RIGHT RECRUITING

This month I’d like talk about something I saw on the news a few weeks ago. I first heard about this topic late last year. It then became a mid-level headline a few weeks ago when New Jersey passed a law banning its practice last month.

It appears that over the last year or so, a growing number of companies have included something unusual in their job advertisements. They have been saying something to the effect of “Only Currently Employed Candidates Will Be Considered”. Put simply, if you are out of work, do not apply for this job. They will not accept resumes from people currently unemployed. Once this was brought to the attention of some state governments, this type of ad was declared discriminatory and outlawed. It brings to mind the proverbial INNA (Irish Need Not Apply) storefront help wanted signs at the turn of the century.

It would be easy to make this a discussion of right vs. wrong. Let's not take the obvious road to decide if this is actual discrimination. Instead, let us look at what this says about the labor market. After all, it is strange that a company wants to shrink, rather than expand, its labor pool. I think that last point is rather important.

To some folks, employers are the epitome of greed. A day doesn't pass in which a talking head states that employers are engaged in a rush to the basement in an attempt to find cheap labor. For many, employers are cold and heartless and are only interested in paying their staff as little as possible. Many of you may feel the same way.

But, consider this, if employers want cheap labor, why would they try to eliminate the cheapest pool of labor available, the unemployed? If hiring decisions were primarily about getting people for the cheapest salary, I would assume that employers would prefer unemployed candidates. Why tell an unemployed professional or hourly person not to apply for a job when they are likely to be a cheaper candidate than someone currently employed? Behavior is a prime indicator. I always tell my clients that candidate behavior tells us as much about character as words do in an interview. What does employer behavior tell us here?

We should first validate the behavior. To my knowledge, I have no clients who have advertised jobs saying that unemployed should not apply. But many clients have expressed frustration at the indiscriminate nature of the resumes do receive. When you get a resume from a truck driver for a VP job, and vice versa, it takes time to process. While this may at first glance appear unimportant, every resume received is an investment in time and money. This adds up. More important, many clients have expressed bewilderment at the behavior of unemployed candidates during the interview process. Since unemployment insurance was extended to 99 weeks, I've had multiple clients express anger that candidates seem more concerned with applying for a job than getting a job. One client told me that when she calls people after receiving a resume, the first question she gets from those out of work is about salary. Then she gets silence, as if they were doing the calculation as to whether it’s a high enough salary to warrant giving up unemployment benefits. Simple soul that I am, I asked if they were all hourly types. Shockingly, she said no. She felt that some professionals whose spouse was still employed had gotten comfortable in a new stay at home routine.

Of course, this is anecdotal evidence and does not apply to all, or even most, of the unemployed. But over the last year, I have heard enough complaints to add credence to the belief. After all, something is driving some companies to exclude unemployed people from their staffing process. I can't overstate how counter-intuitive that behavior is. A bottom line mentality would create a desire to consider only those most desperate and interested in finding employment rather than engaging in the opposite. Maybe not. Occams Razor has its exceptions.

Much has been made about the mismatch between the labor pool and employer needs. It was the subject of our last White Paper and I often read about people's skills eroding the longer they are out of work. This is all true but I think something even more personal happens to the longer term unemployed. I've seen it with candidates at Right Recruiting and I think that's what's causing the above mentioned employer reaction.

What could make an employer ask the assumedly least expensive employees to basically disappear? It's not a loss of candidate skills. A more affordable candidate allows time for training. It's not cruelty or bottom line thinking. A motivated out of work candidate might provide great value.

Put simply, some of those out of work for an extended period change their personal value system. This makes them a risky hire because their behavior, once hired, becomes unpredictable. Not only that, their behavior in the employment process can become, for lack of a better word, bizarre. This creates problems for employers who are sincerely trying to find the best person for the job. Mixed signals from a candidate send ripples throughout a carefully culled candidate pool. That can lead to static in an employer's decision making process. Employers do not like to gamble on staffing issues.

Now for my favorite part of the White Paper, anecdotes. Here are 3 real life situations that exemplify what I hope you will agree is bizarre candidate behavior.

SALLY M. MARKETING
Sally worked for over 10 years in a mid-level, 100k staff position for a very large chemical firm before being laid off almost 2 years ago. She found Right Recruiting in 2010. We were looking for a Director of Marketing for a mid-sized firm based in Philadelphia. I was dubious at first because Fortune 500 staff suit types usually do not click with my clients. But Sally made a good presentation and seemed entrepreneurial enough for them to interview. Salary was no problem. The job actually paid 20k to 30k more than she had been making. Please keep in mind that she had been out of work for a year at this time.

Hers was one of 5 resumes we presented to the VP of HR and COO and she was one of 3 people slotted for an interview. We called her to schedule. I got a bit worried when it took her 2 days to return the call but we confirmed her for a Tuesday morning interview with the company's executive team.

