The American Way of Hiring Is Making Long-Term Unemployment Worse

http://blogs.hbr.org/2013/12/the-american-way-of-hiring-is-making-long-term-unemployment-worse/

by pmiller2 • 13 years ago

145 106 13 years ago

blogs.hbr.org

It stands to reason that if the bias against long term unemployed workers is strong enough there will exist a surplus of highly qualified workers who have been out of work for 6 months or more. Everything else being equal, the long term unemployed could be hired at lower than market wages for their skill level. A smart company could pick up qualified workers pretty cheaply by ignoring unemployment length right now.

pekk• 13 years ago

That would be true if hiring were generally rational with an objective of finding qualified workers.

sokoloff4• 13 years ago

I'm far more interested in the VALUE of a prospective employee than I am in the COST.

I expect a technical employee (myself included) to bring to the company some multiple of their salary each year. With that in mind, I'm far more interested in the possible upside of a good employee than in reducing a portion of the costs of a possibly cheaper employee. (I'm generally "on the hook" for some amount of constant costs: 401-k match, insurance, building occupancy costs, free food/drinks, management attention/overhead needed, etc, so a 25% lower salary might only net me a 15% lower overall cost.)

Long term unemployed, excessive job hopping without good explanation, long stints of employment without promotion or other evidence of growth are all red flags. They're not fatal in isolation, but believe me, they get scrutiny by hiring managers who are paying attention.

Someone involuntarily out of work in a tech field for 6 months is likely to, at a minimum, interview poorly. (Otherwise, they'd likely land somewhere inside of 2 months.) For your plan to work, one has to be willing to low-ball a candidate who likely just interviewed poorly with you. I don't think the risk-reward works out, which is why I'm probably part of the problem, but willingly so.

Candidates that interview poorly get a polite rejection, not a lowball offer.

Daniel_Newby• 13 years ago

But you are not competing against competitors who might steal them away for -24%. You are competing against Walmart: -75% salary, -100% fringe benefits.

tsotha6• 13 years ago

I'm far more interested in the VALUE of a prospective employee than I am in the COST.

Heh heh. Well, sure. It isn't your money.

smtddr• 13 years ago

I think at one point in America's history, Long-Term-Unemployment(LTU) was a semi-decent indicator of a possible problem-employee because nobody was questioning "Is college worth it?". Back then, you were pretty assured that your degree(whatever it was) guaranteed you a job... so if you didn't have a job for a long time, then either you're a lady who became a mom or you're a man who messed up in life. But today, especially after 2008/9 real-estate mess, a bunch of totally legit people fell into LTU by no fault of their own... but the stigma still remains.

I also think this is more a problem for non-tech jobs. In today's world, if a software-engineer wanted to travel the world for 8 months I suspect she could easily get a job when she's done. She'd probably be getting recruiter-calls while on vacation.

redschell• 13 years ago

I don't know. I can't tell if the phenomenon of ageism in tech is under or overrated, but I do think that techies have the advantage of never truly being out of work, so long as they're hacking away at something.

In fact, older LTU workers could learn from the tech strategy of consulting and freelancing when "gaps" in their careers emerge. So long as you have something to show for it, such as a new skill or someone in your network that can raise their hand and say, "Oh yeah, she mentored me through this big project my company is working on" then you can help yourself out a bit.

I want to know how much of this is HR's fault. What the hell are they looking for, and why? Everyone admits this is a problem, but HR goes on as if they're oblivious to it. And then you read about how they're dismissing candidates that don't have an adequate social media presence, and you begin to wonder why on earth these goons run hiring.

michaelochurch10• 13 years ago

I can't tell if the phenomenon of ageism in tech is under or overrated

It's bad in VC-istan but I don't think it's bad in technology as a whole. There are plenty of 50+ programmers at places like Google who are well-regarded.

