What's Going On?

The title of this article is not an expose on the late, great Marvin Gaye song though perhaps that premise would be more entertaining. For those who prefer to speak in acronyms, perhaps I should've just wrote "WGO?", but I digress. It's my first "article" on LinkedIn so please be kind.

I sit down to write this article during a most unusual unemployment cycle from my vantage point. Why is it unusual, you ask? Well aside from the obvious pandemic related issues and how many employers are being much more thoughtful (aka slow) in adding overhead to their balance sheets while things reopen...yes, it is interesting that this thoughtfulness and seemingly sluggish effort to hiring is coming on the heels of many companies reporting quarterly growth due to increased demand because of the same pandemic...there's also a lack of evolved thought relating to candidates coming out of this pandemic with many relying on the adage 'that's the way we have always done it" a little too much for these changing times. You may be thinking "Mother, mother there's too many of you crying..." but I am not crying I assure you.

I am lamenting that the traditional view of the unemployed has not seemed to have evolved in 2021 despite all the other traditional norms that have bent under the pressure of the past several years. I conducted a poll recently asking my network their views of employed vs unemployed individuals when looking to source candidates. Here's the poll;

Full disclosure, my poll had only 712 views and 6 votes. I am guessing that this is not considered successful by most measures but it, as all data should, still suggests something;

1. Few people want to engage on what can be considered a controversial take
2. The limited answers I did receive show a continued bias against the unemployed
3. I need to do a better job networking ;o)

I'll leave points 1 and 3 alone and focus on the perceived bias I am alleging. Let's dig into it a bit, why would companies and recruiters prefer someone who is actively employed instead of someone who is not working? I'm sure I don't know as that would mean I can read minds and consequently be in Vegas entertaining the masses instead of writing this article...

I mean, it can't be loyalty or integrity, could it? Consider the current employee that spends time and energy on finding their next opportunity at potentially the expense of their current responsibilities? What, you think all interviews occur on nights and weekends or that employees take PTO when looking for a new role? Don't get me wrong, everyone has the right to seek new employment if they want and we've all been there. I have personally left a role while employed and it didn't mean that I was shorting my current employer or lacked integrity at the time...but the potential employer and/or recruiter didn't know that, they simply took it on faith and gave me the opportunity to explain my mindset. Can it be that employers think there is less downtime or a quicker turnaround to success with someone who is working? If so, I'd be interested in learning more about it as it feels like the same misguided notion that only people who have specific product knowledge and contacts with specific target companies can be successful in a new role when I have seen intelligence, curiosity, and a desire to learn/win trump a rolodex every time.

Why are unemployed folks not at the top of the list? Once again, I have no clue but let's presume for a moment that there is this thought that if someone was as good as advertised, they would still be employed. I have heard hiring managers say things to that effect so it's not a huge leap to suggest that there is this stigma applied to the unemployed. I may even be okay with the presence of industry bias which can stem from years of observed behaviors and not necessarily be nefarious or ill-intended if the powers that be allowed the unemployed the same ability to explain their situation as we seem to do with those who are working, that we take on faith are somehow more qualified because they currently have a job. Even just typing the words makes it sound silly.

For most reasonable folks, context matters, right? Why not allow otherwise qualified candidates the opportunity to add context? What does an unemployed candidate do when faced with this? Should they lie on their profile and resume hoping that they can explain things and not have the omission held against them? Is honesty not the best policy and my mom lied to me my entire life? Where do these preconceived notions come from whereby recruiters and hiring managers literally judge books by their covers? The bias exists not only on employment status but also age (aka "experience"), race, gender, job-hopping (which is confusing since the old perceived loyalty of staying in the same place for a decade or more was turned into being a less well-rounded candidate vs those who experienced more products, cultures, etc. during their career, so which is it?), and many more subjective things.

In the end, there are likely no absolutes but I remain hopeful that common sense prevails and that individuals are able to get outside of their own traditional norms or push others to consider the possibility that the grass may actually be greener on the other side of what they hold to be reality. So many hard-working and loyal potential employees are out there literally waiting for you to see them, will you? As Mr. Gaye sang, "Oh, you know we've got to find a way to bring some understanding here today."