Here’s how the unemployment trap works

[onq]

Look, architects are not a special case, they do not deserve any special attention or focus over and above others who are professional who based their choice of profession on the construction industry and its peripherals.

Straw man argument - I did not make a special case for architects, nor am I doing it now.

You say and others in the article (that I did read thank you) provide anecdotal evidence that they were passed over for a job. They have no idea what the company were looking for or wanted or why others were selected. They're guessing. There is an over supply at the moment of these professions, unlike in the past, employers can afford to be choosy.

That's dismissing the argument, not addressing it LAtrade.
The point is that middle managers are deliberately choosing people of lesser ability because of their own relative shortcomings. Maybe it comes from the top down, I don't know.

What can happen is that people can continue to blame everyone else for their situation or look at what they can do to help themselves.
(snip)

Well this is doing just that - highly competent people whose skillsets exceed those that are required are calling attention to the fact that they are being passed over as candidates based on no good reason that they can see. There is no level playing field here. The actions of hirers are ageist and presumptive

But people have the potential to learn these skills to some extent, architects have the artistic streak of design and precision that would appeal to many in the computer engineering sector.

You have no idea how true that is.
By my estimation, it is the most broadly based of the professions, and is eminently suited to being a springboard(!) to other work.

Architects (and here I am making a point from my own experience, not making a case) don't just do "design" - we do laboratory and theoretical work in Physics and Chemistry for two years, four years of Structural Engineering, four years of Economics and Cost Control, two years of Law, etc., etc.

Post graduate work (in my case) involves learning how to assist in managing staff in companies from thirteen to seventy five.

The trap is only there for those who can't see the woods for the trees.

Here we differ. There is growing evidence that relatively inexperienced middle managers are covering their assess by not hiring more competent and experienced people at bargain prices.

This refutes your other argument about retraining and satisfying the market.
You cannot satisfy a market where the less able are prejudiced against you.
In real terms they are damaging their companies' ability to hire massively competent people for a fraction of their previous charge out rates as professionals (not the net income rates).

Their profession is becoming the weight holding them back, it's their skills that are important.

I warmly welcome your comments especially the last sentence.

This works both ways.

For professionals to re-train they need to adjust their self image to see themselves as not something other than the professional person they have dedicated their whole professional life to becoming - that is going to be very hard to do but its do-able.

But for those professionals to be gainfully employed again, the prejudice shown to them by less competent middle managers because of their previous professional qualification must be banished from the workplace, perhaps by a new law if that is required.

The unemployment trap is cased by employers not seeing past the previous professional qualification.

This ass-covering by middle managers may serve, or may be exacerbated by Employers who have a similar fear of employing someone who is more than capable of running their business at management level.

 

[Latrade]

For professionals to re-train they need to adjust their self image to see themselves as not something they have dedicated their whole professional life to becoming - that is hard to do but do-able.

But for those professionals to be gainfully employed again, the prejudice shown to them by less competent middle managers because of their previous professional qualification must be banished from the workplace, perhaps by a new law if that is required.

The unemployment trap is cased by employers not seeing past the previous professional qualification.

This ass-covering by middle managers may serve, or may be exacerbated by Employers who have a similar fear of employing someone who is more than capable of running their business at management level.

If you're going to start dismissing people and where they disagree with you by accusing them of using strawman arguments and other such examples of logical fallacies, then don't pepper your own argument with the same things.

You state that it is incompetent middle managers who are the cause of the architect's woes without any actual evidence other than the opinion of those who are perhaps a little bitter from rejection.

Have I gone for jobs I'm more than qualified and experienced for and not got them? Yes. Was the person who got the job younger and less experienced? Yes. But having been involved in hiring people I realise it's not just about your cv and perhaps I just wouldn't have fitted there. I also realise that in some cases my salary demands would have been double the person they did hire.

But to leap from that to your conclusion about middle management is just illogical.

 

[Purple]

The point is that middle managers are deliberately choosing people of lesser ability because of their own relative shortcomings. Maybe it comes from the top down, I don't know.

There is growing evidence that relatively inexperienced middle managers are covering their assess by not hiring more competent and experienced people at bargain prices.

This refutes your other argument about retraining and satisfying the market.
You cannot satisfy a market where the less able are prejudiced against you.
In real terms they are damaging their companies' ability to hire massively competent people for a fraction of their previous charge out rates as professionals (not the net income rates).
I warmly welcome your comments especially the last sentence.