The fear that many of us who are in our 20s and 30s is that the culture of age discrimination-- one that we, although young, really don't support, but that is inflicted upon us by the VCs-- will get worse in the next decade or two. Right now, it's not apocalyptic and most good programmers will be fine. The concern is that if VC-istan becomes the new normal in employment, ageism will be more of a problem when we get to 40+. Right now there are still a lot of good jobs for 40+ programmers at the Staff+ SWE level at places like Google and Amazon, but that won't be true if VCs acquire more power.

Everyone admits this is a problem, but HR goes on as if they're oblivious to it. And then you read about how they're dismissing candidates that don't have an adequate social media presence, and you begin to wonder why on earth these goons run hiring.

HR looks for reasons to reject people. They have to, because they get so many junk resumes. They cut for too old or too young or too long at the last job or too short at the last job. You need, whenever possible, to engage with people who are looking for reasons to accept people.

gaius• 13 years ago

The situation is that hiring is determined by managers, that is to say people who define success as moving into management as quickly as possible. They see someone who hasn't "made it" in a long career of remaining hands-on and by their value system that person is a failure.

booruguru• 13 years ago

And then you read about how they're dismissing candidates that don't have an adequate social media presence...

Is this a real thing? I'd like to know more.

RougeFemme3• 13 years ago

HR facilitates but it's the hiring managers - i.e., the people who will actually manage the new employees - who define the requirements. So, the managers have the crazy expectations, not HR.

Estragon• 13 years ago

Yes, I just took 18 months off work, and I'm finding that no one cares. Seems like the fact that I can code is plenty of reason to hire me.

tsotha6• 13 years ago

I also think this is more a problem for non-tech jobs. In today's world, if a software-engineer wanted to travel the world for 8 months I suspect she could easily get a job when she's done.

My sister did just that and landed a job immediately upon returning.

seiji4• 13 years ago

I did the same thing (~2 years), but then it took three months and five rejections (including flying to four offices) before a compatible offer materialized. I was getting worried and kinda running out of money. Whoops.

DavidWoof5• 13 years ago

I just did that. I turned 50 last year and took about 9 months off to travel the world. When I came back, I posted my resume online and had a job within days. And there's nothing special about my resume, mostly just .Net web programming, though I'm admittedly fairly good in the technical interview.

The only place I sensed age discrimination were the places I wouldn't work anyway, the crazy "we expect 65 hours a week" shops.

benched• 13 years ago

It's a really, really good time to be a programmer. I don't know how long it's going to last, but it's really good right now. I recently took 2.5 years off (during which I worked on my own technical projects, which helped a lot), and not only did I get a lot of recruiter interest during that time, once I started seriously looking for a job again, it only took about one month to get exactly the job I had been fantasizing about for years. They asked about my time off, but they asked really politely, as if they were afraid of putting me off.

ritchiea• 13 years ago

I'm curious, what's the job you were fantasizing about for years?

jeynepoole• 13 years ago

This almost seems like an unfortunate consequence on the "Innovator's Dilemma", whereby older workers compete on experience and qualifications, but are then deemed overqualified by employers. Much like how technology consistently outpaces market demand.

Rather, it seems like workers need to compete on a new trajectory and perhaps be re-educated. Although, I don't know if how system supports that very well.

001sky2• 13 years ago

Not so much a comment on the thesis, but the actual "research" is missing and it would improve the essay if it was actually presented. Even in a synopsis. Its a shame, as the The only link is to the "forthcoming book" on Amazon.

My research, involving in-depth conversations with hundreds of unemployed job seekers, indicates that no group of workers is more committed to contributing to a company that gives them a chance to prove their value than older workers who have been long-term unemployed.

Importantly, while some employers fear that older workers will not sticking around, my research suggests the opposite is more likely. It’s worth considering whether, in fact, it is younger workers in their 20s and 30s who are more likely to be actively searching for opportunities to move across jobs in an effort to develop a portfolio of marketable skills and experiences. Older workers are really looking for a company where their considerable skills and experiences are valued and can make a difference.

