Automated Job Rejection: Or, Cutting One's Own Throat As An Employer

[CountDeMoney]

The Skills Gap Myth: Why Companies Can't Find Good People
By Peter Cappelli June 4, 2012

Last week's disappointing unemployment report has refocused attention on the question of why, despite modest signs of economic recovery in recent months, American companies aren't hiring.

Indeed, some of the most puzzling stories to come out of the Great Recession are the many claims by employers that they cannot find qualified applicants to fill their jobs, despite the millions of unemployed who are seeking work. Beyond the anecdotes themselves is survey evidence, most recently from Manpower, which finds roughly half of employers reporting trouble filling their vacancies.

The first thing that makes me wonder about the supposed "skill gap" is that, when pressed for more evidence, roughly 10% of employers admit that the problem is really that the candidates they want won't accept the positions at the wage level being offered. That's not a skill shortage, it's simply being unwilling to pay the going price.

But the heart of the real story about employer difficulties in hiring can be seen in the Manpower data showing that only 15% of employers who say they see a skill shortage say that the issue is a lack of candidate knowledge, which is what we'd normally think of as skill. Instead, by far the most important shortfall they see in candidates is a lack of experience doing similar jobs. Employers are not looking to hire entry-level applicants right out of school. They want experienced candidates who can contribute immediately with no training or start-up time. That's certainly understandable, but the only people who can do that are those who have done virtually the same job before, and that often requires a skill set that, in a rapidly changing world, may die out soon after it is perfected.

One of my favorite examples of the absurdity of this requirement was a job advertisement for a cotton candy machine operator – not a high-skill job – which required that applicants "demonstrate prior success in operating cotton candy machines."  The most perverse manifestation of this approach is the many employers who now refuse to take applicants from unemployed candidates, the rationale being that their skills must be getting rusty.

Another way to describe the above situation is that employers don't want to provide any training for new hires — or even any time for candidates to get up to speed. A 2011 Accenture survey found that only 21% of U.S. employees had received any employer-provided formal training in the past five years. Does it make sense to keep vacancies unfilled for months to avoid having to give new hires with less-than-perfect skills time to get up to speed?

Employers further complicated the hiring process by piling on more and more job requirements, expecting that in a down market a perfect candidate will turn up if they just keep looking. One job seeker I interviewed in my own research described her experience trying to land "one post that has gone unfilled for nearly a year, asking the candidate to not only be the human resources expert but the marketing, publishing, project manager, accounting and finance expert. When I asked the employer if it was difficult to fill the position, the response was 'yes but we want the right fit.'"

Another factor that contributes to the perception of a skills gap is that most employers now use software to handle job applications, adding rigidity to the process that screens out all but the theoretically perfect candidate. Most systems, for example, now ask potential applicants what wage they are seeking — and toss out those who put down a figure higher than the employer wants. That's hardly a skill problem. Meanwhile, applicants are typically assessed almost entirely on prior experience and credentials, and a failure to meet any one of the requirements leads to elimination. One manager told me that in his company 25,000 applicants had applied for a standard engineering job, yet none were rated as qualified. How could that be? Just put in enough of these yes/no requirements and it becomes mathematically unlikely that anyone will get through.

What do we do about this situation, where jobs are going unfilled while good candidates are out there? For starters, employers should ask themselves whether their current practices are truly working for them. Then they need to ask: Wouldn't we be better off helping good candidates complete the requirements to be a perfect fit rather than keeping positions open indefinitely?

A generation ago, employers routinely hired people right out of school and were willing to provide almost all their skills. Apprenticeships and similar programs provided ways for the employees to essentially pay for the training themselves. Employers — and especially those who expect colleges to provide most of their skills — should also work more closely with educational institutions to develop the candidates they need.

It makes no sense to expect that a supplier will produce what you want if you give it no advanced warning of what that might be and no help developing it. But the first step is to recognize that this problem is self-inflicted.

Peter Cappelli is Professor of Management and Director of Wharton's Center for Human Resources. He was previously co-director of the National Center on the Educational Quality of the Workforce for the U.S. Department of Education. This article was adapted from his new book, Why Good People Can't Get Jobs: The Skills Gap and What Companies Can Do About It, which is out this week.

Software Raises Bar for Hiring
David Wessel
wsj.com

In an essay in this newspaper last fall, Peter Cappelli, a professor of management and human resources at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, challenged the oft-heard complaint from employers that they can't find good workers with the right skills. "The real culprits are the employers themselves," he asserted.

"It is part of a long-term trend," he adds in an interview, "and the recession caused employers to be able to be pickier, to get even more specific in the skills they think they can find outside the company and to cut back on training."

Not surprisingly, his essay drew a lot of response. What did surprise Mr. Cappelli—as he describes in a book, "Why Good People Can't Get Jobs," to be published in June—was the frequency of complaints about the hiring process itself, particularly the now-ubiquitous use of software to screen applicants.

A Philadelphia-area human-resources executive told Mr. Cappelli that he applied anonymously for a job in his own company as an experiment. He didn't make it through the screening process.

Therein lies a problem.

