Do not lobby for that job

By Roderick Ahimbazwe

AS he puts down the phone, he breaks out into a smile, for he has just finished talking to his sister’s boyfriend, who is on the panel of the interviewers for the job he has just applied for.

Little does he know that the minute he put down the phone his name is deleted from the short listed candidates: the company his friend works for had just passed a policy against applicants lobbying for jobs.

Indeed, most companies nowadays discourage the act of lobbying for jobs and go as far as putting notices below job adverts cautioning potential applicants against lobbying with a penalty being immediate disqualification.

It’s justifiable for companies to shun lobbying: it hinders the transparency most companies adhere to, says Stella Adikin, a human resources consultant.

“When someone lobbies for a job and actually gets it, the company will have a reputation of being imprudent as far as recruitment of new employees is concerned.

Adikin’s arguments are backed by Jimmy Kiberu, a communications consultant in East Africa, who says, “A job got through lobbying leads to the integrity of both the person and the company being questioned. This is bad for the corporate image of any firm.”

Kiberu says lobbying encourages politicking in any company and such politicking also damages the reputation of the company’s recruitment process and policy.

Brian Kawuma, the Public Relations officer of Uganda National Chamber of Commerce and Industry, says lobbying biases the whole recruitment process as it will not be a fair process.

“A person recruited for a job must have emerged the best during the interviews and not the one who lobbied best.”

Kawuma says lobbying fuels corruption as the person approached by the applicant might ask for some pay to influence the whole process.

“Constant lobbying for jobs by different applicants can nurture corruption in a company yet this is a terrible vice,” Kawuma adds.

Kiberu concurs: “Lobbying can put an organisation under undue influence especially from an applicant who has been recommended by influential people like shareholders or politicians.”

This leaves the recruiters or interviewers on the panel torn between ethics and serving private interests, he adds.

And that is not all the companies have to go through when they employ individuals who come in through lobbying.

Another reason companies are objecting to lobbying and putting notices and warnings about it on their job vacancy posts is the fear of losing out on the right people and employing non-performers.

“At times applicants get recommended by influential people yet they totally lack the necessary skills and ability to deliver what is needed for the job, they end up becoming a negative influence on the whole performance of the organisation,” says Kiberu.

“At the end, it is the company which pays in the case of non-competence on the part of the new employee because their tasks will have to be distributed among other staff. Or extra training given to them,” Adikin cautions.

Then there is the problem of insubordination that arises from superiority complexes the new employees get.

Someone who gets a job as a result of lobbying will come into the job with a totally different attitude than one who struggled hard to get it.

“This person might have got the job because they know one of the top bosses in the company and hence it might be difficult for junior bosses like section heads to assign them duties or control them,” Adikin says.

Such appointments also bring animosity among staff and reduce morale. Terms like“nepotism”, “favoritism are sure to crop up when news of an appointment through lobbying reach other employees who work hard for their positions.

In the end, it is more than just the companies that get disorganised because of lobbying.

Lobbying is simply not fair for everyone concerned, Kiberu sums it up.
“A person lobbying for a job will have an advantage over others and this means that the whole application field will not be on level ground,” he stresses.