Profiles Employee Assessment Blog

Our Editorial Mission

executive team al rainaldi



Joseph "Bud" Haney
CEO


With the Workplace 101: Blog, it is our mission to help organizational leaders and HR professionals improve their performance and workforce productivity by better understanding the application and value of workplace assessments.

Join 10,200 others and subscribe now!

Subscribe via E-mail

Your email:
request-a-free-assessment

Now Accepting Guest Posts

3d409d95-1a40-43da-944f-1861efde64a1

Most Popular Posts

Browse by Tag

Archive

Subscribe by Email

Your email:

Workplace 101: A Profiles Global Business Blog

Current Articles | RSS Feed RSS Feed

America’s 10 Toughest Jobs to Fill

Posted by Dario Priolo on Wed, Sep 07, 2011
  
  
  
 

toughest jobs to fillManpower recently released their annual Talent Shortage Survey, in which they identified the 10 toughest jobs to fill in US. With 25 million Americans out of work or underemployed it might be hard to believe that any employer is struggling to fill positions. But surprisingly, Manpower reports that 52 percent of the employers in the survey are having trouble filling jobs. In the 2010 survey, only 14 percent of companies reported problems filling jobs. Now the percentage has nearly quadrupled.

 The “Top 10” jobs to fill include:

  1. Skilled Trade Workers
  2. Sales Representatives
  3. Engineers
  4. Drivers
  5. Accounting & Finance Staff
  6. IT Staff
  7. Management & Executives
  8. Teachers
  9. Administrative Assistants
  10. Machinists

Geography plays a significant role too. While engineers, accountants, sales representatives and skilled trade workers are in short supply in one area, it might be tough to find a job in those professions elsewhere. Globally, a third of all employers say they have difficulty filling jobs. Lack of experienced workers is the most frequently cited reason, globally, as well as in every region in the survey. In the Americas, lack of experience was followed by a lack of skills.

For example, companies are looking to replace more than half of their engineers over the next eight years, because baby boomers are retiring. When you have 80,000 engineers working for you, as Lockheed Martin does, that's a lot of jobs. Even if every single seat in the nation's engineering schools is filled, that's only 75,000 engineers being trained annually. That won't come close to making up the shortage. Engineering is a field that requires years of experience before you take on major responsibility. It's one thing to learn the theory of building a bridge or a tunnel in school, but it's quite another to have decades of work at it behind you.

Also, any government-funded project requires an engineer to have passed the test to get a professional engineering license. It is estimated that only one in 10 engineers has that advanced-level document.

We recommend that organizations that depend on these jobs develop a solid strategic workforce plan and proactively identify and cultivate workers who may be a good fit for their organization.

five-lessons-upgrading-talent-outside-superstars


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments

Career counselors and search firms pay a lot of "lip service" to the notion of "laterally transferable skill-sets" - but that seems to be an unheard-of concepts among corporate HR folks and hiring managers. The latter seem increasingly to write job specifications that would require every candidate worthy of consideration to have ALREADY BEEN an employee of that specific company, know its products, markets, distribution channels, points of competitive differentiation / advantage, and be able to demonstrate complete familiarity with that company's proprietary planning, CRM and reporting systems. Possessing a long, impressive, and statistically verifiable track record of boosting revenues, reducing expenses, forging and building loyal relationships, and contributing to product development, better positioning, and successful marketing / sales / service processes seems to count for naught UNLESS a candidate can produce a sworn affidavit from trusted members of the companies own senior management that the candidate needs no company-specific orientation / training, can hit-the-ground-running, and will work on a contingent compensation plan. The simple fact is that many / most companies are far more willing to subscribe to a long-term contract for "technology-as-a-service" - which requires a monthly "paycheck" ad infinitum and a huge severance cost at the end of the relationship, than they are to hire a warm body and accept that recurrent obligation - Heaven forbid there might be any "on-boarding" cost, training expense, or career development expectations to contend with. No - we're not getting job creation in America because "people" are most managers' and executives' biggest headache - we've forgotten how to effectively recruit, train, develop, and selectively promote and retain new human overhead, so we've virtually stopped taking any risk with humans, while we continue to "gamble" on capital expenditures on plant, equipment and technology. If that's where the productivity and profitability are to be found, perhaps it's a defensible financial strategy - but then let's stop all the rhetoric about tax breaks to encourage job creation.
Posted @ Friday, September 09, 2011 3:02 PM by Sam Ray
I find this hard to believe.  
I am a highly skilled, highly experienced, and successful in these areas:  
Sales 
Executive 
Manager 
and have mostly done this in the IT Industry.  
So that's 4 of the top 10 hard to fill categories combined!  
And yet, I have been out of work for nearly 2 years... and when you are out that long people think there is something wrong with you... there is nothing wrong with me. However, I live in the central part of the country and for various reasons can't relocate. These jobs are skewed mainly on the West and East Coasts. What about the rest of the country? It's falling into a black hole because of the WAR SPENDING. We are spending 10 times more than necessary and IT is what is bankrupting the country. Those who profit from the defense spending then turn around and put their profits into US Treasuries which ironically funds the war spending!!! Talk about Ponzi schemes!!! How do you think that will end? We spend many many times more than the entire rest of the planet combined on defense. India and China spend 8 to 9% on Infrastructure and the USA a paltry 1%!!!! no wonder our infrastructure is collapsing and China and India are developing and growing like crazy! Go do a search for images of Chinese cities and infrastructure projects - it is mind blowing.  
Posted @ Friday, September 09, 2011 3:49 PM by HIREME
These kind of stories are just head shakers for sure. I know that any event that I have had first hand knowledge with, has never been reported true to what happened. 
 
