Of late years, astrology has become a field of interest, which starts to interfere with political and social predictions, latest trying to impose itself in recruitment and selection area. More often the compatibility between signs seems to become important in team stability and in choosing a professional.

However can astrology generate valid instruments for human resources management? Can we leave the performance of a company in the hands of planet alignment? Because if we think of selecting employees by astrological criteria, we should think of evaluating them the same way, maybe even professional development should take into account signs and their characteristics.

If we go back to the beginning of astrology, which appeared in early antiquity and at its popularity, we would be inclined to a positive answer, that astrology generates valid predictions, on which we could base our decisions both in human resources in general and in recruitment/selection in particular.

However there are multiple arguments against using astrological predictions.

Let’s start with the beginning: the explicative dictionary defines astrology as a pseudo-science which predicts the future, one’s destiny and features taking into account the position and movement of planets.

Therefore we are talking about a pseudo-science, since despite the appearance of numerous specialists, astrology has never validated its results through scientific research, and sustains the relevance of data by using the historical factor mentioned earlier – it appeared as far back as antiquity.

But maybe the dictionary isn’t the most important instrument of analysis. Therefore we put away the linguistic definition and we concentrate on the multitude of psychological theories, pedagogical and sociological (to many to be enumerated here), that sustain human personality implicitly professional abilities as being the result of numerous factors among which are: genetic inheritance, the environment in which he/she lives throughout the life, educational influences both formal (school, educational institutions) and informal (press, books, surrounding people etc). Maybe the planet alignment has a role in our personality, but how can we know with certainty the percentage of genetics, education and zodiac to calculate the gravity of each factor when analysing the one in front?

We can waive even the psycho-socio-pedagogic history in the present argumentation and come back to our days, at the opinion of contemporary specialists. In 1998, Steven Taylor created an accuracy scale for some selection methods most frequently used („Employee Resourcing”, Steven Taylor, 1998, Personnel and Development Institute – taken over by “Human Resources Management – Practice Manual”, Michael Amstrong, CODECS Publishing House, 2003). The most relevant in the author’s opinion are the assessment centres, in opposition to graphology and astrology.

Why do these methods have such a low relevance? Because they are error generators and do not reveal exactly what we are interested in the selection process: professional knowledge, abilities and specific behaviour of an individual. For example graphology, against the fact that it is a method greatly used in psychiatry and criminology, it’s not at every recruiters use. Moreover, you can’t establish the level of knowledge and professional abilities based on graphological analysis. As far as astrology concerns, it takes into account only things that are exterior to the individual, which have no relevance in laying down the professional profile. We can not know by using astrology which the real abilities of an individual are, but only the ones predicted by the belonging to a sign or by the ascendant.

Let’s do an imagination exercise: let’s assume we work with a company that recruits and selects with the help of astrology and that this thing work fine. However how would it be to evaluate employee performance by the planet alignment and not by their real results? Or what if one of our colleagues announces that because of some planets quadrate he won’t be able to work efficiently in the next trimester? Or that he made a mistake in the project because Mars was in some kind of a position? Could we consider as valid these types of arguments?

There also should be mentioned the ethical aspects which are against human resources astrology. Isn’t invoking some sign particular characteristics in the selection process a form of discrimination? What is the difference between “I’m not hiring you because you’re a Taurus and I don’t like people in Taurus” and “I’m not hiring you because you are old and I don’t need old people”? If the age psychology isn’t accepted as science when we select employees, why would the zodiac be?

Because of the popularity surrounding astrology, invoking scientific arguments against it is a ridiculous measure. Even so, to proceed in adding empiric elements to an activity that just found it’s scientific ways and methods to demonstrate its utility and relevance, means a return in time not at all honourable.

Motivation versus Cutting Costs

The most acute paradigm of the moment is that of performing with fewer employees and of course with them powerfully affected by the present socio-economical context.

Reduction of personnel, cost cuttings, smaller bonuses, grater responsibilities all because of the decimation of teams. Therefore the fight for clients is keener then ever, services and products must be competitive in order to overcome the rough competition and the reduction of consumption.

Can the human resources departments do something as to motivate employees? Or the resignation and expecting better times are necessary?

Resignation seems to have found place in every company and it is certain that no one wants this. Preoccupied in cutting costs, human resources departments sometimes forget that unmotivated employees can easily become saboteurs, volunteered or not in the company they work for. In firing context, due to lack of communication, every employee feels that his position is threatened and therefore a generalised, dangerous and hard to eradicate indifference settles.

The primary error which the men who lead other men make is to put negative solutions in front of the positive ones, concentrating in excluding, instead of keeping and developing that which is better. It all results in a tensioned and agitated working environment which affects both the ones who are fired and the ones who stay and are expected to perform.

Another error is that of finding the general context as an excuse for non-involvement. “They don’t have any place to go anyway, why should I bother motivating them?” Therefore it is forgotten that an employee can bring more damage by staying and using the instruments giving by the company itself, then by leaving the working place.

Last but not least, the excessive preoccupation in saving costs on short term generates on medium and long term huge costs and a lot of stress inside the team, due to the key positions that are now unfilled and which can not be assumed by others. It’s demotivating to become responsible for the results you know you can’t sustain.

But there are solutions as to motivate employees even in difficult conditions.

First of all it is known that people are motivated if they work in an environment in which they job is appreciated. Therefore if we would eye the paradigm of extrinsic motivation: “I don’t have money to motivate them” and concentrate on the intrinsic one which begins from the need of recognition, appreciation, acceptance, we might have motivated employees even in such difficult economic conditions

It is truly hard that when you are under pressure to be positive and transmit constant and relevant feedback. However during a crisis the true leaders are revealed, the ones who can positively influence attitude, spirit and employees motivation.

Furthermore optimal and transparent communication of negative decisions reduces stress generated by the axe above the head sensation.

Implicating key employees in taking decisions on the costs or structures optimisation is also efficient. Not only do they bring an added value to the strategic decisions, but their implication reduces the resistance level they might show in applying those measures.

As for the reducing the number of employees, maximum attention to the new organisational architecture! Are the remaining employees ready to assume new responsibilities? Do they have knowledge and the necessary abilities? All of these questions must find a positive response.

Last but not least the approach “negative succeeded by positive” can be useful. If you were in the position of taking unpopular decisions (firings, cutting wages) try to find some popular measures, positive ones (flexible working program, for example).

Maybe none of the methods suggested here are efficient. However it is certain that the most unlucky choice is to indulge into a bucket of negativism and indifference concerning the motivation of your employees.