Current Talent Shortage

Several years ago I read an essay arguing that the only way to see how someone will perform in a job is to observe them doing that job. The author therefore suggested that once you've identified several candidates for a position, you bring them in for a week as a paid consultant. You give them an office and any necessary equipment (computers, etc), assign them an internal contact, and give them a real project that can be completed within a week.

The benefits to the candidates include being compensated for their time while being given a chance to demonstrate their abilities.

The benefits to the company include getting real - but low priority - assignments completed while being able to observe and evaluate candidates "real-world" performance.

Several years ago I read an essay arguing that the only way to see how someone will perform in a job is to observe them doing that job. The author therefore suggested that once you've identified several candidates for a position, you bring them in for a week as a paid consultant. You give them an office and any necessary equipment (computers, etc), assign them an internal contact, and give them a real project that can be completed within a week.

The benefits to the candidates include being compensated for their time while being given a chance to demonstrate their abilities.

The benefits to the company include getting real - but low priority - assignments completed while being able to observe and evaluate candidates "real-world" performance.

Rich, interesting comment and one that I agree with wholeheartedly. I've long felt that even such short-term "internships" have value, and that it could make an incredible difference in the transition to industry for many academics.

I see that there's a need for some kind of non-profit foundation to advocate for STEM job seekers, perhaps to seek contributions from deep pockets which can then pay the wage for that one-week consultancy, so that companies get the benefit of the work being done (for free) while they make their decision about whom to hire. I think this would benefit many forum readers and we need to talk more about how it could be managed.

Dave

It's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure how practical. I don't know that most people could take a week off for every job interview-- the pay is nice, but I only have so much vacation time. If I didn't get a job on the first try, I'd have to wait months to be able to earn enough time to try again. And I can't afford to quit one job until I have a new offer in hand.

I'm not sure how I feel about this post. Perhaps, it's just a difference in definitions . . . I certainly wasn't suggesting that on every job interview you'd have to take a week for a special project.

But, if you were a finalist for a position, and you wanted that job, wouldn't you accept a week's paid consultancy to take a shot at it? I would hope that every reader of this forum would have that kind of burning desire to make a successful transition. I wouldn't be too receptive, if I were the hiring manager, to someone who I offered $2000 to, and who was one of two or three people who had a shot at a full-time job in my team. I think that would be a real turn off.

Making the move from academia to industry takes a huge effort. If something like this was offered, my guess is still that those who were interested would raise their hand and find a way to make it work. Perhaps it would end up being a filter - those who make the move successfully to industry would be self-selected, so to speak.

Dave

I think that we should also remember that the largest and fastest-growing segment of the STEM fields is computer and mathematical occupations. Several sources (including the AFL-CIO; see http://dpeaflcio.org/programs-publications/issue-fact-sheets/the-stem-workforce-an-occupational-overview/) and others that have been posted here before suggest that these are about 50 - 75% of the STEM positions, depending upon definitions of STEM (the AFL-CIO includes architecture and social sciences in STEM). Additionally, the AFL-CIO study indicates that computer and mathematical occupations accounted for 98.7% of STEM job growth between 2003 and 2013, while life, physical and social science occupations lost 68,000 jobs during this period.

We can all agree that different sources use different definitions of STEM, and have different sources for the numbers; however, when you take the "T' out of "STEM", it presents an entirely different picture.

Dave Walker and Rich Lemert point out interesting ways of evaluating candidates, but it is from the "T" viewpoint; you can train people to be capable (as opposed to proficient or competent) in programming languages much more quickly than you can judge a person's capabilities in physical, chemical or biological sciences. However, in those sciences, you can often determine something about a person's capabilities from their resume. Your decision therefore has to involve "can they fit in to our operation, both technologically and culturally?" and this can often involve intuition as much as anything else. We must remember that intuition is often the result of the "brain drawing on past experiences and external cues to make a decision – but one that happens so fast the reaction is at a non-conscious level." (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080305144210.htm) Put another way, I once read something to the effect that intuition is the result of your acting upon information that you don't yet realize that you have.

Bottom line - there may be less of a glut of talent in the parts of STEM that this forum addresses than one might think - but regardless of that, there is still a place for intuition in hiring.

One man's opinion...

Dick

Dick

The approach I outlined is obviously not perfect - no hiring process is, but I think it's more widely applicable than you seem to feel. All it takes is a creative approach to coming up with an appropriate 'consulting' project.

