So, today I write about the “unemployment problem” in South Africa. It’s a very high level overview because to go in-depth on the issue would require a much longer piece, and I don’t want to bore you. It would be great if some of you would engage with some of the issues in the comments, then we could unpack it further…but only if that’s your thing;) Enjoy:
South Africa’s unemployment rate is over-inflated. I say this as an economics major who graduated from a fairly reputable institution. Not to say I know it all, but I have some sort of basis for this statement. I, however, unlike most people schooled in economics am not of a view that this is caused by a weak economy, a lack of skilled labour, the manner in which the figures are collected and measured or even by the use of the so-called “broader definition of unemployment”.
I think the high levels of unemployment in our country are caused by on thing – well, many things if I’m to be honest, but this one reason sticks out like a match in Manchester United’s history books where they’ve conceded 6 goals…at home. The abomination in question is the “experience snobbery” in the South African employment economy. Most companies use years of experience as a filter to “weed out unsuitable candidates”. The issue with this is that so often the baby gets thrown out with the proverbial bath water!
I have had the pleasure of meeting and getting to know a large pool of widely talented and very capable individuals in my lifetime; some of them with matric and tertiary qualifications, some without. Sadly, for a number of these individuals they will never be given the chance to shine, an opportunity to max out on their potential, and in so doing add immeasurable value to the South African economy. Why? Simply because they don’t have experience, or they don’t have this qualification or they don’t know that person. It’s a sad reality indeed.
A reality that South African business and South African governance needs to come to terms with and take corrective measures for. One need only look at the companies rated “Best Employers” to see what their edge is in recruiting suitable talent which in turn leads to them often times outperforming their competitors. It really is a “simple” case of processes. I put the word “simple” in inverted commas because these are obviously well thought out and practiced processes which have been perfected over time.
If South Africa’s government and business community is really serious about tackling our crippling unemployment problem, a minimum process should be mandated for recruitment. There should be certain basic assessments and tests that should be done when one submits their CV/application. The purpose of this is to objectively and expediently identify potential talent. Not to negate years experience as a filter, but just because it’s the most obvious filter doesn’t make it the most correct. I have encountered many an individual with years of experience who come up short when it comes to job knowledge and performance.
Fix how you find your talent, and you fix your internal issues. Sort out your internal issues and this will reflect in the open market, adding to your bottom line. A better bottom line means expansion of your product/service offering which means you have the opportunity to create more employment, and thus the cycle begins again. I know that this is a very simplistic view of things, but in the context of a market like ours with so much untapped potential in both the labour and consumer market, I don’t think I’m that far off
I agree with you to a certain degree. I think what you are starting explains why certain people are unemployed and not necessarily why we have a huge unemployment problem. I think the reason could be that we just don't have enough jobs, because if person A is not good enough for company X due to lack of experience, if we had enough employers person A would ultimately be enough for someone out there. We can change the criteria with which companies select their potential employers but all that does it determine who gets the job over who, because if we keep the demand constant the same number of people that would have been employed before will get get employed even under the new criteria.
ReplyDeleteA possible solution to the problem you identified might be more graduate programmes. These programmes are designed to give the inexperienced fellow the experience he needs plus also industry contacts enabling him/her to equally compete for positions later on.
Well sir, I happen to be the product of a great high school, and I graduated from the best varsity on the continent, so education: check. I was very involved at both levels, so leadership skills: check. I am also the product of an excellent training program, so work skills: check.
ReplyDeleteI, however, only have two years work experience - which is limited to the retail industry. As things currently stand, I've sent out around 15-20 job applications. I've recieved 3 responses. Two have been rejections because "I don't meet thier current requirements", read, "you have no experience in OUR industry, come back in three years when you've gone through an industry related grad program or have been someone's assistant in the industry for three years".
I am by no means saying I am the perfect candidate, but when I look at the so-called "skills requirements" in these job posts, I could do the jobs with my eyes closed. Everyone says they want an educated, well spoke, confident, capable guy - and that's why we have such high unemployment, because we have a shortage of these people. I am that guy.
Which brings me back to the third response I've recieved. It was from a company which straight after I hit "submit" on my application, asked me to fill out a 70-odd question assessment online to assess my suitabilty to the company. They called me in for a reasoning assessment within the week, an initial interview shortly after that and final interviews not too long after that.
Let me also point out that by the time I got my firts feedback (i.e. the rejections) from the other two companies, I had already been through ALL the phases of this one caompany's vetting process. Now you tell me again the problem lies with our talent pool and not the fishermen. [btw, not attacking you, just really passionate about the topic at hand:)]
I am with the school of thought that wants less stringent labor legislation. When you hire some one inexperience, or less experienced, you're taking on a risk that might be difficult to offload. You spend money on this risk. Money that could be used towards wealth creation and/or opportunity creation.
ReplyDeleteThe other thing is that South Africans are lazy as fuck! We suffer from entitlement. We are entitled to everything. The government will provide, big business will provide, parents will provide etc etc.
I hear you boss. Thing is, when you base hires purely on experience, a guy like me with connections will end up sitting with 3 or 4 job offers while the guy with no experience and no connections is sitting with none. At the end of the day I end up earning a salary while home boi isn't, which translates to I pay taxes while home boi doesn't and so on and so on. There are so many implications, negative implications, to giving experience so much weighting when making hires.
ReplyDeleteIf the risk & cost of hiring inexperienced hires is percieved to be too high, then put them on probation for a pre-agreed time with a low salary and the promise of a pre-agreed, performance based increase. So pay them 30% of thier potential salary with the balance going towards their training for 3 months. After 3 months assess them; with the outcome being A) you let them go, B) you up their salary but with more training required, so you pay them say 70% of their salary, or C) you give them a full increase, and from there they negotiate annual increases.