We are Leaving Talent on the Bench

Multiple times a week I find myself in conversation with talented people who cannot find their way through the maze of today’s employment process. They are eager to put what they know to work for an employer, but the “system” does not let them in. Let me give you a couple of personal examples.

Those of you that know me already know I have 40+ years of manufacturing management background. My experience includes Supply Chain Management, Industrial Engineering, Plant Manager of a Union shop, Quality Systems Manager, Recruiter and Talent Manager. I am now an independent Business Coach. On top of all that, I am a natural problem solver.

I saw a Career Builder ad for an organization looking for people to join their “business coaching team”. It intrigued me and so I looked into it. Early on in my inquiry I hit a “road block” in their on-line application. Without a certain degree you cannot go on in their process.

This is a puzzle to me. I went to Western Michigan University in the late 1960’s. When I started working as an Industrial Engineer for Checker Motors in Kalamazoo we used slide-rules to do our calculations. Calculators were not yet invented. A few years later when Checker put in their first computer system it filled an entire building. Today my laptop has more power than that whole building had. Is there truly any relevance in today’s business world to a degree from the 1960’s? Is it possible I have learned valuable lessons during my career and learning from thought leaders like Earl Nightingale, Stephen Covey, Tom Peters, Jack Welch, Jim Collins, etc. that I can share with organizations? However, the “system” cast me out before a person could see my background.

Let me give you another real life example, but one that has a better ending. While working as a Recruiter I was asked by a client to find them a specific type of Engineer. They gave me their requirements, which included a 4 year degree. I found a candidate that was doing exactly what they were looking for. His reason for searching for a different job was too much travel. He was working for a California-based company and had to travel to the home office too often. The client loved the candidate’s background and personality. At the end of their interview it was discovered the candidate was actually two classes short of his 4 year degree. His marriage and family responsibilities drove him to work 12 years ago prior to graduating.

The Human Resources Manager called me and said we love this guy and his background, but our rule says he must have a 4 year degree. I gave her my scenario from above; an irrelevant education from 40 years ago. I then asked her if she felt the candidate had learned more of what they needed him to do in his 12 years of experience versus the two classes in theory he missed in college 12 years ago. To cut a long story short, they hired him and he is still a very productive employee today. They chose to “look past the rule” and determine if this guy was the best candidate to fill their need. They are glad they did.

Another example I see weekly is organizations passing over candidates at 55 or 60 years of age. This makes no sense for two major reasons. First, just the years they have been employed has given them a wealth of knowledge. The other reason that jumps out at me is longevity. Everyone says young people will change jobs every 3 to 5 years. A person at the end of their career is less likely to leave a job. Also most people will work well past 65 today because they simply are not ready to retire. In the past people retired at 65 but only lived another 5 years or so. This generation is living to 80 on the average. Most people cannot live another 15 years on the money they have saved. They need to continue to work.

I believe we need to seriously look at the “road blocks” we are putting in front of great candidates. There is a massive amount of talent we are over-looking every day. I understand the need to “sort” candidates. I was a corporate recruiter for 15 years. Somehow we need to create a “hold” system on applicants that are good matches “except…”. Let’s have a person that can reason review the “excepts”. Not a non-reasoning computer.