Also these stories of unfilled jobs are always absent of the whole story, meaning complete data. 
 
For instance there is a machine shop near me that got press on the fact that they cannot fill all their open positions. Well when you require experience and pay less than a unskilled person would earn, of coarse you are not going to fill your postions. 
 
I am looking for an accounting position. I have had many times that I have had to either turn down or not pursue positions that require experience and/or education but pay a wage that can be earned without either. You cannot pay for a Bachelor's Degree at $10.00 a hour.
Posted @ Saturday, September 10, 2011 7:27 AM by Steven Smewing
If you look back, nearly all of the "top ten" hard to fill positions have been "hard to fill" since 2006 to one degree or another. Yet the 'employers' don't appear to be addressing what they agree is one of the primary challenges to filling these positions, as noted in the paragraph from the survey, below. Simultaneously, we see an intense dogfight regarding both education and funding, which should simply help to further exacerbate this "skill gap". 
 
 
 
I think we should be addressing the 'employment/unemployment issue' by first following the reward chain for employing less labor rather than trumpeting that the same folks who've always been "hard to find" are "still hard to find" but stated so by a higher percentage of folks surveyed. Since we're simultaneously spending less time and money societally to fill these positions, and we have alot of 'unemployment across the board', perhaps the survey is showing that hiring is perceptually at least, getting more risky for those who control the organzation(s)? 
 
 
 
From the survey... 
 
 
 
"Approximately three-quarters of employers globally cite a lack of experience, skills or 
 
knowledge as the primary reason for the difficulty filling positions. However, only one in 
 
five employers is concentrating on training and development to fill the gap. A mere 6% of 
 
employers are working more closely with educational institutions to create curriculums that 
 
close knowledge gaps."
Posted @ Saturday, September 10, 2011 9:21 AM by Joel Grumm
What upsets me most about Manpower and other "temp" agencies (whether you're there to find permanent placement or contractual temp to perm placement), the employee is not being hired in at enough money for the education and experience required for the job.  
 
I have been told before by these temp counselors that half of the regular employee salary or hourly wage goes to Manpower, while the employee only earns a piddly $8.00 - $10.00 an hour.  
 
So, that means that the job probably pays $16.00 - $20.00 an hour, but some temp agency is taking half the money I could be earning if I hadn't used them in the first place to find the job?  
 
It's ridiculous and unfair. These placement agencies are a joke on the American worker.
Posted @ Saturday, September 10, 2011 9:35 AM by SarahS
I agree that part of the problem is the pay. I've talked to headhunters about jobs that would pay me less than I made as an intern (over 10 years ago). The job is often close to my work level, but below the national average for starting salaries of graduates with my major. I'm not greedy and don't really even care about the salary, except for the principle of it all. I'm an engineer, and looking forward to that baby boomer retirement. 
 
Now for many of the skilled trades jobs that are tough to fill, I think a similar issue is the conditions of the job making them unappealing. For some people poor conditions can be made up for by higher pay, but not for all. So companies may need to work on the conditions. 
 
And without a doubt, companies need to put more effort into training. And they need to invest in the future by collaborating with schools. I'm involved in volunteer work that pushes for connecting business and industry with higher education as well as MS and HS curriculum.  
 
Posted @ Tuesday, September 13, 2011 9:09 PM by Betty Leonhard
Post Comment
Name
 *
Email
 *
Website (optional)
Comment
 *

Allowed tags: <a> link, <b> bold, <i> italics