Why HR Needs to Stop Passing Over the Long-Term Unemployed
by Peter Cappelli | 10:01 AM August
1, 2013
One of the very bad things about the Great Recession is that those who were
not doing well already got hurt the worst, and that also seems to be the case
for the economic recovery. Hiring has picked up, but not for the long-term
unemployed, those out of work for more than more than 26 weeks. Wefll get a new
look at the data when July jobs numbers are released Friday.
The revelation
last year that many job requirements for open positions mandated that
candidates already be employed seemed a bit like a joke, but the evidence that
employers screened out unemployed applicants was so widespread that the Equal
Employment Opportunities Commission began investigating it.
A couple of interesting studies examined the extent of discrimination against
the unemployed. These studies are unusual in that they involved real efforts to
find real jobs. One created
3,000 pretend candidates and sent their resumes to a random sample of job
openings. They varied one item among otherwise identical applications: whether
the individual was currently unemployed and, if so, how long they had been
unemployed.
Only about 4.5% got callbacks, which suggests that the typical unemployed
applicant has to apply to a little more than 20 jobs to just get a positive
response from an employer indicating that they are still being considered for
the job.
Surprisingly, the call-back rate was slightly higher for those who had just
been laid off than for those who currently had a job. What happens after you are
unemployed for more than a month? At that point, the probability of getting any
positive response from employers falls sharply and declines further with each
month, hitting a plateau after about eight months. A person with an otherwise
identical set of skills and experiences is about half as likely to get a
positive response from employers after eight months of unemployment as compared
to a person just being laid off.
The other
study (PDF) is similar, with an important twist. They compared applicants on
two dimensions: How long they were unemployed and whether they had relevant job
experience. This study also found a sharp drop-off in employer interest for
candidates with around six months of unemployment, but it also found that
recently unemployed candidates with no relevant experience for the position were
more likely to get employer interest than were those with relevant experience
who were unemployed for six months or more.
Whatfs going on here? At least at present — and perhaps because of the depth
of the recession — there doesnft seem to be much stigma associated with being
unemployed per se. But there is a really big reluctance to hire those who have
been unemployed for a while. Itfs so big that it trumps the concern about having
the relevant skills, which news reports constantly suggest is the big challenge
employers face.
Herefs the point: Hiring managers are only human. They donft have much
support in doing their jobs. If you think hiring decisions are based on careful
evidence about what attributes make the best hires, think again. Few employers
have the time or resources to do any studies of what predicts a good hire, let
alone looking at the specific evidence concerning prior unemployment. There is
no evidence that I have seen anywhere suggesting that the long-term unemployed
make worse candidates.
Hiring managers are going with their gut feel or what they think are
gsensibleh ideas about what makes a good candidate when the resist hiring the
long-term unemployed. We know that going with your gut in hiring decisions means
going with all kinds of unstated and in many cases unconscious prejudices.
Thatfs what kept women and minorities out of many jobs and now keeps older
workers out of them as well. How about these sensible ideas? gIf they were good,
someone else would have hired themh — not when other employers think like you do
and when there are so few jobs to go around. gTheir skills are rustyh — one
doesnft forget how to do a job in six months, and all new hires require some
time to learn how your operation works.
What we do know about job candidates who are long-term unemployed, which is
related to job success, is that they are persistent. Millions of other
unemployed facing this job market gave up looking and dropped out of the labor
force. We also know that they will likely be very grateful to have a job, and
gratitude is associated with many aspects of good job performance. They are also
likely to be cheaper and easier to hire because you donft have to woo them away
from their current employer.
The way to get hiring of the long-term unemployed started is to recognize
that there is no objective case in this economy for not considering a candidate
who has been out of work for a while. Therefore, excluding them out of hand is a
form of prejudice. The people at the top of organizations need to point out that
excluding such candidates is likely costing us money because we are ignoring
potential good hires, just as it costs us money to exclude women, minorities,
older individuals, and anyone else who has the potential to do the job.
Itfs the right thing to do in terms of our social impact, itfs the right
thing to do to make our organization inclusive and looking like our society, and
itfs also the financially sensible thing to do.