Recruitment

Claire Manning 0:00

Hello, my name is Claire Manning from Canberra Blind Society. My colleague Peter Granleese and I are members of the Canberra Blind Society mentoring program. And we would like to welcome everyone to our four-part podcast series that goes with our checklist resources that are available in the Canberra Blind Society website. In podcast three, Peter and I discussed recruitment processes, and how they can be more supportive of people with vision impairment who are seeking meaningful employment.

Claire Manning 0:27

Peter, we're going to do another one of our checklists today. It's our recruitment checklist, which I would say if someone in a recruitment role would read it, they go this is pretty much basic sense what we do. But I've added aspects from working with the mentor team and the other people we've worked with on the mentoring program, and added aspects that I don't think people will think about, necessarily, it'll be like, Oh, yeah, I didn't consider that. So I'm going to ask you a few questions around that. And it'd be great if you could bring in your experience in the recruitment. Yes, we know it's a little bit dated, because we're a little bit older. 

But there was some thoughts that I wanted to get from you. One of the things that we were talking about a couple of weeks back is when you're talking about recruitment, is an Organisation committed to inclusive employment? And have they given it significant thought into the design of specific jobs? What were your thoughts with the discussions you've had over the last couple of years?

Peter Granleese 1:28

If they're doing it Claire, I can't see it. My experience is that there's a recognition that they're going to do something, and is a commitment to an inclusive workplace. But the policy guidelines that are supposed to drive that process of certainly not being followed, the government put out a policy paper in 2020, that would get to a 7% disability participation in the workplace by 2025.

Claire Manning 1:56

Even if we fix all those barriers on digital platforms, there is still a what people think about diversity and disability.

Peter Granleese 2:05

Generally speaking, I think the technology is good. I mean, screen reading technology these days, but will do most things, not everything. And there has to be job adjustments at the workplace. In some circumstances, the big problem is, attitudes have not yet changed. I think in most personnel recruiters, that attitude is still there. If you can't see it, you can't do it, type thing. And that's, I think, the real problem.

Claire Manning 2:35

And I think there's also from my working on the program, it's just going to be a whole lot of extra work. If we hire someone with a disability, regardless of what it is, it's this - I’m a manager, I'm really busy, I'm pushed to the pump, this is going to be extra work for me, because like you say, Peter, I look at the recruitment documents. And they go, we encourage a diverse workplace, if you've got, if you come from a culturally and linguistically diverse background, if you've got a disability, please apply because we look at all those applications. But then we've heard the stories within the organisations where sometimes it's worked well, we're not saying that it's not working well, in some places, there are people that are as passionate as us. 

But in some places we've heard, even with everything in place, that sometimes it can be a bit of a house of cards, one thing goes wrong, and then the cards fall down and it and it has worked out to be extra work. So it fulfills that skepticism that people have so so that leads to one of the areas that we've discussed over the last couple of years, about some disabilities are obvious. But in the application process, when you're sitting behind your computer, and you've got your qualifications, you've got your experience, you've got your passion, you have to make a decision whether to disclose or not to disclose whether you've got a disability. And there's pros and cons to both of those.

Peter Granleese 4:08

Well, you're quite right, clear. The jury, I think is still out on whether to disclose or not to disclose. I've done both in my time. And if you're still in the marketplace for a job, I will not disclose based on my experience, really. Now I'll give you an example. When I first joined the public service, he was under the old rules. You had to sit this public service exam and if you pass the public service sent you somewhere and I was sent to the Tax Office as a legal graduate. And I asked them whether they'd told my employer, that I had bad sight and they hadn't. And that was a bit of a disaster. And I never really gained anything, in the seven years I was in that office. The initial attitudes of what an inconvenience I was, they couldn't do anything with a paper officers. 

So there were so certain problems there then, when I got enough coverage to apply for other job, the next job I applied for the person running the interview committee and he will, he will be my boss. If I was selected for the job, knew I had bad sight. And so when I went into the interview process, I was actually put into a little office. And he came in and told me that, “oh, look, you can't do the job. You're not suitable you”. They were his words, I guess, No, you wouldn't fit in. And he got up and walked out, said he was sorry, he got up and walked out, probably down the hall to interview the real people for the job. So my interview lasted about 30 seconds. So I decided at that time, I would never disclose again. 

The second time, I applied for job, I got an interview based on my academic achievements. But when I walked into the room, I had to be helped to the sequel, I couldn't find it. They all knew I had bad sight, nothing was said. But it was a very cold interview, they asked the questions, well, one after the other. And that was it. And I said, Do you realise I have bad sight? And they say, Oh, yeah, we thought you might have. I said, Will that affect my job prospects? And they said We’ll just let you know. And I knew I didn't have the job. I applied for a job in ACT once off government was introduced. And I didn't disclose there either. 

