'Why Companies Aren't Getting the Employees They Need': The Author Follows Up (2013, apply)
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.
With the high unemployment rate, companies find they can get qualified employees that can do the job from day 1. It may take a couple of weeks, or even a month to find that person weeding out hundreds and even thousands of applications. But losing a few days finding the right person, will really pay off over hiring someone that needs training and until they are trained you will not know if they can do the job.
With full knowledge they can find someone that is already trained, the question is:
Why should we bother to train someone we do not know will be able in the long run to do the job, when within days we can find the exact match we need for the job?
If you were the employer, you would wait for the perfect match. They are out there today.
training does not always cost money at least in a long term sense.
standardize the process and document it. there you go.
Write down sop and make it open.
That still costs money to have someone come up with the program, document it, and administer it to all new parties. Not to mention the lost production and downtime spent training the new hire.
I'm a proponent of sticking around for a few years before considering a job switch. When applying for new jobs, employers aren't just interested in seeing all of your acquired skills. They also (in my opinion) want to see that you've accomplished something at each stop.
If you switch every other year, there's no way realistically for you to add any value to an operation. It's rare that someone leaves for significantly more in salary. The whole "grass is greener on the other side," is often true. Obviously, if you have an uncomfortable and difficult work environment with no opportunity for growth....leave. However, most people are trading a decent situation for what is essentially a lateral move and slightly more pay.
My article in The Journal Report on Leadership—"Why Companies Aren't Getting the Employees They Need"—generated an avalanche of reader response. In that piece I argued that companies too often put the blame on our education system for their inability to find the skilled workers they need. Instead, I wrote, companies "need to drop the idea of finding perfect candidates and look for people who could do the job with a bit of training and practice."
My favorite paragraph from the article, which I really believe hits the nail on the head:
A few employers said the amount of money they had to pay to get the talent they needed was outrageous. Indeed, many of the employers who report that there is a shortage of qualified candidates go on to say that qualified candidates won't take the jobs at the wages they are offering them. At this point, it may be uncomfortable but still necessary to bring up how markets work. There is a difference between saying we can't find anyone to hire and saying that we can't or don't want to pay the wages needed to hire. Just as there is no shortage of diamonds even though they are expensive—you can buy all you want at the market price—not being able or willing to pay the market price for talent is not a shortage.
well then your just telling the world it dosent pay to get degrees or go to colledge because there not going to get paid the money there degree demands
Just like more regulation prevents small business from getting ahead, regulations in hiring keep people from filling jobs. I think the only "regulation" there should be is background checks and discrimination laws to protect people by race/disability/age. Everything else is just a waste of time. For example, if I'm applying for a janitorial job cleaning buildings, what the heck does a credit score have to do with that job? I'm not going to be around money, so you can't use that excuse.
Same thing for the long personality tests, like asking me if politicians lie. Course they do. But if I answer yes your filtering system is going to call me a conspiracy theorist and delete my application.
As for candidates quitting after getting the training, that means that the company does not properly reevaluate the employee's new worth to the company. Most people quit for another position because they are not properly valued or bad management. Fix those and companies won't have to worry about it.
If for some reason they don't quit the company will lay them off anyway. Cynical? I leave you with this quote from the great American philosopher Ambrose Bierce: Cynic: A blackguard whose faulty vision causes him to see things the way they are...
Last edited by pvande55; 11-16-2013 at 05:44 PM..
Reason: Add quote
Actually, your post is exactly the reason why more education is needed in this country.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if the poster has a degree hanging on their wall at home...
Quote:
Originally Posted by parried
Just like more regulation prevents small business from getting ahead, regulations in hiring keep people from filling jobs. I think the only "regulation" there should be is background checks and discrimination laws to protect people by race/disability/age. Everything else is just a waste of time. For example, if I'm applying for a janitorial job cleaning buildings, what the heck does a credit score have to do with that job? I'm not going to be around money, so you can't use that excuse.
Same thing for the long personality tests, like asking me if politicians lie. Course they do. But if I answer yes your filtering system is going to call me a conspiracy theorist and delete my application.
Psychiometric testing and credit checks are NOT forms of regulation. They are screening tools utilized by employers to weed out undesirable candidates prior to hiring. Many companies would rather let a position go unfilled before hiring someone who would be a bad fit. In many cases, they lose money on bad candidates, so it's cheaper.
Regardless of how you feel about the subject, and how it may apply to you, business is not a form of charity.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if the poster has a degree hanging on their wall at home...
Psychiometric testing and credit checks are NOT forms of regulation. They are screening tools utilized by employers to weed out undesirable candidates prior to hiring. Many companies would rather let a position go unfilled before hiring someone who would be a bad fit. In many cases, they lose money on bad candidates, so it's cheaper.
Except it would be nice if companies used screening tools that worked instead of HR snake oil. Those psychometric tests are retarded. psychologically profile someone with a simple multiple choice test that is that easy to fake is like trying to give a five day weather forecast with a thermometer and barometer. All they are is a time wasting annoyance to job seekers, and all they select for is how much research the candidate has done on how to beat them.
As for credit checks, all that indicates is the candidate has had financial hardship, the candidate could be irresponsible or they could have had a medical or other disaster that destroyed their finances which is not relevant to the job. Also that is an invasion of privacy and several states have already rightly banned.
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.
