Job-Seekers and Employers: How the Dance Has Changed!

Honor in another area of life has been eliminated. There have always been scamming, warped thinking, and outright lying in the job market. It was practiced on both sides of the interview desk. Companies sought to fill positions with qualified candidates, and job seekers sought positions where they could earn representative compensation for their abilities. Both sides, in striving to reach their respective goal, tried to paint their offerings in the best possible light. There was a sense of honor in presenting credentials and descriptions in terms that were founded in truth, but occasionally took a turn toward "poetic license". Poetic license is that there was an understanding that certain references would never be held to substantiated proof. A job description was understood to be general with detailed aspect held to a minimum, a targeted list of required qualifications that could be waived by the interviewer for the person who was impressive enough to warrant a try, and simply words or acronyms within the description that made it appear that the company knew the meaning when, in fact, they were included in the hope that it would attract only serious, experienced candidates. The job seeker, in an attempt to attract interest through the resume, would include phrases to give the appearance that more was accomplished individually than was possible or that deeper utilization of theory and application were required, thus proving capability. There was a level of honor that both parties knew and accepted where neither would be called on to defend their respective positions on questions of relevancy. An unspoken rule of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"!

As time and technology progressed, companies eager to control cost and executives eager to pursue activities outside their job, moved away from handling the recruitment function. The past saw Personnel Departments move from functions that handled payroll and employee benefits, to also handling recruitment, interviewing, hiring and disciplinary actions. As executives were freed from this aspect of their job, they became convinced to allow the function to be handled by what was promoted to be a more specialized and professionally qualified Human Resources Department. This may have provided more time for executives to spend in activities related to controlling internal cost factors, addressing engineering and design, or developing marketing effectiveness. But in the process, it allowed a profoundly important building block of a company's foundation to be regulated to a lesser degree of importance to the executive. The tendency now is to let the HR handle it, while they do things that are more interesting and enjoyable. While one can argue that the decision is justified, one could also point to why the government had to step in and re-introduce the responsibility of financial reporting as being that of executive management. The CEO had so disassociated itself with the responsibility of financial reporting and unofficially elevated Accounting, now CFO, to that charge, that the Federal Government enacted Sarbanes-Oxley to officially charge CEO as ultimately responsible. Where recruitment will never be as important from a legal reporting stand point as Accounting, it is profoundly important to the health and well being of the organization, both from an internal view as well as a public perception. A company that loses public favor stands in peril of failing financially. A company that lacks competent, reasonably loyal employees, stand in peril of imploding.

Great organizations and people have, as one of their common traits, the ability to attract good, quality people, dedicated to furthering prescribed goals. Unfortunately, many people today have an agenda of favoring their own pursuits regardless the goals of whomever or whatever funds their pursuit. A quote from one of the greatest football coaches ever, Paul "Bear" Bryant, that has stayed in my memory since adolescent and one to which I refer many times to emphasize the desired approach in working and solving problems is, "I don't believe that boy would give his life to make that block!" Somehow the "Bear" was able to lead his players and assistant coaches into an attitude that the whole is equal to more than the sum of its parts. Through fear, adoration, or desire to please, great leaders inspire people to performing high levels of accomplishment. The key is that they surround themselves with people of that ilk. People "full of themselves" simply will not push themselves or their organization to the point of "giving their life to make that block". Now, before you go off dismissing the idea as irrational, understand poetic license. When attempting to make a point, a ridiculous idea can emphasize a though process that brings the audience to a desired conclusion. Maybe giving your life for a good block seems extreme, but being willing to push your physical attributes to the point that you could break your neck making a block, is not so extreme. It is not your intention, but if doing your best, results in your suffering an injury, at least it underlies your belief that success of the endeavors that you choose to associate yourself with is more important than reserving your energy for selfish reasons. If your effort results in a long gain, a touchdown, a game won, a championship won, a scholarship offer, a pro tryout, a contract, a sale, a journal entry made right, a check written on time, a discount earned, an erroneous payment prevented, an employee paid on time, a deal consummated, a customer satisfied, etc., then you have displayed the honor of having done the job you were paid to do, whether your effort was recognized or not. You didn't do it for recognition; you did it because it was the "block" that presented itself to be made.

