Why is it so hard to get a job these days

or, the cost of hiring the wrong person.

Well, Mugu has been looking for work for the last little while.  No matter what the job is, the scenario is all the same.  You find something you think you can handle, apply, and then that's it.  Once in a blue moon you would get a call to an interview, then after that, again, nothing.

Sounds familiar?  Not that I condone this kind of snobbery from companies, but you also need to understand why things happen this way.  Sure, many web sites offer just about every explanation under the Sun, and you can pick the one that fits your mood at the moment, but all operate on the same principle:

"The cost of hiring the wrong person outweighs the cost of rejecting the right person."

That's it!  That's why companies cry a river about having a shortage of talents, but in the mean time turning a 180 on you and me.

Here is an illustrative example.  Marty "Pants" d'Avis, has just been hired as a project manager at ABC Widgets.  There are 5 employees under his direct supervision.  He's making 100k + benefits (about 25%) p.a., and his underlings are making half that, also with similar benefit packages.  During his reign, Pant's team ie able to turn over 2 x their salaries in gross profits.  He also authorized 75k of expenditure in equipment and supplies.  So let's do some math:

annual net profit = (2 - 1.25) x (100k + 250k) - 75k = about 200k

Not bad, but unfortunately that's not how it went down.  Pants has his two favorites spending full time on his dead-end pet projects.  He also likes toys, so he ended up spending about 100k on various state-of-the-art equipment, which are now glorified dust collectors.

So how much money is involved this time?  There is, of course, the salary, which is obvious.  Let's assume the three sideliners do not partake on his day-to-day affairs.

annual net loss = 1.25 x (100k + 100k) + 100k = 350k

Now, if there is not enough money to burn already, there is another thing called opportunity cost.  That is, the time and money that Pants and his minions could have spent on more productive ends.  Let's be generous and assume Pant's team is only expected to break even (salaries + benefits).  The sideliners are somewhat more productive; they recover half their book value:

annual opportunity cost = 1.25 x (100k + 100k + 75k) = 350k

So Pants just blew 700k a year, not including collateral damage from lost clients and other dissatisfied employees at ABCW.  What's more, if ABCW expects the original profit of 200k from Pants to stay alive, then this figure balloons to 900k per year (or 550k, if opportunity cost is not considered).  So can companies like ABCW afford to make such a mistake in hiring decision?

Of course, this is a very extreme case, but similar circumstances do happen and often in multiple instances.  In the case of Pants, even though he managed to pissed off just about everyone above and below at ABCW, it still took management eight years to get him to "voluntarily resign" from his position.  If he wasn't hired in the first place, and he turned out to be the great manager who would potentially bring in 200k a year, all that ABCW would lose would be juet that, the potential 200k a year, not the hard cash of 700k from his antics that ABCW would sustain for almost 8 years.

So, next time you don't get picked.  It's not because you are not good (in fact, I think would do just fine).  It's just the risk, no matter how slim, of you bringing everything down faster than they can draft a termination notice that worries them.

As for what to do, I can only give two pieces of advice, coming from someone who's constantly on the receiving end.  First, be honest with who you are.  Second, if you get the boot, don't take it personally.  There is more where it's coming from.