Let's say your biggest competitor just announced a new product. You could ask the applicant how he/she would go about analyzing and/or characterizing it. If you've got their patent, you could ask him/her if there's any way they think you can get around it.

You're not going to see how they work at the bench, but chances are you've already got a good idea about that from your reference checks and reviews of their publications.

What you can see is how they go about approaching the problem. Do they get into minutia right away, or do they start with a 'big-picture' overview? Are they fairly methodical, or do they jump around a lot? Do they manage their time well, so that they deliver a product to you at the end of the week? Do they suggest next steps?

Your primary goal with this process is not to obtain a finished product, but to see how the person works. That's also part of the reason for assigning them a contact; do they ask "who are the internal resources I can access for this project?", or are they a lone-wolf.

Rich:

You are correct that direct observation is always useful if it is possible. In fact, it can be useful for both the applicant and the employer, as the applicant may decide that the employer is not a place that the applicant would like to work.

The points that I was trying to make are a) that the "T" is really the largest part of the "STEM" professions and b) that there is still a place for intuition in hiring.

Dick

Raphael, the sarcasm is unnecessary and only detracts from your commentary. Please refrain in the future, because as you know, this is a moderated forum and we do not take kindly to "rants."

Thanks,

Dave Jensen, Moderator

Here' my view and its a bit related to Company Training and development but more willingess of a Company to hire someone who has potential but a bit rough around the edges.

In General, in my opinion, its not a shortage of STEM workers as the article notes, but it is in fact the shortage of the "right" Talent.

Today, in the the Business world at least for the non-technical/Jobs its more than scientific know how or technical knowledge. Today its about having that knowledge AND its about having a workstyle that is consistent with being a leader, a team-payer, a cross-functional influencer, effective and super efficient communicator, a harmonizer, while carrying a well-established business-minded way of working. Now ticking all those boxes, is difficult.

Now take that, combined with super picky employers due to a super competitive and global Level market place and you get the perscieved Talent shortage.

So today you have 150 applicants for a job, of which really say 70% are sufficiently qualified if you check the STEM box - but then you start narrowing down based on "fit" and so called "right" Talent - next then you know then say 5% fits the bill, 3% get a call, and you start to get to the Notion that there is a Talent shortage.

Then there is the Age and experience perspective. Folks rise up with Age and experience but as one increase with age, there is a diminshing return on value of experience - so perhaps a 35 year old is more valuable than a 50 year old and that adds as well - an that addes to percieved shortage. But let me not talk further on this one.

Quite often I have heard that the Talent shortage from hiring Managers is not due to a gap in STEM backgrouds as appropriate but its that "chutzpah" they're looking for - that well rounded Person - who's just perfect, no rough edges, that eloquent Speaker with presentation skills to match a News anchor and leadership skills of Captain Piccard - when you start digging deeper.

Now from a career development perspective as it pertains to me. What took me ahead in the begining was in part my Science Background -but what differentiated me was that other stuff - so called soft skills, presentation skills, ability to alivate fear that I would diminish crediblity of my Boss, myself, my Team etc. I'm not a News anchor or Captain Piccard, but aspiring to that seems to work.

So a bit wordy, but to me the so called shortage of STEM is beyond STEM, its the the STEM with the right stuff - smooth talker, calm, cool, collected, Team Player, influencer, Driver, solid communicator. And that's the shortage. And much related again to employers who are not willing to take a risk on someone with any rough spots - who are Diamonds in the rough so to speak, who just Need a bit of polishing for super value.

Just my opinion...

DX

But, if you were a finalist for a position, and you wanted that job, wouldn't you accept a week's paid consultancy to take a shot at it? I would hope that every reader of this forum would have that kind of burning desire to make a successful transition. I wouldn't be too receptive, if I were the hiring manager, to someone who I offered $2000 to, and who was one of two or three people who had a shot at a full-time job in my team. I think that would be a real turn off.

Making the move from academia to industry takes a huge effort. If something like this was offered, my guess is still that those who were interested would raise their hand and find a way to make it work. Perhaps it would end up being a filter - those who make the move successfully to industry would be self-selected, so to speak.

Dave

It seems to me it selects for the people who have the most flexibility in their current jobs, who can tolerate the most risk, or have other financial resources to fall back on.

