Blog Layout
Uncertainty suffocates confidence
March 26, 2022
Uncertainty suffocates confidence for candidates who may ordinarily consider moving jobs.
During the pandemic, uncertainty has directly impacted candidates’ willingness to change jobs. For example, suppose they feel uncertain about whether a new opportunity has longevity, or they could be swapping something familiar for an unknown. In that case, they will be resistant to moving.
This has a knock-on effect when confidence returns because candidates sitting tight during the period of uncertainty will take the opportunity with renewed confidence to step back into the job market.
There is a direct correlation between the supply and demand of candidates and their confidence during the pandemic, so it’s helpful to understand what influences their confidence.
Significant factors include lockdowns, home learning, and new variants.
Uncertainties include,
– Will a new employer be as flexible as my current employer if we are home learning?
– How will I be measured during my probation period if working remotely?
– If the new company has to reduce costs, will it be ‘last in, first out?’
We created this simple graphic to show the direct correlation between factors such as lockdowns and home learning on candidates’ confidence about moving jobs and ultimately the supply and demand situation.
Most businesses have now realised that a more diverse workforce produces better results. There are countless studies on the effectiveness of diversifying your workforce. Ultimately it isn’t about gender diversity, cultural diversity, sexual orientation or any other group of people; instead, the evidence shows that diversity of thought creates better outcomes. The Australian government has a division that deals specifically with gender equality – WGEA (Women’s Gender Equality Agency), which collects information from Australian businesses with >100 employees. Suppose you want to become a WGEA ‘Employer of Choice’. In that case, you not only have to demonstrate what efforts you are making to ensure gender equality and, therefore, gender diversity across your business, but you also have to demonstrate what efforts your partners and suppliers are making. So there are guidelines about what efforts need to be in place to be recognised. So, for example, we all know that certain job families have a drought of females – network engineering. But equally, there are other job families where males are outnumbered – typically marketing, for example. Gender diversity seems to get the lion’s share of diversity attention partly because it is easier to approach; however, all types of diversity can benefit your business, as I have witnessed from working in a pro-diversity business HR department. So if you want your overall figures to stack up, I’m sure you can borrow some stats from one job family for another but are you achieving anything beyond meeting criteria? To approach this situation involves every link in the chain and none more than the hiring manager. From my experience, there are only three types of hiring managers in the conversation of diversity. 1 – The advocate . (Circa 5-10% of hiring managers) This manager understands why diversity is essential. From the time resumes are coming through to the final round of interviews, they want diversity to have the best chance throughout the process. They may hire someone that doesn’t answer their team’s diversity targets, but they gave it a good go and eventually hired the best fit. These guys [gender neutral, of course] get it. They can see the bigger picture and that the team, culture, diversity of thought etc., all play an equal part in their team’s success. 2 – The non-believer . (Again circa 5-10% of hiring managers) This manager couldn’t care less about diversity and pays lip service to the diversity agenda, but deep down, they do not believe in diverse teams’ power and think it’s a load of old tosh. If you look at these persons hiring history, you can most likely see they are not bought into the idea. 3 – The hijacked manager (80-90% of managers) This manager understands why diversity is important, and at the beginning of the process, they are committed. Still, as they go through the process, they compare profiles focusing primarily on skills and how they meet their deliverables. Unfortunately, this group of managers has their diversity lens fogged by ‘specialist’ recruiters whose ordinary function is to find the best skills available for the budget. This isn’t the recruiter’s fault because that’s their job nine times out of 10; however, its value is lost without understanding why diversity is important. By the time the manager is getting through the later stage interviews, the vision of diversity they had at the start has been superseded by focusing on meeting deliverables. This isn’t to say that other managers aren’t focused on delivery, nor say that only project-focused managers fall into this category. Still, this group of managers start with good diversity intentions, and the focus on deliverables takes over. This is common in a world where most organisations allocate their budgets to investment priorities (portfolios). What can we do about this? Several things can and should be done about this, which include, Working with a supplier who understands the value of diversity. A top-down and bottom-up approach to diversity where senior management is very clear about their diversity objectives and the recruitment function driving the agenda. Help managers understand why diversity is vital to their business beyond a “look at our diversity figures” standpoint. Identify what you are looking for in each hire from diversity. Use a recruiter who can assess the qualities of a candidate that contribute to the diversity requirement. Get shortlists simultaneously and regroup with the hiring manager to remind everyone what this hire requires when reviewing the resumes. If you would like to learn more about any of the information above, don’t hesitate to get in touch with us at hello@pluspeople.com.au, and we’ll get back to you for a chat.
Let’s face it, without the skills needed to do the job, it’s almost a non-starter. If your candidate doesn’t have the technical competency to do the function or has previously performed a similar function, there will be a level of initial investment needed. You can teach skills. This isn’t the end of the world, and you shouldn’t write them off just because they don’t have technical competency in one area because you can train them up if needed. And that’s precisely the point! You can train skills. Skills are capabilities that are primarily learnt on the job or in associated training sessions. Other areas of assessment. There are other capabilities, however, that are inherent or not so easily changed or adopted. Social skill is an example of this. Does your candidate have the ability to fit into your existing team seamlessly? Self-management – does the candidate have the ability to self regulate and assess what they are about to do? Or do they shoot from the hip, and can your environment afford someone who operates like that? These two competencies form part of EQ (emotional quotient) , which is considered more critical to a candidate’s success than IQ in many circles. Then there are motivations behind someone moving positions. For example, if they are moving because they are looking for a challenge, is that always OK? Have they spoken to their current manager about not being challenged? Will they talk to you if in 6 months if they are again feeling unchallenged, or will they be looking at the market? What about the type of work? Yes, they may be a software developer, but is their preference project or support/BAU work? Do you have what they are looking for? Then you have people who openly tell you they are looking for more money. Surprisingly this isn’t always an unreasonable request. If they are currently underpaid, then why wouldn’t they? But have they demonstrated to their existing manager why they should be getting paid more, or do they feel everyone else in the market in their function is getting more? You also should be assessing for potential because you may be overlooking a future leader or high achiever. Have they been given special projects or assignments above their usual level of competency? What was the outcome? Have they ever shown initiative by being the change agent for continuous improvement? The above assessment areas can differentiate between a nightmare hire and a fantastic hire, yet people still focus only on skills. Gut feeling To add to this, managers also have varying competency levels when interviewing. Some have strong assessment skills, and others are happy to make a subjective decision (gut feeling). The gut feeling shouldn’t be a reason to hire someone. You should be hiring on evidence or making an objective decision. Gut feeling is more useful when you sense something is wrong, and therefore it gives you an area to delve deeper into. Don’t hire on a subjective decision, and don’t hire on skills alone. You are limiting yourself and potentially creating a risk. We recognise the need for deeper pre-interview assessment from the agency, so that’s why we have created the +People Assessment Framework. With this framework, we cover all aspects of suitability at a high level before the interview, making the hiring managers job easier and more evidence-based. If you would like to learn more about anything mentioned above, then get in touch at hello@pluspeople.com.au, and we’ll get back to you for a chat.
Contact