Once you concede that getting the right people in your organization is one of the most important steps in organizational success, you can then conclude that the function is worthy of executive attention. Hiring an "expert" to handle a specialized area of the company seems a proper response. It is not, however, an excuse for inattention by the top executive. By its nature, HR is not the best representative of a company's persona. Because of its training and background, HR tends to follow an agenda that is not entirely aligned with company fiscal health. HR embodies a conglomeration of legal rules and restraints combined with Psychological theories and the need to preserve it's own validity and tempered with the responsibility of filling positions within the company. The dilemma is that the HR agenda is to satisfy perceived requirements of quota based philosophy, psychologically acceptable personalities, and present "safe" candidates that reflect positively on HR reputation. Only after those issues are satisfied, is the issue of finding a candidate whose approach is to further the goals of the organization an important point! Presumably, an executive that looks toward setting and furthering company goals would seek qualified individuals with specific skills and attitudes that would mold into the corporate image desired. Those individuals may have been eliminated from consideration because they did not fit some HR agenda, or because some psychological test boxed the candidate into a different model based on the test creator concept instead of the company concept. The problem is not limited to internal HR. It also affects the employment agencies recommendations. Many candidates can be eliminated from being recommended to an employer for any number of erroneous presumptions and misapplied concepts. Since the top executives are insulated from recruiting functions by service employment agencies and internal HR departments, they may never know of the best candidates for employment an the applicant may never even know about an opening.

Psychological and "Intelligence" tests have been given the green light as powerful indicators of skills and attitudes therefore good qualifiers for candidates. Just like so many other ideologies in society, they are not exact and therefore can eliminate good candidates. The recent discussions regarding NFL use of the Wonderlic test revealed some of the fallacies in basing decisions on these kinds of tests. The question is whether low indicators of one set of criteria should outweigh high indicators in another area. HR would tend to rely on test results to base their recommendations, where executives should have better intuitive insight into the person from face-to-face meetings or resume presentation. It is a tendency of society to look for absolutes proven by tests and ranges of acceptable norms. This does not guarantee a fit, only a tendency, but since so much of societal successes are measured in terms of acceptability instead of spirit, many candidates are regulated to unfavorable conclusions. As an example, the consensus of opinion in the recruiting field is to eliminate entrepreneurs from consideration to be placed as an employee, when the very attributes prevalent in an entrepreneurial spirit are the attributes that are needed to further organizational goals. Hard work, dedication, and results oriented attitude are attributes every organization should encourage in it's employees, and yet people who have displayed that, as entrepreneurs, are discouraged by the recruiting profession from seeking employment. Would it not be ironic that a research firm denied employment consideration to Albert Einstein, or an equipment manufacturer turn down an application of Eli Whitney or Henry Ford?

Today's job market is profoundly more complicated than just 10-20 years ago. Previous history is replete with stories of being able to visit offices and shops to "put in an application for a job" After some degree of checking reference, reviewing qualifications, and determining fits, the applicant was rejected or hired. Many were hired as a result of face-to-face meetings with their eventual supervisor. The applicant may have learned of the opportunity through a contact, a newspaper ad, a state employment service, or physical job search going from company to another. Personal networking gave the best chance of success in attaining an interview, but interviews through employment agencies and state job banks were also fruitful. The "not hiring today signs" at employers were a deterrent, but persistence still gave a chance to get an interview. Much of the recruitment process today is centered on the Internet. While this does cut the disruption for employers in having applicants appear at the office or plant, it is another level of insulation in finding good employees also. Unless the position deals with marketing, where a judgment can be reached on the effectiveness of the applicant to get the decision maker, applicants whose primary skill does not involve marketing are at an extreme disadvantage. A mechanic, technician, installer, or even an accountant, secretary, or engineer is not trained in how to appeal to the reviewers of resumes. Many are lost in the process of filtering the relevant points to attract attention from the simple presentation of facts about oneself or one's work history. Couple that with the fact that one must first attract the attention of an HR person, before attracting the attention of an ultimate decision maker, and the task can sometimes become undeterminable.

