Showing posts with label hiring. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hiring. Show all posts

Monday, September 8, 2014

Harvard survey: Businesses don't want to hire

What about Obamacare?  What about "uncertainty?"  This Harvard competitiveness survey can't be right. I'd rather trust one of those instant click-on surveys on Fox News' homepage.


By Mark Gongloff
September 8, 2014 | Huffington Post

America's capitalists take every chance they get to remind us that they are our "job creators," but it turns out that their least-favorite thing on earth to do is create jobs.

Most U.S. business leaders would rather build robots, outsource work or use part-time employees than hire workers full-time, according to a new Harvard Business School survey. Here's a nice infuriating graphic from the smarty-pantses at Harvard Business School, who are educating all of our future non-job-creators in the art of not creating jobs:

hiring decisions

As you can see from the chart, 46 percent of our job creators would rather spend money on technology than employ humans, compared with a sad 26 percent who prefer people to robots, and another 29 percent who were confused or indifferent about the question or fell asleep while the survey taker was talking. Forty-nine percent would rather outsource than hire, compared with 30 percent who'd rather hire.

Ever notice how the stock market and corporate profits are at all-time highs, while our wages are flat and roughly half of us still think the economy is in recession? This chart helps explain it, and helps explain why workers' share of those corporate profits is near its lowest since the Truman administration.

This is also bad news for the future of the economy because it means fewer workers are getting the training they need for our super-awesome, high-tech, no-job economy, Harvard pointed out:

"Firms invest most deeply in full-time employees, so preferences for automation, outsourcing, and part-time hires are likely to lead to less skills development," the study authors wrote.

This will give business leaders, who already think we lack the necessary skills for their precious jobs, even less reason to hire us in the future.

Thursday, February 21, 2013

'Cultural fit?' Try 'discrimination'

WSJ's Silverman only hints at the real bottom line at the very end of her post [emphasis mine]:

According to the Kellogg research, professionals involved in hiring placed more emphasis on how comfortable or excited they were about candidates than on applicants’ cognitive or technical skills. [...]

In her study, comprised of 120 interviews with hiring professionals at elite U.S. investment banks, law firms and consulting firms, more than half of the hiring professionals ranked “cultural fit”—similarity of background, interests and self-presentation—as the most important factor in an interview.

The danger, of course, is that workers from cultural backgrounds that don’t match their evaluators’ backgrounds may be at a disadvantage when they’re up for a job.  Especially when it comes to elite jobs, people who come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds might not get the same consideration a well-off candidate would.

But we already knew this, right?  If you're black or Latino you certainly know it. This is hiring discrimination, only it's not illegal and it'd be very hard to prove even if it was. Just be aware that if your hiring is being done by a person of a certain background, then he will tend to hire people with whom he identifies and feels comfortable, regardless of who is the best candidate. He may justify his choice by citing your organization's "culture," but now you know better. 


By Rachel Emma Silverman
February 15, 2013 | Wall Street Journal