|
A Right Recruiting Newsletter, 7/2007
A recent visit to a new client reinforced the need for managers to be attentive to market conditions when they put together job specifications. In earlier Newsletters, we talked about how demographics can change the availability of candidates at the 3-8 year level of experience. Many companies build most of their professional level openings around candidates at that level. At that time we pointed out that the traditional default candidate for most professional level jobs, someone with 3-8 years of experience, was a creation of the baby boom generation’s entry into the professional workforce, primarily in the 1970’s. There were lots of potential employees with the desired sweet spot of experience so most jobs were created around that profile. Frankly, it was the easiest type of person to find. That has continued to this day, with 75% percent of jobs listed basically for the same level of experience.
In that earlier Newsletter, we reminded managers that the bubble of similar experienced candidates was the creation of a distant generational bubble. After all, they called it the baby boom for a reason. That bubble has long since burst. We suggested that managers re-focus their attention on more senior or more junior candidates to avoid over-bidding for the same person sought by every other employer. We said this in 2004, when the market was still soft, but it has finally becoming obvious to others that, gee whiz, there are not a lot of people out there looking for new jobs.
Well, in that visit to our new client, it became clear that the situation right now is worse than I had originally thought. There is uniqueness to the current labor market that reinforces a manager’s need to re-jigger his specs. This uniqueness is a ripple effect of the soft labor market in 2001 to 2004.
The job in question is an engineering job, but it can easily have been marketing, HR or any professional position. Let’s analyze this logically.
My client wanted someone with 5 years experience, give or take a year. This is everyone’s default job spec, someone already trained by others yet who is junior enough to be affordable and manageable. Now, here is what I realized as I was listening to them. It’s now 2007. Someone with 5 years experience would be a 2001 or 2002 graduate. Like everyone, my client wanted some specificity in the person’s background, certain types of products and career experience in their 5 years. Hence the problem.
The supply of potential candidates available to my client was a direct result of how many people were hiring fresh grads in that field in 2001 or 2002. Unfortunately, in the hypothetical years of graduation, 2001/2002, very few companies were hiring fresh grads, engineers or others. Many college grads back then struggled to find any type of work at all. Many grads started their careers, not in their chosen fields, but in quasi or even non-related jobs. Over time, this group of unlucky people has slowly been able to mainstream themselves to take advantage of an improving employment market and is starting to make up for bad graduation timing. Let me give you an example in the technical world. This example can apply to many areas beyond engineering.
John Smith graduated from Drexel in 2002 as a BSEE. His goal was to work in electronics doing hardware and software design. Unfortunately, John graduated into a world where every telecom company and electronics firm was laying off people. Not only were there fewer jobs available, there was significant competition, cheap and desperate competition, for the few visible openings.
One of the few industries hiring back then was pharma. Consulting firms were hiring lots of people with general technical backgrounds to do validation work. It wasn’t BSEE work but it was engineering. John Smith got hired in a validation slot. His frustration at not doing true electronics work was mitigated when he spoke to fellow grads who had not gotten any jobs yet.
A few years ago John realized that the electronics world was improving and entered the market for hardware/software jobs. As you can guess, he had no direct experience in that world and had been doing validation work for 3 years. He struck out on many of his interviews because of a lack of design experience. John eventually got an offer to work as an Applications Engineer for an electronics firm, which he accepted. After a year he moved to a design role within the same company. It’s taken him a few steps but he is now where he wanted to be when he graduated. Three years later he enters the market again.
John’s saga is not unusual. The problem with John as a candidate now is that his resume is not "clean". He doesn’t have 5 years in one industry, much less with one employer. To the uninitiated manager he has two things that are wrong. One, he looks like a job hopper. Two, he doesn’t have 5 years of direct electronics design experience. While the first can be understood and explained, it’s the second issue that is always the hang-up. Sure John has 5 years experience as an engineer but only 1-2 years that are valuable in an electronics design job.
