The Futile Pursuit of "Perfect" in Job Postings and Its Impact on the Workplace

In the midst of a persistently high unemployment rate, the job market continues to be a buyer’s market. Because of that, people who may be unhappy or feel frustrated with their current jobs are stuck, reluctant to leave for fear that they won’t find another position elsewhere.

      This double-edged sword is changing the nature of many workplaces and the inter-relations there, while stifling the vital organizational renewal that the natural attrition of normal times brings companies, with new employees coming and established employees leaving.

      With little movement of people out of organizations (except in cases of lay-offs), postings for the rare openings these days have become pursuits of perfection. Requirements are often absurdly detailed and lengthy, virtual shopping lists of specific talents, skills and experience.

      That’s fine for highly technical jobs where familiarity and facility with various equipment and/or computer software is necessary. But for those positions that require intellectual curiosity, agility, and creativity, as well as an ability to work well with a variety of people, there is no ideal job description.

      Still, the employers advertising for many such positions apparently operate under that delusion that “perfect” is attainable.

      An article in The Wall Street Journal reported that a study found that 31 percent of the 811 small businesses surveyed had unfilled job openings in July because they couldn’t identify applicants “with the right skills or experience.”

      In an opinion piece, “Mind The Gap,” in the July 9 & 16 issue of The New Yorker, author James Surowiecki cited the “dearth of qualified workers… and the gap between the skills that American workers have and the ones that businesses need.”

The “Right” Candidate

That’s recruiters talking. I say that in the pursuit of the perfect, employers may be overlooking the right candidate. Working from that notion, that there is the perfect candidate out there, creates an insurmountable barrier to the applicant who, in the light of day, could be the best fit for the team and contribute the most to the greater good of the organization.

      Unfortunately, the resume screening software in wide use today seeks the perfect candidate, but makes no accommodation for anything except for the candidates that match nearly the entire shopping list. So, as the Journal article notes, positions go unfilled.

      On the other hand, the right candidate is going to be the one that comes with his/her own unique skills, talents, abilities and intelligence that may or may not meet all the specificity outlined in the job posting.

      While the job certainly has its roles and responsibilities, in addition to fulfilling those, the right candidate will also ultimately make the position distinctively his or her own, reflecting his/her unique personality, approach, and talent mix. In the long term, the team and the organization will be stronger for it.

      This paradox is compounded by businesses’ own reluctance to prepare new people fully and properly for the job. Both the Journal and New Yorker articles note that, to an increasing degree, businesses are loath to invest in training, on the assumption that the perfect candidate is ready to go full speed on Day 1.

      As Surowiecki notes, the ultimate irony of this weak economy is that “most companies worry less about getting every possible dollar of new business than they do about keeping costs down. That makes them slow to hire, which keeps unemployment high, which keeps the economy weak, which in turn makes employers more reluctant to hire,” adding that they are similarly disinclined to hire anyone who needs the least bit of training because of the attendant time and money investments.

      With unemployment stuck above eight percent for the past 41 months, employers can afford to be choosey, willing to wait to find that one special needle in the haystack of resumes and cover letters.

      While they make little accommodation for training, they also likely don’t provide chances for the new hire to gain an understanding of and appreciation for the company's culture, how things work, or anything much more than learning where the washrooms and parking lots are. “Just do your job. Oh, and by the way, do it at a salary far less than your last job.” And yet, they still get thousands upon thousands of applications.

A Changing Workplace

What does this do to the workplace? What kinds of employees begin to populate an organization like this? How do the older, more established employees – those who may consider themselves “stuck” – feel toward and about the newbies who are working for less money? Are there still time and opportunities for camaraderie, for personal moments and friendliness anymore?

      What's increasingly missing today is the notion that new people come into a company, feel their way around a bit, find their niche, and establish their own style and unique contribution to the larger whole in their own unique way. They grow into the job. They learn and understand their role, the nature and heritage of the company, how the business works, its customers, and the idiosyncrasies of their new boss. Given that opportunity, they feel encouraged to bring fresh insights to old challenges.

      Instead, we have an expectation that new hires will attain the necessary insights and understanding to do the job – through osmosis or ESP, I suppose – and do so quickly because there’s no time to waste.

      Is it an anachronism to believe that people can grow into the job? Is it wrong to support the notion that every job is unique to the person who holds it, that people can mold the job to their unique skills and style and thus contribute to the strength of the team and the advancement of the organization?