Originally Posted by rxfleming

I worked for Vodafone for 3 years, and my whole department was outsourced while I was there. 1 year later, we moved everything back in house following a management change; Service standards slipped, deliverables were not met, and a culture of laziness was incurred due to the outsourcing. The question was based on a 'tell me a time' and from there, the discussion developed.

The question asked of me was 'If you were CEO for a day, what would you do and why'. I based my response on areas where I, as a customer (and I acknowledged this) would like to see improvements, and where as a manager, I could assist in delivering this. I also discussed other things such as alignment of Vueling into IAG; using 787 for longer more commercially viable routes in the USA, and the economical cost of not being in Asia or South America.

I did not just simply answer a question as an armchair flyertalker, and I certainly come from experience, not just a bloody walk-out-of-uni graduate.

The reason I removed my application was because of the way I was spoken TO during the interview. Saying I was negative, despite giving a clear structure behind my response was not welcome. That is not a company I want to work for.

Originally Posted by London_traveller

Bit of a non-sequitur there, I'm afraid. A first round screening interview with a set script done by an HR consultant doesn't give a very good opportunity to understand the corporate culture. That's how HR departments consistently behave. Apologies if I've offended you - I suspect you work in HR?

Interviews with people you'll actually end up working for will provide a much more decent insight into a corporate culture than HR ever will.

Originally Posted by markzz2

Absolutely. I wish you had gone in and been in "interview" mode rather than "disappointed" customer mode. Then you could have worked to improve the product from a customer point of view rather than just a cost perspective.

Originally Posted by gengar

The execs and operational leaders tell HR exactly what they want to screen for, and that reveals a lot about the corporation.

Originally Posted by rxfleming

So. I had an interview with BA this week for their Leaders for Business Graduate Scheme.

I had high hopes but after meeting some people in the HR recruitment team I decided to withdraw my application.

One thing that stood out - when mentioning improvements I discussed the constant cost cutting and outsourcing of products. I explained that it is my firm belief that outsourcing is bad for the brand and is ruining customer loyalty, and that on ground and in air products are risking being degraded as a result. They said that my opinion was "a bit too aggressive" for a job interview and negative comments were not seen as conductive for a job interview. I poked a bit more at this but won't go into much more detail as it was rather ridiculous how I was made to feel.

From the reminder interview I got the impressions they want people who will save the company money at any expense to their brand. The questions were largely based around making savings and looking for ways to improve efficiency with the same budgets. I'm all for it - but not when the savings are degrading the brand. And I stood by my statement.

I withdrew my application the same day.

If this is the attitude of people recruiting at BA for their future managers then god help us.

Originally Posted by Skipcool3

The reality of BA contracting out baggage handling at Gatwick with wait times of over an hour for short haul is a very good example of where things have got considerably worse for the customer.

Originally Posted by HIDDY

I used to sit on an interview panel from time to time.

The consensus amongst the panel was not to hire anyone who came across as being smarter than us.

Originally Posted by toomanybooks

I have read innumerable articles about great businesspeople (mostly US). They almost always say, when asked about what contributed to their success, "I always tried as hard as I could to hire and retain people smarter that I."

I don't think that's a meaningless sentiment.

Originally Posted by Land-of-Miles

Quote:





Originally Posted by Poxball


You mean you work for a company that has a strategy to make profit in the future as well? How novel




BA has a strategy to make a profit in both the present and future. Much that I wish it was different I think it is the right strategy. You can offer the finest product in the world that is well reviewed critically and universally respected but if only a handful of people will pay for it then it is a poor business strategy.

Whilst I think that BA is probably following the best course to remain a profitable business, I do think that the execution is simplistic and somewhat stupidly short sighted. More could be done to make things better without spending a penny extra. If only FVdP had complete authority here to sign off everything customer impacting (or complete authority to reject) I would feel more comfortable in blaming him, but I fear he doesn't have this degree of control.

Originally Posted by uk1

Not one type of personality fits all roles. I don't think that is a meaningless sentiment either.

There is the world of difference between an entrepreneur looking for people to help grow his / her business and an established company seeking people to follow instructions and be creative only once they have understood the challenges from the inside. People that think they know the answer before understanding the problem are normally liabilities.

Originally Posted by paulwuk

No.

The business attempt to write down what they want. The hr group attempts to interpret that. The hr group then adds various meaningless phrases into the job requirements...

Originally Posted by lwildernorva

This. Absolutely. I want smart, intelligent people working for me, but somebody who comes in for an interview who thinks they know everything about what my organization does without having any experience with it sets off alarm bells immediately. Unless you're being hired to be the CEO, you're going to have to follow somebody's orders, and an interviewer can easily interpret the OP's approach as putting him in the category of folks who simply won't follow any orders.

I agree that's an oversimplification, but when you're interviewing a lot of candidates, snap judgments tend to be controlling.

Originally Posted by Land-of-Miles

I disagree, I think BA is choosing not to compete with the Middle Eastern airlines because BA cannot match their cost structure.

I think there are 2 approaches which might be viable in the long term.

a) Pitch for the higher ground, stress service and try to make BA the first choice through consistent service, a high quality product, best seats etc.

b) Focus upon cost control, striving for the best level of service possible at a given budget and make a virtue out of a virtual monopoly on slots at a busy airport with substantial O&D traffic.

Arguably a) was the strategy in the late 90's which led yo thumping losses. B) is the current strategy and responsible for consistent profits.

Whilst all hotel guests would prefer to stay in a 4 Seasons many, many more are happy to pay only for a Holiday Inn or Crowne Plaza. Whilst to a certain extent the Middle Eastern and some Asian carriers can square the cost VS. quality circle, this is entirely down to certain natural advantages and cost structures. BA cannot compete on these terms.

Cost focus doesn't have to mean product evisceration though, that is where I think BA gets it wrong. This happens because managers don't fly on competitors and don't have any kind of gut feel for what customers really want.

BA is run effectively by a large group of individuals who have never had a job beyond BA as they were recruited as young graduates. This is a massive handicap, there should be much more lateral hiring especially from those who have experience of both service delivery and of receiving the services being delivered. There is some sign this is starting to happen at senior levels (e.g. FVdP) but if all their direct reports are BA lifers execution will blunt strategic intent.