I have the distinct impression that I'm at odds with most of my hospitality peers on one particular issue. There come a point in nearly every training course I present, where someone makes a comment along the lines of: 'casual staff are inherently unstable; you always have a high turnover among them'. The ensuing debate seems to arouse passionate reactions.

I was trained by the fast food industry — 90% of our staff were casual. I was carefully schooled in the recruitment, training and supervision of casual staff as a part of my formal management training. I was a store manager who had been promoted to area manager and given responsibility for 12 large stores, employing around 700 casual staff. We were expected to keep our casual staff turnover below 30% per annum — or to put it another way, we were expected to keep our casual staff for three years.

We soon learned that there we had to be very careful with our recruitment and selection. Most applicants for casual work were either secondary or tertiary students. The staff we selected not only had to be able to do the job; they had to be stable. We found some young people were a bad bet right from the beginning, while others proved to be very productive and reliable.

Secondary students were a problem for a start. They usually quit their casual jobs when they finish high school or technical school. We found that secondary students were unlikely to stay for more than 18 months. They abandoned their casual jobs to either enter the full time workforce or commence tertiary study. If they found a full time job, they didn't want to work extra hours, and if they went to college or university a high percentage moved away from home and our business. They cost a lot to train, so I preferred my store managers to fish in other waters.

University or college students were safer, and could be very stable if you made the right choices. Tertiary students can be divided into various sub-groups, according to their employment risk. First year students have a high dropout rate, especially in intensive courses such as law, medicine, science and engineering. If a casual employee bombs first year university, you can kiss them goodbye. We used to avoid employing people doing certain courses, and people with poor secondary school results. To make sure, we asked to see their school assessments and questioned them about their ambitions and career intentions when we interviewed them.

Fourth year tertiary students were also a problem. They were in a similar position to secondary students — most were one year employment prospects at best. By final year, a tertiary student usually has heavy study commitments and a blossoming social calendar. Our statistics led me to encourage my managers to keep away from them, as well.

Second and third year students were the ones I preferred. After surviving first year, they had a good chance of continuing their courses right through. To support their living and recreational expenses, they needed a steady income. If you didn't spoil the relationship by treating them inappropriately, they often stayed the three remaining years of their course.

It helps if you make an attempt to understand student's needs. The job you offer them is a means to an end, it is not their first priority — study takes precedence over the job. If you require them to work more than they can handle, they will leave. You don't usually intend to overload them, but you find yourself short staffed and call on them to work extra shifts. If this goes on too long their study or their social lives suffer and you get the speech about 'their grandmother dying and them having to leave.'

Their social life is just as important as their study. If you had a date with the partner of your dreams, how would you feel about a last minute roster change requiring you to work? We put our rosters up two weeks in advance, so the staff didn't have to cancel arrangements at short notice. We also found it paid to be conscious of their sport and recreation needs. Some managers even did a Saturday night roster three months in advance, so the casual staff could plan their lives.

It also helped to hold them if we challenged their minds. Working in a production kitchen or serving customers can be mentally numbing if you are highly intelligent. The best managers involved their casuals in the business and gave them added responsibility — like doing the evening stock reconciliations, balancing the tills, or transferring the cash register sales information into the daily record ledger. The deal was simple: 'work reliably and efficiently and we will look after your shifts and make work interesting.'

I had some great casual staff. One kid used to take such pride in his kitchen cleaning he polished the U-shaped pipe under the sink with Brasso. Others have fronted-up on their days off and asked to work for nothing because they were bored. I do not think casual staff are inherently uncommitted and unreliable; I've seen evidence first hand that proves the opposite.

I was never exposed to the concept that casual staff are unreliable until I became involved with the hotel and restaurant industry. Several of my clients have challenged me to put my management philosophies to the test and I have comfortably proved to them and myself what I always suspected — that casual staff turnover can be substantially reduced in any environment, if you are careful and know how to do it.

I feel much better now that I have got that off my chest . . .