One concern tha jumps out (i'm sure to many) is the reference to a measurement of "future comittment", which seems at best unpredictable. Take, for example the divorce rate amongst newlyweds. His methodology may indeed be wide-rangingly useful (assuming its good), but we don't get a sense of it here. It does seem, in any event, that the HR heuristics at BigCos these days are apparently shallow.

brownbat• 13 years ago

Any discussion of "overqualification" should begin with this chart: http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm

We often worry that acquiring human capital is a double edged sword, but it's hard to find that in the data.

That said, BLS has written that older workers face both lower rates and longer durations of unemployment: http://www.bls.gov/opub/ils/summary_10_04/older_workers.htm

It seems contradictory at first glance: how do older workers have better and worse luck at the same time?

One way to explain this is that as older workers gain in specialized skills, it makes "search costs" more difficult, it's harder to match them to the right job. PhD's in narrow disciplines face a similar situation: it's much harder to find that good fit right out of school, but in the long run, once you find a place, you're more likely to be well compensated, poached, or retained in employment by those who understand your skill set for the rest of your life.

There could be other explanations. But from the raw data, if you had to bet on someone being employed, try to pick someone who is highly educated and older, no question.

toomuchtodo• 13 years ago

So, not only is college "useless" now, so is having experience. As 31 year old DevOps making $low_six_figures, this is somewhat worrying re: future prospects.

Even adapting is no assurance of your future employability.

tsotha6• 13 years ago

One set of stereotypes is directly about the purported effects of age. For example, that older workers are less energetic or less able to use new technologies.

The problem is there is a lot of truth to these stereotypes.

gscott2• 13 years ago

I find at age 39 I cannot work my previous 12-16 hour days of the past, due to my sedentary lifestyle. However I make up for it by sticking to what I know will work rather then doing as much experimentation that I used to do. I get months worth of work done in weeks.

tsotha6• 13 years ago

How do you think you'll perform at 50?

6d0debc071• 13 years ago

If I may be forgiven for wool-gathering for a moment:

Many positions have quite limited returns on the right tail, that are easily reached by people of no special intelligence. If you're a Mickey D worker, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If you're a clerical worker, again, doesn't matter much. Almost anything that falls under admin, doesn't matter very much. Sales? Well, there's a certain charisma required but certainly working in most of sales doesn't require much intelligence - I know, I've done sales myself before and written procedures for it. Once computer speech is reliable I expect a lot of sales people to become unemployed outside of B2B.

Being a manager? Well, if you're in a technical firm there's a fair amount of person experience required there, but it's not hugely challenging - it's more a matter of decency and common sense. (And honestly, my faith in companies being able to reliably select for managers is 'HAHAHAHA, no.')

And the dreadful thing here is that the better you are at a skill, the harder it is for people who don't share that skill to recognise it. So unless the company's hiring procedure is geared towards finding it, i.e. they live to find the right tail, that will likely go unrecognised. The search costs increase the more skilled you become. Hence why so many crap programming jobs are advertised as 'X years experience' ; the person doing the hiring is an HR girl who doesn't know how to recognise the real deal and probably doesn't really have the time anyway.

If you're doing most any job that doesn't qualify as intellectually challenging, it doesn't matter much how smart you are to the company, they'll not profit by your intelligence. If you're doing any job where ability is poorly assessed, (which kinda screws you if the person interviewing doesn't know the job themselves,) it doesn't matter how smart you are - they'll not ask the right questions to find out.

If you want to look at how people end up LTU, I think you have to stop thinking about them as people; with hopes, dreams, and virtues. (Yes, that does make me feel sick.) That's not what they look like when you're looking at their CVs.

Think of them almost like you're picking horses in a race: Someone tells you a horse has been out of racing for a long time. Do you gamble on it?

If it was a truly exceptional horse, maybe you do. But the average unemployed person is going to be average at best. Given you can't expect them to be any better than the employed person, do you gamble on them?

