Introduction
This is an editorial that I wrote in September, 2011. Despite being submitted to several major newspapers, it was never printed, which is too bad since it describes a major flaw in the recruitment methodology used by many, if not most, US and European companies. Years later I still believe this article offers a relevant perspective on the long-term unemployment and underemployment problem faced all over the world. I continue to retain the full copyright for this article (just in case!).
Hire Talent, Not the Perfect Applicant
One of the problems encountered by today's job seekers is that many employers only hire candidates who they consider a "perfect match." Over the past several years an overabundance of applicants, the proliferation of online applications, and the increasing dependence upon “talent management and recruitment software” have fostered the use of a simple metric used by many hiring managers to help them quickly select qualified applicants. That metric defines a qualified candidate as one who is currently employed in a position that is the same as the vacant position being offered. This reasoning is intended to identify workers who can be immediately placed in a job and work at near 100% capacity with little or no training. However, talented applicants who may have different work experience but the capacity to quickly learn new tasks and surpass the abilities of industry veterans have been abandoned. Why waste time and shrinking budgets on training a less experienced employee when someone else already knows how to do the job?
This seemingly efficient strategy is shortsighted and has created an environment in which millions are trapped in suffocating careers they dislike, unable to break free of a position that no longer challenges their abilities or provides an opportunity for advancement. For those who are unemployed, it is even more difficult to find a job- even when one is willing to make a career change in order to find any type of work. For example, how many recruiters would consider hiring a stock broker, whether currently employed or recently laid off, to be a manager trainee at a retail store? This narrow recruiting strategy also has the effect of retaining employees who may only be lackluster performers and/or harbor attitudes of indifference or disdain toward both their jobs and employers.
This is not to say that all employees are in the wrong line of work. But recruiters' reluctance to identify talented workers and allow them to make career changes may be one of the reasons that so many of the nation's workers have stagnated and become apathetic. Why change jobs if it only entails performing the same duties for a different company that could be more unpleasant or more prone to layoffs than one's current employer? It is frightening to think that searching for the “perfectly experienced” applicant, rather than the most intelligent, resourceful and talented one, has become the most widely adopted recruiting technique. It seems as though the Crash of 2008 locked everyone into whatever position they held at that time. If this trend continues, one's first job could well be a lifetime appointment.
Hiring managers should be seeking smart, enthusiastic candidates with transferable skills who are eager to learn the subtleties and nuances of a new job. Such individuals will become productive, long term superstars rather than mere cogs that are placed in a perpetual motion machine. It is true that hiring someone new to a job may require additional training and temporarily disrupt operations, but if the worker is talented and adaptable, then the long term advantages will outweigh the short term costs. Fresh eyes can also help solve problems that veterans often overlook by challenging the status quo.
Talented workers need to be given more opportunities to try different jobs. Applicants with little experience in a particular field could be offered positions on a temporary-to-permanent basis in order to decrease an employer's risk of having to deal with poor matches. It would also allow applicants with only the highest drive to succeed to take a calculated risk on a new career. And hiring less experienced, but motivated, workers would create vacancies that would allow others to seek employment that better suits their skills.
Additional turnover in the job market may be more cost effective for businesses in the long term. Just imagine how much more productive a workforce could be if more employees were given the opportunity to find jobs that truly match their skills and interests. Finding the "perfect candidate" should not be about finding an applicant who is already doing the same job that is being advertised. It should be about identifying applicants who thrive on challenging work and who will blossom from an innate passion for a particular industry.
This is an editorial that I wrote in September, 2011. Despite being submitted to several major newspapers, it was never printed, which is too bad since it describes a major flaw in the recruitment methodology used by many, if not most, US and European companies. Years later I still believe this article offers a relevant perspective on the long-term unemployment and underemployment problem faced all over the world. I continue to retain the full copyright for this article (just in case!).
Hire Talent, Not the Perfect Applicant
One of the problems encountered by today's job seekers is that many employers only hire candidates who they consider a "perfect match." Over the past several years an overabundance of applicants, the proliferation of online applications, and the increasing dependence upon “talent management and recruitment software” have fostered the use of a simple metric used by many hiring managers to help them quickly select qualified applicants. That metric defines a qualified candidate as one who is currently employed in a position that is the same as the vacant position being offered. This reasoning is intended to identify workers who can be immediately placed in a job and work at near 100% capacity with little or no training. However, talented applicants who may have different work experience but the capacity to quickly learn new tasks and surpass the abilities of industry veterans have been abandoned. Why waste time and shrinking budgets on training a less experienced employee when someone else already knows how to do the job?
This seemingly efficient strategy is shortsighted and has created an environment in which millions are trapped in suffocating careers they dislike, unable to break free of a position that no longer challenges their abilities or provides an opportunity for advancement. For those who are unemployed, it is even more difficult to find a job- even when one is willing to make a career change in order to find any type of work. For example, how many recruiters would consider hiring a stock broker, whether currently employed or recently laid off, to be a manager trainee at a retail store? This narrow recruiting strategy also has the effect of retaining employees who may only be lackluster performers and/or harbor attitudes of indifference or disdain toward both their jobs and employers.
This is not to say that all employees are in the wrong line of work. But recruiters' reluctance to identify talented workers and allow them to make career changes may be one of the reasons that so many of the nation's workers have stagnated and become apathetic. Why change jobs if it only entails performing the same duties for a different company that could be more unpleasant or more prone to layoffs than one's current employer? It is frightening to think that searching for the “perfectly experienced” applicant, rather than the most intelligent, resourceful and talented one, has become the most widely adopted recruiting technique. It seems as though the Crash of 2008 locked everyone into whatever position they held at that time. If this trend continues, one's first job could well be a lifetime appointment.
Hiring managers should be seeking smart, enthusiastic candidates with transferable skills who are eager to learn the subtleties and nuances of a new job. Such individuals will become productive, long term superstars rather than mere cogs that are placed in a perpetual motion machine. It is true that hiring someone new to a job may require additional training and temporarily disrupt operations, but if the worker is talented and adaptable, then the long term advantages will outweigh the short term costs. Fresh eyes can also help solve problems that veterans often overlook by challenging the status quo.
Talented workers need to be given more opportunities to try different jobs. Applicants with little experience in a particular field could be offered positions on a temporary-to-permanent basis in order to decrease an employer's risk of having to deal with poor matches. It would also allow applicants with only the highest drive to succeed to take a calculated risk on a new career. And hiring less experienced, but motivated, workers would create vacancies that would allow others to seek employment that better suits their skills.
Additional turnover in the job market may be more cost effective for businesses in the long term. Just imagine how much more productive a workforce could be if more employees were given the opportunity to find jobs that truly match their skills and interests. Finding the "perfect candidate" should not be about finding an applicant who is already doing the same job that is being advertised. It should be about identifying applicants who thrive on challenging work and who will blossom from an innate passion for a particular industry.
Copyright 2011-2019 Seth Palmer