To wonder what happened to transferable skills?

[hepaticanobilis]

I'm currently job hunting due to redundancy and I'm finding that compared to the previous times I've been looking at jobs, most job adverts have become really specific about the experience they want you to have to the point that there's very little out there for me.

Whatever happened to the idea that you could use experience gained in another sector, and learn further on the job? Transferable skills as they used to be called...

For example, many person specs list 25 essential criteria and I meet most of them except then there's always 1 or 2 really specific ones like has extensive experience using this very specific database or CSM package to maintain records, or has managed a team of at least 5 people for longer than 7 years...

Or, they want you to have "demonstrable interest/commitment" in a very specific area (say travel, or working with older people).

I have nearly 20 years of work experience under my belt, along with two degrees, but obviously I haven't done everything. I also never planned to spend my entire working life doing just one specific thing - there are lots of things I'm interested in, even passionate about, but haven't done it as a job yet. Surely if you generally have excellent IT skills and have used X, Y and Z then learning to use A won't be such a challenge? Or if you've worked in mental health and generally have good people-skills, then you can work with older people as well? Or if you've managed 3 people well, then it's not such a leap to think you could manage 5 or even 10?

A lot of these roles are not even particularly high level though, even admin roles have these requirements.

I know you can sometimes apply for jobs where you don't meet all the essential criteria but I prefer to write really good applications/cover letters and don't want to waste mine and the recruiter's time applying if they've definitely decided they want something very specific.

JDs are always unrealistic.

I’ve not met all essential criteria for most of the jobs I’ve had. You just write a good cover letter saying how you think you’ll be a good fit and if you get an interview they obviously aren’t really ‘essential’ requirements.

Yeah I think a lot of the time it's laziness, copy and pasting from other documents or just adding in anything that comes to the recruiting manager's head in a stream of consciousness type thing without really thinking about whether or not it's truly an essential criteria to have that specific experience/skill or can it be an equivalent or a desirable criteria or would it be better to describe the aptitude/general ability needed. Or sometimes (in public sector especially) it can be a symptom of overly inflexible or poorly understood job grading schemes where HR insist (or the manager thinks they do) on seeing a huge person spec full of highly specific stuff to justify higher salary bandings. Most of the time the manager has a much more reasonable, shorter list of 'true' essential criteria in their head, these just don't make it down to paper.

It drives me mad to see it as a candidate (as an HR person myself) because I know I'll stand a much higher chance of getting interviewed and appointed if I filter for jobs where I do meet the essential criteria and carefully tailor my application and personal statement/cover letter to them, with these sloppy PSs I'm having to do loads of extra legwork to narrow it down to what I think are truly their essentials and I then have to do it at risk that they might actually be shortlisting on some super niche point and eliminate me at first step. And as an HR person I always try and bounce poor quality adverts and person specs back, managers moan they don't have time to review their stuff properly but getting them right saves a huge amount of time on the actual recruitment plus hugely improves the quality of candidate you get through as I am certain good people are put off by sloppy, overly demanding criteria like you describe. If it does seem like otherwise a good job though, I would strongly advise you to apply anyway, use your judgement on whether to explain in your PS how your transferable skills will allow you to learn whatever database or software it is quickly and how you have previously successfully used XYZ comparable tools, or whether to just ignore it and focus on more relevant points?

Apparently men tend to apply if they meet about 60% of the requirement whereas women self-limit by only going for jobs where they meet them all. My DH used to choose to not apply for jobs that he could easily do, he used to look for things that he couldn't do yet so that he would gain experience.

Just apply and keep applying, if they seriously need the one thing that you don't have and aren't willing to train someone up then you won't be called for interview, so there's nothing to loose and a potential job to gain.

Also, if you find that the same things keep coming up then you could do a foundation course. It won't allow you to hit the ground running but it will really speed up any on-the-job training.

If there's only a couple you don't directly meet, then personally I would apply anyway noting any related experience and explicitly state willingness to learn and engage in training. Is there anything you can look at on line so you could say you are familiar with or have some knowledge and understanding of the required database(s), show you are developing your leadership and management skills to add to your experience of managing smaller numbers of people etc.

