There are some common claims being tossed around in the national self-diagnosis now occurring of why hiring is not significantly picking up. Declarations such as employers are learning to do more with fewer employees and that there is too much economic uncertainty to risk hiring employees, especially after how bad businesses were hurt at the start of the recession, are two assertions often heard.
There is another claim that does not get quite as much play but is starting to be heard often enough. It is that employers cannot hire as much as they would like because there is a talent shortage.
Apparently, the workplace is changing so rapidly that schools and the individuals attending them cannot keep up with newly designed job descriptions, many of which contain specialty requirements. This seems particularly true in industries such as IT and engineering.
However, the alleged shortage is occurring throughout the workforce — or so many employers tell us. We can easily be left with the impression that growth in innovation is now so exponential that it is the fault of our lagging workforce not preparing themselves briskly enough for the new world order.
So, is there really a talent shortage? Upon closer examination it may be that employers are unwittingly perpetuating a shortage and dampening hiring as a result.
Yes, employers do feel there is something wrong with the candidate pool. And that something is that candidates are not qualified enough. If there were more qualified candidates, there would be more hiring. This seems to be their charge. It must be the candidates’ problem, right?
But let us look at how the employer landscape has changed for potential employees. Employers are extremely cost conscious because of the recession. This has caused them to reduce and consolidate their workforces. Specialty hybrid positions have been created to produce more multiple-skilled positions than existed pre-recession. Therefore, when an opening occurs, a candidate is supposed to be specialized in not just one skill set but in more than one. Obviously, the pool of likely candidates just shrunk a lot.
Let us dig a little deeper. Among the costs being saved is in reducing or eliminating training and development. Why spend on onboarding when you can hire plug and play defacto independent contractors for specific projects? With no onboarding activities the expectation is that candidates must be ready to produce with little to no ramp-up time. This may discourage candidates from applying or is the cause of early departures once hired.
Another issue employers must contend with is the huge number of applicants sending in applications. A screening process must be used that selects out all but the “best”. This increasingly means use of applicant tracking system software. Two issues with this type of software. One is that it is not always very nuanced enough or sophisticated. Second, use of even the most effective software requires skillful and dedicated HR use, another area seeing cost cutting.
Potential talent is being screened out. A related issue for employers is maybe they could at least let applicants know that their application was received and processed, then they wouldn’t be left wondering if their application ever made to you, reducing the number of times they apply for the same position.
Sure, the workplace is changing, and it is important for candidates to keep skills current and to apply to only those positions for which they are qualified to succeed. But employers also have a responsibility to examine their hiring practices to see if they are contributing to not only their own “talent shortage”, but also to the stubbornly low levels of hiring nationwide.