But I went into the interview and the interview panel, were quite cheery, we went through all set, as you do. And at the end, they said, Well, we've asked all our questions. Is there anything? Well, you know, you might want to tell us. And I told them about my bad sight? And they said, Well, we thought you did have, we talked for the next half hour which was the bulk of the interview all about how I do my job, anyhow, a week later they told me I'd got it. So I don't know whether I would have been shortlisted had they known on that last job, that I had low vision. But I got in and I sold my self, I think and I got a job. That was the last time I'd been through a formal interview process. All my other promotions in the future were done in house because they were going into senior management positions. And there was no selection for those positions.

Claire Manning 7:23

And they already knew you

Peter Granleese 7:25

I've worked there for about five years, I did all the legal work for them. I was their in house solicitor, and I managed small teams. And so I was quite confident when the time came for me to apply for a major supervisory role. They knew that I could do the work. But it was more about how me as a vision impaired person would run a team of eight to 10 people, sometimes seven people, depending on what the budget allowed how I do that job. And by that time, computers had come into the workplace. And that allowed me to transfer into the managerial space.

Claire Manning 7:59

Right. So now with your earlier example, when the person took you into a room and then said sorry, you won't be able to do the job. You'd applied for that. And you had disclosed or you hadn't disclosed

Peter Granleese 8:11

I hadn't disclosed at that stage. But I found out later, he found out after I'd been shortlisted. So he came in and just told me that I wasn't successful. In other words, had I disclosed there? I would not have got onto the shortlist.

Claire Manning 8:28

You've shown a really good range of ways. And which really explains why even today, you would choose not to disclose because you want to get into the room, and then sort of show what you want, which is interesting, because that's what we found with the mentoring program. Just getting to know people and asking questions, people who have different needs in the workplace, really brings a lot. And of course, I mean, I'm lucky working with a mentor team where I've got two qualified lawyers, and someone with qualifications in digital technology, who lost her sight a little bit later in life. So I've got a really qualified team. 

And we also had someone who'd worked in education who's who got had to leave the project because she got asked to do some work with Sydney University. We were sad to see her go. But another great opportunity for her, with your lawyers hat on and the work you've done in the community with regards to I know you've done a lot of volunteer board work. You talked about that sort of earlier. Yeah. If it was today, that person who took you into the room and didn't even give you an opportunity to talk about the job. Their mind had already been made up. Yes. What would be the options for you as someone who goes actually I want to take this a bit further,

Peter Granleese 9:48

You can appeal against his decision. You could demand another interview with another panel and him, not being chairman of the panel. You could do that.

Claire Manning 9:58

And with that I'd have levels like you could appeal to the Organisation. I know there's discussions with different things that I hear, having worked at Canberra Blind Society to go to human rights. I think it's like, do you have the time to do that?

Peter Granleese 10:13

Would you probably wouldn't have the time. My attitude was on that particular occasion. I wouldn't want to work with him. Because you say he was so biggotted, that I wouldn't want to work with him.

Claire Manning 10:22

Do you think it would happen that way today? Or they make the language a little bit different? They'd let you go through the process wouldn’t they?

Peter Granleese 10:30

Yes. Well, who knows? Who knows? I've heard chairs of interview panels, both about how they could write somebody out of an interview quite easily. Right. So I've heard people boast about that. So it can be done. And I could do it if I wanted too. I wouldn't. But it's not hard. So if a person doesn't want you there, it's pretty easy not to select you. You do have a right of appeal. But you have to have a very strong case, I've seen lots of appeals against the decision of an interview panel, that I've seen very few of them that are successful.

Claire Manning 11:06

And I think it's an interesting point that you made. Yes, I could do this battle. But do I want to work with people who don't want me in there? It is that sort of stuff. And I know, with the stuff that we've done with one of our mentors, Lindy, who's very passionate about digital accessibility, and that things can go wrong. And she would really love to give feedback. But it's that time of documenting that, and then sending that and then potentially not getting a positive response. And it falls back on the person with a disability to do all the work, if that makes sense in that space. So I think, yeah, it is sad with regards to so if you've got an unseen disability, you're in a better space. 

But yeah, when you walk in that door, and so what two of our, well, two of our mentors use canes, and two of them use guide dogs. So the ones with guide dogs walking straight into an interview, they potentially would have had to have some help before the interview to know, to let them know. So I think there's the different levels is making the application getting accepted for an interview. Some people disclose them, because they need to get help to find the rooms and things like that.

Peter Granleese 12:16

I've known people who have disclosed, and they've got the job. but it's a lottery, I would choose not to disclose. Well, based on my experience, based on your experience, for sure.

