While Accountants of yesteryear were notoriously hired strictly on the basis of their technical expertise, today's increasingly competitive environment demands another dimension. Success in the workplace is no longer measured solely by performance in professional examinations; it is also determined by the candidate's ability to demonstrate 'core competencies' relevant to the position for which they are applying, such as decision making skills, assertiveness, interpersonal skills, self confidence and many more.
So how do we measure behavioural as opposed to technical ability in the selection process? The answer is Competency Based Interviewing, a phenomenon which was introduced in the US and is now gaining popularity on this side of the Atlantic. To date the technique has typically been used by large organisations such as AT&T and Accenture, but it is also gaining impetus among smaller organisations intent on keeping up to date with current trends.

The aim of Competency Based Interviewing is to focus on the candidate's past performance in the workplace as a basis for predicting likely future performance. In fact, behavioural interviewing is deemed to be 55% predictive, as opposed to traditional interviewing which is said to be only 10% predictive. Key advantages of using Competency Based Interviewing are that it eliminates misunderstandings, prevents personal bias and reduces the candidate's ability to 'concoct' stories.

Competency Based Interviewing seeks to standardise the broad spectrum of questions that are traditionally posed to candidates, and to gain an awareness of their behavioural skills. Each competency is carefully measured and definable, thus providing a means to 'weigh up' one candidate against another. Candidates are initially asked to provide examples of why they made certain decisions or took certain courses of action in relation to their past employment. This line of questioning is followed by probing questions which provide an opportunity to demonstrate whether the action taken was appropriate, the effect it had on others and what lessons were learned from the experience.

For example, an important core competency applicable to most jobs is the ability to plan and organise. By questioning the candidate in this regard, the interviewer is seeking to establish whether they prioritise, set themselves targets and have a structured approach to their work. Suggested questions would be "how did you plan your time?" and "how did you cope with obstacles?" The desired answer should demonstrate that the applicant works in a structured and methodical way, whilst planning ahead to ensure that deadlines are met and results delivered on time. A negative answer would be one which suggests that the candidate does not prioritise tasks and considers interruptions as setbacks rather than challenges.

Job specifications will often list a number of major competencies which should be mastered in order to perform the task in hand effectively. If candidates have prepared adequately for the interview process, this will become evident from their responses. Someone who demonstrates an ability to relate specific examples of occasions when they have performed the task being measured is more likely to suit the position being offered than another candidate who can think of no such example and does not appear to have the relevant experience.

In addition to the obvious advantages in terms of measuring performance, Competency Based Interviewing may provide a response in the event of queries under the Freedom of Information Act. The latter Act established certain statutory rights which stipulate that each person may have access to information held by public bodies pertaining to them, and the right to obtain reasons for decisions affecting them. The Competency Based Interviewing model is perceived to be a fair rather than an arbitrary form of measuring candidates against their peers, thus resulting in a more equitable interview process.

Competency Based Interviewing focuses the mind of the interviewer on the task in hand prior to the selection process. It is most successful when the interviewer assigns time to questions and has a clear idea of those attributes which the successful candidate should possess in order to perform the job effectively. If the candidate manages to secure the job, future appraisals may be linked to whether or not they have put the necessary 'core competencies' as discussed at interview stage into practice.

Competency Based Interviewing is a novel yet effective means of measuring non-technical expertise. Those who expect candidates to demonstrate their ability to move with the times should perhaps think about doing just that themselves.

Top>>

The Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act, 2003 was passed in July and applies to temporary workers (but excludes trainees). From now on, such workers may not be treated less favourably as regards their remuneration than permanent employees. However, certain exceptions are allowed. Equal benefits must be provided by the employer by reference to the proportion of hours worked by the permanent employee (known as 'the comparator') and the temporary employee. So, if they both work a 40-hour week, the temporary employee must in principle receive the same remuneration (including pension benefits) unless permitted exceptions apply.

Where a temporary worker works less than 20% of the normal hours of their comparator, no entitlement to comparable pension benefits arises. The key points to watch out for are that you need to consider the terms of the temporary employee's contract as a whole when looking at whether or not legislation has been breached in respect of any particular term in that contract. If the terms are regarded as at least as favourable as the terms of the comparator's employment contract, the treatment is regarded as justified on objective grounds.

This sounds easier in principle than in practice: one contract may offer better pay (including pension rights), whereas another may offer better conditions of employment such as holidays and other non-monetary benefits, including prospects of promotion. However, the focus of the legislation suggests that in making this comparison, one should only look to financial terms.

Difference in treatment is permitted where it can be justified on objective grounds. The legislation offers little guidance as to what constitutes objective justification. It must be based on considerations other than the status of the employee concerned as a fixed-term employee. The less favourable treatment must be for the purpose of achieving a legitimate business objective which must be appropriate and necessary.

If some conditions of employment carry with them a period of service qualification, this must be the same for fixed-term employees and their comparators unless a different length of service qualification can be justified on objective grounds. This may be relevant as regards the entitlement to join an employer's pension scheme. Henceforth, it is appropriate for employers to offer the same service qualification for entry to the scheme as between temporary and permanent employees.

The legislation is not gender specific and so comparisons must be made between a fixed-term employee and his or her permanent comparator. In big picture terms, the comparator is required to be engaged under the same or similar conditions or carry out work of a similar nature. However, the permanent comparator can (but does not have to) be located within the same workforce as the temporary employee's employer. The comparator can be located within another employer entirely, provided that it is within the same industry or sector of employment. Additionally, for employments regulated by collective agreements, the legislation enables those type of agreements to specify the type of employee who could be a comparator in relation to the relevant fixed-term employee.

The fact that the temporary worker can cast his net widely to find an appropriate comparator could present many employers with difficulties.

ACTION POINTS

As far as pensions are concerned, where an employer is providing pension benefits it should first establish if the pension scheme has any discriminatory conditions in relation to, for example, the exclusion of temporary employees as members either directly or indirectly. If a scheme rule is discriminatory, it must be changed.

If the employer's industry is one which could allow a permanent employee to be specified in an applicable collective agreement as the appropriate comparator for the purpose of the legislation, the employer needs to check if this has happened.

If the employer's industry is likely to be one which will enable an employee of another organisation to be regarded as a comparable person in respect of whom the employer would be required to grant to its temporary workers pro-rated comparable pension benefits, it needs to check this out. In the majority of cases, it may be difficult to ascertain this situation because it will not be possible to know the remuneration terms of your competitors' employees. This feature of the legislation appears to be anti-employer and is something which was introduced on top of the requirements of the applicable EU directive.

Even if the pay practice looks at first sight as if it is discriminatory as regards the provision or absence of pension benefits, the employer then needs to assess if any of the permitted exceptions apply. It needs to look at the terms of each fixed-term worker's contract as a whole and ascertain if this is likely to be least as favourable as those of any possible comparator. Since the whereabouts of a comparator may be widely located, this may be a difficult task.

Judicious use of PRSAs when employing fixed-term workers is likely to enable employers to provide comparable pension benefits, at least as regards defined contribution schemes, enjoyed by permanent employees without falling foul of this legislation.

The conclusion has to be that employers need to be vigilant about employment terms and conditions applicable to temporary workers or else they could end up before a Rights Commissioner, who can order them to pay the employee compensation of up to two years' remuneration.

For further information, contact Fiona Thornton at fthornton@lkshields.ie

Top>>