U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-06-2019, 09:16 AM
 
1,220 posts, read 1,490,937 times
Reputation: 813

Advertisements

Why have larger corporations devalued skill sets?
Having the skill set and being an expert does not give you more than 1% chance of getting a job.
Not having most of the skill set might get you the job anyway.
The 2 sentences combined above means that people with the skill set and people without the skill set have equal chance of getting the job.

Every job posting has a list of skills, but when they are hiring or promoting or not firing someone, there is a lot more emphasis (like 100 to 1) on other things. Sometimes they express their resentment towards anyone who dares to refer to their skills or achievements. At our company, a manager announced that people will not be judged based on how well they do their job at all, rather based on only how they help others with their work.

For example when they say they are looking for communication skills, they are implying that you don't have communication skills, even though you do. You know you do, people you know told you you do. It is a euphemism to cover up something that they would rather not say.
Sometimes HR, other times managers do this.
Some simple jobs can be trained to anyone with an IQ above 85, but some others can only be learned be very talented and dedicated people. So the expectation to hire based on whatever fancy criteria and then teach the guy the job skills later does not work in every profession. Then they produce a garbage product, but never admit what cause this.
This happens more often than not, lets say 90% of the cases.
Is it some kind of psychological tendency of corporate climbers that they have to sign up to this view? How come they don't get caught?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-06-2019, 10:27 AM
 
Location: Chicago area
8,788 posts, read 13,274,979 times
Reputation: 15909
Large companies tend to have lots of managers and big over empowered HR departments. A lot of managers in large companies like to build departments of cronies/buddies and HR values junk science like psychometric testing, various gimicky interviewing techniques etc. This winds up creating lots of dead wood and difficulty hiring at all. Incompetent corporate HR keeps external recruiters in business as companies will pay tens of thousands to hire someone through them instead of just putting their HR back on a leash.

In small companies, they actually need someone who has good skills and any deadwood greatly cripples the business. Some of them don't even have HR and often the manager or even owner does the hiring. This can be a blessing or a curse. If the owner is an intelligent business man or woman who runs the company well you can really have a successful company of experts. If he/she is an idiot it is as bad as letting HR do the hiring.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2019, 10:42 AM
 
3,754 posts, read 2,119,516 times
Reputation: 10246
Lousy management, lousy people becoming managers (Seems like most people who become managers are the worst choices to become managers) and the fact we have become a shallow, superficial society, where being the "right cultural fit" (AKA good drinking buddy) is more important than bringing skills and value to a company. Most managers back in the day, understood the value of skilled people with great work ethics and realized they did NOT grow on trees. This is no longer the case as we have ended a post-ethic crony system where skills no longer matter and companies get ran into the ground.

Companies think they can just skate by with a limited workforce and little no experience and that they can throw just ANYONE into positions of authority and Jobs that require skills, but they are beginning to realize this doesn't work. Now more people are clamoring for skills, and they play hot potato with the same old employees, but these people won't be around forever and there is no knowledge transfer and training to the new generation of workers.

Listen to all the horror stories at most places now. You can hardly find a good employer to work for these days or a good manager.

Last edited by DorianRo; 06-06-2019 at 10:53 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2019, 10:43 AM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
8,579 posts, read 3,001,676 times
Reputation: 12774
The tendency has been to move from somewhat smaller workforces of people with multiple talents and assignments to larger sets of very narrowly specialized workers. Some models see this as more efficient; a more self-serving view is that it makes everything easily replaceable plug-in elements.

Instead of having five people in an accounting department who share and trade twenty tasks, expansion makes it ten people, each of whom has one and only one used skill and one and only one narrow assignment. Finding a good replacement for one of those five would be troublesome; finding someone who's done nothing but A/R on the specific platform used, in the company's field, is trivial.

Generalists and widely-skilled people just don't have a place in this model, which has become widespread.

It's not really about some rampant spread of management. Like government, the need for management expands exponentially, not linearly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2019, 11:27 AM
 
Location: In a vehicle.
5,020 posts, read 3,207,482 times
Reputation: 8203
It might be that they want you to "Learn from us how we want it done"....

