Rub-A-Dub-Dub: Sumser, Kingsbury & Recruitomatic
John Sumser forces the dim-witted among us to google the crypto-heading of his article ZPG to find it means “Zero Population Growth.” In his Electronic Recruiting News article, John Sumser bullet points some changes to note as the global talent shortage becomes even more acute. In a rare departure from protocol, he publishes a reply – not to save himself the bother of writing something before taking off a long Labor Day Weekend – but because Colin Kingsbury is one of the very few in the recruiting bubble who John Sumser endorses, and for heaven’s sake, why not?
In ZPG II Colin Kingsbury makes some valid points relative to population growth and reasons that under favorable conditions – George Bush leaving office, migration to the U.S. of much needed talent, not patronizing younger employees, squeezing round pegs into square holes and so on – the projected shortfall in talent may be averted.
I cannot argue that Colin Kingsbury’s point of view is not compelling. It is. I cannot argue that he is wrong. I don’t know. What I can say is this: his hypothesis cannot be tested against alternate points of view or current trends because he offers no data or research to support it. Maybe there isn’t data out there. Who knows?
And, how will Colin Kingsbury’s speculation be put to the test without a debate of the issues? Again, John Sumser leaves the dim-wits hyperventilating for the ability to post a comment and develop the thread to engage his elevated readership – beyond the reach of the recruiting blogosphere – in a more involved process of thought-leadership? Don’t ERN’s readers deserve an answer to the types of question that could be posed to help develop Colin Kingsbury’s optimism and our own understanding of the issues? For example:
1. How are we going to reconcile the increased levels of U.S. xenophobia and racism arising form the threats of “Islamofascism” with the possible migration of teaching, healthcare, technical, scientific and engineering talent from countries like India, Pakistan and the Philippines? Is it as simple as waiting for President Bush to leave office in 2008? Will everyone stop hating Americans then? Will all veiled and bearded olive complexions suddenly morph from potential terrorists to potential hires? Or will their negative image persist, impede progress?
2. As over half of the U.S. government’s civilian workforce and C-level baby boomers are projected to retire in the next five years on their lucrative pensions – perhaps the last generation to have the option of a lifetimes investment in work to draw on – who is going to lead us? If it is the round pegs in the square holes, at what point are we going to address failed succession and workforce planning and social systems – like education – that have in large part contributed to the types of problems we face today? And who is to say employers are ready for a “misfit” workforce that anyway? Not me.
3. The job-hopping trend continues. 74% of workers are not “happy” at work, open to new and “better” opportunities. The trends continue to disadvantage the majority of employers. So, at what point does retention becomes a key issue for an organization’s continued prosperity in the face of ongoing talent shortages? Are we ready as a society to deal with the underlying issues that continue to threaten the U.S. economic engine like our insatiable appetite for everything on-demand including fulfillment at work and for career? How are Colin Kingsbury’s views of the talent shortage positively or negatively impacted by these types of workforce dynamics?
Addressing the issues of talent shortages and zero population growth and potential fixes obviously transcends a couple of posts on a couple of blogs. But I don’t hear the conversation being advanced anywhere else online. Points of view are easy to come by. A debate of the issues is a tougher thing to find, like a good conversation I guess. Another reason, Mr. Sumser, as to why we blog. And why – long weekends aside – Recruitomatic applauds your posting of Colin Kingsbury’s post.
Similar Posts:
- Rumours of War
- Bum, Bum, Bailey, O!
- Many Sides to Every Story
- Second Life, Virtually Useless?
- The Unknown Cybersleuth
6 Comments, Comment or Ping
Recruitomatic
Related reading, more points of view:
War I
Talent Shortage, Or Poor Management?
Why the Predicted Talent Shortage Will Never Happen
The Coming Talent Shortage: It’s Here and Will Get Much Worse
Companies Mixed on Whether Talent Shortage Will Soon Impact Growth…
Sep 5th, 2006
Colin Kingsbury
1. Google “US population growth” for stats on where the population is headed. Sub-sets of that data are widely discussed and a little more Googling will yield plenty of sources.
2. Recent surveys suggest that a large proportion of UK/EU professionals would or are considering emigrating. The numbers are certainly larger than at any time post-WWII. Where will they go? Frankly, if we made it as easy for doctors and programmers to immigrate here as day laborers, we’d get a lot more of this.
3. Adding employees makes a company less efficient, not more. While you can’t build an airliner with ten guys in a garage, nearly every company that isn’t a bootstrapping startup is employing a significant number of people who are net costs. Good talent management starts with employing the talent you have today in the most effective manner possible. When the cost of hiring becomes higher than the cost of re-tooling, companies will change how they operate.
4. Many of the talent gap hypotheses assume that workers will leave the workforce at ages from 55-65. Is this assumption valid when the SocSec retirement age is heading towards 75?
5. I’ve often thought John should put comments on his site just to quash the complaint. As it is, I’ve found him to be very open to feedback whether by email or counter-post. Ultimately that is more important to me than allowing comments, which introduce their own issues.
Sep 5th, 2006
Recruitomatic
Colin:
Thank you for your comments which I hope you know I value. In reply to each:
1. Not only did I google “US population growth” I provided a link to a document in the post which I thought most accurately reflected the US census data in a format consistent with your position. Here it is again: “…population growth”. For a summary, this might prove helpful: Fast Facts About U.S. Population Growth. In each instance where I suggested you did not provide any evidence to support your position, I provided a link to what I thought was relevant data and/or research.
