In 2019, the term "ghosting" wasn't just reserved for dating scenarios. It had permeated the professional sphere, leaving both employers and job seekers perplexed and frustrated. Fast forward to 2023 and Indeed - the world's leading job site - embarked on a comprehensive international study to delve deeper into this phenomenon. What they uncovered shed light on the complexities of ghosting in the hiring process and provided actionable insights for both parties involved.

Indeed's recent survey, conducted by Censuswide, spanned the United States, United Kingdom and Canada, encompassing over 4,500 job seekers and an equal number of employers. The findings paint a vivid picture of the prevalence, causes and consequences of ghosting in the global job market.

One striking revelation from the research is the universality of ghosting across demographics. Contrary to initial assumptions, all age groups and backgrounds were found to engage in this behaviour. From entry-level applicants to seasoned professionals, ghosting transcends boundaries, highlighting its significance as a widespread issue requiring attention.

While the reasons for ghosting varied, a common thread emerged: dissatisfaction with the hiring process. Lengthy recruitment timelines, lack of communication and opaque procedures were cited as primary catalysts for candidates' disappearance. Employers, too, expressed frustration, with many acknowledging the negative impact of ghosting on their recruitment efforts and overall business operations.

In the UK, the sentiment toward ghosting is particularly pronounced. Both employers and job seekers unanimously agree that it is unacceptable behaviour during the hiring process. However, despite this shared stance, ghosting remains prevalent, indicating a misalignment between perception and action.

For UK-based employers, the consequences of ghosting are tangible. Recruiter burnout, exacerbated by the additional workload resulting from candidate dropouts, is a significant concern. Moreover, the lack of accountability among job seekers who ghost poses challenges in maintaining a reliable talent pipeline.

To address the issue, both employers and job seekers in the UK advocate for concrete measures. For employers, streamlining the hiring process and enhancing communication emerge as key priorities. On the other hand, job seekers emphasize the importance of competitive compensation and transparent benefits to sustain their engagement throughout the recruitment journey.

Interestingly, a notable fraction of job seekers admitted to ghosting after uncovering negative information about prospective employers. This underscores the significance of employer branding and reputation management in today's competitive job market.

Indeed's research highlights the need for proactive measures to mitigate the prevalence of ghosting in hiring. By fostering transparency, improving communication, and prioritising candidate experience, employers can cultivate stronger relationships with potential hires and minimize the likelihood of ghosting incidents.

Recent research conducted by Pregnant Then Screwed - in collaboration with Women In Data - sheds light on the challenges faced by fathers in the UK when it comes to taking paternity leave. With the impending changes in paternity leave legislation, it's crucial to address the financial and societal barriers that prevent many fathers from fully embracing their entitlement to parental leave.

The findings reveal a staggering 70.6% of fathers who only utilised part of their paternity leave entitlement cited financial constraints as the primary reason. Despite the upcoming Paternity Leave Amendment Regulations 2024, enabling fathers to split their leave into more manageable segments, the core issue of insufficient statutory paternity pay persists. Currently, the UK offers the least generous paternity leave entitlement in Europe, with statutory pay capped at £172.48 per week or 90% of salary (whichever is lower).

Only 63.7% of fathers took two weeks or less of paternity leave following the birth of their most recent child, indicating a significant gap in the uptake of parental leave. Access to enhanced paternity pay through employer benefit schemes remains limited, especially for households with incomes below £60,000. Even when fathers have access to enhanced leave, nearly half (48.3%) could only take two weeks or less, highlighting the disconnect between availability and actual utilisation.

Pregnant Then Screwed advocates for a substantial increase in paternity leave to six weeks, paid at 90% of salary, as a means to address the existing disparities. A collaborative 2023 report from Pregnant Then Screwed, The Centre for Progressive Policy (CPP), and Women in Data underscores the potential societal and economic benefits of such a policy change. Notably, extending paid paternity leave could contribute to reducing the gender pay gap and fostering greater gender equality in the labour market.

