On finding, getting, and living good work: Part 2

A couple days ago I wrote up some high-level thoughts on how we as a society view and treat unemployment and the process of finding jobs. Aside from losing a loved one, I’d say that losing your job is one of the deepest-felt losses a person can experience. This doesn’t mean that it isn’t a beautiful opportunity for growth and development — it most certainly is when used that way. There are, however, certain realities about the systems and attitudes we maintain with regards to the non-working class and job market that can make it hard to find the silver lining, especially the longer someone is unemployed.

It’s time to innovate and adjust our perspectives, so people can feel capable and valued and companies can create their best workforces.

In my first post there are four core statements that I want to explore in greater detail. Here’s the first:

The open/public job market is irrelevant now. The way people find and get work is not by searching for jobs online and applying via the web. As is said over and over, ad nauseam — it’s all about who you know. Many jobs are filled before they’re even publicly posted, by internal candidates who want to shift roles or by people who have been referred into the organization. And those jobs that aren’t filled before public posting are more often than not filled through referral.

Additionally, employers aren’t big fans of the public job market because the criteria used to screen candidates is different than what most hiring managers naturally screen against. According to Lou Adler, CEO of the Adler Group hiring firm and creator of “performance-based hiring,” in the public job market candidates are screened based on their skills, professional experience, and education. “This is not good since the implication is that you must be both fully qualified and willing to take a lateral transfer.”

On the other hand, in the hidden job market candidates are evaluated on past performance and future potential. This means the range of candidates open for consideration is more diverse and less focused on a direct transfer of skills.

Another interesting point Adler makes is that the individual thought processes of hiring managers is amorphous at first — they start thinking about possible candidates before they’ve developed a formal, fleshed-out job description. And that’s partly because human nature is to trust what we know more than what we don’t.

So what’s the purpose of maintaining a public job marketplace when it isn’t all that useful? Legalities, recruiting and hiring practices that are deeply entrenched in outdated systems, the effort needed to change those systems, etc. But these things don’t mean that individual companies shouldn’t explore new ways to screen candidates when referrals and/or internal promotions don’t work out.

• Screen for past experience and future potential in the interviewing stage. It’s better late than never to look for what you really need. Rather than stick to the same formula, what if hiring teams used a wider variety of interviewing techniques designed to showcase different characteristics? The team at Medium has been experimenting with six different interviewing methods that give candidates a chance to show their potential in more functional, effective ways. The key here is that they’re tracking the effectiveness of the interviewing techniques, not just using something new. What would be even more interesting? If they could eventually show how effective these techniques are in identifying quality candidates who have come from the typical resume/skill matching pool.
• Ask different questions at the outset. The rote method of hiring is to throw a job description out into the world then request a resume and cover letter as the entry fee for consideration. If this isn’t bringing in the right candidates, if the entry fee isn’t really serving its purpose, then ask for different information (perhaps even in different formats) — for information that will provide a sense of a candidate’s potential, a sense of how they think and learn, and an idea of who he or she is as an individual.
• Develop closed talent communities where people can connect with individual companies. Sites like LinkedIn are overwhelming for candidate search purposes. What if companies created proprietary LinkedIn-type sites for their own recruiting — not just keeping resumes and portfolios on hand, but figuring out a means of nurturing relationships over time with those people who want to work for them? Different from standard brand forums and communities, these communities would be focused on talent acquisition, offer opportunities for people to take on small projects, audition for company roles, participate in conversations with certain employees, and more. Perhaps this is already happening? The possibilities are huge.
• Invest in the process of finding and screening candidates. In so many instances, those who have open roles on their teams don’t have the time or energy to put into finding a truly great fit (or even think long and hard enough about the role to make sure it’s what the team truly needs). Aside from profits, people are the most important part of a business. Without employees, work doesn’t get done. Thus, candidate searching and hiring needs to be put higher up on the priority list, and hiring managers need to be given the time and space to do their due diligence.

Now, I don’t work in HR or recruiting. These are very high-level ideas. Drilled into, they might not fit the bill. There are almost inevitably factors and contingencies that have been left out. The point, though, is that there IS room for improvement. Job seekers and, I would contend, employers suffer from lack of exposure. We can do better.