With the general election taking place on 7 May 2015 there’s no shortage of analysis and opinion about the various employment policies and how HR professionals view the proposals. Politics aside, the election this year has caught my attention in particular from a recruitment viewpoint.
Imagine this; you’re interviewing for a high profile position, arguably the most important job in the country (let’s leave out any opinion on whether big business or unions actually run the country) and your interview strategy is to criticise all of the other candidates, make personal remarks about their image and even their family and to seemingly have almost no evidence to support your application.
As an HR Professional who has conducted countless interviews, I have never come across a candidate who has taken such an approach. Even those interviewing for more junior roles come prepared, are positive, are well-briefed on not criticising their previous employer and have evidence to support their assertions that they are the best candidate for the job. I’ve yet to come across a candidate who makes inappropriate remarks about another candidate whom they may have sat next to in reception.
Isn’t it staggering, therefore, that the leaders of the parties trying to win our votes on 7th May to run our country are not able to adopt the same approach. I want to hear about previous successes, how they have coped when things haven’t gone to plan, what qualifications and experience they possess that make them the best person for the job; not why someone else shouldn’t get it. I want future focused, positivity, evidence based campaigning. To not have the facts and figures that will impact on our daily lives, our ability to pay our bills and the future that lies ahead for our children is unacceptable.
Discussing the mansion tax with Jeremy Vine on BBC Radio 2, Ed Miliband confirmed: “I am pretty sure I am going to be paying it.” Pretty sure…in my humble opinion, pretty sure is not good enough. To then not be able to confirm whether someone will be £36,000 worse off if affected by the mansion tax is again not good enough. I wouldn’t appoint a candidate to any role with this type of answer. (No political bias intended….just one of many examples that came to mind from all of the parties).
It seems that to a certain extent, parties are expecting us to vote for them based on why we shouldn’t vote for the others and by having blind faith in their ability to balance the books. I’m just pleased my own recruitment procedures are a little more sophisticated than this
