peter,

Thanks. I do think there are some assumptions that need to be challenged here. The candidate might have more than one interview and is using the interview process to make a decision on which culture they are most likely to thrive in. Also, we are assuming organisations have a huge talent pool to choose from when in reality they are competing for skills. And yes, dysfunctional organisations  shouldn't survive but many do for years. How many corporate and public sector scandals are reported each year?

Interesting question. Is a “scandal” a indication of wide spread dysfunctionality? And are there many? Given the number of businesses there are? Now that would be an interesting topic for research.

I do see where Catherine is coming from here and a few years ago I read a number of articles (in HBR and the like) about how millennials in particular want to to work in businesses that focus on purpose and not just profit and (as Catherine puts it) would be 'interviewing' employers with that in mind. Maybe financial austerity has dented those ideals??

Hi Keith

That is a very good point, and demonstrates the power of communication. Statistically, you will never be in a plane crash and if you are you will probably walk away from it. You are much more likely to be killed driving to the airport. But we perceive flying as more dangerous because when it does go wrong it makes the news. If two or three "scandals" hit the news, it gives the impression they are rife, but there are hundreds of thousands of businesses quietly doing what they do without a breath of scandal. Also, the scandals that get reported are drawn from the international community. 20 Enrons do not necessarily imply one single Enron UK.

Keith beat me to it. :-)

What you describe as dysfunctional is an organisation being run improperly (e.g. unlawfully or unethically), however many such organisations are highly functional, and need to be to hide the questionable aspects of their activities successfully.... and anyway candidates are unlikely to get their data if the police Service can't!

Some truly dysfunctional organisations can indeed be successful, (e.g. Sports Direct), but that is usually because they are fun as single-minded Autocracies, however one might also (somewhat paradoxically) include organisations like Virgin which (in its earlier incarnations) followed the ideals and objectives of a single mind-set, if not a single mind. So while communications and interrelations between their parts may be tenuous or even non-existent, other than through one or two peoples' direction, everyone knows which page they are on and functions collectively. So a dysfunctional organisational structure nevertheless works as a whole; a "gestalt". (….And might be a great place to work!)

Many Artistic projects work in the same way, and there are few things in life more dysfunctional than a bunch of (some) artistic egos collected in one place!

Data from "Glassdoor" etc. is indicative of organisational effectiveness, and thus useful in making employment-choices, but the focus will (and indeed MUST) remain on the match between skilled productive effort being available from the candidate, and this matching the role to be undertaken, no matter how clever their corporate analytical skill, and interview techniques, might be.

If this were not so, then why are we constantly hearing (not least on these pages) of apparently "best" candidates who turn out to be complete mis-matches within their first few months of employment?

Because they didn't ask the right questions about the job?

Or because they asked (and were asked) the right ones, but then couldn't "walk the walk"?

P

Its an interesting question for futurologists if the balance of power will ever shift thus. An alternative view may well be that technology takes over many of the routine jobs (call centres, manufacturing etc) leaving a greater number of people chasing a small number of jobs. Clearly those at the top of the pyramid "might" have the luxury of a conversation such as you envisage (although even those jobs will be hard fought over) but those lower down?

I am not trying to be pessimistic but I think its probably more likely that the balance will swing further in favour of the employer in the next 10-20 years but we shall I guess see.

Its an interesting question for futurologists if the balance of power will ever shift thus. An alternative view may well be that technology takes over many of the routine jobs (call centres, manufacturing etc) leaving a greater number of people chasing a small number of jobs. Clearly those at the top of the pyramid "might" have the luxury of a conversation such as you envisage (although even those jobs will be hard fought over) but those lower down?

I am not trying to be pessimistic but I think its probably more likely that the balance will swing further in favour of the employer in the next 10-20 years but we shall I guess see.