3 ms·

The No. 1 Reason Employers Can't Find the Right Talent

9 points by vonmoltke 13y ago

RougeFemme 13y ago
They are also incredibly risk-averse. Even though they they have a no-risk, probationary period during which they can release an employee who's not working out, they are deathly afraid of hiring someone who's not perfect. And a 90% fit simply won't do; they must be guaranteed of a 100% fit. In the meantime, their current employees are stretched beyond their limits, deadlines are missed OR made with a very high price (team morale, long-term productivity, other missed deadlines), the business becomes more tactical than strategic, etc. And if things eventually go to hell in a handbasket, it's blamed on the "lack of qualified applicants".
- maerF0x0 13y ago
  Employers also forget the cost of not hiring someone. The value of the work not done, missed opportunity etc all add up. So basically the economic is something like [Cost of Not Hiring] = [Value of Missed work] - (1- ([%fit of applicant])) * [cost of employee mismatch] ;
vparikh 13y ago
Basically the problem is everyone is looking for the "Rockstar". News for all the employers out there -- if you want to the best then YOU have to be the best. If all they are hiring for is someone to write a web front end for a simple database backend, you don't need a "Rockstar". You don't need an MIT graduate with a PHD. You need a developer who can read documentation and figure out how to build your solution, and build it so that it can be maintained and upgraded. That is a lot easier to find then the greatest developer known to human kind.
- almosnow 13y ago
  Also, there's still a difference between a rockstar and a god. Most of them want you to implement the same features that another TEAM of developers achieved over the course of YEARS. And also, "well the salary is quite low, but as soon as we feel more comfortable with you we'll give you a raise".
- memracom 13y ago
  If people advertise that they want to hire a rockstar, then write back and ask them how their work environment supports and enables a person to produce rockstar results. If they cannot or won't articulate this in a satisfactory way, then move on. They don't really want rockstars, they just want to delay the inevitable bankruptcy and are clutching at straws.
  - rrich 13y ago
    Very true and a good rule to follow. I've yet to see a rock star environment at a place searching for the elusive unicorn, and ping-pong tables, arcade machines and fridges stocked with craft beer do not count. It takes much more to make an environment that is conducive to the artistry required to program for hours each day.
memracom 13y ago
I don't know about the USA but in Canada an employer can fire you with no reason for the first 3 months of your employment unless there is an employment contract that says otherwise. And employment contracts are rare except for senior management roles. So why don't more employers build their recruiting around that? Don't sweat the exact skills and experience. Instead ask questions that reveal a candidate's attitude and how they would approach dealing with various hypothetical situations. Then when someone pass those tests, and also promises you that they do indeed have the skills to do this job even if their experience is not a 100% match for the requirements list, then hire them. Put them to work. Check up on the results every couple of weeks and if it is not on a trajectory to where it needs to be in 3 months, then fire them. This is more like how people were hired before the 1960s. The company was less concerned with your exact skills and more with personality, attitude and intelligence. Then you had to bust your ass and learn on the job, working in a team that would support you. Time for the pendulum to swing back again. In particular with technical roles. Quite frankly, if someone has a couple of years building .NET applications then they should be able to contribute real value to a project building an iOS app, or an Android native app, or an underscore.js app with node.js backend, or a Java webapp. The technology stack is just a pile of minor details that you can learn or google on the job as needed. But the essence of coding is the same.
- rrich 13y ago
  I often refer to the terse arcane requirements as being a sign of a company that expects its developers to create great software with their hands tied behind their backs. It's a common to see in most job descriptions and qualifications. Aptitude and the ability to use every tool to solve problems is trumped by having experience with the last five frameworks of the week, information regurgitation and amazing project osmosis skills, or the fine tuned skill to just fake it.

9 points by vonmoltke 13y ago

They are also incredibly risk-averse. Even though they they have a no-risk, probationary period during which they can release an employee who's not working out, they are deathly afraid of hiring someone who's not perfect. And a 90% fit simply won't do; they must be guaranteed of a 100% fit. In the meantime, their current employees are stretched beyond their limits, deadlines are missed OR made with a very high price (team morale, long-term productivity, other missed deadlines), the business becomes more tactical than strategic, etc. And if things eventually go to hell in a handbasket, it's blamed on the "lack of qualified applicants".

maerF0x0 13y ago
Employers also forget the cost of not hiring someone. The value of the work not done, missed opportunity etc all add up. So basically the economic is something like [Cost of Not Hiring] = [Value of Missed work] - (1- ([%fit of applicant])) * [cost of employee mismatch] ;

vparikh 13y ago

Basically the problem is everyone is looking for the "Rockstar". News for all the employers out there -- if you want to the best then YOU have to be the best. If all they are hiring for is someone to write a web front end for a simple database backend, you don't need a "Rockstar". You don't need an MIT graduate with a PHD. You need a developer who can read documentation and figure out how to build your solution, and build it so that it can be maintained and upgraded. That is a lot easier to find then the greatest developer known to human kind.

almosnow 13y ago
Also, there's still a difference between a rockstar and a god. Most of them want you to implement the same features that another TEAM of developers achieved over the course of YEARS. And also, "well the salary is quite low, but as soon as we feel more comfortable with you we'll give you a raise".
memracom 13y ago
If people advertise that they want to hire a rockstar, then write back and ask them how their work environment supports and enables a person to produce rockstar results. If they cannot or won't articulate this in a satisfactory way, then move on. They don't really want rockstars, they just want to delay the inevitable bankruptcy and are clutching at straws.
- rrich 13y ago
  Very true and a good rule to follow. I've yet to see a rock star environment at a place searching for the elusive unicorn, and ping-pong tables, arcade machines and fridges stocked with craft beer do not count. It takes much more to make an environment that is conducive to the artistry required to program for hours each day.

memracom 13y ago

I don't know about the USA but in Canada an employer can fire you with no reason for the first 3 months of your employment unless there is an employment contract that says otherwise. And employment contracts are rare except for senior management roles. So why don't more employers build their recruiting around that? Don't sweat the exact skills and experience. Instead ask questions that reveal a candidate's attitude and how they would approach dealing with various hypothetical situations. Then when someone pass those tests, and also promises you that they do indeed have the skills to do this job even if their experience is not a 100% match for the requirements list, then hire them. Put them to work. Check up on the results every couple of weeks and if it is not on a trajectory to where it needs to be in 3 months, then fire them. This is more like how people were hired before the 1960s. The company was less concerned with your exact skills and more with personality, attitude and intelligence. Then you had to bust your ass and learn on the job, working in a team that would support you. Time for the pendulum to swing back again. In particular with technical roles. Quite frankly, if someone has a couple of years building .NET applications then they should be able to contribute real value to a project building an iOS app, or an Android native app, or an underscore.js app with node.js backend, or a Java webapp. The technology stack is just a pile of minor details that you can learn or google on the job as needed. But the essence of coding is the same.

rrich 13y ago
I often refer to the terse arcane requirements as being a sign of a company that expects its developers to create great software with their hands tied behind their backs. It's a common to see in most job descriptions and qualifications. Aptitude and the ability to use every tool to solve problems is trumped by having experience with the last five frameworks of the week, information regurgitation and amazing project osmosis skills, or the fine tuned skill to just fake it.