The job market is more than a professional concern for Mr. Cappelli. His son, now 25 years old, graduated in 2010 with a degree in classics from St. John's College and couldn't find a job. Told that health care was hiring, he enrolled at New Orleans's Delgado Community College and got a certificate in phlebotomy, learning how to draw patients' blood. However, he discovered that work experience was essential to land a job. Also, many potential employers were consolidating two medical-related occupations into one, so a phlebotomy certificate alone wasn't enough. He is still looking.

For the entire U.S. economy, a lot rides on correctly diagnosing today's job market. If the chief problem is one of too many workers and not enough jobs, then today's unemployment is treatable and there's a case for more fiscal and monetary policy to stimulate demand, or at least for deferring fiscal austerity. But if the problem is chiefly a mismatch between skills employers need and those the jobless have, then more fiscal and monetary medicine won't do much good. That kind of unemployment is treatable only in the long run—with better education and training.

Mr. Cappelli leans toward the first view but argues that there's more to this. "For every story about an employer who can't find qualified applicants, there's a counterbalancing tale about an employer with ridiculous hiring requirements," he says. In many companies, software has replaced recruiters, he writes, so "applicants rarely talk to anyone, even by email, during the hiring process."

As in other parts of the economy, software has its benefits. It makes applying for a job easier. One doesn't have to trudge down to the HR office to fill out forms. It has broadened the pool of applicants from which employers can choose. It saves money.

But at a time of widespread unemployment, the volume of applications is swamping HR departments, many of which have been downsized to cut costs. That has led employers to further automate hiring—and to become incredibly specific about experience and skills they seek. Screening software weeds out anyone whose application lacks particular key words.

With so much talent looking for work, why not get what you really need? Here's why: Managers pile up so many requirements that they make it nearly impossible to find anyone who fits.

Neal Grunstra, president of Mindbank Consulting Group, a temporary-staffing company, calls this "looking for a unicorn." Mr. Cappelli's favorite email came from a company that drew 25,000 applicants for a standard engineering position only to have the HR department say not one was qualified. One job seeker said "he had been told he was perfect for a given position—except for the fact that his previous job title didn't match that of the vacancy," a title unique to the prospective employer.

As anyone who has applied for a job lately knows, the trick is parroting all the words in the job description but not just copying and pasting the text, which leads the software to discard the application. It's a whole new skill: Clearing the software hurdle is as important as being able to do the job.

Much of what is broken in the U.S. job market will take a lot of work and time to fix. The current approach to training needs repair, for instance.

But some fixes are easier. Employers could, as Mr. Cappelli puts it, "back off the strict requirement that applicants need to have previously done precisely the tasks needed for the vacant job" and "see if they could do the same with some training or ramp-up time." And employers could insist that vendors redo the software so it isn't so picky and flags for personal consideration—rather than discards—an applicant who doesn't quite fit the specifics but might be able to do the job.

[The Brain]

I'm not in a position where I have to humiliate myself by asking a computer for a job.

[MadImmortalMan]

I like when companies demand ten years' experience writing code in a language that was invented three years ago.

[dps]

But some fixes are easier.

Here's one idea--quit taking applications on-line and go back to having job seekers apply in person. 

[garbon]

But some fixes are easier.

Here's one idea--quit taking applications on-line and go back to having job seekers apply in person. 

That sounds like an inefficient process.

[Neil]

But some fixes are easier.

Here's one idea--quit taking applications on-line and go back to having job seekers apply in person. 

That sounds like an inefficient process.

So does a hiring process that is incapable of hiring anyone.

[garbon]

But some fixes are easier.

Here's one idea--quit taking applications on-line and go back to having job seekers apply in person. 

That sounds like an inefficient process.

So does a hiring process that is incapable of hiring anyone.

Well there are more choices than just two inefficient approaches.

[MadImmortalMan]

I've never used an automated system, and the HR people that do use them always seem to demand things of the candidates that I don't care about as the person's future boss and ignore (or don't understand) the things I want. Luckily, the companies I've worked for so far have not had a problem with me doing my own recruiting.

[The Brain]

I've never used an automated system, and the HR people that do use them always seem to demand things of the candidates that I don't care about as the person's future boss and ignore (or don't understand) the things I want. Luckily, the companies I've worked for so far have not had a problem with me doing my own recruiting.

Do you go to an inn and look for 3-6 adventurers?

[MadImmortalMan]

Must know magic missile and prismatic spray. No dual-classes will be accepted.

[Valmy]

But some fixes are easier.

Here's one idea--quit taking applications on-line and go back to having job seekers apply in person. 

That sounds like an inefficient process.

It does strike me that maybe not using bad software may be the way to go.

[garbon]

But some fixes are easier.

Here's one idea--quit taking applications on-line and go back to having job seekers apply in person. 

That sounds like an inefficient process.

It does strike me that maybe not using bad software may be the way to go.

User error!

[Maximus]

It does strike me that maybe not using bad software may be the way to go.

Yep, there's a huge amount of potential for improvement in job sites/databases/etc that could benefit both employers and applicants. It's taking its sweet time being realized.

[Neil]

Must know magic missile and prismatic spray. No dual-classes will be accepted.

I think you're setting your sights a little high by only accepting wizards of 14th level or higher.  These days you don't see too many foes in the office more powerful than the occasional troll.

[Neil]

It does strike me that maybe not using bad software may be the way to go.

The problem isn't the software, but the HR departments wielding it.