WHAT EXACTLY DID HE MEAN?
* STORY PICKED UP BY THE LONDON EVENING STANDARD! *
A senior spokesperson for HSBC has suggested graduates should use family connections to help them find out about jobs.
In an article published in The Times Graduate Supplement earlier this week, John Morewood, Head of Emerging Talent Europe at HSBC, asked:
“Does your family know someone at the company? Ask how many graduates they take, how many they retain and what roles they move into after the programme.”
It was not clear why a family member should be needed in order to obtain this information, and the advice appeared among other suggestions which do not advantage young job seekers with personal connections over those without. So what exactly did Morewood mean? Decide for yourself – here is the article in full:
Suggesting that graduates create a strong network of contacts is sound job-hunting advice. But as big employers become increasingly aware of the barriers faced by those from disadvantaged backgrounds in accessing the ‘best’ jobs, it is jarring to hear someone from a big bank suggest using “family” connections so overtly.
While it’s unclear exactly what Morewood meant, we find it difficult to imagine a spokesperson for one of the more switched-on employers of young people (say, EY or IKEA) being quoted like this for publication in a national newspaper.
What do you think? Was Morewood simply offering sensible advice? Or does the casual mention of using “family” to further your career reveal something else about the importance of
connections in the corporate world? Have your say below…
UPDATE 1: Since publishing, have been reminded that this isn’t the first time HSBC has been accused of nepotism. In 2011, an applicant for work experience at the bank was told: “HSBC does not have a structured work experience programme although, occasionally, arrangements are made for sons and daughters of HSBC executives… to gain such experience.”
UPDATE 2: London’s Evening Standard picked up this story on Monday 10 October! Here it is!
Nepotism is not the best way to recruit a competent candidate…as the father to Gideon Osborne and David Cameron will testify.
However, notwithstanding the issue of family connections is a tad Victorian, the article also highlights an insidious issue…that of candidates seeking “work experience”.
Perhaps the dominant issue to address is to ignore those employers who recruit family members, and those employers only prepared to offer peanuts to gullible chimpanzees.
@Eowyn – thanks for your comment – and I agree that the work experience issue is extremely troublesome (how spots are discovered, who they are given to, whether they are paid, etc).
Response to this story (on Twitter) has been really interesting and thought-provoking. Many readers feel this casual advice was off-key (and surprising from a senior HR person at a big bank, considering most are desperate to be seen to value diversity). But it is undeniable that it is ‘good’ advice to use any contacts or connections you have to find out about jobs.
So what is it specifically that jars here? Would it have been less bad if he had suggested using “tutors, former colleagues, friends or family”? Is it something about only mentioning ‘family’ in this context, which makes it sound particularly elitist? You could argue that other types of contacts (tutors, former colleagues and friends) could be made by anyone, regardless of their background (in theory at least). There is a fairly level playing field here – the best networker will build the best network.
But family connections are different. They are particularly exclusive and excluding. There is nothing meritocratic about this, and access is inherently unfair. You either have family who are ‘useful’ in helping with your career, or you don’t. And those with connections clearly have a huge advantage over those without.
Genuinely interested in what others think to this? What is it exactly that’s so off-key about this advice?