On 10/26/2011 06:40 PM, Tod Hansmann wrote: > > Actually, that's my point in a nutshell, you don't see it, and that > doesn't necessarily mean what we think it means. You don't specify what > isn't an actual job requirement based on what you don't see. The idea > is that we do not know the circumstances people have in every regard, > and making specifications with that in mind is not expanding your > options, but can be limiting in ways we don't plan for. It is a form of > self-injuring arrogance, and one any business would do well to avoid. > > Even the example of a recruiter asking for a job for less pay isn't > going to do well by limiting the number of people he asks. If he's not > being rude about it, the worst they can do is say no and possibly rant > somewhere about how insulting it was to be asked. If he doesn't ask, he > may miss a candidate that would be great for the job but fits outside > the box the company has made for the position arbitrarily. > > This might sound more like salesmanship than recruiting, but that's only > because that is exactly what recruiting is. A hire is a two-way sell. > You sell your company, or you sell yourself, and self-limiting should > only be done on actual requirements. A student is not a requirement of > the posting in question, for instance, but might be for an on-campus > job. Only one should specify "student" in its posting. > > -Tod Hansmann >
Yes it is all about recruiting. And what is recruiting but hiring, training, and RETAINING employees, salesmanship is the dance we do to get to that point. What is the objective in this regard? To bring a junior person on-board to an entry-level position and give them the chance to mentored into a higher role later on? What kind of work is it? Extra leftover menial work no one wants to do and the boss doesn't want to spend budget for? Where's the retention? Let's look at the other side, say you get that 20 year unemployed veteran person willing to work part time and for less money. Using the economy as an argument that you might be able to get a better person for a bargain, what are the chances of retaining that person long-term? When his situation improves, he's gone, provided he got an offer in the first place and that he wasn't deemed "over-qualified". There's nothing self-injuring or arrogant about having a well written job description with clear requirements, duties, and qualifications. It saves the job seekers time and the hiring manager time by hopefully weeding out the unqualified candidates right off the bat. If it's an entry-level position requiring little to no experience there is nothing wrong with mentioning student or intern somewhere in the description, especially when throwing out flexible scheduling for school on the table. I'm not the only one in the nation that would make the assumption, based on reading the job description, that the target candidate is a student / recent grad / someone with 0 experience. I think that's how the thread got started to begin with IIRC. Henry /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
