Article: Employers Want Workers They Don't Have to Train

[fortnightlily]

Original found on Ask A Manager:  www.askamanager.org/2015/01/employers-want-workers-who-they-dont-have-to-train.html

Her summary:
"The Washington Post has a great piece from Peter Cappelli about how the “skills shortage” that people like to blame on schools (and on college students’ choice of focus in their studies) is BS … and that the real issue is that employer just don’t want to train people anymore.

He right points out that the argument that there’s a skills shortage because schools aren’t properly preparing students for work life falls apart when you realize that the reported “skills gap” is about all levels of hiring, not just for entry-level roles. And if employers are having trouble finding people at all career levels with the right experience, then the issue isn’t about what schools are doing.

He concludes: “What employers really want are workers they don’t have to train … Companies simply haven’t invested much in training their workers. In 1979, young workers got an average of 2.5 weeks of training a year. While data is not easy to come by, around 1995, several surveys of employers found that the average amount of training workers received per year was just under 11 hours, and the most common topic was workplace safety — not building new skills.”

Oh, and he also notes that 30% of U.S. employers acknowledge that job seekers were looking for more pay than they were willing to offer. Which might have something to do with an employer’s inability to find the right people."


Full opinion piece is in the Washington Post:
www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-leadership/wp/2014/09/05/what-employers-really-want-workers-they-dont-have-to-train/

[Velar Fricative]

I've sensed this for a very long time now. Nowadays, companies can be picky in their hiring because there will always be someone with some experience instead of that diamond in the rough who just needs a little more training to be a truly great employee. Also, there's the fear that companies will invest in training their workers only for them to jump ship soon enough. That's a logical fear given that gone are the days where many workers put in 30-40 years with the same company/organization, but given that this happens so much anyway, I think that's a poor excuse. And maybe it's a chicken or egg thing; workers may not want to stay with a company that doesn't view their professional development as important.

[Deleted]

Is this a surprise?

[penguingrrl]

DH has been saying that since graduating college almost 11 years ago. Even now, with a PhD, he's seeing a ton of openings that specify a very long, detailed list of must-haves that basically means that the person must have held this exact position with another company or they won't look at you. They want employees who they can plug in and will be profitable immediately instead of allowing for an adjustment/growth period in the beginning. It's incredibly short sighted.

[Velar Fricative]

Jan 28, 2015 15:32:09 GMT -5 @soudesafinado said:

But are folks supposed to get trained to do a job if employers don't train them how to do it?

Stop asking logical questions Sou.

[penguingrrl]

Jan 28, 2015 15:32:09 GMT -5 @soudesafinado said:

But are folks supposed to get trained to do a job if employers don't train them how to do it?

DH is convinced that basically every company wants another company to train the person then them to defect to them. His degrees are all job-training type degrees (BS and PhD in Chemical Engineering) but there's still a learning curve after you've left school and begun applying theory to your practice. He has noticed that companies are no longer interested in that learning period and the employment stats of many of his friends show the same trend.

[wawa]

Jan 28, 2015 15:34:34 GMT -5 penguingrrl said:

Jan 28, 2015 15:32:09 GMT -5 @soudesafinado said:

But are folks supposed to get trained to do a job if employers don't train them how to do it?

DH is convinced that basically every company wants another company to train the person then them to defect to them. His degrees are all job-training type degrees (BS and PhD in Chemical Engineering) but there's still a learning curve after you've left school and begun applying theory to your practice. He has noticed that companies are no longer interested in that learning period and the employment stats of many of his friends show the same trend.

I have seen first hand that (civil) engineering companies that got away from robust employee training programs during the downturn are starting to falter if they haven't picked them back up by now. 

This is why I recently switched jobs.  They were just letting people stagnate at my old place.  I was the youngest employee in my department with 8 years experience.  That's NOT HOW IT'S SUPPOSED TO WORK.  They hired a 5 year person right about when I started talking to the new place, but it was way too little, way too late.  The new place is ALL ABOUT young new hires and training them until their ears leak information, and they are growing at very healthy rate.  We're picking up new contracts left and right because we have a (deserved) reputation for people who know what they're doing with all the latest software and the latest trends. 