Internet applications can be so frustrating because there is no feedback to allow the applicant to adjust his approach or resume in a logical matter. Face-to-face interviews or observance of the brick and mortar world gives insights through body language, verbal nuances, possible attitudes of employees, dress codes, facilities and decor, indications of preferences, attentions to detail, etc. Many times an applicant applies through the Internet to a blind address, a blind company, a blind job, or a job with incongruent requirements that don't fit the actual job and are designed to either hide the lack of knowledge of the employer/representatives or designed to discourage qualified, but not overly qualified applicants. As an example, there is now a tendency to specify that an applicant for a general accounting position have a CPA designation. There may be no real need for a candidate to have served an internship and taken a certification test, but some decision was made within the organization that the requirement should be tagged in order to attract only well qualified applicants. Other positions may have some required designation, acronym, or periods of experience listed that might have a chance at being waived in a personal interview, but is never tested because applicants are chosen from printed credentials submitted electronically. Is this a ramping up of our level of corporate sophistication, a misinterpretation of certification principles, or is it an indictment of our educational system? Many industry executives do not have the certifications that are now "required" for entry-level employees! When posting resumes on the Internet boards, applicants are encouraged to make multiple versions of their resume emphasizing different skills or employment history and to include different cover letters to target specific audiences. While this may seem an intelligent approach to "marketing oneself", it seems disingenuous to this writer because it lacks the open, honest review of who and what we are in favor of who and what our audience is seeking. Were it romantic match-making, that approach could be disastrous. It can also be devastating to a company trying to move forward. Anecdotally, this writer was employed by a manufacturing company that hired a president whose credentials were, at best, enhanced and, at worst, outright lies. After a year of suffering inept management, disarray in planning, disillusionment of the staff, salary and bonus cost of $150,000.00, living and transportation reimbursements of $50,000.00, the former president was re-hired to reestablish order. The floor sweeper in the plant made a representative prediction of the ultimate results after a 10-minute conversation with the new leader, but common sense was overridden by test results and resume assertions.

An interview with one employer recently revealed the frustration she was under because a position had gone unfilled for several months for lack of qualified applicants. Another employer related the amazement of having 10 different applicants for an open position where none had any work experience of any kind, not even lawn cutting, floor sweeping, shelf stocking, food counter work, sales clerk, or volunteer work. Ten of ten applicants had graduated from High School and College and had never done any meaningful work, but they expected $50,000+ annual salaries! An applicant, with multiple years experience and a BBA honors degree, revealed a 6-month job search of posting resumes on the Internet that had resulted in only one face-to-face interview! Another applicant with good experience and college degree searched for months and finally took a menial job just to have some income, and had stayed on that job for eighteen months while being qualified for a much higher salary.

This is not intended as a "sob story", but a call for a better way. Just as the main street storefront marketplace has given way to the big discounts stores, the business employment office has given way to HR offices and Internet access. Discount stores will eventually be replaced by another distribution system. Business and technology will develop an alternative method for filling employment positions. Home workers using Internet virtual office technology have made an inroad into some office positions. More variable work hours will trend toward favorably employment benefits. But a better way of job/applicant matching must be developed. Job seekers question the voracity of old style employment agencies efforts to solve positioning. Evidence is rampant that low-end, easy fulfillments with high turn over are getting much more attention from the old-line agency models because they generate the most fee for the least effort and cost. To be effective, Internet posts require HR to do a representative job. Anecdotal experience has been that much of the HR world simply does a lousy job of recruiting and a good job of "building empires". HR tends to involve itself in corporate politics and ways to hijack any easy jobs from other functioning entities. Since there is very little accountability and many opportunities to grab the "glory", HR can avoid meaningful pursuits and develop its' own agenda. HR is usually included in the administrative circle, so there is an awareness of company direction and a dependence on getting good employee efforts by management. Since management usually delegates recruitment functions and blames unfavorable project results on individual employee, the tendency is to not recognize the connection of good recruitment with good project results, thus HR avoids blame and basks in glory. HR normally handles employee benefits programs and pursues moral issues, thus having an affect on employee performance attitudes, it can report attempts to establish favorable results without the need to report actual results leaving that to the various functional managers to accept blame.

The system of applicant recruitment and job placement now is not accountable to any authority. Top executives have delegated that function to HR, which has become the "Duke" of their own territory with seemingly full authority. There are no entities accountable to the job seeker since the responsibility to find work is the job seekers. Placement personnel can generate fee levels for easy, lower qualified positions that historically weren't available to agencies because applicants could go straight to employers for those jobs. State agencies can make systems available online, eliminating the need for placement workers, which in turn lowers cost for the state and makes heroes of bureaucrats for lowering cost and making more funds available for increasing higher level state workers.

