Tagged talent shortage

Will An Increase in Jobs Make Finding Talent More Difficult?

Careerbuilder’s Midyear U.S. Jobs forecast shows that employers will hire more full time, part-time and contract workers in the remaining six months of this year as compared to 2013.

Sounds like good news for job seekers, but as a hiring manager consider that more open jobs means more competitors vying for top talent.  With so many global companies already up in arms over a so-called talent shortage, how much more difficult will securing top talent be now that job seekers have more job options? Continue reading “Will An Increase in Jobs Make Finding Talent More Difficult?” »

Why So Hard to Find Talent? This Image Sums IT Up For You.

Lack of Talent chart

Look at the image above and really try to understand how broken the hiring process has become.  According to a 2013 survey by Manpower, 39% of employers in all industries were having trouble filling open positions.  The graph above explains why.  While positions are left open through selective “choosiness” do companies really consider the true cost of leaving positions vacant?

Number two on the list of the ten hardest jobs to fill according to Manpower’s survey was sales representatives.  Now using the graph above let’s map out a hiring scenario.

I’m looking for a sales representative who has experience selling to C-Level executives at semi-conductor companies with 500 or more employees.  Sounds pretty simple right?  Well let’s see.  After gathering resumes from job postings and recruiters, the candidates are either fed through an applicant tracking system or through HR professionals.  Let’s pretend I have 100 resumes with which to start.  Bam, right off the bat the ATS eliminates sixty candidates.  Most of these aren’t remotely qualified but a few good ones who don’t know how to pepper their resumes with relevant keywords slip through the cracks.  The HR professionals eliminate another ten because, though the applicants are dynamite quota busters, they have either jumped around too frequently or have sold only into smaller companies.

Next, I begin reaching out to the thirty that made the cut.  Only ten of those remaining candidates live within a commutable distance to the office.  The others didn’t want to drive ninety minutes to work.  The employer is willing to relocate a candidate from another state but unfortunately the candidates that would consider relocation live in an area of the country where the cost of living is much lower.

So now I have only ten candidates left who on paper appear qualified.  Of these ten first contacted by a recruiter, three are happy with their current employer.  Great, now I only have seven candidates!

Two of the seven remaining candidates make far more money than what the employer is offering.  “Thanks but no thanks,” they reply.  Now I’m down to a measly five.  Five is better than nothing though.

I video interview the remaining five and show their interviews to the hiring manager.  Within minutes three more are eliminated for “cultural fit” reasons.  Now I’m down to only two candidates, which isn’t great, but at least I saved the hiring manager time by not having to interview all five in-person.

The big issue now is that the better of the two candidates has received job offers from at least one other employer.  Ok, no problem if we act quickly.  But nooooo!  The hiring manager drags his/her feet for seven days and the candidate goes elsewhere.

One candidate remains.  Though not the best this is a good candidate who won’t require much training because we know how employers no longer like to invest in training.  The hiring company makes a good offer to the candidate but unfortunately the candidate’s present company makes a counter offer that is much better.  Guess what?  We are now back to square one.

Keep in mind that from the time the first posting went up until the time that only five candidates remained, six weeks or more may have passed.  During that time and for the next six weeks while more candidates are found, this open sales position will remain unfilled or filled by a sub par candidate.  But hey, it’s only money, right?

What the NBA Teaches Us About Acquiring and Training Top Talent

I have written and ranted much in the last six months about the alleged talent shortage in the U.S. workforce.  I partly blame companies for not investing the money to train their NBA imagecurrent employees.  You see, companies who complain about not being able to find talent are unwilling to spend the dollars to train their present employees to fill the roles for which they can find no one.  They want instead for someone to meet every last qualification before bringing them into the fold, choosing to leave the position unfilled rather than spend money training an employee who might later depart and work for a competitor.

According to a survey of 494 adults conducted by Cornerstone OnDemand, only 35% of them said they had received training and development to better perform their role in the last six months.  Can you imagine if 65% of the San Antonio Spurs had not received any training in the last six months?  How many teams do you think they would beat?  Sure, when the Denver Broncos drafted Peyton Manning they had a fully skilled quarterback capable of throwing TDs and winning games.  This does not mean that special people, both doctors and coaches, weren’t hired to continue rehabilitation on his neck and to ensure he understood how to execute Denver’s style of offense.  Everyone in professional sports receives training on an ongoing basis to keep their skills honed.

The Miami Heat, Boston Celtics and L.A. Lakers are organizations whose primary goal is to make money for their owners which are pretty much how things work at every organization.  Now if the team does not perform well then customers, the fans, stop coming to see the team play.  This in turns affects the owners’ wallets.  Very similarly if your corporate team doesn’t play well, then your customers stop buying your product or service, which in turn affects the owners’ wallets.

How do the major sports franchises ensure that fans keep watching their teams play?  Well first they try to acquire the best talent, either through the draft or free agency, just as an organization might try to secure top talent by using a recruiter or search firm.  When that talent joins they then pay that talent what they are worth (and at times even more than what they are worth).  They also train the talent.  Yes, they know that the talent might leave and play for another team in the future but they also understand that if their team doesn’t practice and receive training right now to get better, they won’t beat many of the other team organizations.  They understand the importance of training and winning.

Sports franchises recognize talent as an investment in their future and are willing to train and pay top dollar to ensure their future stays bright.

Not every corporate organization can say as much.