Crossing the Chasm of Workforce Irony
Written by Susan Burns
Recruiting is filled with structural issues. I’m not referring to the internal structural challenges that can impede functional excellence. I am referring to the very essence of recruiting – finding the talent you need, when you need it, where you need it, and with the skills and cultural fit that is right for your organization. The talent market is inefficient and the structural issues of this recession have made it even more so. Navigating through the inefficiencies and structural issues presents a unique challenge that is so significant it could slow the recovery, impact the Country’s ability to compete effectively in global markets and permanently impact organizations of all sizes, industries and levels of success. I was struck by the irony in a series of articles over the past week. The articles captured the growing gap between the types of jobs available, what people are looking for in work – and willing to settle for, or not, and some of the elements that are making the impact of this recession on the labor force quite difficult. The NYTs, Jobless and Staying That Way, and WSJs, Some Firms Struggle to Hire Despite High Unemployment, captured many of the challenges. The Forbes article, The Unemployment Dilemma, misses the reality of the situation and instead assumes people enjoy being unemployed and should be happy to have any work at all. This strikes me as being in direct conflict with what we have come to value and appreciate about our relationship with work – which has been about self-improvement to contribute and accomplish more than previous generations. Unemployment is a transitioning tool and is not sufficient to sustain a standard of living, nor should it be.
At the root of the irony is a serious issue that needs to be solved for the health of both individuals and business. As I thought about the issues behind the irony, there are four that I feel capture the essence of what is going on.
The Issues:
- Talent Mobility
- The Engagement – Meaning gap
- Embracing an Anticipatory mindset
- Moving Beyond the Round-peg Syndrome
Talent Mobility
Talent mobility has been a mounting challenge. People are particular about where they want to live and place a higher value on this choice than they have in the past. Lifestyle is valued more than ever and people are willing to stand firm with their preferences. While leading talent acquisition at Waggener Edstrom we encountered this scenario often. The company had corporate offices in Seattle and Portland. Both cities are in the Northwest but they offer very different styles of living. It was a benefit to our recruitment strategy that, in most cases, we could present both cities as options. People typically didn’t waiver and found that one city more than the other met their preferences. I think Portland was winning, but maybe I’m biased.
Beyond choice, a significant mobility issue for people today is their housing situation. The economics of the housing market make it very difficult for people to disengage from their investment. Homeowners are looking at either reduced value or taking a sizeable loss on their investment. While companies are not in a situation to cover losses many have chosen to do nothing at tall, except keep jobs open longer and longer trying to find a local candidate. I have to wonder in this case how these companies value either time or the importance of the role itself. Part of a workforce planning strategy should be understanding which roles must sit in a specific geographical location. If it isn’t a requirement, like retail sales or many manufacturing roles, then why let geography interfere with getting the best Talent? Leverage technology and institute distributed workforce programs to close the distance gap.
The Engagement-Meaning Gap
Why are people willing to invest time in creating apps, blog content, videos and more with no direct return for their time. Or potentially any return for their time. Primarily because it provides them meaning and they get to do something they enjoy. Companies spend millions trying to engage their workforce while the systemic forces inherent in the organization work against engagement. And, high performing employees will tend to disengage more quickly. Which problems need to be solved in the organization and how can the company create a culture of collaboration and innovation that rewards people for great ideas and contributions?
People want to be engaged in their work. They want their work to have meaning and their contribution to be valued. They also want work that aligns with their skill-set and personal values. This is no mystery. We’ve created a societal culture of choice. So, its no surprise that people are willing to hold out until they find a job that makes them feel good about the time they spend at work. Or, find one that is “manageable” as they seek other avenues to fill the void. Periods of great change present opportunities for exploration and we are experiencing significant shifts across the business landscape that are impacting the type of work available, career options and choice – all of which will take time to settle as people readjust. The perceived loyalty gap, of companies towards employees, is perhaps deeper now than it every has been given the rise of transparency. Because the loyalty gap has deepened, people are more particular about the risks they’ll assume with a company and ultimately the choices they’ll make about employment. While it may be quite challenging to work through financial situations the emotional toll of a bad job fit is potentially worse. Needless to say, companies benefit from a strong cultural and job fit as well.
We know that there are plenty of jobs that will never return. And, in some cases, people caught in the middle of the recession may never attain the status and income they had previously. While that in and of itself is emotionally challenging, people are resilient and can adjust in amazing ways when faced with obstacles – and have more choices than ever to pursue. Perhaps more important than the financial component though is the emotional need of finding meaningful work that is challenging and leverages their capabilities and potential. Personally, I think this is one of the greatest obstacles to our recovery – as individuals, as a country and as contributors to global economic success.
