Tags

, , ,

Job market, as a market, does not function as market theoretically should. This is a fact known to all practitioners on both side of the table – head hunting agencies and companies looking for people to fill up posts. Part of that problem is what I described in my previous post (which was not in any way anything new in the subject, just check out related to this post discussion), part of it is of course convenience. Theory says that if a market shows demand, it will be satisfied quickly by relevant supply. Unfortunately with jobs it is not so, as supply would have to (more often than not) relocate to get the job. Such move means often that kids have to change schools, spouse needs to quit comfortable job, new house needs to be found etc. Considering all those things good candidates do not turn into being demand satisfaction. In many cases they fill posts which are not suitable for them based on the “any job is better than no job” rule.Of course this if the “supply” will find out about the demand if it lives many kilometers away.

As it turn out, we all know this. People in the power seats know this. They still though insist on same old ways of looking for people. Why is that? I can only suspect that laziness, lack of innovation, stupidity or simple lack of courage can be a part of the problem, in addition to lack of knowing better ways of solving the issue. And this is how good people are looking for jobs performing menial tasks at their current posts and jobs are filled with people not suitable for them.

I think that LinkedIn for example can start solving this problem by allowing job seekers to post related psychological (or any other) tests for prospective candidates. There may be other, general tests which you could fill at will. Those would back up your work history and self-proclaimed skill list. They could start from anonymous tests and people could choose themselves if they would want to make them visible to head hunters…

Advertisements