How online job searches worsen the job crisis

(Moneywatch) If tens of thousands of people applied for one job, what are the odds that not a one would be qualified for the position? That's not a theoretical question.

Peter Cappelli, a management professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, recently noted such a case after a company's resume-screening system concluded that none of the 29,000 applicants for an engineering job had the right qualifications.

Sadly, this does not surprise me one bit. With the current overflow of job-seekers and the ubiquity in corporate America of such resume software, companies often seek out the "perfect" job candidate. The sort of candidate who, given the nature of humanity, doesn't exist. As a result, people who need jobs can't find them, and hiring managers with multiple vacancies at their organizations cry in their pillows at night about the "talent shortage."

While online job applications seemingly make life easier for all parties. For job-hunters, for instance, it avoids having to print up resumes on pricey paper ad figuring out if your cover letter should begin, "Dear Sir or Madam" or "To Whom It May Concern" -- just fill out the little boxes, hit send and ta da! You're in the system.

Except that the system is a black hole. You job-seekers out there know the drill. You've submitted work applications using Google, Monster, Careerbuilder and other job sites. You've spent upwards of an hour loading your work and personal information into the systems. You've tweaked your key words to match job descriptions. And then when you go to submit your resume you're told that you left out some insignificant detail three pages back, requiring you to start over.

When you're lucky enough to have dotted every 'i' and crossed every 't', do you ever hear from the company? Almost never. Your info disappears into the Twilight Zone of online resumes.

• Job hunting secret: The recruiter is not on your side
• Should I call the recruiter?


• Your resume will not find you a job

I got an email recently from a public relations firm touting the benefits of a new online application and resume tracking system. Would I please write an article about the wonderful software she represents? In response I wrote, "My focus tends to be on the job-seeker rather than the employers. If you can tell me how this will make it better for applicants, I may be interested."

Unfortunately, the PR person's response regarding the software in question was what I expected. Essentially, there is no benefit to the job seeker. (Of course, she didn't say that exactly; she just changed the subject and offered to send me new survey coming out soon!)

And here's something important to note about this technology: Software that doesn't help job seekers doesn't benefit hiring managers, either. There's some sort of skewed notion that because unemployment is high, companies don't need employees. The attitude appears to be that the vast number of job-seekers means that all workers are replaceable. As a result, many employers set the recruitment standard so high, trying to to weed out the "unqualified," that they reject everyone in the process, including people who be a real asset to the company.

Let me make it clear by speaking directly to hiring managers, recruiters and job-board operators: When the economy is lousy, you need the best possible matches between employer and employee. And those matches aren't to be made through online key word searches. Why? Because such terms only represent how you think the job should be done -- it doesn't allow for the possibility of finding a better way to do a job, or exploring other options.

Headhunter Nick Corcodilos gives several reasons why electronic job applications are a bust. These two reasons sum it up for me:

The "out of the box creative thinking" companies claim they want is weeded out automatically. If you don't fill out a "required" box, your creative thinking is rejected. The employer gets only applicants who perfunctorily follow all the rules. Rules that don't work well at all.

That online form? It's connected to an online job description. This is where an employer throws in the kitchen sink. They ask for everything, and if you lack anything on the list, you're out. And the employer loses -- because while you may lack one or two "qualifications," you're a fast learner who will get rejected. Meanwhile, you could be learning the job while the employer complains of the "talent shortage" and the job goes begging while the board of directors wonders why profits are down.

When you need solutions (which, for companies, is always), you need someone who doesn't think like the last person in the job. Thing is, job descriptions are generally based on what the last person did. That doesn't work. You need someone in the position who will make things better.

Better how? Well, an employer won't know that until it starts talking to actual job candidates. That means employers need to actively network just as much as job seekers do. Additionally, while resume screening can be helpful, the requirements shouldn't be so discriminating that a company isn't finding any qualified applicants. Are you hung up on one particular college degree? Five, but never four, years of experience? (And 10 years is just too much! You'll be bored!) Someone who can use software A and B, but reject candidates who are versed in C and D and could easily learn the former if given a $300 set of training CDs?

