For 2 decades, I have made a living deploying mathematical models to find hidden value in the securities markets. This is a difficult problem because these markets are very efficient, meaning that it’s very hard to do better than just showing up and stating your needs. Consider the stock market: If you want to buy a share of Microsoft stock, you can have your order filled within seconds, knowing that you are within a penny or two of the best price on the planet and that every share is identical to every other one.
On the other hand, you can spend months looking for the best house, because the real-estate market is inefficient. Each house is different, and you won’t fully understand your needs until you begin looking. Your reward for investing time in the search is the pleasure of living in a much better house than one you could find in an afternoon.
As employers, we are also in the market for human capital, which is even less efficient than the real-estate market. Many of the best people are almost impossible to find.
Searching résumé databases is tedious and yields few qualified candidates who are available right now. Recruiters are expensive, often add little value, and shy away from recent graduates and the unemployed. College placement offices are more interested in getting us to their career fairs in May than in finding candidates who meet our current needs.
Even the most targeted ad generates a flood of résumés from people who have not researched our company or prequalified themselves. Who can blame them? Employers often treat hiring as a process of elimination in a numbers game. A day spent researching a firm, crafting a letter, and customizing a résumé is wasted when a hiring manager or human resources (HR) person spends only a few seconds glancing at them.
Yet an inefficient labor market isn’t such a bad thing for those who are willing to dig a little deeper. Such a market can reward well-spent effort in ways that efficient markets don’t. I would like to share with you some of the ways my colleagues and I have approached hiring in a rather dysfunctional labor market.
We begin by advertising as broadly as possible—with a very general job description—hoping for a flood of résumés, which we immediately ignore.
Instead of poring over each submission (or scanning each one for 9 seconds), we automatically respond to everyone with an extensive description of our group, the firm, our industry, our needs, career prospects, physical location, commute, work hours, and so on. We avoid selling ourselves and err on the side of full disclosure, with particular emphasis on the problems and risks we face. In short, we arm our applicants with the information they need to eliminate us from their consideration.
We close by asking those who are still interested to write a letter making their case.
As we wait for their responses, we read those résumés as time permits, looking for exceptional candidates who we fear might not take the next step. We send them encouraging notes saying things such as, “Have you thought about how the Principal Components Analysis you’ve done might apply to stock market data?”
Typically, 10% to 15% of initial applicants send the requested follow-on letter. Of those, perhaps half make a case worth investigating.
We still might have a dozen or more candidates, so rather than scheduling interviews, we might hold an open house with beer and pizza or some other ice-breaking activity. Most appreciate the fact that we give everyone a chance to visit rather than eliminate three-quarters of them based on a résumé and a letter. We encourage them to talk to each other and swap job leads. This allows us to see how they interact. Continue reading “Hiring in a Dysfunctional Job Market”