“We can’t find qualified candidates.”
I hear this all the time, and sometimes it’s absolutely true. There are real talent shortages in certain industries, skill sets and markets. But sometimes I think we need to ask a different question: Are there really no qualified candidates, or have we made it too hard for qualified candidates to get through our process?
A Harvard Business School and Accenture study on “hidden workers” estimated that there were more than 27 million hidden workers in the U.S. That number should get every hiring leader’s attention.
Hidden workers aren’t necessarily people who don’t have the skills to do the job. They are people who want to work, or work more, but often get screened out of technology enabled traditional hiring processes. This can include caregivers returning to the workforce, veterans, military spouses, people with disabilities, people without four-year degrees, people with employment gaps, people who have been unemployed for an extended period and people trying to change careers.
There is a lot of talent in that group. So why aren’t we finding them?
Often times our hiring process is the problem.
Over the years, we have gotten really good at screening people out. We use degree requirements, years of experience, industry experience, keywords, job titles, employment history and knockout questions to narrow hundreds of applicants down to a manageable number. We need some of those things, but we also need to ask whether every filter we’re using actually matters.
One finding from the Hidden Workers study that really stood out was how often employers were screening out candidates because of employment gaps. Think about that in today’s workforce. Layoffs, caregiving, raising children, career changes, relocations and COVID have all created very legitimate gaps in employment.
Six months or a year missing from someone’s resume doesn’t tell us whether they can do the job.
Our job descriptions aren’t helping.
This is another area where companies unintentionally shrink their own talent pools. A role starts out needing five or six important things. Then we add a degree, seven years of experience, industry experience, experience with our exact technology, and a few “preferred” qualifications that somehow become requirements. Before long, we’re looking for a unicorn and then we’re surprised when we can’t find one.
I’ve seen this happen over and over again. Sometimes there really is a talent shortage. Sometimes we’ve created our own talent shortage.
We need to get better at defining “qualified.”
This doesn’t mean lowering the bar. It means being much more intentional about where we put the bar.
What does someone truly need to know on Day One, and what can they learn in 30, 60 or 90 days? Does the position really require a four-year degree, or does it require skills that someone could have gained another way? Does someone need experience in our exact industry, or could experience in an adjacent industry be just as valuable? Is an employment gap actually relevant to their ability to perform the job?
These seem like simple questions, but they can completely change a candidate pool.
Recruiting shouldn’t just be about filling the order.
This is also where strong recruiting teams need to be willing to push back. If a hiring manager gives us 15 requirements, we shouldn’t automatically go search for someone who checks all 15 boxes. We should understand why those requirements matter, which ones actually predict success, which are preferences and which can be taught.
We also need to understand which requirements might be eliminating people who could be great employees.
That’s the difference between recruiting as a transactional function and recruiting as a true advisory partner.
Before you say there isn’t enough talent, look at who you’re excluding.
Look at your job descriptions, knockout questions, ATS filters and degree requirements. Look at how you’re treating employment gaps and how much emphasis you’re putting on exact industry experience. Most importantly, look at who never makes it to an actual conversation.
Although the Harvard and Accenture research is several years old, but I think the message may be even more relevant today. Companies continue to talk about how difficult it is to find great people.
Maybe the answer isn’t always finding more candidates. Maybe we need to get better at seeing the ones who are already there.