The research also delves into the readiness of fathers to return to work after their paternity leave. While only 32.3% felt physically prepared to return, a mere 14% and 12.8% were mentally and emotionally ready, respectively. This highlights the need for comprehensive support systems that address not only financial concerns but also the holistic well-being of fathers during the transition back to work.

Joeli Brearley – CEO and Founder of Pregnant Then Screwed commented:

“Paternity leave isn’t a break from work, it isn’t a holiday – it is crucial bonding time. We know that paternity leave has huge benefits for the whole family: children do better in the education system, and there is research to suggest they have better physical health. Paternity leave reduces the divorce rate – couples are more likely to stay together. It has benefits for the physical and mental health of mothers, and we know that many dads are desperate to spend more time with their children. When fathers and partners take paternity leave, it supports the mother’s return to the labour market. We need a parental leave system which recognises and supports the crucial role dads play in families.”

A recent Ocado shareholder meeting drew significant attention as nearly 20% of shareholders expressed their dissent against the company's proposed remuneration policy. The bone of contention was a potential bonus of up to £14.8 million for Ocado's co-founder and Chief Executive, Tim Steiner. This hefty bonus is contingent upon Ocado's share price hitting £29.69 within three years, amongst other performance targets.

The proposed incentive plan has sparked outrage, particularly in light of Ocado's current share price trading at less than £4, a stark contrast to the ambitious £29.69 goal. Additionally, concerns have been raised regarding the company's financial performance, with Ocado reporting a significant annual pre-tax loss of £394 million on sales of £2.7 billion last year.

Amidst the dissent, shareholder advisory groups have voiced opposition to what they perceive as "excessive pay" and a departure from market norms. The discontent is further fuelled by Ocado's turbulent financial trajectory, marked by a plummet in market value from £21.6 billion to less than £3 billion in four years.

Critics argue that while Ocado seeks to reward its top executive handsomely, the disparity in pay between its highest earners and lowest-paid workers remains glaring. Despite discussions about addressing low pay over the past five years, Ocado has yet to commit to paying its employees the real living wage. This stands in stark contrast to other retailers like Tesco, Sainsbury's and Marks & Spencer, all of which have made commitments to paying their staff the real living wage as a base rate.

Campaigners emphasize the tangible impact that paying the real living wage could have on the lives of Ocado's lowest-paid workers. The call for action gains resonance in the wake of Marks & Spencer's recent announcement of a new retail pay offer, which increased wages for 40,000 customer assistants to £12 per hour.

Dan Howard, head of the workplace inequality campaigning organisation Good Work said:

“Ocado has been talking about addressing low pay for five years but has yet to make a long-term commitment. We’re calling on the board to pay the real living wage. This would make a significant difference to the lives of hundreds of its lowest-paid workers.”

The disparity in pay and the apparent misalignment between executive rewards and employee welfare underscore broader concerns about corporate governance and social responsibility. As Ocado shareholders navigate these issues, the spotlight remains firmly fixed on the company's commitment to equitable pay practices.

In a groundbreaking move aimed at fostering inclusivity and transparency, the John Lewis Partnership - the UK's largest employee-owned business - has taken a significant step in redefining the recruitment landscape. By publishing interview questions on its careers site, the partnership seeks to demystify the job application process, alleviate candidate anxiety and promote diversity in its workforce.

The initiative comes at a critical juncture when businesses across various sectors are grappling with talent shortages amid a fiercely competitive labour market. Recognising the need to attract top talent from diverse backgrounds, John Lewis Partnership has embarked on a mission to redefine the traditional recruitment paradigm.

Lorna Bullett - the talent acquisition lead at John Lewis - highlighted the importance of this move, emphasizing the organisation's commitment to identifying and nurturing the best talent, stating:

"We want the right people, from a variety of backgrounds, with the best talent to join our organisation. It makes absolute business sense to find ways of helping candidates to really demonstrate what they can do so that we get the right fit for the role."