In other words, instead of outsourcing their talent search to an algorithm, companies must bring in candidates and give them the chance to explain while they'll make a difference. Remember, you can train any reasonably intelligent person on the "how" part of the job. But organizations need people who are capable more than that. And finding that means you need to step away from the computer.

Image courtesy Flickr user Gennaro Visciano

[darxandra]

I think the President needs to read this article. This is just so true.

Where I work, I know that the HR personnel post the jobs online, but rarely use the applicants that applied because they don't take the time to review the candidates information. Mostly they rely on recruiting firms, which ultimately defeats the cost benefit of implementing an electronic recruiting system. It is really used more for applicant tracking. I'm just saying, I don't know how many other companies follow the same practice.

[edjohnson1]

Having extensive experience on both sides of the issue (as an applicant and as an HR executive) I can tell you that the hiring process is severely broken in the vast majority of companies -- and has been so for for 40 years or more. We may add some computer-aided tools here and there, but until hiring mangers are better trained, the process will remains a crap shoot. Although enlightened senior execs understand the value of great people (and of great hires) they do NOT understand the hiring process -- particularly the initial "sourcing". And even among the more enlightened, many (if not most) senior execs do NOT understand the nuance of recruiting nor the value of a good recruiter (whether internal or external). Accordingly, they budget for and staff their recruiting departments with too few and/or too junior folks, and then load them up with 20 or 30 concurrent open reqs, and then have the gall to complain that the process costs too much and takes too long. The automated systems are billed as a productivity aid, but as pointed out in your piece, often add little real value in the process, and neither applicants nor hiring managers are well served. Add to that the age old problems of unskilled interviewers, and it's no wonder the broken process seems to continue unabated. Really effective recruiting and hiring is arguably the most impactful thing any HR function can to add substantial value to their organizations -- but it needs to be understood, valued, and supported.

[sjc_1]

95% of respondents on NBC said employers are too picky. You have to have all the qualifications for all the years on the lengthy job description and match all the key words just to make it through the filter.

It was estimated that we are losing the skills of more than 4 million very talented people because business is hording and on strike. We need to get this log jam unlocked so we can move forward again as a country.

[dsaddeo1]

Professor Cappelli nailed this one to the wall.
It seems that like so many other things, even the often painstaking process of finding and hiring good employees has been relinquished to technology - and human interaction, judgment, and ultimately the responsibility of making a hiring decision have been abdicated. No wonder can't we find our way out of this economic miasma. But I'll keep looking. ;>)

[SylviaDana]

Great article! Funny...I dropped my teenage son off at the mall the other day to apply for jobs. I held out a pen. "What this for?" he asked. "You're going to have to fill out a lot of applications," I told him. He was done in 45 minutes. When I asked him why he was finished so soon, he explained that every manager told him to apply online. How's a kid with no experience going to sell himself by filling out an online form? HA! I myself have spent hours and hours of my life trying to create accounts and upload my resume information on job sites over the years. It can be so frustrating. "Black Hole" is a great way to describe it!

I have a friend who very recently launched a jobs website for contract and day work. He decided this was a need to fill after he lost his job and spent hours of wasted time trying to find work on the big jobs sites. His site, LaborFeed.com is simply designed to match people who need work with people who need work done. However, full-time regular work can also be posted...and we all know short-term work can often turn into a regular job. It takes just a couple of minutes to create an account and upload your info. I'm helping him with some of the social media aspects. This site is like a new born baby- in it's Alpha stage. It needs some love and TLC in the form of new job and worker ads posted. There's also a blog - jobsfornow.com Please check it out!

[KathrynSollmann]

Suzanne

This is such an excellent article--should be required reading at ALL levels of experience! As a recruiter for 10 years, I was shocked at how many job seekers--even at the most senior levels--think they will find a job online. In my experience, so many of the jobs aren't even real. So many fall into the "equal opportunity" posting category--when there are several very good internal candidates. My mantra as a career coach--and on my multi-channel blog site www.9livesforwomen.com--is that PEOPLE not COMPUTERS will help you find a job. Get out of the black hole and step up your networking game!