2. I’m not sure what surveys you are referring to that support the notion that U.K./E.U. professionals are considering emigration to the U.S. but based on what I know, and my own experience, that suggestion sounds perfectly reasonable to me. That said, I can find nothing substantive to support your claim. Points arising:
a) I provided a link in the post “Who knows?” to a series of pages provided by the U.N. on international social and economic development. It appears that John Sumser also researched this data in his follow-up post today War I – referenced above under related reading. The International Migration and Development Report link takes you to a document entitled: Report of the Global Commission on International Migration. I could well have missed something but I see nothing that explicitly suggests your assertion about U.K./E.U. professionals wanting to emigrate to the U.S. is accurate. Would you share with us the survey you referring to so we can present the available data and advance the conversation?
b) Again, I could be wrong, but I sense your suggestion that U.K./E.U. would-be émigrés is to counter my remarks about U.S. xenophobia and racism. Are we to take it that your underlying assumption is that these immigrants would be predominantly white, or is it something else? Certainly there is a much higher percentage of second and third generation Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and other mid- and near-eastern peoples represented in the populations of European countries than in the U.S. Presumably those who are doctors and programmers – and a good many are – who want to come to the U.S. to live and work will be subjected to the same “racial profiling” as doctors and programmers coming from non-European, non-white countries. I am not arguing that “profiling” is right or wrong. I am simply suggesting that it is a reality and I wonder how it is to be reconciled in the context of the immigration/talent shortage/global workforce mobility debate. Perhaps I was unclear. Am I any clearer now?
c) You suggest it should be as easy for professionals to come to the U.S. and work as it is for day laborers. Are you suggesting we should open up the borders even more to allow a new class of undocumented workers – professional illegal immigrants? I don’t get it.
d) “Adding employees makes a company less efficient, not more.” I could not agree more – in principle. However, the deficit of labor – from mechanics to carpenters, to professional salespeople to nurses, teachers, scientists, engineers and so on – has social implications that transcend the interests of any one “company.” Also, not all employers who struggle with talent in short supply are commercial operations, are they? The other points in your item again make sense in principle but defy the reality of today’s talent supply/demand equation. I provided links in the post to the Manpower Employment Outlook Survey. My glancing at the data suggests while in principle you may be right, in reality your position cannot be supported by the research which suggests the talent shortage is a “universal” issue, affecting us all. Or, am I missing something here too?
4. Your question: “Many of the talent gap hypotheses assume that workers will leave the workforce at ages 55-65. Is this assumption valid when SocSec retirement age is heading to 75?” I don’t know. But I agree with John Sumser: “Changing the definition of retirement is a one-time fix that simply moves the goal line back a few yards.”
5. As to John Sumser allowing comments on his articles/posts, perhaps he will be good enough to reply for himself. Certainly, John Sumser raises important issues – as evidenced here – that deserve to be discussed and debated. While that was a parallel theme in my post, it seems these issues are far more important for us to deal with. Don’t you?With all that said, if what John Sumser published from you was in fact an off-comment email then my criticism of your not substantiating your position with data is unreasonable and I withdraw it. Perhaps a retracton from me would not be necessary if your remarks could be read as “commenatry” and not “posting.”
Amitai
Sep 5th, 2006
Colin Kingsbury
Amitai,
Back when I was studying for my pilot’s license, my flight instructor told me an old joke: “You know what a weather forecast is? A horoscope with numbers attached to it.” The questions we’re dealing with here are in a similar league. Or as one of my econ professors put it, “if you torture the statistics long enough they will eventually confess to anything.”
To try and focus on what I think is important in this, my original comment to John (which became ZPG II) was that the “Talent War” hypothesis struck me as weak in a number of areas. In particular:
1. The US population is growing, absolutely as well as relatively
2. The Boomers are retiring later, out of desire as well as necessity
3. Gen Y/Echo Boom/Millenials are plentiful
4. The overall working-age population will grow over the next 50 years, not shrink.
A very revealing display of trends is this:
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbpyrs.pl?cty=US&out=d&ymax=300
This gives you a dynamic age pyramid showing the population from 1950-2050 based on past data and projections. This shows that in terms of absolute population, there is at best a bit of a gap in people currently aged 25-35, but this gets washed out pretty quickly by what comes behind.
There’s plenty of other issues in your post & comments worthy of discussion but they are all really peripheral to the central issue which is the weakness of the Talent War pitch.
Sep 6th, 2006
Recruitomatic
Colin:
Notwithstanding a number of unanswered questions, your reply to my comments serve to remind us we like you so very much.
While I am neither suggesting your hypothesis is right or wrong, U.S. census data alone does not validate your argument any more than my offering sources of data and research ensures anyone will attempt to answer the questions for themselves. Unless they are a distraction, peripheral issues help us focus on the core issues which remain – at best – hypothetical. On the other hand, there is plenty of data to suggest that your position is weaker than the Talent War pitch.
As always, I remain open to being persuaded otherwise.
Amitai
Sep 6th, 2006
Reply to “Rub-A-Dub-Dub: Sumser, Kingsbury & Recruitomatic”