Why are good people rejected during a skills shortage?

‘Employ good people and get the hell out of their way’  That was the secret to success as told to me by an old guy from the US that had successfully built a famous business from the ground up over decades.

I was early in my career at the time and his words stuck with me because I knew that one day I wanted to start a business.

Often I hear from very skilled and experienced people that are frustrated about being turned down for jobs because they are ‘over qualified’ or that have lost their job during a ‘workforce skills crisis’ – to quote some rural media headlines.

So what is really going on here?

Recently I had a conversation with the owner of a successful up-and-coming food company at an industry function that shocked me.

He was in the process of interviewing people for a part-time sales and marketing position and had just completed another ‘frustrating’ interview that afternoon.  He was offering good money for 2 days a week.

“I can tell you now we won’t be employing this one – he’s overqualified” he recounted.

“What do you mean by overqualified?” I asked.

“Well, I can’t understand why this person bothered to apply to work for us”.  The owner went on to explain that the applicant had high-level food wholesale and retail sales and marketing experience in Australia; and had also previously held high-level food sales and marketing category roles with one of the UK’s leading retailers.  The applicant was a treasure chest of knowledge, experience and skills for selling food products to retailers.

Suspecting the owners perception of this applicant was that they wouldn’t hang-around; I asked if he thought the applicant to be genuine.  “Did you ask what attracted him to apply for the position?”

The applicant had explained during the interview that after a number of years working in high-level roles around the world, he had returned to Adelaide with a young family and was looking to apply his ‘know-how’ locally on a part-time basis for some work/lifestyle balance.  

I could see the owner was still unsure why this applicant was willing to accept such ‘low’ money in a ‘low’ job and therefore what future risks did this present his business.  Was the owner low-balling the position?

“Gee” I said “Why don’t you just exploit him” half-jokingly. 

 

Maybe the owner actually didn’t want someone that knew more than him.  I felt the owner might have been interested but maybe wanting to self-talk his way out of it.

“Have you ever thought about approaching this situation from a different angle in order to engage this person’s skills in way that would make you more comfortable?” I said.  “It would be a shame to push this applicant away”.

After a bit of discussion about such things as flexibility, reducing recruitment costs and interim contracts with specific outcomes, the owner finished by saying “We won’t consider other options – we want someone for ourselves”.

I started to get the impression that perhaps the position wasn’t available – if deep-down the owner wanted to keep control of thiings.

I think I finished things up by commenting “I have to say, if it was my business I would find a way for this person to work for me and not my opposition”.  No answer.

During my one-and-a-half hour drive home that evening, all I could think about was why this employer would not recruit the skills and experience of the applicant.  I was very frustrated.  He would probably end up with a lessor person that wouldn’t deliver in the position; and complain that due to the skills shortage good people can’t be found.

This situation reminded me of a book written by Wharton Management Professor Peter Cappelli called ‘Why good people can’t get jobs: Chasing after the Purple Squirrel’.  It caused quite a stir when it was released.  http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=3027

Understanding Australia's food chain:  whose responsibility is it?

WARNING – this blog contains a lot of questions and not many answers!  So if you are in the mood for a bit of light reading and pondering some hypotheticals that are not supported by evidence then this could be the blog for you.

There has been a lot of emphasis on creating value for Australian farmers, using a range of industry initiatives designed to increase the consumer’s understanding of how food arrives on their plate.

What is it that we are asking consumers to do?  Is it clear to them?  A part of me is starting to empathise with consumers.

Is it the consumer’s responsibility to understand the food production chain; or the farmer’s?  Consumers have many questions.  What answers are they willing to pay for?

Who provides the answers?

How many farmers understand their industry beyond the farm gate?  Don’t they care?  Don’t they value what they sell?  Why are they not asking the right questions to find out?  How will they know what to produce and how?

Why are we so reliant on people that didn’t produce the product, to pass on such an important story to the consumer?  Are they skilled at doing this?

Why do we ask consumers to understand the origin of their food all the way back to the farmer?  Are we prepared/comfortable with the maximum scrutiny of our industry that will come with this?

There is nothing in that relationship that relates to the consumer’s world.  How do we get to know their world beyond the shopping trolly?

