People don’t want to work?
My job search has me feeling worthless. Except I’m not. I am a mid-level career communications professional with digital media experience, especially email and social media marketing. And in 5 weeks, I complete my master’s degree in Communications with a graduate certificate in social media. And yet, after doom scrolling the job boards, I feel a little like Eliza Doolittle — “I’m a good girl, I am!” I shout as I anticipate the rejection notices.
Here’s the thing. Employers can’t say “people don’t want to work” when their HR departments are sitting on oodles of resumes and applications. As I scrolled the job boards, under each position I could see there were multiple applicants, anywhere from five to more than 400. Sometimes “a bird in the hand,” recruiters. “The endless quest to make hiring efficient has rendered it inefficient. Candidates who are great fits for 90 percent of the job are screened out because they’re not perfect for the other 10 percent. Recruiters are so inundated with résumés flowing in online that they only look at the first few, hiring the people they can get the fastest instead of the people who are the best fit.”
Employers can’t say “people don’t want to work” when their application process is cumbersome, taking more than a couple of minutes or requiring a cover letter. C’mon, who on their HR staff has time to read that when they’re in meetings all day trying to come up with ways to find candidates? Recruiters, does your application process discourage candidates? Time to take a look at the systems that support (or don’t support) hiring efforts.
And employers can’t say “people don’t want to work” when they’re eliminating candidates based on a minimal skill or tool they lack. For example, on a recent application, when asked how many years of MailChimp experience I had, I truthfully entered zero. I’ve never used MailChimp but I know it’s darn similar to another email list management software I’ve used for years, Constant Contact. There was no field for that so, you guessed it, I’m out. Why employers don’t focus on underlying skills or competencies rather than specific tasks and tools is mind-boggling. “Companies desire ‘plug-and-play’ hires. These are the people who possess 12 of the 10 requirements on a job description and could capably start working on day one without any handholding or training.”
I’ve also seen quite enough, thank you, of do-it-all postings. Listen, employers, you may as well post a job for a rainbow unicorn who farts glitter when you ask for the skill set of an entire team of professionals in one position. A candidate cannot have multiple years of hands-on experience with video editing, audio mixing, web design, social content creation and management, copy writing and editing, content strategy, analytics, and reporting, and perfectly gift wrap presents for the holiday party. Employers can ask for familiarity, which of course candidates will have if they’ve worked in a collaborative environment. The collaboration of comms and creatives is a powerhouse of skill and employers should want a team, not just one person. If employers don’t want a team, then they should hire an agency. Don’t burnout talent, employers. You’ll find yourself posting that position again because one person never equals the collaborations of a talented team.
Finally, listen, if your company doesn’t understand how sales differs from marketing, then I can’t help you and certainly don’t want to work for you. In a nutshell — Sales = relationship building and moving products and services; Marketing = messaging, branding, reputation management, which all help sales people do their jobs. Fitting together does not equal doing it all. Again, collaboration of the roles, not combination is key.
Employers can’t have it both ways, rejecting armies of potential talent because candidates are a 70 to 80 percent fit while holding out for 100 percent. There has got to be willingness on their part to skill up candidates. Unyielding requirements for positions are a tactic to eliminate candidates so no one has to do the hard work of actually talking to people.
Employers’ complaints suggest that they’d rather blame the workforce (a swath of conveniently indistinct people) as lazy rather than attracting people back with benefits they need, like comprehensive healthcare, paid caregiver leave, remote options, oh and a living wage just to name a few. This complaint is so convenient as a strategy, in fact, that it obfuscates the reality that employers are saving millions of dollars by leaving positions open rather than filling them.
So, I ask you, did the people quit the work, or did the work quit the people?
Think I’m wrong or left something out? Let’s talk about it. Leave a (civil) comment below.
Or if you want to prove me wrong by offering me a job, let’s definitely talk. That would be “loverly.”
— ///// —
Further reading and props to these publications, (which suggest I’m not just making this up):
Forbes. (July 12, 2021). The Great Jobs Mismatch: Why Companies Aren’t Hiring And Candidates Can’t Find Jobs.
Harvard Business Review. (May-June, 2019). Your approach to hiring is all wrong.
Harvard Business Review. (January-February, 2013). Redesigning knowledge work.
Vox. (September 20, 2021). Why everybody’s hiring but nobody’s getting hired.