I honestly, at least in this field, do not know how companies think they are going to get shit done without being willing to invest in their people.  The state of the practice is ALWAYS changing.  You have to keep up. 

[pt716]

Jan 28, 2015 15:30:18 GMT -5 penguingrrl said:

DH has been saying that since graduating college almost 11 years ago. Even now, with a PhD, he's seeing a ton of openings that specify a very long, detailed list of must-haves that basically means that the person must have held this exact position with another company or they won't look at you. They want employees who they can plug in and will be profitable immediately instead of allowing for an adjustment/growth period in the beginning. It's incredibly short sighted.

Yes I have found that too, which is irritating. It's like if you aren't already and expert on every instrument they use they aren't interested. Because apparently a PhD can't learn how to use a new instrument or do research into a slightly different subject. :/

[MWOS]

Jan 28, 2015 15:32:09 GMT -5 @soudesafinado said:

But how are folks supposed to get trained to do a job if employers don't train them how to do it?

sounds like they want people to make lateral moves and not ask for any additional money. Unbelievable that they're struggling so hard to find these people, amirite? (idea)

[2curlydogs]

I stopped reading here "He right points out that..."

*twitch*

[ESF]

The full opinion piece is actually very good. Nothing new but it frames the issue well.

[penguingrrl]

Jan 28, 2015 15:55:16 GMT -5 wawa said:

Jan 28, 2015 15:34:34 GMT -5 penguingrrl said:

DH is convinced that basically every company wants another company to train the person then them to defect to them. His degrees are all job-training type degrees (BS and PhD in Chemical Engineering) but there's still a learning curve after you've left school and begun applying theory to your practice. He has noticed that companies are no longer interested in that learning period and the employment stats of many of his friends show the same trend.

I have seen first hand that (civil) engineering companies that got away from robust employee training programs during the downturn are starting to falter if they haven't picked them back up by now. 

This is why I recently switched jobs.  They were just letting people stagnate at my old place.  I was the youngest employee in my department with 8 years experience.  That's NOT HOW IT'S SUPPOSED TO WORK.  They hired a 5 year person right about when I started talking to the new place, but it was way too little, way too late.  The new place is ALL ABOUT young new hires and training them until their ears leak information, and they are growing at very healthy rate.  We're picking up new contracts left and right because we have a (deserved) reputation for people who know what they're doing with all the latest software and the latest trends. 

I honestly, at least in this field, do not know how companies think they are going to get shit done without being willing to invest in their people.  The state of the practice is ALWAYS changing.  You have to keep up. 

I'm glad to hear your new company is doing that! We're getting really anxious right now because his visiting prof position is up in June and so far he hasn't had a single bite for industrial or academic jobs. It's really scary that he thought he was improving his chances of being hired for a fulfilling job by becoming further educated and instead it seems that he still can't get into the job market. It feels like a moving target.

[wawa]

Jan 28, 2015 16:15:11 GMT -5 penguingrrl said:

Jan 28, 2015 15:55:16 GMT -5 wawa said:

I have seen first hand that (civil) engineering companies that got away from robust employee training programs during the downturn are starting to falter if they haven't picked them back up by now. 

This is why I recently switched jobs.  They were just letting people stagnate at my old place.  I was the youngest employee in my department with 8 years experience.  That's NOT HOW IT'S SUPPOSED TO WORK.  They hired a 5 year person right about when I started talking to the new place, but it was way too little, way too late.  The new place is ALL ABOUT young new hires and training them until their ears leak information, and they are growing at very healthy rate.  We're picking up new contracts left and right because we have a (deserved) reputation for people who know what they're doing with all the latest software and the latest trends. 

I honestly, at least in this field, do not know how companies think they are going to get shit done without being willing to invest in their people.  The state of the practice is ALWAYS changing.  You have to keep up. 

I'm glad to hear your new company is doing that! We're getting really anxious right now because his visiting prof position is up in June and so far he hasn't had a single bite for industrial or academic jobs. It's really scary that he thought he was improving his chances of being hired for a fulfilling job by becoming further educated and instead it seems that he still can't get into the job market. It feels like a moving target.

