I can't find anyone for my posted position: really?

 

     For the past 15 years or more, I have seen various comments "I just can't find anyone for my position". Really? I suspect that you are continuing some long-time inappropriate practices.

     If a position is entry-level, and is posted (and salaried) as entry-level, then THERE ARE NO JOB-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS. If there are requirements, then it is NOT "entry-level". Most of you have heard, perhaps even encountered, "how can I get a job without experience when all of the jobs expect experience?" A vicious cycle and perpetuated by many companies. Once again, entry-level means no job-specific requirements.

     Now this does not mean you have to hire anybody that applies. There are some basic skills that anyone graduating from high school should bring to the work arena. The ability to read and write. If the person cannot do that, there are lots of programs available to learn. Basic arithmetic, ditto. Nowadays, the lack of fear of computers is a requirement. Once again, lots of courses in basic computer literacy are available. Local libraries, senior citizen centers, and community colleges all have them available -- often free. Some jobs require the ability to lift certain weights -- and that should be in the job description. There may be requirements for hygiene, especially if the person is expected to interact with the general public. Job-required social skills may be needed but note that, for many positions that do not interact with the public, social skills may be up for negotiation if you want to keep the candidate pool full.

     So, in summary, entry-level can require indications of the basic ability to acquire job-related skills -- but should not require any of those job-related skills. Otherwise, it is NOT entry-level and should not be posted as such or paid as such.

     There are also listings on the other end of the spectrum. A job listing might have a list of 20 very specific skills and experiences often based on what the person leaving that position had (even if they never actually used that skill/experience within the position). Every additional specific skill you add reduces the potential pool of possibilities. IF you really want to increase the number of potential candidates, then you shift the specifics to abilities and you shift items from "required" to "desired" if they aren't needed from day one. If you need experience dealing with project management software -- say that -- don't say a specific project management software package unless being able to immediately launch is really that important -- and recognize you have reduced your candidate pool. Need object-oriented programming experience -- say that -- don't list a specific language unless it is of such importance for immediate launch that reduction in the candidate pool is acceptable.

     I have run across many position descriptions that say "5 years experience needed in specific language ABC" and language ABC has only existed for three years. If I didn't hear "we can't find anyone" so often from those companies, I would laugh. But I usually sniffle a bit out of sadness for both the companies and the great potential candidates not making it over the ridiculous hurdles.

     Another area of HR problematics is having a "hidden list". There is a list of "required" characteristics/abilities (which may, or may not, be appropriate to needs). There is a list of "preferred/desired" characteristics/abilities. Then there is the "hidden list" that are NOT in the job description but which will cause the candidate to be rejected without further examination. We will all hope that sexuality/gender/ethnicity/pigmentation/age/etc. are not on your particular hidden list but if they are then you deserve to not find anyone as you are eliminating potential candidates based on irrelevant characteristics (and also, likely, reducing potential customers and clients).

     But there are also often other items -- not exactly irrelevant (though many can be argued to not be really needed) -- on the hidden list such as specific requirements not listed or the fact that the person must be able to work without sponsorship or that they must live in a specific area. There can be legitimate requirements that are not posted in the job listing BUT if they are required and they are not part of the listing then you are wasting your time, potential candidates' time, AND decreasing your candidate pool. Put legitimate "hidden list" items on the published requirements.

     So, now you have a short list of "required" qualifications -- is your incoming filter set up that way? Or are those "desired" (and "hidden") qualifications kicking resumes, and potential star employees, out and away?

     Once upon a time, when I was hunting for a position, I applied to a LOT (I won't say the exact number because I don't want anyone fainting) of positions over a period of years. For each of the positions to which I applied, I had all of the "required" qualifications (and, yes, I had had my resume worked over by two different theoretically expert resume writers), but I received responses to less than 5% of the applications. Why? I can't say for certain but I certainly didn't feel sorry for those companies when I saw the job posting out there for an additional three to six months. Such still occurs. I feel no sympathy.

In summary:

• Entry-level positions should not require job-specific skills.
  
  
• Search for abilities rather than specifics unless you are explicitly willing to have the tradeoff of a reduced candidacy base.
  
  
• Make double-dare certain that the required skills/abilities/experiences are really needed and, for skills and experiences, that there is really a need for a running start.
  
  
• If you find yourself rejecting candidates because of reasons NOT listed on the job listing, LIST them.