Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just read this in a book by a recruiter. His whole premise is that during the interview process employers will continue filtering out/excluding candidates until they find the safest bet, not neccessarily the best fit. I agree with this on many levels and it has given me a new perspective in job hunting and interviewing.
What many or some employers are looking for is anything but ideal candidates. Most of these less than ideal employers (I will call them that) are looking for cheap goods. They consider the hiring process something like shopping for a bargain. How can they get the cheapest thing to get them somewhere close for the short term. They don't think that through very well, or think it for the long term, or anything else. There is no doubt, some or even most employers take the "less than ideal employer" route in looking for candidates. Not what somebody can do based on the whole picture, but how to look good real soon and quick to some say a boss, manager or corporate office. Basically forget anything after that, they want the quick cheap goods.
But I don't know if all managers in every profession are really looking for that.
Some professions require workers who are willing to take risks, for example.
Perhaps HR is looking for the safest candidate, however.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,585 posts, read 81,186,228 times
Reputation: 57820
You can't generalize that all employers are the same. In our case we have set salary ranges, and can only start people at up to the middle of the range, so very little negotiation. We also have a 6 month probation so we can take a chance and if the person doesn't work out, can let them go. For those (5) I have hired in the last 3-4 years there hasn't been any need to choose between the best and the safest, in all cases there was one candidate far above the others in every aspect so the choice was clear, and they have all worked out great.
One way to tell if they are looking for the safe potential employee (or cheap way to look good) is if they over list job requirements. This is the first sign the person interviewing you could care less about what you achieved in similar but differing situations, but they are just checking off a list of requirements that they probably don't even understand about technical matters, training, and so on so even if you way over achieved before you don't get the checks, they are robotically checking off a bunch of things to look good. Believe me it happens more than most know, the initial screeners and interviewers are just checking off to look good and buck for promotions based on looking good.
So basically watch for that overly high check like list of too detailed requirements, instead of them looking at experience in a similar situation using perhaps differing methods or tools.
Different companies require different kinds of workers. One company may require an entire team of salaried experts while another can get away with paying 12 bucks an hour for mediocre "talent". All depends on the job, and the work being done.
What I have personally observed was the recession used as an excuses to slash wages. Companies can get away with things like this during recessions because people are afraid of losing their jobs. After the recession, many companies had trouble finding the kinds of workers they needed, mostly because of the poor wage offerings. Companies never bothered (or tried) to hike wages back up, and so today, they are struggling to fill a vast quantity of vacancies. Reap what you sow...
I'm not sure what a "safe" candidate is. I'm guessing it's a respectful way of describing someone who will work peanuts.
My office has been kind of wrestling with this too. We are located in a mid-major metro (Indianapolis), but have been having a hard time attracting and retaining talent. We pay pretty well, but the nonlocals who were hired (aside from myself and one foreign worker) all left within a year to major markets.
The site manager has been trying to attract locals only, and then getting them up to speed. He reckons it's easier to get someone up to speed that wants to stay in the area instead of constantly having to hire because people go to the big cities.
I've hired people as well as have read lots of career books and participate on several online forums. I think that employers look for an overall fit, not just a bunch of tangible skills, or specific number of years of experience.
So far just saying the original poster is vague doesn't seem to cut it as an explanation from employers, at least in my opinion. It is vague to say "overall fit" or "talent" too. I have worked at large employers, government, been in a position to hire many myself as a corporation on million dollar deals, but one thing is super clear. If anyone hasn't noticed how many jobs are now outsourced overseas, especially in engineering and science they should look around and get to know other fields a little better. In science and engineering, the US has outsourced so many jobs there are super talented people out there working in 1/8 the capacity they once were. For a few years in a company I did work for there were 25,000 top notch scientists and engineers there, that is all done in Malaysia now and the company has gone downhill real fast. But it was safe thing for the large corporation, they got no questions in Malaysia where they put the facilities, over here corporate offices probably gave out promotions. It was safe and looked clear to them. But it backfires now, as all that talent here is doing other things and not bringing new products to that company of what were hugely talented people. They are almost now out of ideas and have nearly disappeared outside of a few products left. I can't say what is in that companies future but that is the kind of thing that goes on with safe bets. Some things look good on paper, saving millions, letting talented people go to hire cheap labor overseas. All of it was safe and on paper super looking. There is just a huge something lost in HR departments, and part of it can be attributed to what the original poster pointed out. It isn't vague to me. It is clear.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