Claire Manning 12:29

I suppose there was the other thing you might comment on this, when people are putting together, you know, a job description, or there's a gap, or they're replacing someone, think more about the tasks and the full initial stages, the tasks, instead of going? Well, this is a role for a project officer that so that means I got to do A, B, and C. But what is the project? What are the tasks to get that project done? You know, what are the different elements then to ask themselves? Could someone with a disability do these tasks? So that's opening up to all the areas of disability and then go a bit further if you? And Could someone with a vision impairment do these tasks? I'm sure along the way, there'd be yeses, because as you sort of said, with screen reader technology and things like that, and then there's the question of, okay, look, there's an element that we could actually consider someone with a disability or someone with a vision impairment to do this role. But the question is, could the role and tasks be adapted slightly if there was still a bit of hesitation? Now, you've talked in your role as a supervisor. They weren't people with a disability, I understand. But you adapted roles all the time, when you worked in Fair Trading, is that correct?

Peter Granleese 13:41

My job as a manager was to run a section made up of people with various levels of competency based on their pay grade, the duty state, when I went there were exactly the same except an ISA six, for example, had to manage the more complex work with minimum supervision, whereas the person coming in at a grade two had to manage the less complex with some supervision. And there were all those shades between. So the first thing I did, when I got there was I tried to get some structure into the duties at various levels. But it was difficult to have discrete differences between each job, because they all had to do the same thing at various levels. 

In practice, I found that it was a question of managing resources. It was knowing what you had and how to use them was playing to your staffs good point. And if they had some gaps, try and bring them up to speed with them. This meant that being a resource manager was very important. It was knowing how you fit it all together, who could do what, which people had the expertise in some areas in which expertise and other areas, and you allocated the work accordingly. We had somewhere between 120 and 150 jobs coming every month, written complaints, we had to clear 80%. And that was our target that came in and dribs and drabs five or six every day, I had my secretary or I think they're not called secretaries. Any more, I’ve forgotten the term, this person got the complaint logged into the computer and put them in a compact and did all that sort of gofering. 

So that person's property is still there. Because they have to be, they read the complaints to me and I allocated the work to the people who I thought were best suited to do it. So I was managing resources, reassigning jobs, all the time. So if, for example, a vision impaired person came onto the team, that person would just be another resource, which I'd manage, I'd work out what their good points were. And I allocate the work to them, I'd help them bring them up to speed, give them the same educational opportunities, self improvement opportunities, as everybody else had, I could see no problem employing a person with vision impairment on my team. Firstly, because I was already there. Yes. 

But secondly, they could do the job, if they have the qualifications. They address the selection criteria, all those things go with written oral communications, knowledge of computers, things like that. And the ability to analyse complex issues, it wouldn't have mattered to me in a paperless office where they were blind or they weren't blind, I wouldn't expect them to take a car and go over and check out a rogue car dealer, for example, because they couldn't drive. They couldn't see the car. But I'd give them complex work somewhere else in the office.

Claire Manning 16:44

That's what leaders do. Good managers and good bosses do and I think that gets lost in the process. Because I think it's like we've spoken about over the last few years, it's that perception? Is this going to be more work for me? But you're always adapting roles. And I mean, one of the things that comes into the recruitment process, and also, next time when we talk about onboarding, and induction is that, that you have to get things in place for everyone that's coming in, you know, a computer or a seat, you know, sort of the right technology. And I think, I still think, you know, there's that it's more the perception and than the actual reality. 

And what's been interesting, I'd like to share what I've sort of learned, having had an HR background, and having applied for lots of jobs in my life to some interesting things, that working with the team and working with people in organisations that we know have a vision impairment, that some of the structures that we have in place, are faulty for everyone, not just for people with a disability. And what's interesting for me, if we fix it for people with disability, which hopefully that increases, opportunities for them to get worthwhile work that they want to do. But also it helps all groups and a couple of those areas, which was really highlighted, I think, through the technology. So for anyone listening, it's around the position description design. 

So what really became clear to me is we've got this great technology called screen reader technology. So someone with a vision impairment will read through the whole position description to see whether this is the job they want to do, whether they've got the skills, whether they've got the match, they have to read the document from the top to the bottom. The last thing on a position description is the criteria they want of the person applying for the job. As someone who can see the document, I use my mouse to scroll down to see whether I match with what they want for this job. And then if I do I go back and read the other sections. So this isn't so much a question for you, Peter, this is more me sharing my insights from it. 

And I've spoken to a few people who work in HR roles. And they go, Yeah, you're right. But we've always done it that way. So I feel it's respectful to people who are using screen reader technology for the criteria of what you want for the applicant, who's taking time to do the application for it to be at the top and then go so for example, most position descriptions, they have a little bit about the role wetsuit, and then it goes it talks about the department, the team, the project, and this we're talking, some of them will go for three or four pages. And then on the last page it has and what we want from you, I would argue that everyone wants what we want from you to be the top of the page, and then to follow through so I do know that one of the HR people thought that was a great idea and working in there, but I probably wouldn't have noticed it if I hadn't have seen how people use screen reader technology. 

