A lack of qualified people is a problem for almost all companies. Statistics from renowned institutions clearly show that there is too few skilled personnel available in Germany. The ratio of retirements to university graduates or even births can be frightening. Orders are not executed or not executed well because suitable personnel is missing, customers seek refuge with competitors who deliver quickly. Like the rabbit in front of the snake, many stand in front of empty candidate pipelines. Full of concern is the explanation: the shortage of skilled workers. The supply of qualified, motivated and affordable personnel is scarce. The pain is real.

That’s right, BUT…

In discussions with executives, management and recruiting departments, the shortage of skilled workers is almost fatalistically conjured up – even though there is no shortage as such. Overall, this may be true when comparing vacant positions with available qualifications. But at the individual company level, things look different. Today, there is a lot of room for maneuvering in every company, both on the supply side and the demand side. If you know how to use them, they are much easier to exploit than you might think. Neither are there is a need for so many vacancies nor are there too few applicants and candidates. Companies that have understood this benefit from decisive competitive advantages.

Before we talk about solutions, I would like to point out the danger of the attitude “Help, we have a shortage of skilled workers! The worrying statistics and studies are all correct, but not necessarily “true.” If we take the shortage of skilled workers as an undeniable truth, we create a reality in which we have little room for maneuver. The seemingly hopeless situation is cause to stop trying. Companies and recruiting departments are weary and frustrated – according to the motto, “it’s no use anyway, that’s just the way it is, you can see it everywhere!” You know this in sports: If you don’t believe in winning, you won’t win. You give up before you’ve even started. And so the downward spiral turns faster and faster in the wrong direction and the vicious circle begins.

In the absence of suitable applications, someone is often hired despite severe doubts. But recruiters and team leaders have reached the recruiting goal for the time being. “You have to give people a chance; he or she will learn” is the silent but illusory hope. In that case, one can only hope that the mis-hiring is quickly and clearly recognized and the person leaves the position or even the company. It is worse if the person stays in the company even though it is known that it is not an ideal appointment. The message to everyone else is straightforward: “This is the new standard!” High performers then consider whether they have a future in the company, whether the commitment is still worthwhile or whether it is better to leave.

In principle, it is of course only right that many talents should be given a chance and that one can acquire a great deal. Hand on heart: Does the person have a real chance of becoming successful in the job? What does it take and can this actually be made possible (not just theoretically)? I am talking about e.g. longer time for onboarding, a lot of patience on the stakeholder side when things don’t work out right away, external training, a team member who takes over the more intensive onboarding and can be relieved for it in another place, etc. If the possibilities are limited, it is not an opportunity but the road to hell for the new team member.

Those who have already understood that the candidate experience is the be-all and end-all often fall into the attitude of the devoted servant in the recruiting process, who does everything for the dream candidates. Better not to ask too demanding questions, better not to criticize. Better to take no position than the wrong one. Smile and say yes and amen to everything the candidate wants. I know I’m being a bit polemical here.
Nevertheless, it happens very often that interviewers mainly want to be loved by candidates. Pal-like exchanges are usually disguised as supposed eye level but are often pleasant but superficial talking around. In the best case, it remains in the candidate’s memory as comfortable and sympathetic but is much more often perceived as meaningless, not very professional and, above all, without any reliable insight. There is a big difference between chumming up and trying to please at all costs, and being aware of your own value and appearing humble in the sense of cooperative and appreciative. Other employers who allow themselves more depth and confidence in evaluating fit usually win.

Enough of the vicious circles. We can do better. Let’s usher in the paradigm shift. Let’s break through the mental blocks and use our creativity: Suppose there was no shortage of skilled workers. Assuming there is, what would you do to attract the very best placement for your team?

My ideas on the myth of the shortage of skilled workers can be found here in the next blog post.