The unemployment trap is cased by employers not seeing past the previous professional qualification.

This ass-covering by middle managers may serve, or may be exacerbated by Employers who have a similar fear of employing someone who is more than capable of running their business at management level.

You keep restating this as if it is fact. It isn't, it is the opinion of a journalist based on some anecdotal evidence and the one-sided opinions of architects who didn’t get the jobs they applied for.
It is just as likely (at the very least) that the interviewer looked at the skills on offer and the person who held them and came to the balanced and correct decision that someone else was a better candidate. Maybe in some cases the other candidate was also an architect, we just don’t know.
It is much easier to convince yourself that the interviewer was wrong than to accept that you weren’t good enough to get the job.

 

[onq]

I also don’t understand your rationale about experience vs training. On the one hand you say that it’s the years of experience that are important.But then you give the example of the architect you met:So if any formally trained architect can design any building, what does experience bring?

The experience I referred to was not experience in design.

It was general post graduate experience as a professional in dealing with clients, forms of building contracts and the system of statutory approvals.

Most of this isn't covered in a hands on way in a five year full time course, although you are strongly advised to take a year out to familiarize yourself with office practice and procedures.

If I was finding someone for the job, I would prefer someone with experience of designing healthcare facilities than an award-winning airport architect. Someone who has designed 20 healthcare facilities will have seen many of them completed, got client feedback on what worked, what could be changed/bettered etc. – and they would be different issues than airport issues.

Architects as a rule don't specialize in particular building types - they are specialize in design per se - design of all kinds of buildings from formulating the brief to completion.

Even where they do, the timescale of projects and the different requirements in each location/country mean that each building project is is unique.
its true to say that the basic layout of most schools haven't changed for a hundred years and its possible to trot our formulaic plans to some degree.
However the mode of teaching or building practices or technology doesn't stand still and each site *is* unique.
Therefore the "set of drawings plonked on the site" approach may not yield an economical result.

In that regard experience of "doing schools" as opposed to "doing offices" is of limited relevance.
Its a bit like saying that a machine shop that turns out bearings for a particular machine cannot make a door handle.
A degree of re-tooling may be required, but then you may find that the "bearing specialist" can do it cheaper because they just bought a newer machine, or thought of a new method of production.

Therefore the ability of an architect who has done airport design will not be in any way inferior, in terms of complexity and detailing overview, to the ability of an architect who has specialized in schools design.

The really relevant question would be, if you're dealing with a firm or person - whether their set up can handle the peak workload.
This would not apply in the case of someone being employed directly by an office to provide a professional design service.

Ramping up manpower and employing skilled people might have been a problem in the boom - not so now.
Plus fighting for attention because the person has too much other work on is a distant possibility.

I hope that clarifies your queries.

 

[Staples]

The point is that middle managers are deliberately choosing people of lesser ability because of their own relative shortcomings.

This is nonsense.

Any evidence in support of this view is anecdotal and comes from disaffected unsuccessful job applicants who, quite naturally, would prefer to believe that their failure to land a job is someone else's fault.

 

[onq]

You keep restating this as if it is fact. It isn't, it is the opinion of a journalist based on some anecdotal evidence and the one-sided opinions of architects who didn’t get the jobs they applied for.
It is just as likely (at the very least) that the interviewer looked at the skills on offer and the person who held them and came to the balanced and correct decision that someone else was a better candidate. Maybe in some cases the other candidate was also an architect, we just don’t know.
It is much easier to convince yourself that the interviewer was wrong than to accept that you weren’t good enough to get the job.

That's a comment that's not based on fact either, just a contrary conjecture based on your perspective as an employer.

I accept it at that level, but the old canard of "weren't good enough to get the job" is a poor cousin of what you should've said "weren't deemed suitable for the job" - the get-out clause favoured by employers who don't want to be hauled up on a discrimination charge.

The above therefore is merely a dismissive rebuttal that doesn't actually address the issues raised, namely that employers and interviewers are fearful of and prejudiced against employing people who may appear on the surface of it to be more competent and intelligent than they are.

Perish the though that with such competent people employed, the suggestion box might actually have wonderful ideas in it for cutting costs and improving productivity instead of the usual "ensure your employees think they're contributing" function it normally plays.

The results of such inferiority complexes will the mediocre performances of Irish companies in terms of innovation and marketing in the next ten years.

They will founder because a prime source of new thinking - professionals from the building sector - are being blocked from offering their retrained skills to employers in other sectors - by people acting from prejudice and fear.

