Recruitment and Selection in Europe

introduction Recruitment starts at the point when an organization identifies a need gap and seeks to fill it. It ends when application forms for those who are interested in filling the need communicated by the organization arrive (Lindelöw, 2008). The selection process entails choosing the person who is best suited to fill the vacant position from the applicants. This process is largely about establishing whether the applicants have the skills, abilities, knowledge and competencies that are crucial to the conduct of a certain business function. Once the best candidate has been identified, training for the position begins. Recruitment and selection are functions of human resource management and are the core to the existence of a competent workforce. When these two functions fail to perform to the best, then, the quality of the people eventually hired cannot be guaranteed which will affect the overall performance of the organization. The recruitment and selection process in Europe is based on competition which is a merit-based system. In traditional European societies, the patronage system was preferred over merit-based system where nobles and those that were rich were considered for positions. This system was largely businesslike with the recruiter receiving a token in return for a position. Although the system is no longer rampant, there are instances when actions of governments and institutions resemble it. Politicians rewarding loyalists with positions in government is one such example. Nowadays, however, the recruitment is done through advertisement of a job so that it reaches a wide audience. The subsequent process involves verifying whether applicants have the necessary qualifications before they can be tested. A series of tests are then undertaken that reduce the number of eligible candidates at every level. Eventually, the best person(s) for the job is (are) identified. The objective of this paper is to analyze the recruitment and selection process in Europe with the aim of deciphering whether it yields the best candidate for the job. Merit-based systems are usually crafted in a manner that guarantees identification and hiring of the best after a rigorous process. However, bureaucracy has taken root in many institutions such that although the processes outwardly seem merit-based, they do not yield the best people for different positions. A review of secondary literature will be done in this paper to determine whether the European recruitment and selection system yields the best candidates for jobs advertised. Critical review Traditionally, recruitment and selection followed a patronage system that was largely seen as a transaction where the recruiter and candidate exchanged ex ante payment. The former would receive a payment, usually goods or money, while the latter would get a post in a bureaucratic system. In Europe, people who occupied office usually had property rights over those offices and thus had to part with an explicit or monetary payment prior to such occupation (Lewansky, 2000). Tax farming and sale of military commissions were some of the examples of buying office that were practiced in France and Britain. Prior to the French revolution, the only way that one attained high office was through inheritance, gift or by private purchase. These cases are not isolated to early modern Europe but are also witnessed today. The payments to occupy positions are not in monetary form nor are they in explicit forms but rather are in-kind. Lewis (2008) asserts that the US political systems allows those that have participated in the presidential campaigns be considered for office once the government they were campaigning for takes office. The promise that such positions would be available is perhaps the reason why people are driven to campaign for the parties that they do. Previously, a guarantee for continued office occupancy in the US was pegged on continued donations to the party from the pay one received (Carpenter, 2001). Patronage is an old practice that is largely transactional. This does not however mean that the system is necessarily flawed. Theorists believe that if ones abilities are the drivers to occupancy for the present and future, and if the benefits accrued from such occupancy are sufficient, then those people that are the most likely to pay for such occupancy are also the most fit (Mattozzi & Merlo, 2008). It is worth noting that in a bureaucracy, ones abilities are likely to be linked to the positions that they are set to occupy; however weakly. Additionally, all personnel functions in the UK were usually a reserve of senior bureaucrats who were naturally inclined to employ only those they felt were more able. This however meant that the pool from which governments and institutions recruited was constrained by the ability to pay for patronage; the weaker in the society. The lower classes in the society are the ones predisposed to lack of funding and thus suffer the brunt in patronage. The other constraint bore by the lower societal classes is that they are unable to offer political capital even when they are accorded the office after raising the funds required for patronage. Political services offered by those that have ‘bought’ high office guarantees their tenure during the lifecycle of their affiliate government. Merit-based system of recruitment and selection was primarily crafted as a means of including those that were typically left out under the patronage system. The system is based on a measure of competence demonstrated by a test on administration. This system forces the government to forego the benefits it accrues under a patronage system. This is because no candidates are exempt from selection as it is purely based on qualification. After adoption of merit examinations by the Indian Civil service, in 1853, 30% of candidates were found to be people who previously stood no chance of such candidacy and were referred to as the sons of men. Merit-based recruitment and selection is advantageous to the government in that it allows for qualified people who would not have otherwise been selected to occupy positions and are likely to perform better that those who would have paid for the positions. The