What a manager needs to understand now is that John represents a great many people at that 5 year range. I call them "flawed". Not because they are personally flawed. I call them flawed because managers don’t see what they want to see when they look at their resume - 5 years of progressive and continuous experience in their exact field. The candidate is immediately on the defensive based upon their resume. Often, they are not considered because they don’t fit the exact specs.
As a manager looking to hire in your department, I think it is time to reevaluate your specs and look at alternatives beyond that perfect 5 year experienced professional. There are a couple of suggestions I would make:
- Can you or your existing staff invest training time in a more junior person? If you find someone with the right attitude and interests, can you bring someone up to speed with only one year of relevant experience?
- How about a more senior person, 10+ years? This decision should be based on two things. One, budget. Can you upgrade salary? Two, job content. Will a more senior person be bored? If you can deepen the job duties and pay more, you may actually get more bang for your buck at the senior end. There were lots of people being hired as fresh grads in 1996-1999. The potential candidate pool is deeper.
- Have you eliminated people at the 5 year level for the wrong reason? Are they like John Smith? Too many jobs and not enough direct experience? Consider this, in the 6 months or more it may take you to find the perfect person, you could have turned John Smith into a good employee. While John did not have 5 years in electronics, his earlier 3 years in validation have matured him and developed his work ethic and character. Surely that counts for something.
This is a real-life problem for a lot of people now. If the person you want literally does not exist, what do you do? Over the last year I have seen job descriptions for jobs where there may be actually less than 50 people within 30 miles that fit. Keep in mind that is 50 people that fit. Not 50 people who are looking for a job. Not 50 people who are affordable and who actually have interest in working for you. This is where managers sometimes get themselves in trouble.
Recruiters, either external agencies like Right Recruiting or internal departments, can’t create a person for you. Recruiters can’t talk someone into your wonderful job opening. Despite what many of my brethren think, recruiters can’t sell someone a job that they don’t want. This is the biggest disconnect I have seen in my career between reality and perception.
When you give you job to a recruiter, it’s not the same thing as hiring a headhunter. We’ve touched on this in earlier e-mails. Some of the differences include cost, retainers, etc. You will spend 3 to 4 times as much as you do now, most of it guaranteed. However, that is not the biggest difference. The biggest difference is your commitment to do anything possible to bring the right person on board.
Headhunter searches that we have done are for senior and executive people. Our clients will do what it takes to entice the right person to those jobs - relo, perks, bonuses, etc. The salary structure is defined by the candidate and a headhunter knows that the right candidate, even if they are not initially interested, can be persuaded with a lucrative package. In other words, the candidate can be bought. A package can be put in front of them, as part of the recruiters sales process that can entice the uninterested.
That is unlikely to occur for your jobs. They are not at the right level. You have an existing department and salary structure. You don’t have the weapons to interest someone who is not interested to begin with. A slick and aggressive approach by a recruiter might convince such a candidate to interview with you. Any recruiter can promise a candidate too high a salary, a career track that is fictional, etc. to get them to interview. Accepting the job is a different story. This is how companies get a series of turndowns and no starts. The job specs don’t mesh with the most likely candidate pool and that creates frustration. It’s not the recruiters fault. It’s not HR’s fault. It’s the specs fault. Salary may not be high enough. Job may not be interesting enough. Or, you may have an ideal candidate profile of someone who does not exist, or, who is so rare that you will need weapons to entice them that you do not possess.
The earlier in your process that you can reconnect your specs with the market, the sooner you will fill the job. Filling the job in a month with someone with 2 years less experience than is ideal might be better than getting desperate and overpaying for someone with closer experience a year from now. That year in your organization may allow you to create an better, more affordable employee.
Unfortunately, what this does is to change your decision making process greatly. It increases the emphasis on evaluating the candidate’s subjective experience and traits (character, motivation, etc.) and de-emphasizes the quantifiable and objective criteria (years of experience, direct industry knowledge). Keep in mind that those objective criteria still exist. It is the subjective criteria that must also be considered and weighed.
In our next Newsletter we will outline some tools and processes that might help you with those subjective criteria. Until then, please remember Right Recruiting for your employment needs. Thanks. Jeff
|