What I have seen in the workforce does not seem to match employer expectations when hiring for new employees.
In my post, The Rise of Artificial Intelligence and the Broken Job Market, I mentioned that many job seekers are tailoring their resumes to the job description, highlighting key words and phrases to simply make it past the Applicant Tracking System. This makes me wonder, are candidates actually qualified for the job or are they just good at playing the game?
Because, honestly, the whole hiring process, to me, has become a game.
I understand an employers desire to see how you positively contributed to the business, but are we actually taking an honest look at our workplaces to ensure our expectations of new candidates align with the company’s existing culture? (Probably not.)
What I’ve learned in my work experience is that most employees fall into complacency. Hopefully, they show up to work everyday and on time. They perform satisfactory tasks. Deadlines are sometimes met. Most are not going to take initiative to take on more work, especially at the same rate of pay. The employer/employee relationship in its most basic form is an exchange of (agreed upon) work performed for money earned. That’s it. So why are we asking for quantifiable measurements of improvement? Sometimes, it’s not in the nature of the job, or you don’t receive supervisory support, or life is happening and you’ve maximized your capacity to do more. This is the norm, so why are we pretending that it’s not?
Seemingly, every employer these days is seeking the unicorn of job candidates: a high-performer with experience. But only 21% of leaders, themselves, are considered to be high performing. Then, say, you do hire that high performing team member. What sort of plan has been established to keep that employee engaged, stimulated, and challenged enough to remain part of your team long-term? Less than 20% of companies have an implemented philosophy for talent development.
Additionally, if we consider a candidates opportunity for advancement relies heavily on the skills of the interviewer, how are the interviewers being selected within your organization? Could they be biased? Could they be threatened by a candidate? Do they have accurate knowledge of the technical skills and role requirements? Are they a good judge of character? Can they honestly self-assess to answer any of these questions themselves?
The hiring process now feels inauthentic and disingenuous. There are even guides to help you “correctly” answer interview questions. While I completely value preparation, these tailored methods of screening people do not allow for personalities to shine through. Nearly 50% of new hires don’t work out, because they don’t fit in with their new bosses, their new colleagues, and their new company. Is that surprising? Not really.
We are conditioning job seekers to exaggerate or withhold their absolute truths and present themselves in an unnatural manner to land a job they need in order to survive. We rarely (if ever) honestly look within our own companies to accurately assess our culture and the reality of our own workforce, then we cast unrealistic expectations on job seekers. Candidates (and employers) are set up to fail, before they even start the hiring process.
It’s just another reason why finding the right consultant or recruiter is essential. An objective perspective from someone who understands your company culture, the technical skills of a role, and has the business’ best interest at heart is going to be far more effective at helping shape your organization for the better.