Recruitment. Job Ads: Reading Between the Lines

Checking out job advertisements is popular with executives worldwide. But I thought the activity is universal, is it the same true of the advertisements? Are executive positions in different countries advertised in the same way? A сcomparison of the jobs pages of The Times of London, Le Monde of Paris and Germany's Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung suggests not.

First, what UK job seekers consider an essential piece of information – what he post pays - is absent from French and German adverts. It is often left to applicants to raise these themselves. In contrast most British advertisements mention not only salary, but also other material incentives including a car and fringe benefits. French or German advertisements rarely refer to these.

The attention given to rewards in the UK indicates the importance of the job and its responsibility. In France and Germany, that information is given by the level of experience and qualifications demanded. Salary can be assumed to correspond with this.

If French and German adverts are vague about material rewards, they are precise about qualifications. They usually demand 'a degree in...’ not simply 'a degree1. In Germany, for example, a technical director for a machine tool company will be expected to have a Dipl.-Ing degree in Mechanical Engineering.

French advertisements go further. They may specify not just the type of grands ecole degree, but sometimes a particular set of institutions (Formation superieure X, Centrale, Mines, HEC, ESSEQ), these being the most famous grandes ecoles.

All this contrasts with the vague call for 'graduates' (or 'graduate preferred') which is found in the UK. British companies often give the impression that they have a particular type of applicant in mind, but are not sure about the supply and will consider others. Their wording suggests hope and uncertainty, as in this advertisement from The Times: 'Whilst educational standards are obviously important, a large measure of personal oomph is likely to secure the success of your application.'

In the UK qualifications beyond degree level make employers nervous, but in France or Germany it is difficult to be 'overqualified'. Many people on German executive boards have doctorates and the French regard five or six years of intensive post-baccalaureate study at a grand ecole as ideal training. British managers are not selected primarily for their intelligence, as managers are in France, or for their expert knowledge, as in Germany. Instead, the British give importance to social, political and leadership skills.

This difference also shows in the personal qualities mentioned. British advertisements stress energy, ability to communicate and motivate. German advertisements like achievement, but it tends to be less personality-driven. German companies want candidates with sound knowledge, experience and competence in their field. They rarely recruit novices as do British employers. French advertisements refer more to intellectual qualities like analytical aptitude and Independence.

Even the tone of the job advertisements is different in the three countries. By French and German standards, British advertisements are very racy. They attract young executives with challenges such as: 'Are you reaching your potential?', whereas French and German advertisements are boringly direct, aiming to give Information about the job rather than to sell it.

All these points reflect three different conceptions of management. The French regard it as intellectually complex, the Germans - as technically complex, and the British - as interpersonally complex. But they agree on one thing: it's complex.

Вариант № 5

Прочитайте и дайте полный письменный перевод текста

 

A matter of choice

In 1967 John Galbraith's The New Industrial State argued that the USA was run by a handful of big companies who planned the economy in the name of stability.

These were hierarchical and bureaucratic organizations making long runs of standardized products. They introduced "new and improved" varieties with predictable regularity; they provided their workers with lifetime employment and enjoyed fairly good industrial relations with the giant trade unions.

That world is now dead. The US's giant corporations have either disappeared or been transformed by global competition. Most of them have flattened their management hierarchies. Few people these days expect to spend their lives moving up the ladder of a single organization. Dramatic changes are taking place. But where exactly are they taking us? Where is the modern company heading?

There are three standard answers to this question. The first is that a handful of giant companies are engaged in a "silent takeover" of the world. The past couple of decades have seen a record number of mergers. The second school of thought argues almost opposite: it says that big companies are a thing of the past. For a glimpse of the future, look at the Monorail Corporation, which sells computers.

Monorail owns no factories, warehouses or any other tangible assets. It operates in a single floor that it leases in an office building in Atlanta. Freelance workers are designing the computer while demand is still low.

The third school of thought says that companies are being replaced by “networks". Groups of entrepreneurs form such a network to market an idea. They I sell it to the highest bidder and move on to produce another idea and to create another firm, with the money being supplied all the time by venture capitalists.

Another way to look at the future of the company is to focus on the environment that will determine it. That environment is dominated by one thing: Dice. Technology and globalization open up ever more opportunities for individuals and firms to conduct economic activity outside traditional structures. Willie the age of mass production lowered the costs of products at the expense of limiting choices, modern "flexible" production systems both lower costs and se choice. Consumers have more choice over where they spend their money. Producers have more choice over which suppliers to use. Shareholders have more choice over where to put their money. With all that choice around, future companies will have to be flexible in order to quickly adapt to the changing environments if they are to survive.

 

1.1. Найдите в тексте и дайте письменные ответы на вопросы:

1. What were the characteristics of the US corporations in the past?

2. What changes have occurred to those corporations?

3. What different types of future companies does the author mention?

4. What choice is given to consumers?

5. What choice is given to shareholders?

 

 

Вариант № 6