On Monday morning she sent me an email canceling the interview. She had made a "trial commute" on Sunday and it took her 45 minutes and she assumed that with traffic it would take 90 minutes, too long to commute. I emailed back saying that I know many people who commute between NE Philly and Cherry Hill, NJ and that it would probably be a 45 minute commute, give or take 5 minutes. Gosh, she could get to Harrisburg in 90 minutes. The job was 15 miles from her house. Perhaps she chose a bad route. I never heard back from her and, embarrassed, I cancelled the interview.

Synopsis: Six figure income professional, unemployed for over a year cancels an interview with one day's notice based on an inconsistent and illogical premise. Two months later she reconnected with me reminding me she was still looking.

ERIC Q. SALES
Eric graduated from college in 2008, a lousy year for business majors to graduate. For two years he worked in commission sales selling windows to homeowners. He never made more than $32,000 before being laid off 6 months earlier. He came to us for an industrial client seeking people for a salaried Junior Inside Sales role. When I received the resume, the background looked average but he had also been to HVAC trade school and I knew that would resonate with my client. I called him.

He seemed like a nice fellow. He started his career in a very tough sales environment after graduation and, after being out of work 6 months, wanted to get his career going. We set him up for an interview.

Well, he did better than Sally. Eric actually showed up. Not only that, he did well and my client wanted to hire him. He liked the job and appreciated the fact that there was a training program. On a Monday morning, I told him my client wanted to formalize an offer. They would make an offer of $36,000 salary (higher than his highest commissioned income) and pay a bonus. They would also give him $2,000 to help him move from his apartment an hour away so he could be closer. They would also give him a raise in 6 months. He asked if he could speak with his father and girlfriend and get back to me by the end of the day. Of course, I said.

He called at 5. His girlfriend was on-board but he wouldn't speak to Dad till the evening. Was the next morning ok for an answer? Sure.

The next day, when I hadn't heard from him by 11, I called. No answer. I emailed. No response. I called again at 4 and emailed. The next day I called and emailed. I never ever heard back from him. To this day neither I, nor my client, have any idea what happened.

Synopsis: Junior professional with an offer to start his career in a salaried, training oriented job disappears once faced with actually having to start a job. For those who remember Maynard G. Krebs - “Work! Shriek!"

SAMUEL P. ENGINEER
Sam was not a candidate of ours. Occasionally, people call me and ask for advice. When I can, I give it. Sam was an engineer out of work for a year. After interviewing with 10 companies, he had finally gotten an offer. He wasn't sure if should accept and wanted my opinion. It was local and in his industry so I asked him what his concerns were. This was a 45 year old professional out of work for a year who had finally received an offer. I was very curious as to why he had not already eagerly accepted.

Sam had 2 concerns. One, a year ago, his outplacement people told him to never accept his first offer. Two, it was a lateral offer and he felt he should be getting more money. He was actually adamant about the latter.

As gently as I could, I told him his actual salary now was $0 per year so it was a pretty big, literally an infinite, raise. Relative to this being his first offer, as tactfully as possible, I mentioned that it was not only his first offer, it was his only offer. He thanked me and hung up, sounding unsatisfied.

Synopsis: Someone with no income for a year is more interested in process and appearances than actually getting and doing a job.

These are just 3 stories out of thousands but remember, I have other, similar stories, as do my clients and, no doubt, other recruiters. I think that the attempt to eliminate the unemployed from a company's employment process stems from a lack of predictability in many candidates who've been out of work for a year or more. To say it directly, something changes in their self-image and value system. They are difficult to evaluate and it's difficult to predict their success or failure in a job.

I think that this change can be broken down into three areas. The first is shifting priorities. The second is fear of failure. The third is a lack of control. Each of the above examples is representative of a different shift.

Sally M. Marketing is an example of shifting priorities. Sally was laid off from a large firm that provided her outplacement assistance. For months after losing her job, that outplacement firm gave her a place to go and people to talk to around a water cooler. It was just like work! Only better! She could show up at 10am, talk with her peers about their experiences and get home in time for Oprah. It looked and felt like work but, alas, it wasn't. Sally had also been counseled to fill her day with activities. Monday, Wednesday and Friday afternoons at aerobics and Tuesdays doing volunteer work at her kid’s school.

Sally thought of herself as an achiever so she set goals. Sally would be the best darn aerobicist and school volunteer around. Those activities became her identity, just like 2 years ago her identity was based around her work. As interviews came Sally's way, they had to be scheduled around her activities, not the other way around. Eventually, her world reversed upon itself. Two years earlier, work was primary and activities were secondary. Now, activities were primary and work prospects became secondary. At some point, the actual idea of going back to a full-time job collided with giving up her new identity. This is truly an insidious process and can sneak up on people. They eventually find reasons not to pursue jobs, waiting for the perfect job that never comes.

Eric Q. Sales represents the second category, fear of failure. This is an interesting phenomenon. In recruiter jargon, it's called "being afraid of the job". That phrase is often used to describe situations in which, for no apparent reason, someone turns down a job offer that seems to be amazingly generous. That certainly fits Eric.

