Recruitment freeze = increase in agency staff. Who’d a thought it?

The folk at the Guardian have been having some fun with the government’s recently released public spending data. Among other things, they have discovered that the spending on agency staff went up by 65% after the recruitment freeze.

Well who’d have guessed it, eh?

This has happened after almost every recruitment freeze I have ever seen. And I’ve seen a few.  I haven’t got time to grub around with the data but I wouldn’t be surprised if spending on consultants went up too, despite the government’s aim of reducing both consultant/contractor and agency spending.

At the time the recruitment freeze was suggested, I was sceptical, my fellow HR blogger, the mysterious HRD, was even more sceptical and, most probably, so were many other seasoned HR professionals.

As the HRD explained:

The idea of a recruitment freeze makes a number of assumptions, that all roles are equal, that all roles are interchangeable and that the right people will leave.  And that just doesn’t happen.  You either stick dogmatically to the freeze to the detriment of the service and the health and well-being of those that remain, or you have to exercise a degree of judgement.  We became adept at renaming the freezes as slowdowns, restrictions even chills….that was my choice but no-one found it funny.  Everyone has an argument about why their specific vacancy is “critical” and some poor sucker has to wade through the pile of requests and exercise the judgment of Solomon.

And if they’re still not allowed to recruit, they just go and get some temps in, either to do the jobs they are not allowed to fill, or to free up other staff to cover those jobs.

Like most public sector organisations and a lot of private ones, government departments tend to use headcount, rather than budgets, to monitor their resources over the year. A manager’s headcount gets more scrutiny than his budgets, so he’s far less likely to get into trouble for spending money on agency staff than for recruiting permanent or even fixed-term employees. So that’s what happens. Agency staff can be kept off the headcount stats so no-one notices until the end of the year when the bills are added up. True, this is being tightened up now and there is more month-by-month scrutiny of budgets than there used to be, but the mind-set, both of managers and of those monitoring them from on high is still that headcount is what counts.

So, if there is a recruitment freeze and you get to the point where you can’t meet your objectives, instead of incurring the wrath of your bosses by increasing headcount, you just pick up the phone to the agency and get some temps in. That, it seems, is what managers across the civil service have been doing for the last six months.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Recruitment freeze = increase in agency staff. Who’d a thought it?

  1. Pingback: Recruitment freeze = increase in agency staff. Who’d a thought it? - Rick - Member Blogs - HR Blogs - HR Space from Personnel Today and Xpert HR

  2. Jez says:

    I have wasted hundreds of thousands of Pounds over many years avoiding increases in headcount. I have also wasted countless hours explaining to management and accountants how I could save money (which I thought might be a good thing) by sacking my (PR) agencies and employing staff instead – increasing effectiveness hugely at the same time. But headcount is the Holy Grail. What absolute infuriating, wasteful and, as you say, predictable nonsense.

  3. Pingback: Recr freeze = increase in agency staff: Why it happens « Karen Wise's HR Blog

  4. Pingback: Recruitment freeze = increase in agency staff: Why it happens « Karen wise

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s