layoffs are today’s fire dragons

scorching as they rush over you, leaving behind scars

6 min read

A couple weeks ago, I had a first time experience: lay-offs of significant scale at a current employer. Sure, this is nothing special, certainly not for my employer’s industry, but it was a first of for me. This got me thinking.

I was not part of the group that was laid off, so it appears that I’m doing all right for now. I think this company handled the situation very well: It was neither a surprise that this is going to happen, nor was the scale unexpected. It had been hinted, communicated and openly discussed that lay-offs are a possibility for a month. If one was oblivious to the company’s situation in the first place. The packages and support offered go beyond the minimums required, so the company did not take it lightly and did not try to take the cheap and easy route out. Which is also in its best self-interest, as the talent pool for future hiring will be limited.

What would I have done, if I’d been laid off?

My approach would have been two-fold: For one, I would have spent more time on developing our idea for an app based community. No, not another new social network; rather a focused, purpose based, life simplifying idea for a distinct group.

Second, I’d have an interesting hurdle to overcome to find new employment: I neither fit nor followed a typical or straight career path, nor do I have a typical higher education. I am not easily molded into a typical standard position either.

I think the current recruiting and hiring practices are not only hurting candidates and companies, but also the whole economic system: Looking at the available positions in the north American economy (the one for me concerning), the majority will be filled before they are posted. The numbers for the proportion vary, but a general idea across several opinions put it way above 50%, more likely around 60 – 75%. This right there means, that the “talent pool” the employer is tapping into is artificially limited. Only close acquaintances of current employees are considered. This eliminates in most cases third degree connections and all folks with no direct relations. No matter how qualified. Even more damaging, the employer ends up with new hires that are of a similar skill set, experience set or value set as current employees. It just is the case that we humans tend to socialise with likeminded people. This makes a very homogenous work force. This is bad news for business, as new ideas, new approaches, new business is created in a very mixed and differentiated group. This is where innovation happens.

This approach limits the talent pool to a small fraction of the actual available pool. Hence, it is most likely that the hired person is not the best available candidate. This does not make any sense to me at all. The only reason this is happening is convenience and achievability with existing constraints. Let me make this very clear, I do not lay blame on HR folks for not doing their job. I rather say that the typical system right now does not enable HR folk to do their job right. This whole system is wrapped into computer aided and “automated” processes, that aim to bring efficiency to the “acquiring talent” function. The catch is, that this just helps more efficiently miss the mark. Candidates accept jobs that they can lay their hands on, and employers are “stuck” with selecting the “least bad” out of a very limited pool.

As I see it, the recruitment process is plateaued at a local optima but not at the global optima (Ref. replicator dynamics model). It would be an interesting challenge to a) define an alternative that actually accomplishes what all want and b) define a tool set to support it and make it efficient.

In an ironic twist, this system encourages the potentials to craft customized resumes and cover letters. These then need to be filled into more or less dysfunctional standardised boxes. To round it all up, the potentials do not always receive the curtesy of being kept informed about the progress. Many employers still follow the rule “…however we will only contact the candidates we are interested in…” or something along these lines. Really? With everything in electronic communication, all the information already entered into a computer system, is it too much effort to send an email? A simple email thanking and informing all the unsuccessful applicants that the process has moved forward without them? I could understand this if a letter would need to be hand crafted, enveloped and stamps licked for every single applicant. The thing is, this process got really efficient in the last 60 years: No hand writing, no envelopes, no stamps, not even the requirement to manually keep a rooster of all the addressees. It’s all there in the computer, and those things are really good at doing those repetitive tasks.

The situation is, that the most likely path to new employment is through networking and landing a position before it is posted. This practice goes against my grain, as I think every employer has a right to select the best available candidate for an opening. And every job seeker has a right not only for a fair shot at these opportunities, but also to the best suited position. As a collective, a society, we would be able to actually utilize a significant bigger portion of the collective talent. Networking in principle is self-marketing. The thing is, I consider myself an engineer and prefer my work and my results speak for themselves. I neither like to showcase what I have done, nor do I like pushy marketing (after all, I am not in sales, PR or marketing).

Perhaps I am just too honest and naively so. I have my values. I strive to understand the systems, am interested in the interactions of intelligent beings, and am not satisfied by the appearances.

All this together puts me in a pretty bad spot: My resume has low probabilities to make it to the other side of a system that very efficiently and with high probability misses the mark. The networking aka self-marketing is not the profession that suits me or that I chose. But I love a challenge, so I’ll have to come up with something. And, this is the fertile grounds on which ideas are born. So I am entertaining the thought of putting myself onto the clock and see where it gets me.

Realistically if I would need to aggressively pursue new opportunities, I would prepare our RV and go into the areas that would interest me (Seattle, Portland, Bay area). There I would tap into my networks to build up connections. I’d fill the time with working on our app.

The role I would be looking for is a technical engineering role in the introduction or growth phase of the product’s life cycle with some consulting for R&D. The product would be a combination of mechanical and electronics, negating “impossible”, pushing what is doable. The company would be on a mission to change our future. The role would require exceptional analytical skills, balancing evolutionary and revolutionary approaches to change and relentless focus on getting the details right.

#Iquit

originally published on LinkedIn: layoffs are today’s fire dragons