There are few subjects which tend to inspire such a fixed and entrenched position as Brexit. Whether the conversation touches on the overall philosophy, the original referendum or its aftermath, there is rarely much in the way of fence sitting. Things are binary. Remain or leave. Simple as.
But, of late, are we witnessing a blurring of the edges? Are issues not quite so black and white?
Let’s take the economic case. In the run-up to last year’s referendum, it appeared that leaving the EU would provoke economic ruin and catastrophe. George Osborne, Mark Carney and the Bank of England were falling over each other with tales of woe.
Forward wind to January this year and Andy Haldane, the Bank of England’s Chief Economist admitted his institution had got things wrong. If not quite the ‘Michael Fish moment’ (of not predicting the 2008 financial crisis and the collapse of Lehman’s in particular), Haldane – ‘it’s a fair cop’ – admitted that his team had called the impact of Brexit, certainly initially, wrong. Not to be outdone as regards analogies, Morgan Stanley’s economists fessed up to ‘eating humble pie’ about their own post-Brexit predictions.
Equally, however, those in the Leave camp appear distinctly less wedded to their original positions. Take Dominic Cummings, a director of Vote Leave and the man behind the ‘£350m a week to the NHS from the EU’ bus. Just this week, he was on Twitter describing Brexit as ‘a dumb idea’ and ‘an error’.
And there appear to be as many contradictions and as much ambiguity surrounding the implications of Brexit.
Take investment levels, particularly across London’s technology hubs. According to the Mayor of London’s offices, the first six months of the year saw private equity and venture capital investment of £5.6bn being poured in local tech firms – this represents the biggest figure for such investment over a six-month period in the last decade. The reasons for so much optimism? ‘The city’s “fundamental strengths” as a centre for technology and business were unchanged’ according to the agency.
(This is entirely consistent with Google’s plans for and commitment to London – as it pumps £1bn into new headquarters in Kings Cross. Its UK MD, Ronan Harris eulogised about what London had to offer his employer, “London’s ambition to grow, harness new technologies, and build the brightest and best companies has been a constant over the last decade”.
This reflects a statistic from my last blog from Lloyds Banking Group which noted rising levels of business confidence. Their index touched 24% last month or twice that of the immediate post Brexit reading.
So, if corporate confidence levels are rising and record levels of capital investment are flowing in, is that reflected in the talent available to make good on such investment?
The answer there appears less convincing.
According to an interesting piece of research from the Open University, current skills shortages are costing UK firms more than £2bn annually, in terms of recruitment, temporary staffing and increased salary costs (this equally does not factor in the costs to the business of battling on without such talent). 90% of the 400 firms in the research had faced hiring difficulties over the last 12 months and were resorting to raising salaries and spending more money with recruitment third parties.
Of equal concern from earlier in the week was a report from the Local Government Association, which suggested that the current skill gap would not only cost the UK and its employers £90bn by 2024, but would also see some 4.2m highly skilled jobs remaining unfilled due to a talent dearth. The report is quick to stress that Brexit will exacerbate this problem as “higher-skilled migration has historically played an important role in addressing skills gaps”.
And conclusions from law firm Baker McKenzie are hardly a source of optimism. From around a month ago, a survey of 250 degree-qualified EU nationals currently working in FTSE 250 companies in the UK, suggested that 56% of them were likely to leave the country before the conclusion of Brexit negotiations. And a similar number had received no guidance or support from their employer as regards Brexit implications.
Let’s leave the final example of such mounting evidence with Sir Leszek Borysiewicz, Vice Chancellor of Cambridge University, no less. Terming the process he fears so much, Brexodus, he can see a point where the university is threatened by the departure of the quarter of his staff who are non-UK EU nationals (and an even greater percentage who are Post-Doctorates. (His concern about where such important employees may end up combines with worries about the €600m he has received in funding over the last decade from the EU). He believes there is a very clear threat to the global status and standing of Cambridge (and clearly other high-ranking institutions) should such talent choose to work somewhere they feel more welcomed.
Personally, I can’t help thinking this represents a huge opportunity for Human Resources. Rather than the UK economy slumping into deep recession, it continues to grow (anaemically perhaps in the first quarter of this year but likely to increase subsequently). But if the economic Armageddon of Brexit has not materialised, this does not mean the talent diaspora will pass us by too.
As well as making the internal business case about ramping up both hiring and retention activities, organisations should reach out internally to EU nationals within the workforce, creating reassurance and a sense of belonging.
From an external perspective, it is becoming harder to persuade people out of their current jobs because of the residual caution of Brexit, the election and its ambiguous outcome.
People seek clarity, confidence and purpose in a new employer. During times of uncertainty, of U-turns, of doubt, they want to understand what an organisation, what an employer stands for. What is its Why and its Where.
(And in the absence of such, no wonder organisations are having to throw salary premiums at new joiners and spend money with recruiters and not their own employer brand, as the Open University study suggests).
It’s a great time to make the external case to candidates about where you stand – it’s a great time to make the internal case about employer brand investment, growth and expansion at senior levels.
Whilst politicians appear to be dithering about Brexit – hard, soft, crunchy or chewy? – business is demonstrating more traction. Despite (or maybe even because of) the opacity and ambiguity of Brexit, businesses are increasingly demonstrating certainty, confidence and direction. Ambitious employer brands right now have the chance to reflect a similar position, a similar positivity, a similar purpose to candidate audiences.
According to LinkedIn, an organisation’s employer brand is twice as likely to drive candidate employment consideration as the corporate brand, how confident a statement is yours making?
Getting to the heart of your employee mindset 