I'm sending all my job dust!  Job searching is a bitch. I really feel like this has to swing back soon, right? Right along with the college tuition bubble bursting.... 

[penguingrrl]

Jan 28, 2015 16:17:11 GMT -5 wawa said:

Jan 28, 2015 16:15:11 GMT -5 penguingrrl said:

I'm glad to hear your new company is doing that! We're getting really anxious right now because his visiting prof position is up in June and so far he hasn't had a single bite for industrial or academic jobs. It's really scary that he thought he was improving his chances of being hired for a fulfilling job by becoming further educated and instead it seems that he still can't get into the job market. It feels like a moving target.

I'm sending all my job dust!  Job searching is a bitch. I really feel like this has to swing back soon, right? Right along with the college tuition bubble bursting.... 

Thanks! I feel like it has to too! I keep thinking that he's extremely competent, hard working and personable and open to relocating anywhere we need to. Somebody will want to hire him.

[msmerymac]

Yeah, this especially true when it's something like they use a particular program or language and want you to have experience with that. Well, what if you have experience with another computer language and are willing to learn what they use? Or have done similar work with other programs? Are skills no longer transferable? I guess this is what happens when a society doesn't put emphasis on critical thinking skills.

And I know women get dinged all the time for not applying to jobs if they don't fit 100% of the requirements, but being open to learning 1 or 2 of the 8-10 things listed on the job description sometimes really just won't cut it!

ETA: I say this because I interviewed for a job last spring where I found out they had 200 applicants. They decided they hadn't found the "right person" and were reposting the job. Listen, I know that there's a lot that goes into hiring, including finding someone who will fit with the culture of the department in addition to possessing the required skills, but I work in content marketing. This is literally NOT rocket science, nor is it a lucrative field. I was also interviewing for management, where I would have 1-2 people under me, and they had concerns that I hadn't managed people before. Well, duh. That's why I want to move to a job where I'm managing 1-2 people to start.

[pitta12]

This is a pet peeve of mine in hiring at my company. They have the whole team interview people for analyst (entry level college hire) roles and then we all "debrief" afterwards and most of my team systematically shoots down every single person. Their reasons are odd and nitpicky and often contradictory. After watching this go down for quite a while I've concluded that what they really want is someone they can hire and then not have to put any effort at all into developing. It is weird to me.

[penguingrrl]

It seems like both the stagnant wages of late and only hiring those who have already proven they can do that specific job and not promoting people or bringing in new people who have potential but need training are part of the same exact myopia in companies today. All of that is in the interest of maximizing profits while spending the least possible amount, down to the penny. Nobody seems willing to invest in people when the status quo is working. I feel like there is going to be a huge cliff that it will all fall off of when suddenly nobody knows how to move from job to job or move up within their fields.

[mich1]

Jan 28, 2015 15:30:18 GMT -5 penguingrrl said:

DH has been saying that since graduating college almost 11 years ago. Even now, with a PhD, he's seeing a ton of openings that specify a very long, detailed list of must-haves that basically means that the person must have held this exact position with another company or they won't look at you. They want employees who they can plug in and will be profitable immediately instead of allowing for an adjustment/growth period in the beginning. It's incredibly short sighted.

I would imagine that (if he's looking in academia) that there is an internal candidate.

At many universities, it is impossible to give someone an upgrade in position once they are in, without moving jobs to another department.  So the way around this is that the university posts a new, upgraded position with very specific hiring criteria of the person that they are intending on putting into it.  The position has to be posted and available for applications, but that hiring criteria is very likely the CV of the person who is ultimately going to get the position.  

The university where I worked put "internal candidate available" in the job description to let people know that this position is essentially spoken for and don't bother applying.

I got to jump through these hoops to get my position upgraded, so got a good lesson on how this works.  It's kind of crappy for those who are looking for work, but it is a way of accomplishing the same goals with less paperwork and time.  Even so, those hoops took about a year to jump through for me and I was pretty much on the ball with things.  It's just that they move s l o w.