Not working is easy. There is no boss. There are no deadlines. There is no failure. Certainly, no one gets blamed anymore for being out of work. Actually, the opposite sometimes appears to be true. There is a whole industry, from government to media to family to peers that will tell someone like Eric that there is no stigma in unemployment. Hey, it's tough to fail at being out of work. We are all above average!

What happens when someone is faced with leaving that cocoon of self-esteem to enter a world of performance and results? They get scared. They freeze. Sometimes, like Eric, they hide. The cocoon doesn't have alarm clocks set for 5 am. It doesn't have people needing you to do something NOW. It just has a nice, nonjudgmental rhythm to it. Someone in that cocoon for too long can be paralyzed by indecision. They know they should leave but, golly, they don't want to. They will often disappear in the middle of the hiring process, like Eric. These are the people that will accept a job yet never show up on their first day. They avoid being judged a success or failure by not entering the field of play at all. They avoid because an explanation would involve unpleasant self-analysis. Rather than a yes or no, they answer with silence. Once again, like Eric.

Of course, that leaves Samuel P. Engineer for our final criteria, lack of control. That can best be described as a situation in which, over time, a person experiences nothing but rejection. Finally, when they experience acceptance, they take out the rejection on the poor sap giving them the acceptance. It is a painful thing to see.

By the time Samuel had received his job offer, he had been through the wringer with 10 other firms, experiencing rejection in each situation. For some jobs he was overqualified, for some under qualified and for others, he just lost out to another candidate. That happens. But, in some people, it creates an anger or bitterness that reveals itself in subtle, self-destructive ways.

For a year Sam had felt that his life was out of his control. He had experienced a level of rejection unimaginable to him. That, understandably, created a desire to reestablish control. There was a little demon in him that wanted the opportunity to emerge and get retribution for those previous rejections. People in that situation often reflexively lash out at the first company that actually wants to hire them. They need to reestablish control. They yearn to finally have the opportunity to be the rejecter rather than the rejected. Sam was working hard to find a justification to turn down his offer.

I can actually give a more personal and immediate example of this desire to reject. I have a VP of Sales job to fill. As part of the process, we ran an ad for that job. As many of you know, we make a good faith effort to get back to people who have sent us resumes, even if they are not a match. However, we don't like to go over the job without having already received a resume. First, it's inefficient. Second, it's not fair to those who do send resumes first. It's a form of cutting into line.

One afternoon I got a phone message from a fellow who had some questions about that job. I didn't call back that day and the next morning walked into another message saying, testily, that he had left a message the day before and that, "as a professional courtesy" I owed him a call back. Later that day I called back. I wanted to ask him to send a resume and to let him know that it wasn't helpful for him to be so angry at not hearing back within a day.

He launched right into his background, reading me a script about his credentials. He'd been out of work for a while, it appeared. I had to interrupt him to ask him to send a resume. I tried to remind him that this was not a good way in general to apply for a job. Employers don’t want resumes recited to them. There is no such thing as “Resumes on Tape”.

He exploded. The next thing I heard was, "not considering me will cost you a fee!" He then hung up on me. He rejected me first!! This was a fellow who was itching to get angry at someone. I was, to rewrite our logo, in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Now, imagine that you are a growing company and you are trying to hire multiple people. In your interviews over a year, you've met all the above people multiple times. Would you have the patience to temper your frustrations and not draw conclusions about every out of work candidate? At some point, won't it be tempting to just say, "the heck with it, these people are cuckoo, only employed people for me"?

So, where are we? I think we are now better able to recognize and understand unusual candidate behavior among this set of candidates. Maybe that will allow us to intercede earlier in the process when something like this pops up and let the offender know how their behavior is being seen. Maybe that will defuse the situation.

Maybe, reading this, people can remind themselves that, while commiserating with someone out of work is fine, maybe, at some point, the person should, like, you know, consider interviewing for and accepting a job. Right now, there are companies that want to hire people. Being the best little aerobicist won't pay the bills. There is a legion of voices, from outplacement people to politicians to talking heads whispering, "it’s ok" in the ears of the unemployed. They spoke clearly to Sally M. Marketing, Eric Q. Sales and Samuel P. Engineer.

The fact is, the longer someone is out of work the more questions an employer will have about their skills and motivation. You can't legislate that away nor can you expect employers to take unwelcome risks when choosing their staff. If this all sounds cold and heartless, I am sorry. The intent is to explain why some firms do what they do. Hopefully, that can lead to a behavioral shift back to normality.

As a last test, if my statements made someone angry, I am forced to remind that person that to get angry at someone who is trying to help is part of the problem. As has been said many times before, don't shoot the messenger. If you see people like me as the problem, you are wrong.

As ever, thanks for getting this for and, please, remember Right Recruiting for all your employment needs.