Therefore, job seekers have less help, more deterrents, more levels of bureaucratic red tape, less access, less feedback, more requirements for mastering unfamiliar skills, and more frustration. Internet services seek to capitalize on this frustration by selling "advanced" services like resume writing or resume "email blasting". This is especially frustrating to job applicants that have to use scarce resources to give themselves a chance to compete. In its' infancy, the Internet had many "freebies", but the tendency now is to charge for everything above a basic enticement level. Their premise is that somehow they can present the facts in a more favorable light to gain the attention of interview granters. While not discounting the idea that there is a skill in presenting data that grabs the attention of the reader, it seems dishonest and unethical to present the same information in entertainment mode that gains acceptance instead of simply presenting the facts in a traditional format. The use of flowered words or phrases and emphasis on buzz words and catchy terms should not override basic facts presented in an organized matter, for if one can gain attention by this method, the ability to fake becomes easier. One should not have to be entertaining to decision makers whose purpose is to find the best candidates for their companies' openings. This is not supposed to be Saturday night at the movies or late night thriller reading! Must job seekers adopt the same concept as entertainers or artist and develop a portfolio, hire agents to secure auditions, practice dress rehearsals, and stand for short gigs? It is not that job seekers are above that kind of standard, but typically they do not command the income levels to sustain that kind of procedure. What should be paramount to the process is that HR functions and employment agencies should be more serious about securing interviews and providing applicant feedback. Brick and mortar type agencies are even more notorious in following their own agenda than Internet boards, since they tend to busy themselves on lower paid, easy placed positions and/or participate in rip-off artistry through selling Pygmalion-type preparation services. The only reason these prep services are successful is that many incumbents secured their position through that method or decision makers are simply too busy perfecting their golf game or other trivial pursuits to take up their time studying applicants and would rather have someone screen for them. Although these "services" won't admit it, they are simply "selling jobs" to the least able to afford them. The question is whether securing an interview is more important to the applicant or the employer. The entertainment world answers the agency question by practice of charging a fee to the artist, but they negotiate a contract where the employer ultimately pays an inflated amount that includes their fee. Down in the common world, the employment prep agencies justify their up-front fees by saying that jobs are obtained at higher pay than one could attain on one's own effort. Since these agencies work in agreement of their own interests, they share knowledge of applicants and employment opportunities. There is an opportunity to even be paid by both the applicant and the employer!

Because of Internet recruitment, companies have more designated cost, less qualified applicants passed through, less chance to attract "fresh" ideologies, less chance for public relations since historical advertising gave dual recognition to varied audiences, a less capable employee base where HR is interested in numbers rather than quality, more intrinsic cost due to jobs staying open and unfilled longer, and more department heads complaints that good applicants are hard to find. This seems a profound paradox, Companies can't find qualified applicants and qualified job seekers can't get interviews. Something is definitely wrong! Many job seekers report they have dropped out of the job market and are seeking non-traditional avenues of producing incomes such as home businesses, temporary services, and entrepreneurial undertakings. Some go on the Government dole to provide for their families. Companies report they are out-sourcing, paying overtime, delaying new projects, and simply not doing some functions due to lack of workers. Is this a conspiracy to build the artificial need for HR, to create more acceptance of foreign out-sourcing, or an indictment of the fallacies of the system that needs to be corrected? Before the outcry that this is a non-issue, review this rhetorical question, "Is the pain, suffering, under utilization, and frustration of the job-seeker, coupled with the drain on corporate economic production, worth the study into developing a better way?"

Historically, many new business ventures have begun out of frustration. Hopefully a more enlightened approach is just over the horizon to deal with this problem. We could see TV shows dedicated to job seeking/fulfillment, Internet popup ads for job seekers / job opportunities, billboard advertising, radio/TV spot commercials, brochure/flyer advertising, spyware ideology dedicated to finding decision makers and blasting applicant ads, software applications that sell access capabilities, telephone and fax blasts, different employment agency business models. There are many non-traditional methods to circumvent the firewalls of limited access.