[pescalita]

Briefly, as a new hiring manager, yes. I asked for a head because I had too much on my plate. That certainly means I didn't have extra time for training. As it turns out, the specific experience we were looking for wasn't on the market. In my anecdotal case, it wasn't about $$, we actually ended up paying $10K over what I budgeted. I also wasn't personally concerned about experience, since it was all stuff that I had picked up on my own, and I was prepared for a lot of company-specific training just by nature of the position.

We're almost 2 months into training now, and while she's picked up a ton, I still spend hours with her daily. I'm still a couple months out from really gaining the bandwith I was looking for.

[penguingrrl]

Jan 28, 2015 18:23:52 GMT -5 mich1 said:

Jan 28, 2015 15:30:18 GMT -5 penguingrrl said:

DH has been saying that since graduating college almost 11 years ago. Even now, with a PhD, he's seeing a ton of openings that specify a very long, detailed list of must-haves that basically means that the person must have held this exact position with another company or they won't look at you. They want employees who they can plug in and will be profitable immediately instead of allowing for an adjustment/growth period in the beginning. It's incredibly short sighted.

I would imagine that (if he's looking in academia) that there is an internal candidate.

At many universities, it is impossible to give someone an upgrade in position once they are in, without moving jobs to another department.  So the way around this is that the university posts a new, upgraded position with very specific hiring criteria of the person that they are intending on putting into it.  The position has to be posted and available for applications, but that hiring criteria is very likely the CV of the person who is ultimately going to get the position.  

The university where I worked put "internal candidate available" in the job description to let people know that this position is essentially spoken for and don't bother applying.

I got to jump through these hoops to get my position upgraded, so got a good lesson on how this works.  It's kind of crappy for those who are looking for work, but it is a way of accomplishing the same goals with less paperwork and time.  Even so, those hoops took about a year to jump through for me and I was pretty much on the ball with things.  It's just that they move s l o w.

I've always heard that for staff level hiring, but was under the impression that it's not true for new tenure-track faculty (which is what he is seeking). Nobody we know is faculty where they did graduate work since their research would be too closely aligned to what their adviser does and very few are where they did undergrad as well (I can think of one person I know who is now faculty where she was an undergrad).

[mich1]

Jan 28, 2015 19:21:46 GMT -5 penguingrrl said:

Jan 28, 2015 18:23:52 GMT -5 mich1 said:

I would imagine that (if he's looking in academia) that there is an internal candidate.

At many universities, it is impossible to give someone an upgrade in position once they are in, without moving jobs to another department.  So the way around this is that the university posts a new, upgraded position with very specific hiring criteria of the person that they are intending on putting into it.  The position has to be posted and available for applications, but that hiring criteria is very likely the CV of the person who is ultimately going to get the position.  

The university where I worked put "internal candidate available" in the job description to let people know that this position is essentially spoken for and don't bother applying.

I got to jump through these hoops to get my position upgraded, so got a good lesson on how this works.  It's kind of crappy for those who are looking for work, but it is a way of accomplishing the same goals with less paperwork and time.  Even so, those hoops took about a year to jump through for me and I was pretty much on the ball with things.  It's just that they move s l o w.

I've always heard that for staff level hiring, but was under the impression that it's not true for new tenure-track faculty (which is what he is seeking). Nobody we know is faculty where they did graduate work since their research would be too closely aligned to what their adviser does and very few are where they did undergrad as well (I can think of one person I know who is now faculty where she was an undergrad).

It may or may not be true for tenure track.  I was not in a tenure track position, when I went through this.  However, we were in the middle of starting a new program and my boss had certain people (who were tenure track faculty) in mind as he was building the department, and I'm sure any job descriptions were geared towards those person's CVs.  

Even most faculty searches I've seen, most have been geared towards filling a niche in a particular program.  For instance, one of the programs we put together required an oral microbiologist, an oral immunologist and a third whose experience was in cellular immunity of the oral cavity.  The microbiologist was brought in, my boss was brought in as the immunologist and the third person was recruited after we had been working as a group for about 3 years.  All were tenure track positions.  They did have very specific job descriptions, to align with the goals of the program.

