When Jobs Can't be Filled

Last week's White House 'Jobs Summit' brought together an assortment of corporate executives, academics, organized labor, and politicians to discuss the current state of the job market in the United States, and brainstorm ways to spur job creation.

Most of the comments and opinion pieces that came out immediately after the summit highlighted a number of potential strategies to create jobs; tax credits for employers that increase payrolls, a 'cash for caulkers' program meant to increase construction demand, reduced regulatory burden, and some classic large infrastructure projects for highway, bridge, and port repairs.

But the next morning I heard a brief interview with one of the attendees of the summit, some kind of Flickr - nonsequiturlassexecutive in a not-for-profit agency that made what I thought was a really telling, and surprising observation.  He was stunned at the number of corporate executives at the summit that claimed thay they did indeed have available positions, but were having difficulty finding enough qualified candidates to fill these positions.

Let me see if I get this - unemployment in the US at about 10% officially, and likely effectively somewhere between 15% - 20% and any company anywhere can't find the right candidates? From the context of the comments, this was not the occasional  one or two incredibly specialized positions that many companies have that require some esoteric and truly unique set of skills. 

Rather these statements were made more in a 'Hey we have jobs at 'XYZ Company', we just can't find the right people to fill them.'

What are the possible reasons why, in this climate, a major US corporation would have problems of any significance filling open positions:

Your Company Stinks

Even desperate job seekers are holding out for something, anything better than working for you.  Most of the rats who had the chance already abandoned ship. This is not the problem of the education system, or a broken welfare system, or outsourcing anything overseas. No, this is entirely your fault.

You're Inflexible

Lets say you are looking for C++ developers, with 5-10 years experience, and exposure to your industry. And, you are looking for 'local candidates only'.  So now you have limited your target market to not only a specific skill and background set,  but also to candidates that happen to live within commuting distance of your location.  And if you are in a smaller city, or a larger one that has been in decline, this simple geographic limitation is a large part of your problem.  Is it time to consider telework for these kinds of positions?  The talent you need may not live in your town, but chances are they are out there somewhere and a bit more flexibility on your part may be all that is needed to put that talent to work.

You Can't Recruit

You posted the jobs on the corporate website, and maybe on one of the big job boards.  You got lots of applications, but no one really fit the bill.  And then you tweaked the job description, re-posted it, and maybe even Tweeted out the link once or twice. But still the 'right' candidates have not materialized yet. Oh well, it must be a 'hard to fill' job that Americans just don't have the skills or inclination to perform any more.

You Have no Market

You are selling a product.  A package of pay, benefits, experiences, challenges, networks, etc. in exchange for an individual with the needed skills most precious assets: time and attention. But what if you have overestimated the value of what you are selling, the demand in the market for your offering, or frankly the existence of a consumer for your offering in the first place? Are you pushing the employment version of 'Ishtar'? Long term, if you have a job opening like this, one with truly no market, then you really don't have a job opening at all.  And you are wasting everyone's time, frankly.

You Don't Know What You Have

So you have some open positions that are hard to fill for whatever reason.  Are you sure that you don't already have a 'good enough' source of candidates for those positions already in house, working other jobs?  People currently doing jobs that would be easier to backfill if you redeployed, trained, and developed them to grow into some of the 'hard to fill' positions. Maybe some of these people already possess some or all of these skills, acquired from former employers or on their own initiative.  And they have the added benefit of already knowing your company culture and possess their own interpersonal networks.  Before you go to the White House and complain, are you sure you have done enough in your own development efforts to fill these jobs?

Am I being to hard on employers that cry 'We can't find skilled workers?'

Do you have a real example of a job that you truly can't fill right now?

HR Technology as a Training Ground

Last week on the HR Happy Hour show in between some bombs being dropped (certain HR types being described as 'secretaries' or 'blue-hairs') one really interesting technology related point was made. 

Specifically, experience working in one of the leading HR Technology vendors, perhaps one that focuses on Talent Management technology like a Halogen or SuccessFactors, provides an excellent knowledge base for future success in an HR organization, and that an HR leader in search of talent should consider HR Technology companies as a great source. 

Traditionally software companies have looked to recruit from customer organizations (I was recruited by Oracle many years ago in this way). It was an interesting, and I think correct observation. The best technology implementers possess the following attributes, all of which would benefit the internal HR organization.

Problem Solving

No two HR technology projects are ever the same.  Even if the consultant has spent a few years implementing the same solution, each project haFlickr- raptortheangels a unique set of requirements, demands, personalities, and pressures to make each one unique.  Solving new problems is a critical component for success, and one that the best consultants can master. In particular, being adaptable to varying levels of support from clients, and knowing when to take decisions and when to get help are skills that come easier to experiences tech consultants than to some others.

