Do you think employers are unnecessarily picky?

Planet_Switzerland

I say this as someone who's been trying to leave my job for over a year now and 14 interviews later I'm still here. I'm also saying this as someone who's interviewed other people where I'm working now.


It seems if I get to learn new things in said job I don't get it due to lack of experience in those new things, if I have experience in all aspects of the job I don't get it because they think I'd get bored and leave 6 months later, the right skills but not a cultural fit, the right cultural fit but not the right blend of skills.


At the end of the day I've got years of experience in my profession and would be perfectly capable of doing these jobs. Some have been a rival companies who do the same thing.


At the same time, we had 8 open positions where I work and interviewed many candidates but the decision maker was my manager. Most seemed capable of doing the jobs but no candidate was really deemed to be good enough. We filled 4 positions, all of whom were people willing to accept a more junior level to which they applied and 2 have since left.


Ok if you have 10 equally competent people going for 1 job then I can understand using a small thing that doesn't matter as a deciding factor.


But what we have in the case of where I work and in the case of some jobs I interviewed for, there is a job position presumably because of work that needs to be done but they would rather have nobody do the work than taking on somebody who isn't perfect. That just makes no sense to me.


Does anyone else think that employers are unnecessarily picky?

martinthebandit

Nope, I think they are necessarily picky.

Gavin83

No, I don't think employers are unnecessarily picky.

They won't disregard people for the sake of it. Recruitment processes are expensive and often they're hiring for positions that need filling quickly. If they're rejecting people it'll be for good reasons.

Cultural fit, people not getting bored and people not wanting a large pay rise 6 months in are important. As noted above recruitment is expensive, they don't want to rehire after a short period.

There are still way more applicants than jobs, businesses can afford to be picky and as long as they can be picky they'll continue to be. If the situation reverses and there aren't enough people to fill various jobs you'll likely find companies are much more willing to accept potential flaws.

For the record I know someone who got a job they were overqualified for by saying his knew he was overqualified but he had no ambition, just wanted the job and to go home at the end of each day and not worry. Companies would love overqualified staff, they just don't want them to walk.

mjm3346

No. .

Kentish_Dave

Planet_Switzerland wrote: »

Does anyone else think that employers are unnecessarily picky?

Not particularly, no.

You seem to be suggesting that as you are good enough you should get the offer but for any sort of skilled job employers will pick the best candidate from a good selection, not one who’s just good enough.

Equally, if you were the best of a bad bunch but didn’t particularly impress them they may just decide to wait and try again later.

theoretica

A company won't leave a vacancy unfilled lightly after interviewing. Would you want to be managed by someone who wasn't really good enough but had been appointed because there was no-one better?

getmore4less

Planet_Switzerland wrote: »

With our picky recruitment policy though we have 4 positions that never got filled and 2 of the 4 people we did hire left after a very short time, exactly the sort of thing companies want to avoid.

There aren't that many applicants in my profession, it's always been known to be one that has more jobs than applicants but it seems employers are basically looking for people who don't exist
....

Seems they are not picky enough.

In an industry that is narrow like you are suggesting often the best method is by referrals and it's cheaper(recruitment bonus help).

Good experienced people will have a reputation in the networking world for that industry.

We used to take on quite a few by referral even when not actively looking.

At the bottom end(graduates/second jobs) we were very picky as we were recruiting into roles where we expected progression to the other aspects of the business.

The other problem your place may have is the jobs are wrong and by reviewing those you may be able to tap into a different skill set of people to get work done free up others to take on the stuff you can't recruit for.


Why do you want to leave?
if generic with the workplace then that will apply to more than just you.

nicechap

I don’t think they are picky as such, some maybe more so than others.

I think the bigger problem is recruitment processes are very poor ways of going about things as evidenced by posts above. I remember an article from a long time ago that suggested interviews only have a 1 in 7 successful outcome rate. Assessment centres raise it by a bit but even the best and most involved assessment centres are just about 50/50.

So it’s an imprecise art masquerading as science but policed by people who don’t really understand the rules they are policing by.

theoretica

Planet_Switzerland wrote: »

But they do, the candidates we did take on were not better than those we didn't, they were just willing to go in at a lower level.

And if they were employed at a higher level than they merit in the company framework the company would likely then have to deal with the staff at that level who would want paying at the next level up, and existing staff at the lower level who would want to know why they weren't at the higher level too.



My work has some roles that are hard to fill, sometimes they are advertised at more than one level - we would prefer to recruit at the upper level but know we may not be able to.

Planet_Switzerland wrote: »

We're not talking about hiring a mechanic as a doctor because there are no actual doctors available. It's more the equivalent of a mechanic who's fixed every car except a Vauxhall Corsa not getting a job because they've never fixed a Vauxhall Corsa.

If it were just your company, perhaps one company is really bad at recruiting and people management - but the entire industry?

ACG

The first person I took on, I took him on because he emailed me out of the blue. When I interviewed him I was not overly convinced, but I was impressed that he had gone out of his way to try to get in to the industry by emailing me despite no job being advertised and I thought it would save me time recruiting someone.

I ended up having to get rid of him within 2 months as he was not very good (as it happens he appears to be doing the job successfully elsewhere now).

I am now very fussy as:
1) I am paying them a wage,
2) I am paying them a pension,
3) I am paying them holidays and sick pay,
4) I am paying NI for them.

That is before I have to account for paying my accountant to do their NI payments and payslips, licenses for the 2-3 pieces of software they will use, time getting them up and running on our systems and processes.

Employers are fussy for very good reason, it costs a fortune to have an employee in addition to time getting them up and running, so it makes sense to wait for the right person rather than someone who may leave/not fit in/may not be right for the job.

If you are being told you are over qualified and there is a concern you would leave, that is your opportunity to convince them otherwise. If the position is still available, go back and get in touch with the employer and say you have noticed the position is still available and you are still interested.

Marcon

Some are, most aren't. Try the word 'discerning' (instead of 'picky') - nothing wrong with that, surely?