disadvantage here is that the government loses the rents that it would have accrued had it considered the patronage system. With all other factors constant, governments will follow the merit system as the politically marginalized people increase their skills. The level of education is an important proxy in enhancing the skills of the politically marginalized (Przeworski, 2009). In traditional European societies, access to public education was a reserve of the nobles. The middle and lower classes had limited access to these educational centres which diminished their leverage for holding office or position. The human capital theory underscores the importance of the behavior, energy and abilities that people bring to their areas of work. The value that recruiters look for are abilities, skills and knowledge (Armstrong, 2006). A merit based system primarily focuses on attracting, retaining and developing only those who are best qualified for the specific purpose at hand. The human capital that entails the generation and retention of skills and knowledge is enhanced when people with different competencies interact thus creating the social capital. This network of competencies is ultimately institutionalized to form the organizational capital which epitomizes the philosophies within recruitment and selection of human resources. Armstrong (2009) asserts that employees and not the employers choose when to apply the capitals they acquire. He further postulates that work is not the exploitation of an asset but rather a mutual exchange of value. This theory recognizes that human resources add value to organizations and they are assets that if well utilized bring about worthwhile returns. Swaen and others (2008) advices that organizations should ensure that they have the right people possessing the appropriate skills doing the required tasks at specific times in order to maintain a competitive advantage over others. This resource based view theorizes that human resources are the most important factors to the success of an organization and this is only achievable if the pool of resources that an organization possesses is more superior to that of competitors and cannot be imitated. The merit-based recruitment process ensures that the caliber of employees selected is superior and their working relationships are seamless. Resource based strategies impose barriers of imitation that limit the replication of their human resource models by competitors. If a firm can attract and retain the best human resources in a given industry, it can create an advantage that will place it on a pedestal above the rest. Experts however warn that it is prudent to have human process advantage rather than human capital advantage. Whereas the latter encapsulates having employees who have competitive skills and competencies, the former is fixated on creation of processes that are difficult to imitate. These entail highly evolved, cross-departmental and executive processes that are geared towards the overall development of the organization as a whole (Sparrow et al., 1994). It is argued that while it is possible to acquire capital and technology at a price, it is more challenging to acquire a rich pool of qualified and motivated workers. Emphasis should be on the selection of highly skilled individuals. Boxall and Purcell (2008) put the relationship between recruitment and goal achievement in perspective by saying that “the new employee is always active, ready to learn new things and easy to adapt to the new environment” and it is important that he/she be identified from the onset as training and development are costly for organizations. The merit-based recruitment and selection process is premised on equal opportunity policies. There are three levels that are important in the equity approach: 1) non-discriminatory equal chances, 2) fair procedures for equal access, and 3) equal share of positive actions and outcomes (Storey et al., 2009). Equity is geared towards making an organization more attractive for future employees. There must be diversity policies in play which must guide the identification of potential candidates especially in multicultural settings. Avoidance of discrimination and stereotyping should be done right from advertisement of positions. It is prudent to recognize that discrimination does not have to be explicit but can be consciously or unconsciously expressed in language and image. Constant appraisal of management processes is also important so as to chart a clear course for career advancement to guarantee that all employees regardless of their diversities would not be discriminated. The feasibility of these proposals is pegged on the creation of a culture that affords all people the same levels of respect and dignity. Diversity should also be entrenched in companies’ business policies to ensure that it is seen as a strength and an opportunity rather than a threat or weakness. Merit-based recruitment and selection has more advantages that the patronage system. Apart from the fact that institutions may lose expected loyalty from recruiting on merit rather than patronage, all other factors and considerations make a strong case for the merit-based system. The subsequent part of this paper analyses the European recruitment and selection process with the aim of determining whether it is merit based and critiquing it to establish whether it is the best fit. Case study Recruiting and selecting the right staff to work in an institution is undoubtedly one of the most important human resource functions. There are two ways in which the ‘right’ employees are considered. First, there are those who have the requisite skills, knowledge and competencies and who are identified according to their analytic skills, communication skills and technical abilities that are a precursor for success. Second, there is consideration of organizational culture where the selected employees have to be considered from a sociological perspective to determine whether they fit into it. This latter point recognizes that the criterion for recruitment and selection of employees is both a product and a shaper of the organization’s culture. This second consideration is more important for new organizations and especially where