Embracing an Anticipatory Mindset
While it’s clear that many jobs will not come back to pre-recession levels, new jobs are being created and other’s are being retooled that require new skills. It’s true that in some instances these jobs require significant training and education. However, in many jobs the skill gap can be closed through on-the-job training or short-term coursework if companies can get better at anticipating their needs and assessing the supply of talent where those skills exist. If the nature of a business is changing and new tools, methods or processes are being developed and implemented to produce a product or service, chances are there will be a skills gap. Our educational system is not designed to effectively reskill, although it could be. Depending on the job level and skill need there could be a variety of options. Ideally, an academic : business relationship would be most effective. We saw this occur during the .com boom years when companies would do everything and anything to get the talent they needed. Many companies established partnerships with universities to create intensive sessions designed to enhance skills and prepare new college graduates for a successful career with their company. Programs were designed to help Liberal Arts students who needed to be taught business and computer skills but possessed other skills that would be valuable to their career success. While this is still an important concept for new graduates it can and should be for experienced talent as well.
If someone with a bachelors degree or MBA wanted to update their skills and pursue a career in sustainable business practices what options are available? Typically, for this and similar situations, the options are very short, 3 – 5 day intensives or full graduate programs. What about a 3 or 6 month intensive? Community colleges are also important avenues and they are working to meet demand. However, without a coordinated and intentional effort between businesses and colleges / universities there is a risk of preparing people for the wrong types of work and / or not addressing the critical skill gaps. Companies can, and are, taking on reskilling within their own environment. But is this happening to the extent needed. Businesses can’t wait for another talent crisis to pursue more creative partnerships and investments, even if they are pursued at a moderate level for now.
Moving Beyond the Round-peg Syndrome
Influenced in part by myth and in part by risk aversion, companies have adopted an even more conservative mentality to their hiring practices than usual. Hiring managers believe there is plenty of talent available (the first myth) so recruiters should be able to match exact job requirements, most of which don’t take into consideration where the company is going – only where its been, and often lack a compelling reason to consider the role and join the company. Too often, both hiring managers and recruiters believe that only those individuals currently employed are worth pursuing (the second myth). While I agree with this mindset during normal times, this is not the case today. Considering people who have been unemployed for longer durations does require a different approach, which could be quite revealing depending on the interview questions and answers, but can be quite valuable for the company. Risk aversion, while understandable during difficult economic times, can also impede a company’s long-term success. Risk aversion comes into play when companies fail to incorporate an “opportunistic” element into their recruitment strategy, especially during down-trending economic cycles, and perpetuates the problem. Honoring the myths and assuming a risk averse mentality often means allocating more dollars to hire or keeping jobs open longer than necessary to find the round peg, both of which have an associated cost.
The real loss here is that companies are missing out on opportunities to further diversify their workforce and build loyalty. Considering talent adjacencies or assessing for “potential” and cultural fit could deliver considerable value. Pursuing an “opportunistic” approach provides companies with greater skill agility, which is important and valuable in uncertain business environments, which we’re sure to see for some time. Applying the additional time and dollars spent on a candidate search to on-the-job development, where possible, also helps diversify the company’s workforce. And, imagine what could be realized in employee loyalty! How much loyalty could employers gain if they invested in unemployed job seekers? What’s the brand value of that move? Additionally, in the time it may take a company to find their round peg they could have successfully on-boarded an opportunistic hire.
One way to think of this is like an apprentice or internship program. A simple approach to opportunistic hiring can be accomplished through planning and a series of coordinated steps:
- determine which roles in the company are appropriate and could benefit from a mix of diverse skill sets and experiences
- reach agreement with hiring managers on a percentage of total roles / hires that could participate in opportunistic hiring and partner with your CFO
- partner with business unit leaders who will be champions of the program
- recognize and reward business partners who’s business units participate
- develop an ROI that demonstrates a reallocation of dollars and lost time to on-boarding, training and development – and ideally contribution and success
- partner with SME’s and the training group, in advance, to identify and/or develop a fast-track development curriculum, including experiential learning
- hire ahead of the curve so there’s time for the hiring manager to support a successful orientation. This is critical to support success and why its important to partner with the CFO. Hiring managers are less likely to be supportive if they’re under-resourced and scrambling to get work done because they have an open role. Help make them successful so they can effectively support the new hire. You can recoup the cost of an early hire and demonstrate the value in your ROI.
Add all this up and incorporate the challenges recruiting departments are encountering as hiring picks up and you’ll see a perfect storm brewing. How many good people are overlooked because recruiting teams are overwhelmed with applications and they lack the resources and/or tools to effectively cull through resumes to find the right-fit applicant? How many people never hear back after applying for a job? How will that impact the company’s hiring in the future? Recruiting will always have structural issues and market inefficiencies. The opportunity is to be creative and proactive to limit the issues outside of your control.