Results focus

Lots of technology vendors hold their consultants to extremely challenging target for utilization, revenue and profitability.  It can be, at some companies, a high-stress, high-reward type environment. To be a successful technology implementer you have to be able to deliver under pressure, managing multiple and sometimes conflicting demands and expectation.  A good, experienced tech consultant will be cool under pressure and probably be able to teach the rest of the HR staff a thing or two about successful project delivery.

Customer driven

Delivering successful technology projects requires relentless customer focus.  Tech consultants certainly operate under parameters and constraints, but the best ones know how to navigate these and maintain focus on the best possible customer outcomes.  During an engagement, a good consultant learns the customer's motivations, concerns, and weaknesses and incorporates this knowledge into the overall solution delivery. A mindset that continually places customer success first will benefit any internal or traditional 'support' organization.

Breadth of experience

Most technology consultants will have worked on a wide range of projects, across different industries, regions, and market sizes.  The number and variety of these experiences typically affords a good consultant a great range of direct experiences as well as a large network of contacts from which to draw from.  It may have been competency modeling for an accounting firm, performance management at a University, or compensation planning at a professional services firm, a good consultant carries all the learning from these engagements to your HR department.

Technology skills

Certainly if you recruit a new resource from a technology company you'd expect a high level of technical knowledge.  But this knowledge is exactly the kind most HR departments lack, specific ability to assess technology and apply it to help solve HR and business issues.  This is the hardest tech skill for most HR groups to acquire, and it will become more and more important in the future.  If you think your HR shop has enough tech skills today, you are probably wrong, since technology moves so fast, and has become so critical, beefing up your strength in this area is a necessity.

What do you think? Should you source your next key spot in the HR department from one of the HR Technology vendors?  Or am I way too biased as to the importance of Tech in HR?

Staff Meetings and Broken Jaws

The head coach of the National Football League's Oakland Raiders team, Tom Cable, was relieved that the prosecutor in California's Napa County declined to pursue charges that Cable allegedly assaulted Assistant Coach Randy Hanson in a meeting this past August.

If you are not familiar with the case the basic events that are not disputed are as follows:

On August 4, 2009 - Cable (the boss effectively), held a meeting with Hanson and three other assistant coaches, John Marshall, Lionel Washington, and Willie Brown.

During the meeting there was some kind of argument and altercation between Cable and Hanson.

The following day Hanson was seen at a hospital and diagnosed with a broken jaw.

What is disputed is the precise nature of the altercation, and whether or not Cable actually assaulted Hanson.  At least according to the prosucutor, there were enough inconsistencies in Hanson's version of events that pursuing criminal charges was not warranted.

But the prosecutors did note that the other coaches in the meeting claimed that Cable became angry and rushed toward Hanson, but Washington stepped between the two. Cable then ran into Washington, who bumped into Hanson and knocked him out of his chair. The witnesses also told authorities that Cable then grabbed Hanson by the shirt but never struck or threatened him.

Ok, so maybe 'rushing' someone, knocking them out of a chair, and grabbing them by the shirt separately or together don't rise to the level of criminal assault, but I am pretty sure they fail any standard of what is appropriate workplace conduct. 

So certainly the Raiders have suspended Cable, perhaps even terminated him, right?  I mean you can't go around 'rushing' and grabbing the shirts of subordinates can you?

Apparently, if you work for the Raiders you can.  No disciplinary action has been taken on Cable by the team or the NFL (although the league has not ruled it out taking some action). He might get fired anyway for performance reasons, as of this writing the Raiders are 2-4 and rank near the bottom of the league in most important statistical categories.

And Hanson?

He was placed on essentially what amounts to paid leave while this gets sorted out.

Five employees go to a staff meeting, one leaves with a broken jaw and he is the only one to suffer any adverse effect in the workplace.

Ladies and gentlemen, your 2009 Oakland Raiders!

Too much information?

I read an excellent post on the Savage Minds blog about college students and the need many of them feel to offer explanations or excuses when they know they have turned in substandard work.  That professor's take was essentially, 'Save the trouble of the explanation, don't admit the work is under par before I have had a chance to look at it, and if it is crap work, get over it and do what it takes to improve for the next assignment'.Flickr - The Kozy Shack

I think that is good advice and wonder if it applies to managers as well. 

As a manager when an employee is late for work, makes some careless mistakes, or otherwise is not really producing to their 'normal' or expected levels, how much do you really want of the backstory?

How much of 'My dog is sick', 'My daughter has a loser boyfriend' or 'I stayed up all night playing World of Warcraft' do you want to hear?

Or would you prefer they just shut up, do their job, and leave the drama for their mama?