 

[onq]

This is nonsense.

Any evidence in support of this view is anecdotal and comes from disaffected unsuccessful job applicants who, quite naturally, would prefer to believe that their failure to land a job is someone else's fault.

Is that the only level of rebuttal here to a reasoned argument?

 

[Purple]

Its a bit like saying that a machine shop that turns out bearings for a particular machine cannot make a door handle.
A degree of re-tooling may be required, but then you may find that the "bearing specialist" can do it cheaper because they just bought a newer machine, or thought of a new method of production.

A better example is a machine shop that usually services the electronics industry then trying to service the medical device industry. The basic skills may be the same but the level and type of required ISO certification is different, as is the type and level of record keeping, internal auditing, traceability, method of cleaning and packaging, materials segregation, allowable chemicals and solvents, product finishing, machine tool inspection (servicing, preventative maintenance, biological particle checks etc), process control and in-process and final inspection. That’s why you find machine shops that tend to specialise in particular sectors and subsectors. For example one company may be well able to service a medical equipment manufacturer but be unable to service a medical implant manufacturer. This level of specialisation and sub-specialisation is the rule rather than the exception.

Therefore the ability of an architect who has done airport design will not be in any way inferior, in terms of complexity and detailing overview, to the ability of an architect who has specialized in schools design.

If there are particular areas or pitfalls involved in designing a facility that requires inspection by the Irish Medicines Board I would rather hire someone with experience in that area.

 

[onq]

If you're going to start dismissing people and where they disagree with you by accusing them of using strawman arguments and other such examples of logical fallacies, then don't pepper your own argument with the same things.

Learn what a straw man argument is before you comment on it. I didn't dismiss your entire post, but I can recognize a straw man when I see one.
You claimed I was making a special case for architects when I wasn't - I used an example from my profession because I knew the details.
The original article and my subsequent assertions did not make a case especially for architects - why would I limit my footprint.

In point of fact the "you're making a special case" line is a form of ad-hominem attack based on the "you're only in it for yourself fallacy"
Neither the straw man, disingenuous statement or ad hominem attack strategies address the point being made.

You state that it is incompetent middle managers who are the cause of the architect's woes without any actual evidence other than the opinion of those who are perhaps a little bitter from rejection.

First of all, I didn't state anything in particular to architects.
Secondly the particular person who told me his experience wasn't bitter, just surprised that people knew so little about the profession that they had pigeon-holed him
Thirdly, my comment refers to relatively less competent - no "incompetent" - middle managers - please read my posts before commenting.
Finally my comment was not a straw man argument, it was not even a reply - it was an assertion based on reasoned conjecture and experience.

Have I gone for jobs I'm more than qualified and experienced for and not got them? Yes. Was the person who got the job younger and less experienced? Yes. But having been involved in hiring people I realise it's not just about your cv and perhaps I just wouldn't have fitted there. I also realise that in some cases my salary demands would have been double the person they did hire.

But to leap from that to your conclusion about middle management is just illogical.

Just because you swallowed what they said to you instead of challenging it in a public forum doesn't make my stance illogical.
Management have vested interests in exploiting workers - "there is a limit to how much one man can earn without exploiting others" - that is a given in any hierarchical system - even architectural practices (!)
That doesn't mean prospective employees should accept management cant a Gospel - in fact where something supports the exploitation of workers you should scrutinize it closely, not accept it without reservation.

 

[Latrade]

Learn what a straw man argument is before you comment on it. I didn't dismiss your entire post, but I can recognize a straw man when I see one.
That's not a straw man argument, that's an assertion based on reasoned conjecture and experience.
Just because you swallowed what they said to you instead of challenging it in a public forum doesn't make my stance illogical.

Management have vested interests in exploiting workers - "there is a limit to how much one man can earn without exploiting others" - that is a given in any hierarchical system - even architectural practices (!)

That doesn't mean we should accept management cant a Gospel. In fact where something supports the exploitation of workers you should scrutinize it closely, not accept it without reservation.

This is getting ridiculous. I don't need you tell me what a strawman argument is. What I need now though is for you to explain how an argument based upon anecdotal evidence suddenly becomes reasonable conjecture. And also while you're on wikipedia see if it has a page for "Fallacy of the single cause" or "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" and double check on your understanding of Ad hominem as I didn't attack you or dismiss your argument based on you. I dismissed your argument based on I didn't believe it.