[penguingrrl]

Jan 28, 2015 20:03:06 GMT -5 mich1 said:

Jan 28, 2015 19:21:46 GMT -5 penguingrrl said:

I've always heard that for staff level hiring, but was under the impression that it's not true for new tenure-track faculty (which is what he is seeking). Nobody we know is faculty where they did graduate work since their research would be too closely aligned to what their adviser does and very few are where they did undergrad as well (I can think of one person I know who is now faculty where she was an undergrad).

It may or may not be true for tenure track.  I was not in a tenure track position, when I went through this.  However, we were in the middle of starting a new program and my boss had certain people (who were tenure track faculty) in mind as he was building the department, and I'm sure any job descriptions were geared towards those person's CVs.  

Even most faculty searches I've seen, most have been geared towards filling a niche in a particular program.  For instance, one of the programs we put together required an oral microbiologist, an oral immunologist and a third whose experience was in cellular immunity of the oral cavity.  The microbiologist was brought in, my boss was brought in as the immunologist and the third person was recruited after we had been working as a group for about 3 years.  All were tenure track positions.  They did have very specific job descriptions, to align with the goals of the program.

That makes sense. We know that where H did his postdoc is on year 3 of looking for a very specific skillset and even though the job announcement invites all specialties they are only open to one particular type. We have seen some incredibly specific job listings that gave H the impression they had someone in mind, but most are not.

I will say that all of my friends who are in tenure track positions had no connections to the school they ended up in prior to interviewing. I think it can go both ways with tenure track hires.

[mich1]

Jan 28, 2015 20:11:57 GMT -5 penguingrrl said:

Jan 28, 2015 20:03:06 GMT -5 mich1 said:

It may or may not be true for tenure track.  I was not in a tenure track position, when I went through this.  However, we were in the middle of starting a new program and my boss had certain people (who were tenure track faculty) in mind as he was building the department, and I'm sure any job descriptions were geared towards those person's CVs.  

Even most faculty searches I've seen, most have been geared towards filling a niche in a particular program.  For instance, one of the programs we put together required an oral microbiologist, an oral immunologist and a third whose experience was in cellular immunity of the oral cavity.  The microbiologist was brought in, my boss was brought in as the immunologist and the third person was recruited after we had been working as a group for about 3 years.  All were tenure track positions.  They did have very specific job descriptions, to align with the goals of the program.

That makes sense. We know that where H did his postdoc is on year 3 of looking for a very specific skillset and even though the job announcement invites all specialties they are only open to one particular type. We have seen some incredibly specific job listings that gave H the impression they had someone in mind, but most are not.

I will say that all of my friends who are in tenure track positions had no connections to the school they ended up in prior to interviewing. I think it can go both ways with tenure track hires.

Academia is an obscenely tight program to get into, and it seems even harder these days.  When I was working on my Phd (again, I'd be filling a niche in the program I had been working in for 30 years), there was some 'in' because I had worked in this particular program for so long.  I stepped back when I got sick, because I could no longer physically do the work.  I have no idea as to how they are going to fill the position that I was being groomed for now, or if they are even going to fill it.

From what I have seen, those who have gotten tenure track positions easiest have been those with a double degree.  The scientists I know who graduated with both a DDS + specialty training + PhD have all gotten jobs right out of the box.  It's the PhDs in microbiology, molecular biology, etc. that have had a miserable time.  I know one that was on his third post doc last time I saw him.  He wasn't having a lot of luck getting any bites, even though he was a hell of a scientist.

[penguingrrl]

Jan 28, 2015 20:29:31 GMT -5 mich1 said:

Jan 28, 2015 20:11:57 GMT -5 penguingrrl said:

That makes sense. We know that where H did his postdoc is on year 3 of looking for a very specific skillset and even though the job announcement invites all specialties they are only open to one particular type. We have seen some incredibly specific job listings that gave H the impression they had someone in mind, but most are not.

I will say that all of my friends who are in tenure track positions had no connections to the school they ended up in prior to interviewing. I think it can go both ways with tenure track hires.