This sentiment echoes the growing recognition among forward-thinking companies that diversity is not just a moral imperative but also a strategic advantage. The decision to make interview questions publicly available reflects a broader shift towards skills-based hiring, wherein candidates are evaluated based on their specific competencies rather than conventional educational qualifications. By providing candidates with insight into the types of questions they may encounter, John Lewis Partnership aims to empower individuals to showcase their skills and experiences effectively during the interview process.

The published interview questions cover a diverse range of topics, from communication and customer skills to inclusion and strategic thinking. By offering transparency into the selection criteria, the partnership seeks to level the playing field and ensure that candidates from all backgrounds have an equal opportunity to succeed.

Importantly, the initiative is not merely about compliance or meeting legal obligations but represents a genuine commitment to inclusive hiring practices. By going beyond the minimum requirements for reasonable adjustments and embracing a holistic approach to recruitment, John Lewis Partnership hopes to tap into a wealth of untapped talent and foster a culture of belonging within the company.

While the move is expected to benefit a broad spectrum of candidates, it holds particular significance for neurodiverse individuals, including those with autism, ADHD, or dyslexia. By providing a structured framework for preparation and enabling candidates to demonstrate their abilities in a supportive environment, the partnership aims to create a more inclusive and equitable hiring process.

It is however essential to note that while the interview questions are available for review, the interview process itself remains rigorous and comprehensive. Candidates can expect in-depth follow-up questions tailored to their responses, ensuring that assessments are thorough and meaningful.

In a recent turn of events, KPMG - one of the prominent members of the Big Four accounting firms - has made headlines by revoking job offers extended to foreign graduates in the UK.

This decision comes hot on the heels of the UK government's implementation of stricter visa regulations, particularly concerning skilled worker visas, which has significantly impacted the eligibility criteria for sponsorship.

According to reports from the Financial Times, KPMG informed affected incoming staff this week about the withdrawal of their offers, attributing the move directly to the government's decision to raise the minimum salary required for sponsoring a skilled worker visa in the UK. The firm cited how the changes in eligibility criteria unfortunately affected some of their graduate programmes that were previously eligible for sponsorship under the skilled worker visa category. However, KPMG has not disclosed the exact number of offers that have been rescinded.

The crux of the matter lies in the UK government's announcement earlier this year, wherein it declared a significant hike in the salary threshold for skilled workers from £26,200 to £38,700, effective from April. Additionally, a lowered threshold of £30,960 was set for individuals under the age of 26. These adjustments directly impact various sectors, including the professional services industry, where firms like KPMG traditionally recruit a substantial number of graduates.

The ramifications of these visa rule changes are felt deeply within the graduate employment landscape. Typically, first-year graduates in the Big Four firms receive salaries ranging from £25,000 to £35,000 in the UK, placing them squarely within the ambit of the new visa rules. Consequently, KPMG has ceased hiring overseas graduates who require skilled worker visas outside of London, underscoring the far-reaching implications of the altered eligibility criteria.

For the affected graduates who saw their offers rescinded, the options are limited. They have been informed that deferring their placements to 2025 is not an available recourse. However, they may request a transfer to a different graduate programme this year, provided that the applications are still open on the firm’s website and the role is eligible for sponsorship. Nonetheless, the uncertainty surrounding these transfers adds to the anxiety and challenges faced by the affected individuals.

KPMG, known for its robust graduate recruitment programmes, hired 1,400 graduates and apprentices last year alone. With the vacancies created by the revoked offers, the firm intends to fill these positions with individuals entitled to work in the UK, further signalling the ripple effects of the visa policy changes.

Trafalgar House - a leading third-party pensions administrator - has recently unveiled the results of its annual Trust & Confidence Index of the pensions industry, marking a significant uptick in public trust for the fourth consecutive year.