However, if despite what many posters are saying, you feel the only reason architects are stuck in unemployment is because of middle managers, then there's really nothing anyone can add to this thread.

If you're willing to discuss a) that recruitment isn't always about cv (and as I mentioned I've recruited a lot of people and it isn't just about cv, but then I suppose my own anecdotal evidence is for you to debase too) and b) whether there are options available to professionals who are unemployed and c) what other factors may lie behind large volumes of unemployed professionals, then we can.

 

[Purple]

ONQ, There is no evidence to back up the assertion that people with professional qualifications in the construction sector are not being offered jobs because of the insecurity or ignorance of those hiring in other sectors. It is an opinion which may be true in some cases but one swallow doesn’t make a summer.
Before you dismiss those who question the above assertion you should at least back it up with some statistics or at least more than the opinions of a small number of people, none of whom are in possession of all of the facts.

 

[Sunny]

There are numerous reasons why companies wouldn't hire someone. I have seen examples of someone with huge experience being hired and coming in and being completely set in their ways from their old company and had no desire to learn from other people or change. It had to be done his way. Was a complete disaster and we ended up replacing him with someone with half his experience but was a perfect fit for the company.

Having said all that, I still don't understand the point of this thread!

 

[Staples]

Is that the only level of rebuttal here to a reasoned argument?

Hard to say. Maybe if you offered a reasoned argument you'd find out.

 

[onq]

ONQ, There is no evidence to back up the assertion that people with professional qualifications in the construction sector are not being offered jobs because of the insecurity or ignorance of those hiring in other sectors.

I didn't say ignorance played a part at all - don't put words in my mouth.

Fear of employing people relatively more experienced and competent than they are would be the motivational factors here.

It is an opinion which may be true in some cases

Thank you for conceding the point

but one swallow doesn’t make a summer.

(chuckle)
One is all I need to see to prove they exist.
Where there is one, there are likely to be others.

Before you dismiss those who question the above assertion you should at least back it up with some statistics or at least more than the opinions of a small number of people, none of whom are in possession of all of the facts.

Others have dismissed my arguments. I didn't dismiss theirs, I rebutted them.

I am happy to accept a point such that not all employers will behave like this, that in many cases "the fit" of the person in the company is very important (using whatever criteria applies) and that my comment cannot therefore be applied universally.

On the other hand this is a situation where there is a likelihood of dissembling because of a possible action under the discrimination legislation.
Also proof of motivation cannot be offered empirically where it can be subject to a simple denial.

Therefore, my assertion relies on my understanding of human nature, the quality of people I have met in middle and senior management in my career to date and the likelihood of the writer of the original article having hit the nail squarely on the head.

 

[Staples]

On the other hand this is a situation where there is a likelihood of dissembling because of a possible action under the discrimination legislation.

There are nine possible grounds for discrimination.

Perhaps you could clarify which one you think employers would be exposed to in the circumstances you describe.

 

[onq]

What I need now though is for you to explain how an argument based upon anecdotal evidence suddenly becomes reasonable conjecture.

I'd say the "evidence" part of "anecdotal evidence" might be relevant.
The reasonableness of it rests on whether it accords with one's experience of human nature.

Q. "Are people afraid of being made to look bad by comparison with others?"

A. "Yes, this is a primary fear."

Sounds reasonable to me.

I dismissed your argument based on I didn't believe it.

Thank you for confirming you "dismissed it" on the basis of belief as opposed to "refuted it" on the basis of evidence.

However, if despite what many posters are saying, you feel the only reason architects are stuck in unemployment is because of middle managers, then there's really nothing anyone can add to this thread.

I used the example of an architect.
The example was particular to him being employed on a particular building type.
It centred on a lack of understanding of what he brought to the table, which I clarified following a question.
It did not centre on the general issue of why professionals and highly competent people in general are being kept in an unemployment trap by less competent middle managers - that came from the original article.

Contrary to your opinion, quite a lot of people have added substantially to the discussion of this issue on this thread - its been a most enlightening experience to see the limits of their arguments against.

Disbelief in the Proposition.
Lack of Empirical Proof.
Other Reasons Exist.

None of these actually refute the argument proposed in the article I quoted.

If you're willing to discuss a) that recruitment isn't always about cv (and as I mentioned I've recruited a lot of people and it isn't just about cv, but then I suppose my own anecdotal evidence is for you to debase too) and b) whether there are options available to professionals who are unemployed and c) what other factors may lie behind large volumes of unemployed professionals, then we can.

