If you treat people as a disposable resource, expect it to be reciprocated, writes David Gilroy.
My friend Harry Patel is venting and to say he’s not happy is putting it mildly. “Finding decent trustworthy people to work in my business is becoming next to impossible. There’s a complete lack of quality out there and this is really hurting my business. Even when I do manage to recruit people they only last a few weeks and then simply disappear”. In these situations, I find it best just to listen, look owlishly, go away and think about it.
My initial thoughts are that it doesn’t seem to square with what we hear about our society. The Labour Force Survey (LFS) time series maintained by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) shows that, through 2024–2025, just over 9 million people aged 16–64 were classified as economically inactive (seasonally adjusted monthly estimates), equivalent to roughly one in five working-age adults. These headline numbers are confirmed in parliamentary research briefings summarising ONS outputs. It is important to emphasise that the headline total masks large subgroups with different reasons for inactivity and very different policy implications.
The ONS and other analysts break inactivity down by main reason (student status; long-term sickness or disability; looking after family/home; early retirement; discouraged or other reasons). The largest rise since 2020 has been ill-health-driven inactivity. ONS analysis and subsequent research estimate over 2.5 million people were inactive because of long-term sickness or disability in the years immediately after the pandemic; other work suggests that much of the net increase in inactivity since 2019 is accounted for by long-term sickness, especially among people in their 50s and early 60s. The most common conditions cited include mental health problems, musculoskeletal (MSK) disorders and cardiovascular disease; more recently Long COVID has also been identified as a contributor in some studies. A substantial share of inactivity is explained by people, disproportionately women who report looking after the family or home as their main reason for not working. Trends here pre-date the pandemic but shift with policy settings (childcare provision, flexible working) and demographic change. Government analysts have singled out women with caring duties as a key group for targeted interventions to raise participation. This is just a sample of the factors contributing to economic non-activity and this entire article and some could be devoted to the subject.
Harry’s issues are around recruitment and retention. The two are discrete but linked. First, we need to address how and who he is trying to attract to work for his business. Harry uses online recruitment platforms such as Indeed and Monster. These platforms are used extensively by many firms, and one can see the attraction. A large candidate pool, a range of screening tools, a quick application flow, great for common roles and usually lower cost than agencies. There are downsides, however. High competition, unqualified applicants are common, premium features can be pricey, and the platforms are not great for specialised and senior roles. I am reminded of my first job application – pre internet and electronic communications. I applied by post. I received a written personalised response with a detailed job and person specification and, shock horror a rail warrant to cover the cost of my transport to the interview. This made me even more motivated to clinch the role and pledge my allegiance. I recognise that times have changed and that “old school” methods are gone, but I firmly believe that successful recruitment of the right candidates is the crucial first step in securing enduring commitment. In her article for City AM, Eliza Filby states that recruitment is now more efficient but less human and becoming more so thanks to AI. She states that platforms such as Indeed can actually control how people get jobs. Many people job hunting find the silence that so often follows an application deeply frustrating, implying “if you don’t hear back from us, you can take it that we’re not interested”. Candidates apply to dozens of jobs and never hear back, with no idea why. It can be depressingly impersonal and demoralising. I have seen this playing out with increasing frequency over the last five years, and I have seen the negative impact on businesses when the initial raft of new starters walks away within the first three months. This is what I term the “disposable people” factor. Don’t expect real commitment from people being treated as a disposable resource. And bear in mind that disposability cuts both ways. Employees can just as easily dispose of their employers and/or not turn up for work if there is some turbulence going on in their home and social world or if the journey to work is a bit tricky on a given day. Eliza Filby argues that by using recruitment platforms to attract volumes of people is often the wrong approach. Better to focus on the right kind of candidates and those that will “fit” with your organisation. A fix maybe to actively deter the wrong applicants. That starts with honesty. This is particularly prevalent in our industry where we know that warehouse working can sometimes be tough, cold and demanding. Over-selling can blow back.
Reverting to Harry. Some words of advice I will be imparting. Selling an incomplete picture or a false promise will backfire down the track. During the recruitment phase there is often a deeper issue of transparency. Detailing the salary and compensation package should be up front and clear and spelling out the process, the timeline and the job expectations is vital. Be clear about what you want thus avoid confusion and misunderstandings for everyone. Harry needs to rediscover that recruitment is about connection, not filtration, not transactional and not automation for its own sake. A more human personalised form of recruitment could result in a more enduring, higher quality workforce and act as differentiator in a competitive job market.
Comments are closed.