In reply to Catherine:

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??

In reply to Keith:

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.

In reply to Catherine:

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

In reply to Peter:

Thanks Steve, I appreciate you helping to explain further where I'm coming from. Yes, some scandals make the news but there are hundreds of smaller scandals that have a major impact on the few people involved every week. I do think the balance of power will shift more towards the interviewee as skills become more scarce and technology raises more awareness of what a good employer looks like. Hopefully we can get to a point where the people in the interview room say, 'Look, we're all grown ups here. We know you have some weaknesses and you know we have some dysfunctions. Let's see how many of your weaknesses we can tolerate and how many of our dysfunctions you can tolerate.'

In reply to Catherine:

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.

In reply to Catherine:

…and there was I thinking that for the last thirty years or so my management colleagues and I had been doing that but without the long words! Well, well… One lives and learns....

It still doesn't change the essential functionality of the relationship. An employee might want to work for a given employer, but on the day it's the employer that makes the choice, and skill shortages do not alter that fact, because taking on an employee on "their" dictated terms simply to get a left-threaded widget-maker on board is not going to happen, because, if it came to that, the employer(s) would simply shift investment to training more widget-makers!

Good employers do not suffer staff shortages, but neither do poor employees get appointed to good employers, no matter how short the supply of their skill-set and smart their interview technique. An incompetent, stroppy, lazy or dishonest widget maker is still not going to get employed!

(For long)

...Because they have no net value to the business: They are NOT a human "resource", they are an unpredictable liability and thus a drain on its other resources. (Thus making it dysfunctional) :-)

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but your question was did the community think spotting dysfunctional workplaces was a good dissertation topic, based on your suppositions. Something approaching a century of accumulated experience, from colleagues above and I, has suggested it is not, since your fundamental premise is not sustainable (whatever its current profile in media reporting etc.).

There is no "epidemic of dysfunctionality". There is no way the "balance of decision" (it is not "power") can shift from recruiter to candidate, and the choice of who works for whom has been a universally balanced one since the last traditional industries providing the ONLY employment in a given area collapsed in the early '80s, and in many industries and roles since long before that.

I, and I am sure others above, have answered you as best we can and in good faith (we have no reason to do otherwise). We have separately reflected upon the facts as we know them to be; not politics, philosophies, agendas or any other motivation than to simply answer what you asked.

You have that answer and I wish you well with your dissertation, whatever its subject.

P

In reply to David:

With all my respects, your comment about these ‘great men’ in history sound a bit arrogant (if you need some examples of great women in history, google it). It adds no value to the conversation and repeat the same idea that has already been said. Disappointed to read this here.

In reply to Elena:

Hallo and welcome Elena

I’m disappointed too, to read of your rather startling criticisms of me, seemingly about my alleged arrogance and sexism.

Personal disparagement of this kind is not at all justified as a response to my comments, I’d suggest - nor very appropriate within this Forum either.

In reply to Elena:

I think it's a bit of a reach to suggest that David is either arrogant or sexist by briefly mentioning a couple of historical scientists and failing to include Marie Currie!

David is a hugely valued member of this community and has taken the time on many occasions to give advice to other members including me. I have never had cause to think that he is either sexist or arrogant.

As you're new to the community I'll assume that you misunderstood the tone of his post.

In reply to Elena:

Hi Elena

It's a shame that the first time you are moved to post, you have made a personal attack on another contributor. In this community we usually manage to disagree respectfully. You think David's comment sounds 'a bit arrogant' and 'adds no value'. I think your suggestion that David should Google great women in history sounds deliberately impertinent. I know you are misinterpreting David; I hope I am misinterpreting you.

In reply to Peter:

I don't like this answer at all. Very one sided, I will probe into any potential employer. I want to work for a good organisation just as much as they want a good employee.

In reply to Sharné:

I think probably Catherine (who started the thread) and maybe others would agree with you. Many experienced colleagues who have contributed above have questioned certain assumptions. I think this probably demonstrates some of the obvious cultural / generational tensions... and perhaps the evolving theory vs the practical realities.

In reply to Sharné:

Of course you will. But however much you may want to work for them, you do not get to make that choice, and never could, otherwise every other applicant who believes they will be a good employer would also chose to work for them: So one vacancy would be filled by (potentially) dozens of people turning up for work on Monday!

However much you may not like it: the employer will ALLWAYS be the one to choose who they want. The Candidate can decline the offer (for whatever reason), so no-one is forced to work for any given employer (any longer) by survival-need or circumstances, but no candidate gets to make the "positive" choice to be chosen (all else being equal).

Hence the right way to ensure that choice is made in your favour is to be good at doing the job required, and able to demonstrate that fact with your CV or application, not to be good at identifying the employers you would like to work for, or which might be dysfunctional

There is certainly an advantage in knowing which employers to avoid, but that will never ensure you are chosen by a good one, no matter how many "scandals" are disclosed or "epidemics" of dysfunctionality there may be.

(Currently: None more than there have ever been, but maybe more disclosed).

Candidate selection IS one sided, so if your implication was that I too am an arrogant sexist dinosaur I feel you might like to apologise.

P

In reply to Peter:

...so if your implication was that I too am an arrogant sexist dinosaur I feel you might like to apologise

.

I don't think that was the implication at all, Peter.

In reply to Steve Bridger:

Correct Steve, I didn't imply anything. I have turned down offers on more than one occasion because I didn't get a good impression from the interviewers. I'm glad I did because I absolutely love my current job.

*Edit: I hope this is useful to directing your research Catherine.