No, in my opinion, it would select for people who will do anything necessary to land a good job in a company. And it would get people who do not have a long list of check boxes on their CV, people with a good brain but no industry training, into jobs in companies.

DJ

Nate said, "It depends on the situation. However, I always believe a "bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." Any such offer is just an example of a cheap skate manager trying to save a dime on the back of a poor naive academic. For example, I made 50K at a good University as a lab manager or post-doc for which the position is well funded. The $2000 offer to try out for the job (making 50K-70K) would be insulting to me and I wouldn't deal with this manager in the future. Now let suppose I just graduated from a PhD program and had no job, then I might take the offer. However, most respectable companies would not offer this; they would offer full time employment with benefits or do w/o the position. Dave, it also might irate candidates because it would project the image the manager is cheap and a free loader."

Well I'd like to see the "naysayers" here come up with some kind of an idea that stimulates upheaval. Nothing will change the current situation except something dramatic. What we need here are ideas not to shoot down, but to implement. I may dedicate the rest of my life to one of these ideas, that's how I feel about it. Passion? You bet.

The idea I proposed above is not for someone who has a current job and they have to take vacation and so forth (yada yada yada, I've heard it all -- come on naysayers, throw more at the wall if you want to.) The idea is PERFECT for a company that would normally NOT hire an academic, and they can take 3 pending PhD graduates and give them a project to work on and BINGO someone is hired who would otherwise have gone into a terminal series of postdocs.

Let's be creative here. Let's not shoot down every idea that's different. Honestly, if I were a hiring manager and I told you "Phil, I'd like to hire you but I need to show my managers that you've got the kind of mind we're looking for. Come in here, let me pay you fairly as a consultant for a week and give you a real world project to deal with. If people like to work with you and we sense you are our kind of person, you've got the job" -- how would I feel about you if you said, "Gosh, I've already used my vacation this year." - you'd be out on your ear with no further discussion! Ideas like these are for people who are risk takers, not gripers. You give this kind of person a crack in the window, and they'll go through it without hesitation. Now THAT'S a filter.

Dave

Nate,

My choice of $2,000 as a 5-day consulting fee does sound low, but it could be any amount. That's got nothing to do with the gist of this idea. Get off of that, will you please? You would be the last guy in the world offered an opportunity like this because of your attitude and the viewpoint you bring to everything (negative). So, it's clearly not an idea for the Nate's of the world. (As an example, you ASSUME this is for people who have a home and a family, but it's earlier in the lifespan of a scientist than that. You ASSUME that it's a cheap company strapped for cash -- why is this? These are often our best employers who do not pick out academics for jobs.)

This an idea for those who are able to take a risk, who do not have a home and family but who are earlier in their career. This is for new graduates or those stuck in the endless postdoc.

Dave

The people objecting to this proposal base their objection on the idea that someone who's already working will have to take some sort of leave (paid or otherwise) to complete the "consultancy". This ignores the fact that if they're working they've already demonstrated their abilities, and there's no need to go through this 'demonstration' process. The job seeker will have other ways available to him or her to do this, even when all the work they've done is proprietary, and hiring managers have plenty of ways to confirm your claims.

The proposal is really intended to describe a fair method to evaluate a candidate who has no track record to rely on. It's a way for Joe Notsocool, whose entire life up to this point has been as a dedicated student, to show that he has other skills. At the same time it avoids the charge that many make - sometimes fairly, sometimes not - that the company is just trying to get some free consulting. Someone in this situation isn't likely to need to worry about vacation. Furthermore, to echo Dave's remarks, I would strongly question a candidates interest in making a transition into industry if they weren't willing to try to make something like this work.

Keep in mind also that the essential element of this idea is a paid opportunity for the candidate to demonstrate his or her abilities. The week-long on-site component is just one way this could be done. The candidate could, for example, negotiate a two-week off-site project with maybe a different deliverable.

(By the way, this last approach has the additional advantage of showing how you are focused on finding solutions to a problem, and not on finding reasons why it can't be done.)

Dave, why should candidates to be so trusting and why would reasonable skepticism among candidates about such an offer be perceived as a negative attribute?

Dave, it might help if you provide a specific example where this contingency consultant arrangement is appropriate and would help a manager solve a hiring problem?

Of note, many post-docs and technicians have families and small homes.

Hi Dave,

If you allow me.