The findings, derived from a comprehensive study involving over 2,000 individuals aged 18 and above, were compiled at the close of 2023. This ongoing initiative aims to gauge the sentiments of the British populace toward the pensions sector, shedding light on the level of trust placed in the industry and the confidence individuals have in it to fulfil their retirement aspirations.

Using a rating scale ranging from 0 to 10 - where 0 signifies 'no trust at all' and 10 denotes 'complete trust' - respondents were asked to evaluate their level of confidence in the pensions industry. The headline figure from the survey indicates a noteworthy increase in trust, with the score climbing to 5.26 out of 10 in 2023, up from 4.95 in the preceding year. This upward trajectory follows a consistent pattern of year-on-year improvements, with trust scores of 4.63 in 2021 and 4.46 in 2020. In essence, this represents a remarkable 18% surge since 2020, signalling a growing faith in the pensions sector among the public.

Delving deeper into the data reveals a notable decline in negative perceptions, as responses indicating 'no trust at all' decreased by 1.8%, while those expressing 'little trust' diminished by 1.3%. Collectively, this reflects a 3.1% reduction in negative trust responses. Interestingly, the shift hasn't merely transferred to moderate trust levels, as the category of 'to some extent' also witnessed a decline of 3.5%. Instead, there has been a substantial increase in positive evaluations, with responses indicating 'a reasonable amount' rising by 5.8% and 'a lot' by 0.9%. Combined, this accounts for a 6.7% surge in higher trust ratings. Consequently, the proportion of individuals harbouring little to no trust in the pensions industry now stands at a mere 22%.

These findings offer encouraging insights into the evolving perceptions of the pensions industry, painting a picture of increasing trust and confidence among the British public. The consistent year-on-year improvements in trust scores reflect concerted efforts by stakeholders to enhance transparency, accountability and service delivery within the pensions sector.

In the ever-evolving landscape of modern work culture, the concept of hybrid working has emerged as a game-changer, offering a blend of flexibility, productivity and employee satisfaction. According to the latest insights from Prospects.ac.uk's Early Careers Survey, hybrid working is not just a trend but a preferred model for a significant portion of graduates, promising benefits across various dimensions of work life.

The survey - conducted between January and February 2024 - tapped into the experiences and preferences of 2,777 graduates regarding remote, hybrid and on-site working arrangements. The findings revealed a clear shift towards hybrid and remote setups, with 40% of respondents opting for a hybrid arrangement and 9% embracing fully remote work. This trend shows a departure from traditional office-centric norms, signalling a shift in how we perceive and approach work environments.

One of the standout findings of the survey is the resounding endorsement of hybrid working by graduates for its positive impact on productivity, wellbeing and skills development. This echoes the sentiments of a growing number of professionals who have experienced firsthand the benefits of flexibility in managing their work and personal lives.

However, despite the evident advantages of hybrid working, a notable discrepancy emerges regarding perceived employer expectations. A significant portion of respondents expressed a belief that their employers favour full-time office attendance, which highlights a disconnect between employee preferences and perceived employer preferences.

This dissonance becomes even more pronounced when considering the diverse needs and circumstances of individuals. Younger graduates and those in entry-level positions, for instance, may feel pressured to adhere to traditional office norms due to perceived expectations during their induction periods. On the other hand, executives and senior management are more inclined to embrace hybrid or fully remote arrangements.

Moreover, the survey sheds light on the nuanced preferences of different demographic groups - particularly individuals with neurodivergent traits or disabilities. For these individuals, remote working emerges as not just a matter of preference but a necessity for fostering a supportive and conducive work environment.

These insights highlight the need for employers to adopt a flexible and inclusive approach to work arrangements and recognise that a one-size-fits-all model may not cater to the diverse needs of their workforce.

While some predictions hint at a potential return to full-time office attendance, the data suggests that the momentum towards hybrid working is unlikely to wane.