there is a convergence of different cultures, like the European Union and other related institutions. European institutions, since 1960, have relied on competition as the method by which prospective candidates are recruited and evaluated. The genesis of the competition model can be traced back to France where formal written tests were used to gauge the competencies of a candidates’ pool in order to enter into public employment as well as educational institutions (Stevens & Stevens, 1991). The original member states of the EU did not trust each other and only after the rapid expansion period where more members came into the fold did the union decide on a single body known as the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO). This body was formed in 2002 and was immediately put to task to organize competition for officials from the new member states. The EPSO staff were largely drawn from the European Commission and affiliate institutions and adopted the competition model albeit with minor adjustments. Competition involves several steps that have been heavily criticized for length and complexity. The following is a brief outline and critique of what is entailed in each step. Scheduling of competition Every year ESPO develops a plan of work in conjunction with other institutions which it services. This plan has to be debated and approved by the management board. The major problem with the scheduling procedure is that most institutions run their competitions after a period of either three or four years meaning that graduates from various academic institutions willing to work in these European institutions have to wait for these years. Many of those who express their desire to participate in the competition are discouraged by the waiting period which means that by the time vacancies are announced, many have already moved on to other positions, ultimately reducing competition. ESPO has resisted scheduling for more competitions citing that it has inadequate resources for the exercise and that it is currently bogged down by recruitment for new member states (European Commission, 2008). As this period is drawing to a close, future scheduling will be for replacements rather than new hires. Examination announcement and recruitment Recruitment is passively done by placing openings on the ESPO website. The assumption is that applicants are interested enough to check for openings and are knowledgeable enough to know how to find them. The initial process of recruiting for new member states was comparably active as ESPO had more pronounced outreach initiatives. This was characterized by newspaper ads in those jurisdictions and also advertisements in the offices of permanent representatives to the European Union. Many complaints have emerged that the modes adopted by individual offices to new member states chose to disseminate this information to people already employed in the national government. Entry level ranks and packages were lowered in 2004 casting doubt on the attractiveness of European openings. This coincided with the enlargement of the EU. Many people interested in working on European affairs have found it more lucrative to work; as lobbyists, for the national government or for NGOs (NAPA, 2001). The concern about passive recruitment is that it brings in large numbers of applicants who are not necessarily the best. Pre-selection test This test is based on openness and equity and is a multiple-choice type of test designed to eliminate as many people as possible from the thousands that apply to take it. In the earlier years of dissemination of this test, the questions asked required general knowledge like; who won the Olympics in a category. However, a lot of criticism was leveled on this questioning as it was not job related. Eventually, the test was changed and instead asked questions like: what treaty was signed? When? More recently, the test has expanded to include numerical and verbal skills. The test was administered as multiple-choice and only required paper and pencil and it was disseminated at the same time in participating states. The costs associated with delivery of this test were enormous. The logistics, rents, travel, printing of tests, contacting applicants, security etc were some of the attendant costs (Bauer, 2007). In the course of this system, only about 50% of applicants turned up to be tested. If one missed the test, there was no way he/she would sit for it until the next offering. The test became computer-based in 2006 and is now offered in individual member states where applicants schedule it at their own leisure within a given period. Some of the complaints that have arisen from this mode include lack of accessibility for the handicapped and failure of online calculators during the test. Qualifications review This is an odd step since review of qualifications should be done prior to a preselection test. However, it entails the verification of details of those selected. This includes a review of the person’s resume and testimonials to ensure that he/she is academically qualified for the opening. Written examination This marks the beginning of formal testing that is specific to the job a person is being recruited for. There are experts who are contracted to design the written tests as well as the subsequent oral tests. They are focused on the area of applicant specialization and are a mix of both multiple-choice and essay modes. The pass mark is usually 50%. The grading of the essays is labour intensive which usually warrants employment of additional staff to help the selection board in the exercise. Oral examination After passing the written examination, candidates are brought to Brussels at the expense of the ESPO for an oral examination which is done by the selection board. The tests usually last for less than an hour and more than eight are conducted by the board in a day. The process is lengthy and expensive which makes board members very burdened. They ask an avalanche of questions that are usually pre-structured. However, they may deviate from the set questions to ask a candidate other questions that were in previous tests or are relevant to the positions desired. The quality of persons interviewed is based on the quality of the selection