Don’t be a Homer

As unemployment drags on, eventually unsuccessful job-seekers run out of unemployment benefits and out of unemployment statistics as they simply give up looking for work. The Bureau of Labor Statistics tells us that over 4.8 million Americans have been out of a job more than 27 weeks, triple the 2007 rate. The average period of unemployment today is a whopping 38 weeks compared to a pre-recession average of 17 weeks.

It’s also nasty for lots of folks with jobs, particularly recent college grads. “[A] new study by the Center for College Affordability and Productivity found that nearly 1 out of 2 Americans with college degrees are working at jobs they're overqualified for. While less than 5 percent of retail sales clerks had college degrees in 1970, the study found that 25 percent did in 2010. And 15 percent of taxi drivers were college grads in 2010, versus just 1 percent in 1970.” Jobs.Aol.com, January 28^th. So since there are lots of quality people to choose from in the ranks of such unemployed and underemployed masses, it must be an employer’s dream situation, right? Not exactly.

Hot employers are poaching hot employees from competitive firms as they desperately try to fill vacant positions. They don’t seem to want the long-term unemployed person if they can get a better candidate with more currently-active experience, especially if that candidate is in the right field and at the right level. They know if someone is working in such a job, their skills are up-to-speed and the folks they are poaching are “wanted” by somebody relevant. Although you’re not supposed to hold long periods of unemployment against job-seekers, those who have been out of work the longest are also the applicants employers seem to want the least. There is a perception of atrophying job skills and a lack of opportunity to keep up with industry changes from sitting on the outside looking in.

Further, in a period of high unemployment, the desire to pay headhunters huge fees to recruit “the best and the brightest” is an increasingly difficult sell to companies who are adopting other methods to fill their ranks. And the most common new part of the selection process is peer recommendations emanating from within your own company. After all, your employees know who will fit in and what skills are needed, so if they recommend someone from the outside, this carries a high degree of credibility in the job-filling process. Likewise, knowing strong players in the same field, willing to make a few phone calls on your behalf, can boost your chances of rising above the job-application clutter.

So it comes down to your “connectivity” with those in a position to help place you. “Big companies like Ernst & Young are increasingly using their own workers to find new hires, saving time and money but lengthening the odds for job seekers without connections, especially among the long-term unemployed… The trend, experts say, has been amplified since the end of the recession by a tight job market and by employee networks on LinkedIn and Facebook, which can help employers find candidates more quickly and bypass reams of applications from job search sites like Monster.com.

“Some, like Ernst & Young, the accounting firm, have set ambitious internal goals to increase the proportion of hirings that come from internal referrals. As a result, employee recommendations now account for 45 percent of nonentry-level placements at the firm, up from 28 percent in 2010... The company’s goal is 50 percent. Others, such as Deloitte and Enterprise Rent-A-Car, have begun offering prizes like iPads and large-screen TVs in addition to traditional cash incentives for employees who refer new hires… Even getting in the door for an interview is becoming more difficult for those without connections. Referred candidates are twice as likely to land an interview as other applicants, according to a new study of one large company by three economists from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. For those who make it to the interview stage, the referred candidates had a 40 percent better chance of being hired than other applicants.” New York Times, January 27^th.

Blind submissions of resumes or postings on job-boards such as Monster.com generate derisive and stigmatizing epithets like “Monster dot ugly.” “Among corporate recruiters… random applicants from Internet job sites are sometimes referred to as ‘Homers,’ after the lackadaisical, doughnut-eating Homer Simpson. The most desirable candidates, nicknamed ‘purple squirrels’ because they are so elusive, usually come recommended. Even getting in the door for an interview is becoming more difficult for those without connections. Referred candidates are twice as likely to land an interview as other applicants, according to a new study of one large company by three economists from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. For those who make it to the interview stage, the referred candidates had a 40 percent better chance of being hired than other applicants.” NY Times.

Come in with an internal recommendation or from a highly-respected outside source, and your resume gets lifted out of the pile into a prioritized and often-fast tracked process that is infinitely more like to result in an interview and an ultimate job offer. Retention is better based on these referrals as well. Social media also allow recruiters to verify connections and learn “stuff” about their potential hires that might not otherwise be available. It may seem totally unfair, but what is fair these days. Those who need the jobs the most are those with the least connections to get them. Which suggests that job-seekers need to join into activities, signed up with Linkedin.com, troll there contact base for possible insider-friends who can refer opportunities. They really “need to get by with a little help from their friends.”

I’m Peter Dekom, and knowing how to work the system can actually deliver results far greater than simply pounding the pavement or indulging in mass letter-writing and emails in search of work.