I've been discussing all of the above.
I just called you on a straw man argument and here you are implying that I haven't been discussing these very points.
If there's any "debasing" of "anecdotal evidence" its not being done by me.

 

[Mpsox]

I'm a middle manager inundated with CVs at the minute because I'm taking on a few people for a new project. So why do I reject people.?

A CV is an advert for an individual and should be treated like one.
I quite happily reject people (many with a whole pile of qualifications) who don't know how to use spell check
I reject people who take a shotgun approach to job applications and fire out a hundred CVs to ads they've seen online without even thinking about the job in question
I reject people who clearly don't have the skills for the role
I reject people who seem to have a different job every year or so, it indicates they don't stay or aren't kept.
I reject people CVs that are too long and boring, I don't have the time to read them and it's up to the applicant to sell themselves to me
I rejected the guy whose voice mail said, "if I like you I'll call you back and if I don't f..k off". He was a very well qualified moron who is probably still on the dole

I interview people who seem to have the skills to do the job, seem to be interested in the roll. At interview stage
I reject people who can't be bothered turning up,
can't be bothered making an effort with their appearance,
talk to their feet,
won't fit in with the team we already have in place(regardless of their qualifications or skills),
smell,
don't understand what the job is,
admit they are only looking to work for a few months
or are so clearly going to be bored out of their tree in 2 months time that they are going to become a liability


I have no issue taking on and reskilling people, my operations manager for example was a qualified fitness instructor. I have staff with far more letters after their name then I have and they do their job very well.

However, to assume I would reject someone because they have more qualifications or skills then me and I'd be afraid of them taking my job is the height of stupidity. In this day and age, if I can get someone who will do a brilliant job, I'll take them, they'll make me look good in the course of doing their own job

 

[onq]

There are nine possible grounds for discrimination.

Perhaps you could clarify which one you think employers would be exposed to in the circumstances you describe.

Age could be one, in the absence of any other determining factor between the candidates.

 

[Firefly]

I'm a middle manager inundated with CVs at the minute because I'm taking on a few people for a new project. So why do I reject people.?

A CV is an advert for an individual and should be treated like one.
I quite happily reject people (many with a whole pile of qualifications) who don't know how to use spell check
I reject people who take a shotgun approach to job applications and fire out a hundred CVs to ads they've seen online without even thinking about the job in question
I reject people who clearly don't have the skills for the role
I reject people who seem to have a different job every year or so, it indicates they don't stay or aren't kept.
I reject people CVs that are too long and boring, I don't have the time to read them and it's up to the applicant to sell themselves to me
I rejected the guy whose voice mail said, "if I like you I'll call you back and if I don't f..k off". He was a very well qualified moron who is probably still on the dole

I interview people who seem to have the skills to do the job, seem to be interested in the roll. At interview stage
I reject people who can't be bothered turning up,
can't be bothered making an effort with their appearance,
talk to their feet,
won't fit in with the team we already have in place(regardless of their qualifications or skills),
smell,
don't understand what the job is,
admit they are only looking to work for a few months
or are so clearly going to be bored out of their tree in 2 months time that they are going to become a liability


I have no issue taking on and reskilling people, my operations manager for example was a qualified fitness instructor. I have staff with far more letters after their name then I have and they do their job very well.

However, to assume I would reject someone because they have more qualifications or skills then me and I'd be afraid of them taking my job is the height of stupidity. In this day and age, if I can get someone who will do a brilliant job, I'll take them, they'll make me look good in the course of doing their own job

A very good post and worth a read for anyone job hunting.
I was in a restaurant for lunch the other day. A young guy came in to hand in his CV to the manager (who I kinda know at this stage from going in). He was wearing a tracksuit. When he left his CV went straight into the bin and rightly so IMO.

 

[orka]

I'd say the "evidence" part of "anecdotal evidence" might be relevant.
The reasonableness of it rests on whether it accords with one's experience of human nature.

Q. "Are people afraid of being made to look bad by comparison with others?"

A. "Yes, this is a primary fear."

Sounds reasonable to me.

If your 'evidence' proves your case, then surely no-one anywhere would ever hire anyone more competent than themslves (human nature innit?) - which would doom all companies to ever decreasing competence level. Clever original employee hires less clever colleague who hires even less clever colleague who hires mediocre colleague who hires slightly stupid colleague who hires stupid colleague who hires really stupid colleague who hires moron...