So you think you 're a pretty good judge of character, eh? You reckon you can pick staff by intuition and a ten minute chat. The following is addressed to those of you feel you are, and those of you who have staff turnover in excess of 50 percent per year; i.e. your staff stay less than two years average — and don't think I'm just referring to permanent staff; I mean any staff turnover in excess of this figure.

I can almost hear some of your brain cells manufacturing outrage right now. I can hear the argument forming as it has done so many times in the past. 'But casuals are different; they're inherently unstable; they have no commitment . . . it's the nature of the industry.' I've heard it all hundreds of times before.

I came from the fast food industry. They know how to recruit. Go into a McDonalds store on a Sunday night and have a look. You 'll see a bunch of motivated kids 'grinding it out' (the words of Ray Kroc, their founder). Go up to the counter and order. They'll suggestive sell to you every time. 'Would you like fries or a drink with that, Sir?' They never miss. Their quality is absolutely consistent. Can you get your staff to do that?

They get this standard of performance and they get long service out of their casuals. Their system monitors staff turnover and store managers who fail to keep stable 'crews' get counselling and training. I know this because I have helped train their senior management in staff turnover reduction techniques.

It all starts by understanding the recruitment process properly. If you haven't been trained in recruitment and selection you are more than likely to recruit to satisfy your own needs. Sounds fair, doesn't it? After all, you are the one needing the staff member. The problem is, people apply for jobs to meet their needs; not yours. It doesn't matter how good they may be for the job; if the job doesn't suit them, they'll leave.

Take a student for instance — a university or college student. What is their main priority? Your job or their future? Obviously their future, i.e., passing exams and establishing relationships, comes first. Your job is a means to an end, but that doesn't mean they won't apply themselves if they enjoy it and it doesn't interfere with their needs.

They may only want two shifts a week to provide them with a little money for social activities or transport. They accept the job on this basis. Down the track a little you become short staffed so you ask them to work extra shifts to help out. The job begins to interfere with their social life or their study. They quit, giving you some excuse.

Perhaps they may have been a bad bet from the beginning — like a year 12 secondary student who is not applying themselves to study. If they fail to achieve a good result they won't get into university so they will get a full time job and quit your casual job after less than a year.

They could also be in the first year of one of the high failure courses like Law or Medicine. Law has a 60 percent drop-out rate after first year. If they fail they will also get a full time job. Final year is worse. When they finish their courses, they'll either nick off to Europe or look for a more challenging full time position.

This sort of turnover is predictable and avoidable, if you know what to look for and what questions to ask in an interview. Your first task is to establish what they're looking for — what are their needs? After all, how can you keep them stable if they're not happy? The natural tendency is to concentrate on a whole series of questions to establish if they are what you want. Concentrate on their needs first. It's amazing how many people scrub themselves out of a job at this point.

You also need to remember that they will tend to tell you what they think you want to hear, in order to get a job. It helps if you know how to establish the true situation. For instance, if you are looking for a team player rather than an individualist, have a look at their hobbies or interests. If you see reading, windsurfing and pottery, or other lone pursuits, beware. If they've listed cricket, football and debating, you'd be pretty safe; these are all sociable activities.

I recently had a young gentleman apply for a bar supervisor's job at one of my client's restaurants. He listed wine collecting and computers as his main interests. I asked him some basic questions: 'How many bottles of wine do you have in your collection? 'Answer: 'Eleven'. 'OK', I said, 'That's not much of a collection, let's see how much you know about wine. Name three top quality red wines produced in Australia? '. . . silence, then: 'Ahh . . . I don't know if I can answer that; but I'm really interested in wine.' Questions about computer skills yielded similar unhelpful responses.

I could write volumes on the subject of selection techniques. It took me about ten years of constant recruitment to even begin to become good at it. I tell all my management students that this is the primary skill. If you can get good people, they will run your business better than you can. The strange irony is that this is the most poorly attended of all our training courses, yet it is the skill I see most often lacking.

It boils down to human arrogance. A lot of people feel they are great drivers, great lovers and great judges of character. Most of us are none of the above.

(c) 1998 Eldred Training & Development Pty Ltd

Tony Eldred
Consultant
+61 3 9499 3222
Eldred Training & Development Pty Ltd