A recent survey conducted by Indeed Flex - the online marketplace for flexible and temporary work - has shed light on the persistent issue of staff shortages faced by businesses across the UK. The findings reveal a concerning trend that is putting significant strain on employers, managers and HR personnel.

According to the survey, a staggering third of UK businesses - 34 percent to be precis - report being short-staffed at least once a week. This figure is compounded by an additional fifth of businesses experiencing understaffing on a monthly basis, highlighting the pervasive nature of the problem.

The primary culprit behind these shortages, as indicated by 49 percent of businesses surveyed, is sick leave. With nearly half of the respondents citing employee absences due to illness as the leading cause of staffing gaps, it's evident that health-related issues are playing a significant role in exacerbating the situation.

However, sick leave isn't the sole contributor to the staffing woes. The survey also points to recruitment challenges, with 34 percent of businesses struggling to find enough people to fill the gaps. Moreover, 31 percent of respondents highlight issues with staff unwillingness to work certain days or hours, while 28 percent attribute the problem to a reluctance among employees to work overtime.

The report further underscores a growing reliance on temporary staff to address these staffing challenges. Nearly two in five businesses (38 percent) admit to using more temporary workers than they did a year ago, with the flexibility and immediacy of temporary hires being cited as key factors driving this shift.

This trend aligns with recent findings from a survey conducted by the Recruitment and Employment Confederation (REC) and KPMG, which revealed a noticeable preference among employers for hiring temporary staff over permanent employees.

Experts suggest that burnout and mental health concerns among employees are exacerbating the problem of employee sickness. Research conducted by Mental Health UK in January 2024 supports these claims, revealing that 20 percent of workers had taken time off due to stress in the past year. As such, addressing mental health and well-being in the workplace is becoming increasingly imperative for mitigating the impact of staff shortages.

Despite efforts to alleviate the situation, recruiting remains a challenge for many businesses. A quarter of respondents (24 percent) admit to struggling to fill vacancies, while only 13 percent report finding recruitment easy.

The tight labour market adds another layer of complexity to the issue, with official data showing over 900,000 vacancies across the UK and a significant portion of adults classified as economically inactive.

Novo Constare, CEO and Co-founder of Indeed Flex, said:

"Employers are fighting hard to fill vacancies, but in such a tight labour market many are forced to leave gaps in their rotas on a regular basis.

“This is a big problem for the UK economy, as it reduces productivity and can lead to workers doing more overtime and ending up feeling burnt out.

“To get around this problem, two in five businesses are using more temporary workers than they were a year ago. Temps are a crucial part of the labour market, as they provide employers with an immediate and flexible solution to gaps in staffing.”

The findings of the Indeed Flex survey paint a stark picture of the staffing challenges faced by businesses in the UK. With a third of companies grappling with staff shortages on a weekly basis and recruitment difficulties compounded by health-related and well-being issues, it appears that a concerted effort is needed to address these issues.

Annual leave, a coveted opportunity to unwind and recharge often becomes an overlooked perk in the busy lives of UK workers. Surveys commissioned by Timetastic in December 2022 and February 2024 shed light on a concerning trend: despite the allure of time away, more than half of UK employees aren't utilising their full annual leave entitlement.

The statistics reveal a persistent pattern. In both 2022 and 2023, just under 61% of workers failed to take all of their allocated annual leave. Even more striking is the fact that fewer than 1 in 6 employees received payment for their unused leave in 2023, indicating a reluctance to prioritise time off over financial gain.

Pressure from management appears to be a contributing factor, with approximately 1 in 10 workers feeling coerced into forfeiting their holiday time. Gender disparities also persist, albeit with a narrowing gap. While women have historically been more diligent in utilising their annual leave, men are catching up, although slowly.

Delving deeper into the demographics, age emerges as a significant influencer. Older workers, particularly those aged 45 and over, are more inclined to exhaust their leave allowances compared to their younger counterparts. However, there's a glimmer of hope as the 16-24 age group saw a modest increase in leave use in 2023.