Academia is an obscenely tight program to get into, and it seems even harder these days.  When I was working on my Phd (again, I'd be filling a niche in the program I had been working in for 30 years), there was some 'in' because I had worked in this particular program for so long.  I stepped back when I got sick, because I could no longer physically do the work.  I have no idea as to how they are going to fill the position that I was being groomed for now, or if they are even going to fill it.

From what I have seen, those who have gotten tenure track positions easiest have been those with a double degree.  The scientists I know who graduated with both a DDS + specialty training + PhD have all gotten jobs right out of the box.  It's the PhDs in microbiology, molecular biology, etc. that have had a miserable time.  I know one that was on his third post doc last time I saw him.  He wasn't having a lot of luck getting any bites, even though he was a hell of a scientist.

Yup, that's why my husband may move over to industry. He's a strong scientist and a passionate teacher, but it's too volatile a field right now. He has an Ivy League PhD in Chemical Engineering, only had one offer for a postdoc (and took it). He was fortunate and got a Visiting Prof. position after his 2-year postdoc, few of his friends were that lucky. But unless he gets a tenure track offer there he's out. We just can't take the stress of constantly being on the job market any longer, especially when talking about shlepping three kids wherever a job is. He would prefer to stay in academia, but we need more stability than a string of visiting prof positions can give him.

[mich1]

Jan 28, 2015 20:33:36 GMT -5 penguingrrl said:

Jan 28, 2015 20:29:31 GMT -5 mich1 said:

Academia is an obscenely tight program to get into, and it seems even harder these days.  When I was working on my Phd (again, I'd be filling a niche in the program I had been working in for 30 years), there was some 'in' because I had worked in this particular program for so long.  I stepped back when I got sick, because I could no longer physically do the work.  I have no idea as to how they are going to fill the position that I was being groomed for now, or if they are even going to fill it.

From what I have seen, those who have gotten tenure track positions easiest have been those with a double degree.  The scientists I know who graduated with both a DDS + specialty training + PhD have all gotten jobs right out of the box.  It's the PhDs in microbiology, molecular biology, etc. that have had a miserable time.  I know one that was on his third post doc last time I saw him.  He wasn't having a lot of luck getting any bites, even though he was a hell of a scientist.

Yup, that's why my husband may move over to industry. He's a strong scientist and a passionate teacher, but it's too volatile a field right now. He has an Ivy League PhD in Chemical Engineering, only had one offer for a postdoc (and took it). He was fortunate and got a Visiting Prof. position after his 2-year postdoc, few of his friends were that lucky. But unless he gets a tenure track offer there he's out. We just can't take the stress of constantly being on the job market any longer, especially when talking about shlepping three kids wherever a job is. He would prefer to stay in academia, but we need more stability than a string of visiting prof positions can give him.

My SO is a Chemical Engineer, and I was looking at one of his CE magazines the other night.  There were a load of jobs for Chemical Engineering professors, many tenure track in them in the back.  One of them was at the university where I previously worked, which piqued my interest.

[penguingrrl]

Jan 28, 2015 20:48:33 GMT -5 mich1 said:

Jan 28, 2015 20:33:36 GMT -5 penguingrrl said:

Yup, that's why my husband may move over to industry. He's a strong scientist and a passionate teacher, but it's too volatile a field right now. He has an Ivy League PhD in Chemical Engineering, only had one offer for a postdoc (and took it). He was fortunate and got a Visiting Prof. position after his 2-year postdoc, few of his friends were that lucky. But unless he gets a tenure track offer there he's out. We just can't take the stress of constantly being on the job market any longer, especially when talking about shlepping three kids wherever a job is. He would prefer to stay in academia, but we need more stability than a string of visiting prof positions can give him.

My SO is a Chemical Engineer, and I was looking at one of his CE magazines the other night.  There were a load of jobs for Chemical Engineering professors, many tenure track in them in the back.  One of them was at the university where I previously worked, which piqued my interest.

That's good to know, thanks! I know he met with a lot of people at the AIChE meeting in November and has been networking through his adviser and other contacts as well as blindly applying anywhere he sees an opening. Any chance you would mind pming me the magazine you found the listings in?