Of course you don't. The horse might have been out of the game for a number of reasons. But how many of those reasons are good - and what's your gain over gambling on a horse that hasn't been out for a while? If you had more information about it than the market then you might - but your expected value of information for most jobs is going to be low due to the lack of recognised ability to leverage their intelligence in most roles.

If you're LTU, without some form of background check, that's indistinguishable from having been in prison, or having a mental breakdown, or getting sacked for a reason. What were they doing for the last six months? You don't know, but there's a higher than average chance of it being something bad.

When you have multiple candidates to choose from, and you can't easily distinguish quality given your initial investment in them, and your EVI is lower than the cost of that information, it makes sense to be risk averse on easily seen indicators. Maybe you're missing great candidates, but for most positions, what's your motivation to care?

When they're competing with people who aren't LTU, and who can do the job about as well, the company's expected return on investing in them - spending the time and money to check these things - seems likely to be negative outside of companies that can leverage exceptional individuals.

morgante3• 13 years ago

One thing I don't understand about long-term unemployment is why you wouldn't immediately start freelancing if you couldn't find a job. Start a company, take occasional contracts, and list that on your resume. Boom, no employment gap.

Can someone explain why people don't just do that instead of complaining about "discrimination?" Heck, I myself would never hire someone who had been unemployed for a year and lacked the ability to either get a job or start their own thing.

pmjordan• 13 years ago

Easier said than done for most kinds of work.

michaelochurch10• 13 years ago

Heck, I myself would never hire someone who had been unemployed for a year and lacked the ability to either get a job or start their own thing.

No matter how good you are, long-term unemployment will fuck up your confidence, especially after 50 when you're supposed to have your shit together. I've seen it happen to some really stellar people.

Financial stress poisons everything, and only a small percentage of people (maybe 5%) can prevent that sense/fear of letting their family down and being a drain on society from crushing them. Trust me on this one.

It's easy as hell to find work (consulting or full-time) when things are going well, especially in our industry. It's not so easy for people who take a fall, especially when it's unexpected.

coldcode• 13 years ago

Man that's a myopic attitude. I guess you've never been unemployed, low on money, and living in a area with few opportunities. Sure your statement is easy in the Bay Area to say, but try the middle of the country. Trying being older where no one is willing to even interview you despite your skill set being up to date. Ever start a company when you have trouble paying the mortgage? Not being surrounded by entrepreneurial friends willing to jump in with you? Can't move because no one is buying your crappy house and your kids are hungry? Put long hours into a job with old technology that went bust and now you really are out of date? There are lots of reason people wind up having trouble finding a job. Saying you wouldn't hire them because of all the challenges they might be facing is like saying poor people suck because they have no money.

Sorry to get all ranty but that is exactly what the author is talking about. I've been there a few times and it wasn't due to a lack of effort in trying to start something and casting a wide net. Good people exist even if they haven't worked in a while, it's not like they suddenly dried up and died.

netfire• 13 years ago

I might agree with you in other fields, but not in technology. There's no good reason (provided you have the ability to work) to have a 6 month to a year gap in your resume where you have nothing to show. You don't have to start a company (in the entrepreneurial sense) to do freelance/contract work. There are tons of remote opportunities.

Even if you can't find a job during that time, there's still things you can do to improve your chances of getting employed. Start learning new technologies, attend/start a local meetup, build a website, volunteer, take online courses (many of which are free or low-cost), answer questions on StackOverflow, contribute to projects on GitHub.

The worst thing you can do is to just interview and wonder why you aren't getting any offers. Technology is a rapidly changing field, if you can't get a job with your current skill set, do something about it and show that on your resume.

ryandrake• 13 years ago

Well, it's not as if one can just snap one's fingers and line up a freelancing gig. The reason people don't "immediately start freelancing" is the same as the reason they don't immediately just go out and get a job.

morgante3• 13 years ago

Maybe I wasn't clear. This doesn't have to be a real company in the sense that it actually generates profit.

All you need to do is file for DBA and start accepting really low-paid gigs off a site like elancer. And yes, you can literally just snap your fingers to get those.