[JLRR]

My daughter is graduating in a few weeks with a degree in Communications. As a 21 year old college student she does not have a network! I read article after article talking about the importance of a network and wasted time filling out internet apps and doing on-line job searches but no one tells the college grad what they can do! She has submitted many apps with no response (big surprise there), Carreer Services at her University has proven useless. What other options are there?

[1Shub]

This was crazy just trying to get signed in here multiple times. And these poor idiots farm their 'psychological profile' questionnaire to an agency who manipulated them into thinking that it's really of any use. We all know, I hope, how the health paradigm has changed dramatically over the years. To look at the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual that is used to diagnose and categorize mental aberrations is a joke for the most part. It too keeps changing dramatically. After having spent well over an hour answering these 'well crafted' questions, AT&T put me on their sh__ list. Every time I apply now, and I indeed am very qualified, I immediately get an email with the subject "Not qualifed for position". No human has looked at it. When they start letting computers make decisions for them to this degree, it's very, very sad.

[ryamhcap]

If you think regular job search software is bad, try the sites used by government contractors such as CACI, SAIC and the government itself. Instead of making it easier to get a job, they make it difficult.

It seems that if you are not already in the government, you don't get hired or even called. I expect agencies are just playing musical chairs. Plus, if you are contacted because you happen to be lucky to hold a security clearance, it can take up to a year to complete the hiring process. A person could starve to death by then. Why can't there be an agency that can qualify person a security clearance without having to be hired by a company where most want people with active clearances.

What many do is add all the skills requested in the job description in their resume whether they have them or not. That way, the company actually get non-qualified employees. But in government, that does not seem to matter all that much.

[Suzanne Lucas]

I almost included quotes from actual online Government job descriptions, but I like to keep things under 1000 words so eople will read to the end.

The government is one of the worst offenders in this.

[FredinNZ]

I think the whole HR sector needs an enema! As a manager in a city council our HR dept told me they "don't do recruitment". I wonder what the team of 20-plus people does all day! Computers are great at speeding things up but shouldn't replace human judgement. By all means have a computer weed-out those who are way off the mark as there are some people who use a scatter-gun approach to job hunting (so time-consuming reading through inappropriate CVs when you're already short-staffed), but trying to get a computer to do the whole job is just lazy - not to mention the disservice to the organisation these systems can create. If the computer is smart enough to do that much, how about getting it to reply with a courteous note to - at the very least - thank applicants? Perhaps tell them which areas were below par? Not only is the "black hole" demoralizing but it's just plain rude, and creates a bad impression of the would-be employer. A negative experience may rule-out the company for future, more suitable, vacancies. And don't forget that job applicants may also be potential customers!

[Suzanne Lucas]

There is a culture in hiring that it's okay to just leave candidates hanging. This drives me insane.

And the scatter gun approach to job hunting is driven by the online applications, so it's a cycle.

[technobabylonian]

Excellent article, Suzanne, and something I knew intimately when I was looking for a job for 2 years after being laid off in 2009. The only reason I got my present job is because I am an exact fit for it from the point of view of my experience as it appears on my resume. The thing is, I am more than any resume could ever capture about me. I could not believe that someone with my skills and experience could find it so hard to find a job, even in this economy. I knew that the new methods of screening applicants were letting me down.

I also have a theory that dating websites screen people for you the same way these HR programs screen job applicants, which is one reason they tend to match you with all the wrong people. Finding a job or a relationship for someone is more than plugging in a few keywords. I remember friends who specified everything down to haircolor on dating sites and then wondered why they weren't getting any matches. It's the same with a job - You can't be too specific about relatively trivial things and miss someone who in general is the right choice. Those online applications are only able to focus on the trivial details and not the un-quantifiable things that often make all the difference.

[Suzanne Lucas]

Comparing it to dating is very apt. You're right. If you're only interested in someone of a certain height, hair color, and shoe size, you eliminate most of the people who you could potentially fall in love with. The same thing happens with hiring.