just wow

This article in the Wall Street Journal came to my attention the other day and it fits that description nicely. The gist of the article is that some employers are requiring that applicants for a job already be employed somewhere. The reasons given in the article seem to make sense on the surface, and if the objective is simply to fill a position with a body that “should” be able to do the job, I suppose hobbling hiring practices this way will work. However, if the objective of hiring is to bring in the best talent, who fits in with the company, and brings needed strengths to a position, I cannot think of a more useless tactic. Just because someone has a job does not mean they are the best person for that job. There are a multitude of really toxic reasons they may still be employed (e.g., office politics). Just because someone is currently unemployed does not mean they lost their job because of poor performance. Their company could have gone under, they might have had less seniority when the budget cuts hit. Even if they lost their prior job due to “poor performance” doesn’t mean they were truly a poor performer. They may have had a lousy manager. The job could have been structured poorly. They could have been a victim of politics. Whatever excuse is given for limiting the pool of applicants, the question remains: Is the objective to get the person who will best fit in with the team, and will bring the appropriate strengths to the job? If the answer is yes, then acknowledge there is going to be a ton of resume sorting.
The article referenced here
is now a year old, but I suspect the practice discussed has actually gotten more prevalent in the past year.]]>