The point is you're not starting the company to actually succeed. You're just starting it to list something besides unemployment on your resume and hence get a real job.

walshemj• 13 years ago

Yes the same problems that effect older workers apply to the freelance /contract market - I was up for a 2 month gig with John Lewis but they didn't even give me an interview.

woofyman3• 13 years ago

At 51, I resigned from a company I had worked for 18 years when evil people bought the company. I was primarily a c++ developer. At the same time my long term relationship ended and my mom died six weeks after a cancer diagnosis.

It took six months for me to get interested in coding again. I started experimenting with Processing then developed an ios opengl based app.

I was out of work for 13 months. Now I develop in Lua, CoffeeScript, javascript, angular, php, Java, Clojure, Actionscript. All self taught while on the job. I'm thankful that someone gave me this opportunity. Otherwise I'd still probably be unemployed.

yaddayadda3• 13 years ago

Can you provide any more details on how/why someone gave you that opportunity? Was it a friend? Friend of a friend? Did you apply for a Lua, javascript, angular, php, Java, Clojure, Actionscript position that you weren't qualified for, but did a good job of selling the transferability of your c++ skills? I'm genuinely interested in the details and any lessons you can share.

Bahamut• 13 years ago

This is a naive viewpoint, and exactly the signs of someone would would be a bad talent evaluator. I will give a synopsis of my own anecdote.

I was once a PhD student, ABD at a top 15 university in math, with undergrad degrees in math and physics. I had very competitive all around scores on standardized exams, all 90th percentile and up. Upon leaving grad school, I became homeless & destitute, even depressed at times, but I still had the will to put on a good face and still had the intelligence & drive to learn & excel. After finally landing a junior dev position 3 years after grad school (after teaching myself programming), I quickly developed and took on a senior dev position in under a year.

By your stated viewpoint, you would have missed a bargain stellar talent who was open to any opportunity offered to him. Ability & willingness to learn/execute a skill isn't inextricably linked to employment periods - that is a terrible fallacy.

pmiller2• 13 years ago

I'd be interested in talking more with you about your experiences. My email is in my profile. Shoot me a message sometime.

melling• 13 years ago

Dude, you're 20 years old. In 30 years, there's a good chance that you won't be using any of the technology that you're using today. Spend the next 20 years doing the same technology in a big company and you might find yourself with a big problem. There are other ways to screw yourself too.

The good news is that you'll be making $750,000 a year as a developer. Just hang onto that job...

morgante3• 13 years ago

In 30 years, there's a good chance that you won't be using any of the technology that you're using today. Spend the next 20 years doing the same technology in a big company and you might find yourself with a big problem.

I don't doubt that it'd be different technology. But why would I not evolve? I'm constantly learning new languages and techniques through side projects. People who aren't constantly pushing themselves to learn more probably should get left behind.

rhizome• 13 years ago

Heck, I myself would never hire someone who had been unemployed for a year and lacked the ability to either get a job or start their own thing.

Do you personally hire people?

RougeFemme3• 13 years ago

Not everyone has what it takes to start a company. Conversely, not all companies want someone who has started a company. Granted, that company's culture would probably be a poor fit for you, but the fact is that not all companies regard starting a company in the same way. And re: taking contracts. . .you still must interview for contracts. And while companies may be willing to take more of a risk with contractors than with full-time employees, biases still exist during the interview process. You can be passed over for contract positions just as you can be passed over for full-time positions.

michaelochurch10• 13 years ago

The problem older workers face is simpler. They don't fit in to the hierarchical corporate environment, which is yet another reason why that mode of organization is outdated.

If you're old and good, the supposition is that you'll resent being told what to do by someone inexperienced and probably not as skilled. If you're old and bad, then you're not a desirable hire anyway. Catch-22.

The way to fix this is to move to organizational models that don't rely so heavily on subordination and hierarchical rigidity. Conceptual hierarchy is necessary, but a fixed hierarchy of people is not.

