Human Capital forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

Struggling to fill roles? You’re not alone

Notify me of new replies via email
HC Online | 01 Jun 2014, 02:53 PM Agree 0
A new survey shows that 41% of Australian employers are having trouble finding the right candidates for the job. Find out which roles are the hardest to fill.
  • Penny | 02 Jun 2014, 12:39 PM Agree 0
    Interesting dilemma especially if we're all to be working into our 70s. Perhaps employers and recruiters need to think outside the box a little more and really get in to employing people for the 'untrainables' such as culture fit and attitude.
    In some instances such as some sales roles, product knowledge can usually be acquired and if the person is hungry enough with the right attitude, they'll make sure pick it up quickly enough.
  • Tricia | 02 Jun 2014, 01:32 PM Agree 0
    Stories like this really frustrate me. The problem isn't that there aren't enough skilled workers out there, it is with Recruitment firms who don't understand what employers want so end up sending them candidates who are not suitable for the roles. If employers could cut out the middlemen and talk directly with candidates they wouldn't have as many problems. Also the bias against workers over 40 years old result in many employers claiming a skill shortage when many talented over 40 year olds sit at home applying for jobs which they have no chance of getting based soley on their age. Often these people are unable to be included in unemployment statistics as Centrelink don't want to know them because their spouse is working.
  • Bruce Jackson | 02 Jun 2014, 03:45 PM Agree 0
    The nature of the problem is that you are probably using Recruitment Consultants for roles where you should be managing the recruitment yourself. Recruiters will typically present vanilla candidates with a heavy emphasis on young people who have worked for high profile brand name big businesses with impressive titles. Shouldn’t this approach deliver high caliber candidates? Well regrettably no in most instances. These great credentials that you have you been presented with often translates into inexperienced people, lacking in responsibility and measured leadership as the business they have been working for accorded little authority to junior middle ranking personnel – yes that’s right, the true level of the candidates notwithstanding their impressive title. What perpetuates this talent shortfall is that many recruiters have a superficial knowledge of how businesses actually operate. Their background is typically in sales and the sales pitch is to engage them to do your recruiting. In short, they present you with what superficially sounds/looks good, but in reality lack depth and real know how. So the bad news is that you will have to spend more time directly managing your recruitment. The good news is that you will discover that the people you need are in fact out there and available.
  • Fred | 05 Jun 2014, 05:33 PM Agree 0
    The route if the problem is too many employers thinking they can recruit someone directly themselves rather than use an experienced recruiter. This basically limits their candidate pool to the active job seeker which is usually, someone not working (why?) someone not happy in their current role (why?). If you want the best candidate you need to be proactively dealing with passive candidates, sticking a one off advert on seek won't get you any if those. Internal recruiters are often seen as a cheaper option by an employer but more often than not they are little more than glorified administrators with no exposure to a broader business or in the actual role area they are recruiting for. There's plenty of choice of recruiters out there vying for business in this market, find one that has directly worked in the same area you want to hire in, pay them on a retained basis and you will get the right candidate.
  • Ken | 18 Jun 2014, 07:19 PM Agree 0
    Comments like the first few in this thread really frustrate me, and I’m not even a recruiter!

    I find it incredible how many people think they know how agency recruiters operate but are clearly ignorant of the reality.

    Think about it - what does a recruiter stand to gain by excluding qualified and experienced candidates?

    Recruiters want to get the job filled and move onto the next one. That’s actually how they make money. They have absolutely nothing to gain by rejecting older candidates with relevant experience and qualifications, unless their client (the employer) has expressed a preference for younger candidates.

    It’s actually easier (and cheaper) for recruiters to attract unemployed 40-50 year old candidates, than it is to source (employed) young professionals from big name companies.

    The reality is it’s employers who are discriminating against older workers, and they’re using recruiters to do their dirty work.
  • MM | 27 Jun 2014, 04:45 PM Agree 0
    Why do employers find it hard to fill roles? Because employers won't spend even 5 minutes training someone in the role on offer - especially when it comes to software programmes. e.g. a candidate might have all the right skills and ability and have used similar software but not the product the role on offer uses. This candidate doesn't even make it to an interview with the recruitment firm. Employers expect perfectly experienced candidates who can hit the ground running with no hand-over in the role and no time to learn the programmes being used.
Post a reply