personnel. Some of the people selected for the panel are volunteers, which is a way of seeking promotions that are usually awarded on a point basis meaning that the candidates chosen may not be the best (Ban, 2008). Reserve list After all the steps, a successful candidate is not directly hired but is placed on the company’s website as a laureate. This list of laureates can have twice as many people as the number of jobs available which opens up competition between European institutions (Spence & Stevens, 2006). Those that do not have as much influence may place a flag on a candidate they feel they desire for a future hire. The process further complicates the recruitment process. There is a general dissatisfaction with the quality of laureates that eventually appear on the reserve list. There is need for review of the testing methods to ensure that they are valid and are job oriented. The US system, for example, tests for competencies, skills and knowledge that is relevant to the actual performance of the job. This is not reflected in the ESPO system as the laureates do not have a guarantee as to where they are eventually posted (if they are), which means that one may be posted to a job whose qualities he/she was not tested for and does not have. The preselection test does not establish any kind of threshold but is primarily based on eliminating as many people as possible. Most of the competent candidates may be turned away at this stage due to the wrong testing methods and contexts. The test cannot be said to be effective as a European lawyer may perform better at the verbal test than a technological analyst. The latter may perform better at the numerical test than the former meaning that they both would be turned away at the preselection stage. The oral and written exams are no better. The selection board is comprised of people whose primary competencies are neither in test building nor in interviewing. Thus, if each of the competition outcomes depends on this board, then the process is not professional at all. The fact that those selected as panelists are from the job is both good and bad. They tend to draw too much from their own experiences. Conclusion Recruitment and selection are important functions in human resource management. The competition system in Europe is meant to be merit based. The system is aimed at attracting the best candidates for positions advertised. However, the scheduling step which is the first in the competition system is in itself ineffective as some graduates take over three years to be invited to apply. This means that the best may have already been tapped by other institutions when the system calls for applications. Subsequent tests that are done, including the preselection tests, written and oral tests, have been found to be ineffective as they are geared towards reducing the large number of applicants rather than identifying the best people for the jobs advertised. There is need for a critical review of the system because it is imperfect as it currently stands. The first stage would be to contract professional recruiters and test experts so that the best recruits are identified earlier. The next would be to reduce the scheduling period. Another recommendation would be to focus on the job characteristics and allow specific candidates to be tested only for those jobs and not the for the whole spectrum of jobs as it currently stands. References Armstrong, M., 2009. A Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice. 11th ed. London: Kogan Ltd. Armstrong, M., 2006. A Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice. 10th ed. Great Britain: Cambridge University. Ban, C., 2008. Performance Appraisal and Promotion in the European Commission: the Challenge of Linking Organizational and Individual Accountability, Paper prepared for conference on Accountability and Governance in International Organizations, University of Konstanz, June. Bauer, M., 2007. The Politics of Reforming the European Commission, in Michael W. Bauer and Christoph Knill, eds. Management Reforms in International Organizations. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Boxall, P. & Purcell, J., 2008. Strategy and Human Resource Management, Bristol: Palgrave. Carpenter, D.P., 2001. The Forging of Bureaucratic Autonomy: Reputations, Networks and Policy Innovations in Executive Agencies, 1862-1928. Princeton University Press. European Commission, 2008. Modernisation of the Commission’s Human Resources. Synthesis of Proposals in the Papers by the Groups Chaired by Jörgen Holmquist, Robert Madelin, and Robert Verrue, Director Generals Meeting on 3 July, 2008, unpublished paper available on SID 2008. Lewansky, R., 2000. Civil Service Systems in Western Europe. Edward Elgar chapter The Development and Current Features of the Italian Civil Service System, pp. 212–246. Lewis, D.E., 2008. The Politics of Presidential Appointments: Political Control and Bureaucratic Performance. Princeton University Press. Lindelöw, M., 2008. Competence-Based Human Resource Strategy. Stockholm: Nature and Culture publishers. Mattozzi, A. & Merlo, A., 2008. Political Careers or Career Politicians. Journal of Public Economics, 92:597–608. National Academy of Public Administration, 2001. The Quest for Talent: Recruitment Strategies for Federal Agencies. Washington, D.C.: NAPA. Przeworski, A., 2009. Conquered or Granted? A History of Suffrage Extensions. British Journal of Political Science 39(2):291–321. Sparrow, P. et al., 1994. Convergence or divergence: human resource practices and polices for competitive advantage worldwide. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 5:2 Spence, D. & Stevens, A., 2006. Staff and Personnel Policy in the Commission. in David Spence, ed. The European Commission. 3rd. edition. London: John Harper Publishing. Stevens, A. & Stevens, H., 2001. Brussels Bureaucrats? The Administration of the European Union. Palgrave-MacMillan. Storey, J. et al., 2009. The Routledge Companion to Strategic Human Resource Management. New York: Routledge. Swaen, V., et al., 2008. Designing and Implementing Corporate Social Responsibility: An Integrative Framework Grounded in Theory and Practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 87: 71-89.