Also, I think the VCs are to blame. They pick founders who are very young, because they're easier to take advantage of. Since it's rare that a capable 50-year-old will happily work for a 25-year-old founder, and the "boss should be older" rule traverses the hierarchy, the accepted age band at every rank becomes younger and more narrow.

johnjlocke2• 13 years ago

I think that hiring decisions that work against older workers are based on a lot of unsubstantiated presumptions.

There's no reason to resent someone being your boss if they happen to be younger. If they are a good leader, that has nothing to do with their age differential.

I do agree that VCs have a lot to do with youth bias in startup culture, and for the reasons mentioned. It is easier to get a younger person with no external obligations to work insane hours. Why else would Facebook and Google build campuses that employees never have to leave?

I don't believe in homogenization of demographics, age and experience over the long haul. It leads to stagnation of perspective and ideas, because the experiences of the teams are so similar.

I think that people can learn from each other, both directions, and that is good for a team that has the bravery to challenge the status quo.

mark_l_watson2• 13 years ago

This story resonates with me because while I have had an active consulting business for about 15 years (and right now I have a consulting gig at Google), twice in the last five years potential customers wanted to hire me for projects but they were blocked by their HR departments who thought I was LTU. Offering to show tax records did not help.

I am also in my 60s, so I also feel for people who might suffer from age discrimination (or gender, race, religion, etc.)

There should be a level playing field, but sadly that is not always the case.

graeme2• 13 years ago

I'm curious: how was it not obvious to those HR departments that you run a business?

mark_l_watson2• 13 years ago

I don't know. One HR person told me on the phone that I had been unemployed for too long. Any data I gave her fell on deaf ears. But, it was that that company's right to not hire me for any reason. No hard feelings.

qwerta• 13 years ago

But that is horrible. Just to rephrase:

twice in the last five years potential customers wanted to hire me for projects but they were blocked by their HR departments who thought I was black. Offering to show birth certificate of my father did not helped.

All-Delib-Speed• 13 years ago

While I can appreciate the point you're trying to make. Please don't think not hiring someone because they're black, and not hiring someone because they've been, or appear to have been, unemployed for a long period of time are the same thing.

There is no ethical, legal, and legitimate reason to not hire someone for a consulting job because they're black. There is an ethical, legal, and legitimate reason to not hire someone because they have been unemployed for a long period of time. Or to at least consider other candidates who don't appear to have been unemployed for a long period of time.

I'm hoping your comment about showing a parent's birth certificate was solely an attempt at an analogy and not meant to be something you think realistically would or does happen. An employer can't deny a candidate employment because a candidate is or isn't black, or their parents are or aren't black. That's the point. Race and color are both protected classes in the US [1]. A person's long term unemployment, just like their level of education and attractiveness, isn't a protected class. Meaning a job can discriminate against a person all day every day based on their history of long term unemployment.

And just to add, the birth certificate of one parent doesn't determine a person's race as far as society is broadly concerned, particularly if you're considered black in the US [2][3][4].

[1] http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/ [2] - The President of the United States [3] - http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2010/12/%E2%80%98one-d... [4] - http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jefferson/mixe...

rayiner• 13 years ago

potential customers wanted to hire me for projects but they were blocked by their HR departments

It absolutely boggles my mind that at any company an HR department would be able to block a hire like that. I mean why not just give the accounting department veto power over hires too?

infra178• 13 years ago

Pass a law exempting businesses and individuals from paying payroll taxes on new hires for the length of time the person was unemployed before they hired them.

memracom2• 13 years ago

In my experience this is not just a problem with older workers and with long term unemployed, but also a problem with immigrant workers. There is a lot of experience out there that could be a productive part of the economy if only hiring managers would give their head a shake and break out of the ritualistic processing of resumes.