Interestingly, the reluctance to take annual leave isn't always driven by external factors. Surprisingly, around 10% of workers admitted to just not wanting to take up their holiday allowances, underscoring a cultural shift where productivity often trumps rest.

But what about those who do take leave? Analysis of the Timetastic database reveals a predictable trend – the period between Christmas and New Year emerges as the most popular time for time off, while January sees the least activity, barring exceptions such as April of 2020.

The introduction of more flexible statutory leave allowances has led to a slight uptick in leave uptake. However, the data suggests that simply mandating time off isn't enough to reverse ingrained behaviours. A myriad of factors, including financial incentives and workplace culture, influence the decision to utilise annual leave fully.

Whilst the annual leave dilemma persists, it's imperative for employers to foster a culture that values rest and rejuvenation so that annual leave isn't just seen as a contractual obligation.

In an era where the dynamics of the workplace are constantly evolving, one thing remains paramount: the health and wellbeing of employees. Recent research conducted by GRiD - the industry body for the group risk sector - sheds light on the growing acknowledgment among employers regarding the significance of supporting the health and wellbeing of their staff.

The findings reveal a notable shift in attitudes, with over three-quarters (76%) of employers now actively measuring the impact of their health and wellbeing initiatives. This marks a substantial increase from just 51% in the previous year, indicating a heightened awareness of the mutual benefits for both employees and businesses alike.

Measuring the impact of health and wellbeing initiatives serves as a pivotal tool for organisations to gauge effectiveness and tailor strategies for optimal outcomes. Without this vital assessment, it becomes challenging to discern improvements or setbacks in employees' overall health and wellbeing.

What's particularly striking is the overwhelming consensus among employers who measure the impact. A staggering 99% believe that supporting employee health and wellbeing yields positive results for their business. These benefits span various dimensions, from financial gains to enhanced productivity and employee engagement.

Among the reported advantages, a significant portion of employers cited a positive return on investment (43%) and increased productivity (43%) as direct outcomes of their health and wellbeing initiatives. Moreover, initiatives aimed at fostering employee loyalty and engagement were highlighted by 42% of respondents, underscoring the link between employee wellbeing and organisational success.

Furthermore, for 42% of employers, integrating health and wellbeing support aligns with their company ethos and contributes to fulfilling business objectives. This holistic approach not only sets them apart from competitors but also aids in recruitment and retention efforts, as emphasized by 41% of respondents.

Another crucial aspect illuminated by the research is the role of health and wellbeing initiatives in managing employee absences. Nearly 40% of employers reported a reduction in the frequency and duration of absences, leading to faster returns to work and operational continuity.

Katharine Moxham - spokesperson for GRiD - stressed the strategic importance of measuring the impact of health and wellbeing initiatives. She stated:

“Our own group risk industry data shows compelling evidence that health and wellbeing support for staff is crucial to the health and wellbeing of businesses too.

“Support that offers a real and tangible difference to the physical, mental and financial wellbeing of employees, gives the sponsoring employer a huge competitive advantage on many fronts as found in our research. But offering it without measuring it makes it difficult for the business or the HR team to learn, to improve and to stay ahead.”

However, despite the evident advantages, challenges persist in implementing comprehensive health and wellbeing programmes. Affordability concerns remain a barrier for 38% of HR professionals, while 31% struggle to garner buy-in from senior management.

Nonetheless, Moxham underscores the indispensable role of health and wellbeing support in fostering both individual and organisational resilience. She emphasizes the need for initiatives that deliver tangible benefits to employees, providing businesses with a decisive edge in an increasingly competitive landscape, saying:

“Businesses that are not measuring the impact of supporting the health and wellbeing of their staff are now in the minority and that could mean they may struggle to keep up with their competitors. Measuring this impact is of course about improving the health and wellbeing of each individual member of staff but there are real commercial differentiators too, and it’s great to see so many companies recognise this.”