Nate:

Qusestion 1: a bit of reality here. Any decision to Switch a Job be it at the Interface of academia and non-academia Job is a risk on behalf of the candidate taking that decision. Any decision to Switch a Job at any Point in one's career is a risk on behalf of that candidate.

I don't think any one has said that a candidate should be trusting . But what has been said, is keep expectations managed and keep pulsed into the reality and the Situation at Hand. So once you accept that, then you decide, leap or not. With that risk can be great opportunity and its up to the candidate to decide for themselves. It does not matter if its for a contractual Position or for a fixed/permanant Position.

The candidate will weigh their own personal Situation (house, Family whatever) and evaluate the risk themselves - the only Person who is accoutable for a decision to take any Position,

Switching a Job always carries a risk - new employer, new Team, perhaps new subject area. And there is never a promise. Maybe you don't Jive in the Team, or the Boss Ends up being a Person you can't work with, or the Job is not what you expected.

In the US and in Europe there is something called a probation period, its much like one of those test and try contracts but its linked to fixed Budget/permanant jobs. The purpose of the probation period to for both you and your hiring Manager to assess if the Position is a right fit. Ok, its not one week Long, mayby its 1 to 3 months, but in that time you are being evaluated (are you the right Talent?) and that is in the contract you sign. There are absolutely no promises made. At the end of that probabtion period, you can be asked to leave. End of story.

Same applies to the candidate, they can leave too. So its a risk ou take anyways and always. You take it because the opportunity out weighs the risk - and even Folks with Family and houses do it.

The hiring Manager has his or her interest to hire the best candidate - how they take that Approach is for them to do, and not for you to judge. If don't want what's on the table, then simple - walk way. Move on.

And those contractual positions are not just for early Folks, some Folks looking to make a lateral Change in subject area. They are actually good to get a foot in the door.

So if you consider the above, those contracts represent opportunity, if you come in negative then what's the Point? Walk away? I wouldn't want to hire you if one came in negatively, the Point to its is to test and try, take it or leave it.

Question 2: In Terms of those contingency contracts helping hiring Managers, they can really help the hiring Manager. Lets face it, 1 week or 3 months, too short to evaluate any form of Performance really. Seriously, what are you going to deliver in 3 months?.

So what's being evaluted? Simple, the fit to the Team, credibility, and personality and behavior. I've been a few companies obviously and int all my probation period assessments, what was discussed was my behavior, fit to team, crediblity, etc. The Hiring Manager can validate if thier choice was right as an example. At the end of those form, there is a box, retain or let go. So just as FYI. A contigency contract is no different in that manner - and remember it Goal is to assess if you are a fit. And why not? Better test to see if one actually hired a nut job or a true talent. This is where it helps, there are pleny of nuts out there.

And one final thought - the relationship between you and an employer is a Business Transaction. Any thoughts of warm fuzzy's, consideration of house and Family by HR, loyalty, talent etc., does not exist. This is corporate, and it can care less about your personal Situation when Budgets are challenged. If you don't like it, stay in academia.

DX

As I read this entire thread, it is clear that there is a bit of confusion here. Dave Jensen is talking about ways to make the jump from academia to industry, not from one job to another. The one axiom to remember is that the toughest job search that you will ever have is your first industrial position. If you do not have someone to help you network, you may have to do something like the trial period that Dave suggested.

Given the contraction in some of the pharmaceutical companies, there are a lot of people out there with proven skills and references and networks to match - why hire an academic? Even if there is a probationary period - which is standard in many companies - that period still represents a significant investment and a concomitant opportunity cost if the candidate does not work out. It is to the company's advantage to minimize the possibility of that failure in any way possible.

Nate talks about the concept of "temp-to-perm" using agencies such as Manpower. This is all well and good, but why would a company take the temp who is straight out of academia as opposed to one who has a track record in industry? For that matter, why would the temp agency even look at someone from academia?

Finally, DX comment to Nate said it best:

And one final thought - the relationship between you and an employer is a Business Transaction. Any thoughts of warm fuzzy's, consideration of house and Family by HR, loyalty, talent etc., does not exist. This is corporate, and it can care less about your personal Situation when Budgets are challenged. If you don't like it, stay in academia.

You may not like it, but that's the way the world works. The company does not exist to provide you with a living - they exist to make a return for their shareholders.

Dick