When we are talking about initiatives that put value back into the industry, is it more effective to focus on the marketing activities of farmers or the purchasing behaviour of consumers?  If we need to change attitudes whose is the easiest to change?

Is it the responsibility of the consumer to help us run our industry?  The key words I see in articles and publications regarding this topic are; ‘lack of understanding’; ‘disconnection’; lack of appreciation’ – many of which have been used in a context that squarely takes aim at consumers.

Is the perception of agriculture in the suburbs really that negative?  Or are we responding to our own feelings in an industry that fights to be heard amongst all the other noise?

Why do we want consumers to know so much about what we do?  Do they have the inclination to spend that much time with us in the shopping aisle?  I have no idea where my iPod was made or who made it.  So why did I buy it?  Trust. 

 

Who is it that is disconnected?  Some would say the ‘disconnect’ is a consequence of a disconnected industry.

 

If the consumer is not getting the right message; isn’t that our responsibility?  Simply asking consumers to do something different does not work.

What is the catalyst for change?

Regional marketing proves a real winner for grain producers.

Getting people to ask for help has always been pretty tough.

However, getting people to PAY for help is virtually non-existent (given the current sentiment); unless you have a business model that is really strong on delivering actual outcomes for the client and maximising their spend i.e. more bang for their buck.

Consequently, when starting a new business as an independent professional it is always a joy and a compliment to be approached by people and told that my help is needed.

Of course, the MBA student in me says Aha!  Why are people seeking me out in such a tough market?  What are their unmet needs?

What I am seeing is an increase in the number of grain producers that want to change the way they do business in a deregulated industry; but are completely starved of any information as to how to go about this.

This trend reflects the philosophy of a growing number of grain producers that getting closer to destination markets using (producer-owned) farm-direct business models and vertically-integrated regional marketing techniques, is essential for their continued sustainability.

These grain producers represent a new generation of young agriculturalists that want more than conventional production and grain selling information in order to improve their business development and marketing skills.  Their goal is to increase their downstream investment (beyond the farm gate) in opportunities that lead to their own direct relationships with export customers – not the growing number of mid-market participants offering ‘marketing’ products and (fee for) selling services.

Typically, grain producers will come together as a regional cluster to achieve this goal.  Some groups have already successfully linked to niche export markets and have positioned themselves as the real innovators of the industry.  Some have just started the journey.  Others are watching closely.

It is very exciting to see some of the businesses that are developing.

Whilst information that improves productivity and scale in the paddock will always remain important, the cost of consuming the inputs (and other) required to manage these advanced farming systems on land that is well-above its (variable) productive value is prohibitive for some and many grain producers now see value in other business activities and a better utilisation of their cash and equity position that is more sustainable.

Don’t get me wrong – like any industry, the greater majority just want to grow it and sell it to the next person in the pipeline; but the focus and role of some industry help has to change to meet the emerging needs of others.

Don't fight the war for talent head-on.  Outflank it.

Outflank (verb): to get the better of, to outmanoeuvre, and to bypass.

I read an article the other day that left me really exasperated.  It wasn’t the article’s fault on its own.  It had more to do with the fact that it was just one more of so many other commentaries I’ve seen about winning the war for talent in a tight recruitment market.

I think I’m suffering from ‘skills shortage’ headline fatigue; like so many other people I talk to.  We can all see the opportunities; but the businesses that desperately need help can’t (or are being told otherwise).

It concerns me to read of small and medium businesses whose strategy for obtaining and retaining their staffing requirements, is to continue to fight for a shrinking pool of permanent staff by throwing more money out there.

One of the more immediate negative impacts of this type of strategy, is the high number of business-critical positions that are being left vacant for damaging periods of time, because businesses are trying to find THE perfect candidate to get maximum value from the package and the high cost of traditional recruitment methods.

Who is telling these owners and operators that permanency and the big package are the weapons of choice for finding experienced skilled management?  It will be a noble and gallant battle fought with old muskets.

As businesses focus on expanding again and using a conventional approach to recruitment, this strategy will unmask a talent mismatch and under-employment that will only continue to challenge and distract small and medium businesses during critical stages of new growth.