They recruited in my team recently and they just listed all the skills and qualifications my colleague and I have. Our skill set that is meant to be different to compliment each other. Ultimately, the wage offered was shit, so hardly anyone applied and they took on a graduate who had none of the skills or qualifications.

I agree. Often it's just lazy JD writing.

You are definitely not being unreasonable.

When I was job hunting a couple of years ago I found that everyone said I had a great skill set and they'd be very transferable...but hardly anyone wanted me to transfer my skills to them. No, they wanted someone who already had all the experience as well. IMO it's because a lot of recruiters are bloody lazy - they don't want to actually have to assess people, they want to be able to tick a box. If they're going to be working with or managing the person, they want to have to put as little effort into it as possible. Thankfully I ended up in a role where the recruiting manager looked at my skills and my related experience, rather than just "Has Daffodil done this exact job before?".

I absolutely would apply for jobs where you don't meet all the criteria, many employers are struggling for staff now so they're having to be more flexible about the candidates they consider.

Good luck (and you have my sympathies because job hunting is unutterably shit ).

I wonder whether another reason for long lists of specifics is that it makes it easier to come up with a reason for rejecting someone whose "face doesn't fit" without risk of discrimination claims. Faced with "you had no experience of XYZ", most people would just accept that and not think to ask whether the appointed candidate met every single criterion.

It makes much more sense to have separate "essentials" and "desirables", but then probably sometimes the best candidate is someone who doesn't meet one of the essentials but meets lots of the desirables.

Faced with a long list, if you're just missing a couple, I'd go for it. You might be able to spin related experience - "I have not used X package, but I have used Y for many years and picked up Z very quickly in my last job, so I am confident that I could do the same with X", or "although the largest team I have led is only four people, I have managed that team sensitively and effectively through substantial change / a difficult specific situation, and I'm keen to move to a post where I can use that experience in a larger team."

I agree, the worst thing is when they expect you to demonstrate all those 25 essential skills and give you a 250 word limit to do so!

All hr staff/hiring managers should have to fill out their own forms several times - I'm sure that would hugely streamline the process and get rid of things like online forms that don't work, requirement to submit a cv AND covering letter AND then an online form repeating the same information, forms that require you to submit every single gcse grade individually despite the fact you've done a doctorate since then, etc etc!

Apply for them all OP. A man would. Ian's advice about how to phrase it is good.

I have used quite a few accounts packages. If JD asks for one I haven't, I then look up every article/link/video/you tube I can, and slip into the conversation something that's unique to that package /quirky, so that they can at least note I've made the effort.

Thank you all for the comments. Sometimes I also wonder if it's tailored with an internal candidate in mind? One job I looked at had an essential criteria "thorough knowledge of Our Service (the specific department within a large organisation)". As much as anyone can research them online, isn't that what you get trained in during your first couple of weeks in the job? Only an internal candidate would know in advance.

One job I looked at had an essential criteria "thorough knowledge of Our Service

It could be that they've got an internal candidate in mind and this is a way of ensuring that they'll get it ("No-one else had any experience of how we manage our payroll!") or it could be that some lazy recruiter has written down a description of their/someone else's role ("Now, what is it I actually do...?") and used it for the basis of an advert.

I actually wrote to a Government Department that specified that to ask how the hell (I was more tactful) outsiders could match it.
I got a waffly reply that didn't answer the question so decided not to apply - which I assumed was what they wanted (only internal applicants but allowed to say so).

What you are looking at is their wish list. They may not get someone with everything.

The best advice I got given when I was in a similar position to you was that a man would look at the list and if he met 3 or 4 out of the 10 things they were looking for he would apply. A woman could have 9 of them but still have doubts.

Give it a shot, be aware of the ATS filtering so tailor your CV to match the advert and apply. I know people are struggling to find people right now is some industries so you meet the majority of the requirements you could at least get an interview.

Honestly just apply if you like the sound of the job and meet over half the criteria. It's rare that everything listed as essential really is essential.

Some of them might be tailored for an internal candidate but lots will have just had the job spec put together quickly and list everything that they may possibly want without any differentiation for what the true essentials are.