I say that because my company prefers operators become Material Handlers, then move onto Tech, Tool Room, Assembly Tech, QC, and even office positions. It could very well be they simply want someone they can "mold" into someone they want to have work there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2019, 11:30 AM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
8,579 posts, read 3,001,676 times
Reputation: 12774
My perception is that companies no longer want to grow and train workers in their hierarchy, no matter how valuable that can be and has been in the past. Minimal internal promotion and development, with extremely targeted hiring for each of those nominally hierarchical positions, seems to have become the rule of the day.

To grow workers creates an investment most companies have developed a horror of - my gad, they might actually owe that guy something like security or higher pay.

(The company I helped run simply could not hire advanced workers... we either grew them over a period of years, or did without enough of the upper ranks. I can't much respect the new model of hiring fitted drones.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2019, 11:42 AM
 
10,058 posts, read 4,648,803 times
Reputation: 15280
Quote:
Originally Posted by buenos View Post
Why have larger corporations devalued skill sets?
Having the skill set and being an expert does not give you more than 1% chance of getting a job.
Because skill set you refer to means niche/specialist. You narrow your box when you specialize, if they don't need your box of skills then what do you have to fall back on?

How often do you see a niche worker like a mason working for anything other than specific construction projects? Most bricklayers are general construction labor, done with bricks then they go paint.

Being in a nice field is fine if it doesn't out grow itself but in field like tech that turnovers every decade...

Even business language is political, before people learned Spanish because of the Mexican factories, then Chinese, now Vietnamese, later Hindi once India comes into the scene.

In Europe people learn German if they want to work in the largest economy in the EU, not counting English for general purposes
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2019, 12:02 PM
 
Location: Pittsford, NY
517 posts, read 624,141 times
Reputation: 578
These companies kill themselves the way they do it now. I am retired but 5 years ago a company ran an ad for a position. I had done the exact thing using same software (not IT stuff but hardware oriented stuff) even with same experience in the medical radioactivity measurements it involved. I could have written the whole thing in 1 to 3 months. I never even got a call since I am so specialized and not exactly right out of college, but my area included the exact thing they needed. I did meet at a trade show the guy they hired, he had no idea what he was doing even after months at the job. I asked him a couple basic questions and he clearly didn't understand the science needed to do the project yet. It would take the guy two years to get up to speed then learn how to write it. Ok, they wanted a non specialized person they got it but I bet that project died by the time they got it ready to sell. No idea really but it is just surprising how things have gotten so odd at corporations. They want low cost, non educated, young - then they will instruct. Ok maybe sometimes that works, but you think they would want to look at all angles including somebody who could do it from the get go but no they don't want that. They want untrained and no skill sets.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2019, 12:07 PM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
8,579 posts, read 3,001,676 times
Reputation: 12774
Quote:
Originally Posted by TestEngr View Post
I never even got a call since I am so specialized and not exactly right out of college...
Of course not. You'd want too much money, and you'd just come in and boss everyone around, and embarrass the 30yo department manager, and complain or quit when you weren't promoted to VP in a month, and probably want to do things some way you learned somewhere else.

Who the hell wants guys like us when they can hire ignorant young nose-pickers with none of those hassles?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2019, 12:08 PM
 
1,220 posts, read 1,490,937 times
Reputation: 813
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
My perception is that companies no longer want to grow and train workers in their hierarchy
I think it's the opposite. They hire fresh graduates and expect to train tehm into experts. In reality 1% of the people can become experts due to a combination of talent, drive, interest... So 99% of their trained "experts" will be mediocre or incompetent. But it doesn't matter to corporate, because they are not driven by results. Bad results are blamed on anyone but the incompetent people and the one who hired them.



Quote:
Originally Posted by MLSFan View Post
Because skill set you refer to means niche/specialist. You narrow your box when you specialize, if they don't need your box of skills then what do you have to fall back on?
I think it's the opposite, again. When I apply to jobs that require half of the stuff I am skilled with, I get an email that I don't meet minimum qualifications.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top