Certainly, recruiting and holding onto the best employees is an issue for UK directors. And statistics bear out the belief that this is far from easy: the National Employers Skills Survey, published in July 2006, noted that small companies (particularly those with fewer than 25 people) had the most difficulty recruiting skilled people. And the future's not bright: 65 per cent of 3,700 business "decision makers" say educational standards are slipping, according to software specialist Sage's summer 2006 "Heartbeat" survey.

From the aspiring employee's viewpoint, matters are no better, according to a report by Demos and telecoms company Orange from 2006. Working Progress: How to reconnect young people to organisations, by Demos researchers Sarah Gillinson and Duncan O'Leary, claims that there is a "damaging disconnect between young people and organisations" founded on a lack of mutual understanding. Graduates feel they are prepared for work: HR directors believe otherwise (the LSC National Skills Survey claimed they lacked basic interpersonal and communication skills).

Hierarchies and an apparent values void appear to be obstacles for graduates, who struggle once employed. "Graduates used to working in the peer-to-peer environment of university find it hard to shift to organisational hierarchies and difficult to relate to their bosses."

Following up on the report, Orange and the Make your Mark campaign organised a graduate and undergraduate panel in April where many of the sticking points were raised again: samey questions to which you can supply a pat answer; assessment centres that feel artificial; online tests that are an open door for cheats; irrelevant tests or questions that will never be asked again once you've got the job. Some sectors, too, fall down: engineering graduate Raks Gohen has found his sector's selection procedures lag behind those of professional service firms: "[In engineering firms] there is always organisational change going on. Recruitment processes can be disjointed and don't always reflect what is needed."

But most frustrating, it seems, are the unbending expectations: "The whole 2.1 cut-off," notes Bristol University graduate and entrepreneur Luke Aikman, "is frustrating and ridiculous. I run my own business and I'd like to think I'm employable. But to insist on a minimum 2.1 takes a hugely valuable group out of the running."

So how do directors ensure they bring out the best in their interviewees?
Robert Soltanie, in his second year at Kingston, says: "There's a need for more rapport. Criteria-setting would help." Maths-related questions should bear some relevance to the business; exercises should relate to the job for which you are applying. And employers should bear in mind the relative life experience of the individuals they are interviewing: "I enjoy the whole scenario and 'what would you do in a certain situation' thing," says entrepreneur and Birmingham graduate Matt Kepple. "But not everyone will be able to find real-life content for scenarios." 

Says Aikman: "You also need to have the confidence to realise that you are assessing the job, the corporation, the culture." And, adds Anita Moss, who has worked at Hotxt and now runs her own venture, an employer should be glad to receive these questions."

Students and graduates identified the following as essential traits for job candidates:
1. Entrepreneurial ability
2. Values
3. Big-picture thinking and ability to "think outside the box"
4. Work ethic
5. Analytical ability
6. Team and communications work: networking skills
7. Ability to work under pressure
8. Tact/diplomacy
9. Intelligence, both academic and emotional, as well as some "native wit"

One idea was to set up an Apprentice-style, situation-based test lasting a day. This would assess skills such as teamwork, innovation, problem solving via a set of scenarios.

"Even better," says entrepreneur Matt Kepple, "would be for this to be supplied at university and for there to be an 'industry-standard' model." The idea is to create a one-day event to assess abilities that most employees will need in any job. "If the test were standardised, the score could be used by recruits," Kepple adds.

Students also offered a glimpse of how to set up the perfect interview:
1. Initial briefing, with an honest pitch as to what your company is like and what the job will require. For example: "When the boss invites the team out for a drink, you go" or "you are likely to be working from 9 till 7". What are the company's expectations regarding teamwork, socialising, etc.
"It's a leap of faith for the employer," admits entrepreneur and Cambridge graduate Anita Moss.
2. Case study and scenario exercises that allow candidates to demonstrate big-picture thinking. One might be a quick-delivery exercise on, say, writing a speech in 30 minutes; another might be an essay for which you'd allow five days. While it might be time-consuming, these exercises would whittle down the potential recruits' numbers by elimination.
3. Those that make it through stages one and two would then attend an assessment day to demonstrate team working, communications, diplomacy and entrepreneurial skills. During that day, candidates would be pulled out for a half hour chat with a senior executive in the company about the business, its values and culture. The seniority of the person was deemed important—"not just some random person"—but a board director whose presence indicates that you take recruitment—and your people—seriously at every stage.

Students also suggested that this SWAT approach to the hiring process would also benefit the company's reputation: even those who don't make it come away with a good impression of the business.

What do you think?

Send us your views