To address the shortage of experience and skills, many businesses are approaching their management workforce with new ideas about flexibility.  What they have found is a veritable army of educated, experienced and skilled independent management professionals that form a peripheral workforce to industry.

These flexible managers are able to hit the ground running, delivering services that are fast, compact, and affordable; providing instant outcomes and a high return on investment.
 

Diverging from the conventional approach to recruitment has been an illuminating and rewarding experience for these businesses.

More and more small and medium businesses have changed their approach to resourcing their people-needs and with the help of some creative thinking, have discovered that the market for available talent was not as tight or as expensive after all.

If you want to win the war for talent, keep flexibility in your arsenal.

Short on Skills?  Start up-skilling your people.

What was once considered a luxury (non-strategic) spend for many small and medium agribusinesses, investing in management up-skilling is now a minimum requirement just to survive.

Let’s be honest.  Virtually every business says that people are its most important asset; but too few are actually doing anything about it.  We’ve all been there as employees.  People are treated as a cost not an asset (investment).

So as the industry calls for more innovation out in the ‘paddock’, a silent epidemic is hurting productivity back at the office.  Regrettably, the office or the boardroom is rarely (if at all) considered when the industry talks about increasing productivity.  There is no doubt that the biggest source of profit is an organisations ability to be productive.  The critical, yet often neglected, success factor for this, is its management and leadership capability.

So what is capability?

Capability is an all-round human quality, an integration of knowledge, skills, personal qualities and understanding used appropriately and effectively- not just in familiar and highly focused specialist contexts but in response to new and changing circumstances. (Stephenson 2002)

If there was ever a statement that sums up what is needed to support the agricultural production and agribusiness industry this is it.

We’re all now aware of the facts.  Too many people have exited or chosen not to begin a career in the industry.  As generations go by, this has created a shortage of educated young professionals moving up the ranks from within.

Consequently attracting, developing and retaining skilled talent has become the biggest priority for many operators in the industry.

A skills vacuum within an organisation can also result in existing people taking on managerial, business development and leadership roles without the skills to do it.  These people may have a fantastic technical skill set; but what they find themselves doing is not what they were trained to do.

Unless money is invested in helping people develop their managerial and leadership skills, it makes sense that you would need to be asking what will be the result of the types of decisions these people will be making on behalf of the organisation.

 

Responsibility rests with those in charge of governing the business, to ensure that technical skills are being augmented with management and leadership capability.

The implications of this situation are negative.  Many organisations are going to miss the chance of truly maximising the opportunities of the food and fibre boom, because they couldn’t mobilise the internal team required to take it on, in an increasingly sophisticated and complex domestic and global business environment.

Many operators are frustrated.  They are asking about the ‘food and fibre boom’ headlines they saw and why it has actually resulted in making less money than ever before.  Many agribusinesses will not survive at all.

There is an opportunity for non-award Management and Executive Education to play a significant role in providing a solution to the Australian agricultural production and agribusiness industry.  In other countries, it is a requirement of your role as an agribusiness manager that you will be sent to some form of post-grad management education EVERY year.  Companies will not let you progress without it.

It’s true that developing the competency based skills of those within an organisation provides a fundamental foundation for the business to collectively meet the expectations of its markets and customers i.e. capture the food and fibre boom.  However, raising the core skills of existing workers is now just the minimum requirement for a business to exist in the future, let alone be a source of competitive advantage.

Whilst doing things right will always remain important, true value will be created by a succession of managers and leaders having the vision to ask if we are in fact doing the right things.

The successful agribusinesses of the future are today investing in the development of their people and upgrading their skill base from transactional managers to transformational leaders.  That is the productive value of investing in up-skilling.

The role that University based Executive Education can play is to develop innovative, thinking leaders with an understanding of core managerial capabilities. University non award programs provide the flexibility, speed and experiential learning opportunities needed to develop an increasingly important source of competitive advantage and a succession of future-focused leaders.

This blog includes extracts from The SOS Group and the Execution Education Unit of The University of Adelaide submission to the Senate Enquiry into higher education and skills training to support future demand in agriculture and agribusiness in Australia.