That's why you want someone in your workplace with different lived, You want few people with different lived experiences, because they demonstrate the different ways we interact with the world. The other one was with regards to, if you were still a boss today hiring someone with a vision impairment, but we had someone who worked with our project, who were pleased to say, through going through a graduate program, doing an internship now has passed their probation has ongoing permanent work with one of the federal government agencies. However, the job she applied for and the job she got, they had the job requirements. And one of the job requirements was to have a driver's license. Now, she would never have applied for that job, if she had just found it in the system. And because she'd done an internship, and her supervisor at that internship had said, I encourage you to apply for this job, she thought it was worth a go, she still thought she may not get over the line. Because she didn't have a driver's license, she's now been working in that job for six months. So a driver's license wasn't an essential criteria of that job. 

And I know that when I started working with all of you, Peter, and the mentors, we weren't telling Organisations to hire people with a vision impairment to drive buses. We all know our limitations in applying for jobs. I'm not saying that some people don't lie on their resumes to get into places, but they do. But it was really interesting, that example. And the third point I want to make is to train interviewers better. For me, you know, based on your experience, Peter, where you said, the head of that interview panel just sat you down in a small room and said, Look, sorry, mate, you know, you haven't got the job, because you can't see. 

I watched one of the this particular person who's now successful, so I know, you know, we backed her, and she is doing a great job where she is now. But when she applied when she went through the graduate program, and I would say that the government has a responsibility, like you said, with regards to meeting 7% of people with disability to be employed, they have in those graduate programs to hire people with diverse backgrounds and diverse lived experiences. And the particular interviewer was a disability officer. And his interview technique was from my observations was void of any knowledge of people with disabilities. 

And I say that because they asked that standard question of, can you describe a challenging situation, when in a job that you've done, and the candidate gave a great description, she was someone who had a vision impairment, had had several jobs, but had not had success, because of, you know, an organisation, you know, organisations not embracing people with a vision impairment. But she described really challenging situation connected to a further study. And it was really quite a good example, and quite complex. And then he asked again, can you give another example, now this particular interviewer would have read her CV. And knowing that she didn't have a lot of job background, she went to a deeper level with the example she'd already given, which showed, you know, within this example, there was five significant challenges. And she shared how she embraced them and found different ways, as one of our mentors said, work arounds. 

And it was a really rich example of working with traveling a long way for this particular placement she was doing for a study, walking into an organised group of people who were not, had to build trust with. And it was also a group of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who she was working with. So she was going to bring a whole lot to this Organisation, her live disability, her experience with other diverse groups, and everything like that. And I think he just wanted another job example.

Claire Manning 24:08

So that's my example of, we've got to train our interviewers better, not just go Peter G, can you be on my interview panel today, but a real knowledge of all the different things that candidates are bringing to that sort of space, so I've gone on a bit, but I think they're really significant things in that space. So what we would say is, make sure your online application is completely accessible. We've had wins in those areas of demonstrating, and the reason we want lived experiences because online stuff can seem accessible. But if you're not sitting with someone with a vision impairment who's using a screen reader, you don't know whether it is and that's the luxury I've had in this job. Finishing off Peter, what would be you know, one or two things you'd say, that are really significant based on your experience as a manager, and as a candidate, even though it was a few years back?

Unknown Speaker 24:55

Peter Granleese 24:57

Okay. I supervise all sorts of people. All who have all sorts of different needs. And it was my job as a team leader, to manage those resources to get the benefit out of them. The problem is, as I see it, that sort of management skill is acceptable. Those sorts of people with their different needs are acceptable, except when it comes to welcoming a vision impaired person to the into the workplace, there seems to be a dividing line, when you talk about a person with a vision loss, these may be a person, which might have some other emotional loss or different need, who might need more adjustment as the vision impaired person, there is that dividing line there and still exists. 

The great thing for vision impaired people now is if they've got the qualifications, of addresses selection criteria, they've gone through the election process, they've been assigned to a particular area, they've got the computer skills, they can probably do the jobs, they might have some other needs as well, just like everybody else on your team might have other needs, and your job as a manager to manage those needs. And I don't see any difference. If a vision impaired person came to work for me back in the day, that I'd lose any sleep over it, because I know that if they had those skills, they have the technology they're in more or less a paperless office now. And of all things equal, they could do the job just as well as anybody else. So that's my take.

Claire Manning 26:35

And my take is every time you hire someone, you take a chance. Yep. It's been really interesting for me to sort of watch and, and learn from this process. So I think our checklist will probably align with some of the things people in this environment already doing. But hopefully, along with this podcast, it will have some insights for everyone. But thank you, Peter.

Peter Granleese 26:57

Thank you, Claire.