More creativity is called for. For instance, are you snowed under by 300 resumes for only one position? Maybe you need to rethink how you describe your requirements. Read every 10th resume and then rewrite your requirements. Winnow down the resumes to a semi-short list based on one or two key things. For instance in software development look at the type of projects they did. What did they deliver regardless of the technology that they used. You will probably still have 100 resumes. Then send your new requirements to each of these people by email, give them 24 hours to reply with a two page letter explaining how they can help you achieve what you have described in your new requirements. Probably most of them either won't reply in time, or their letters will be godawful things that you can't even read to the end.

But you will find a few gems to interview.

To do this right your new requirements need to focus on describing the problems that you face and the timeline in which you want to solve those problems. Ask people explicitly to question your current approach. Maybe that guy with no PHP experience actually does have something to offer to your all-PHP shop.

Or do something else. Just do it creatively, think out of the box, and try to make it interesting for the applicants as well.

joshuaheard• 13 years ago

I looked at the data supporting the article's assumption that older workers make up a greater percentage of the long term unemployed than exist in the marketplace, and it is just no that great of a difference.

Instead of blaming employers, there are other causes for long term unemployment. The first of course is a slow growing economy that would normally absorb the unemployed. The other, I believe, is the greatest cause of our long term unemployment: raising the federal minimum wage $2 back in 2008.

Without going into detail, creating an artificial floor for the price of something limits the supply. For example, Some employers won't hire someone at $7 an hour, but might at $6. Some employers could hire 5 employees at $5 an hour, but only 4 at $7.

mratzloff• 13 years ago

Compete for starvation wages, ye masses!

iterative• 13 years ago

The problem isn't with the American way of hiring, it's with the American way of voting.

jroseattle2• 13 years ago

I just went through a (long for me) job search. As someone who has typically been able to have another job within days, this time it took me roughly three months. It was exhausting and frustrating, but also very eye-opening. I found a pattern among companies that gave me great insight, and from that I could choose a course of action.

I found two different companies trying to hire -- those looking to fill positions, and those looking to solve problems. Huge difference between those two; the former is tactical, the latter is strategic. Everyone needs to strive to find the latter.

I found interviews with those looking to "fill a position" bordered on the absurd in terms of their hiring approach. It throws you (the job seeker) off your game and makes you question your own competency. Don't fall for it; keep looking for those companies that are trying to solve problems.

crazygringo• 13 years ago

Can you elaborate? Every company I've ever encountered is looking to fill a position because it has a problem to be solved that needs someone in that position to help solve it -- they can't develop their new product without three new programmers, for instance. Strategy is executed via tactics, they're not mutually exclusive.

Could you give some more concrete examples, or something? Are you talking about ongoing maintenance jobs (like your time will be spent mostly bugfixing) vs building-new-product jobs? I'm really curious what you mean.

jroseattle2• 13 years ago

Don't take that in the literal sense -- of course, anyone who is hiring someone is technically filling a position. Think of this as a classification of a company's motivation to hire in the first place.

I found companies that were "filling positions" were those that had a previous role defined, and now needed to either replace the previous owner, or add to the organization (they had budgeted for it, for example.) These tended to be larger companies, and the focus for the job was the role. In these cases, the role had largely been pre-defined.

The short-list of companies I spoke with that were trying to "solve a problem" didn't think about what role someone should fill, but rather what capabilities a candidate could bring to their team. These companies I found were often smaller (less than 100 employees), although I'm sure it could apply to larger ones. The difference with these companies is that their focus (from my vantage point) was not on organizational structure, but rather on thinking about how a candidate could augment their team.

It was very eye-opening, and once I picked up on that pattern, I began to ask the "right" questions.

jgalt212• 13 years ago

Fair enough, but the European way of firing (or lack thereof) leads to persistent underemployment. And tons of "off the books" labor. The most recently reported unemployment rate in Spain is 26.7%. Do you think a young democracy (they had a dictatorship almost into the 1980's) could actually handle a real unemployment rate that high with fomenting a revolution?

The American Way of Hiring Is Making Long-Term Unemployment Worse

Related Stories