Small Firms and Hiring Challenges: Is Compromise on Skills the Only Way Forward?

Dear Friends,

Ours is a small firm. When it comes to sourcing a competent candidate (tech skills + soft skills + experience), we always end up compromising on soft skills, like communication skills, finding someone who is aggressive, confident, etc., or on experience simply because someone with all these qualities is usually already employed by large companies. In case we consider poaching such a candidate, he would likely demand a salary increase of not less than 50% of his current salary, which is beyond what we can afford (more than market standards).

Do you believe compromise is the only solution for small companies? Small companies are often more secure as they tend to retain competent employees, unlike big companies that may let them go at any moment due to the availability of more resources to replace them.

Kindly share your thoughts as I am yet to finalize PL-IT.

What you say is purely related to talent management. I would suggest that instead of recruiting new employees, you should try to retain the existing employees.

Thank you, Cgnanij, for your prompt reply. We are gradually growing with new projects, so the recruitments are fresh. We have employees who are trained already but not competent enough to take up senior positions to lead a team. So, here starts the hunt...

Hi Sari,

I think this is a common problem in most small firms. As our friend has mentioned, it is always better to go with the policy of "Retain existing employees rather than recruiting new employees." This will ensure that knowledgeable people who are familiar with your company's policies and staff stay with you, instead of bringing on a new employee who may demand a higher salary due to experience or who is a newcomer.

I hope adopting this policy will help solve your problem to a greater extent. All the best, and keep sharing such things because I also work in a small unit.

Regards,
Amith R.

Dear Sari,

Currently, I am working in a small IT firm in Nasik. Looking at our current scenario, I feel that compromise depends on the situation. I do agree with you that small companies are safer to work with, but once an employee gains one to two years of experience, they tend to shift to bigger names. That's the main concern, and small companies face challenges in attracting more experienced people. Therefore, at times, we have to compromise on issues like experience, communication skills, and even street smartness.

Regards,
Tulsi

Thanks Amit and Tulsi for your inputs.

Amit, Tulsi, as mentioned earlier, the trained existing staff are not competent to take up a senior position. The requirement is new because of new big projects. At this point in time, I don't want to compromise on the soft skills. They will have to interact with the clients and need to be assertive, aggressive, optimistic, and have leadership skills. After all, they influence their team, but I see many demanding more than the market standards. (I have surveyed a few companies' salary stubs, including big companies).

Any more suggestions on this? How would you target skill set, experience, and communication skills for a small firm?

Dear Friend Sari,

You will need to wait, and you would need to have patience until you find a candidate who is willing to join your company for reasons other than just money. I hope you understand my point.

For instance, if I were the candidate "X" currently working in a company that requires a 2-hour commute from my home, and you offered me an equivalent package but your company was only 5 minutes away from my home, I might choose to join your company.

In essence, you must be patient and wait for the right opportunity.

Rolling eyes emoji.

Hi Sari,

There are plenty of resources available in the market. The major problem is everyone sticking to brand name companies and small MNC companies.

Your target is to find a good candidate from small to medium MNC companies, which are very similar to your organization. If you can find one good source, you can automatically pull out the entire team from him/her. So, give it a try. Trying costs nothing.

Don't compromise on communication skills, but you can provide some flexibility in technical skills.

Regards, Saravanan

Thanks, dear friend Lovebird :) , now that the project is on the verge, I will have to close this position immediately. I do not have any option but to wait :roll:

Saravanan, thank you for your reply :) Initially, I only targeted small companies. I get tech skills, but most of the time communication skills are poor, which I don't want to compromise. Specially, mine is a GIS firm, a combination of IT + GIS (geospatial). I found many, but they are already placed in brand companies. However, the salaries they are asking for are touching the skies (more than 50% from their current salary), even after luring them with designations, US visits to client's places, etc.

Hi Sari!

I can very easily empathize with you because we face the same problem. I am from the pharmaceutical industry and not IT, but the reality remains the same. In fact, it is a vicious circle. Since we don't have a good name, we can't attract good people. We bring in freshers, train them for a year or so, and they get poached by big players. Since we don't have experienced people, we remain lacking in training and development aspects. Experienced individuals are not attracted to us.

The demand-supply mismatch is hurting small firms like us very badly. While I have had many people joining me in lamenting, no concrete solution is in sight. We just keep on looking for people wherever and whenever possible. We train them despite the fear that they will leave at any moment. I don't call it a compromise; I consider it a business condition that we can't influence much immediately.

Your views, please.

- Hiten

Dear friends (love birds),

I didn't mean we are not ready to pay. We would pay market standards; for example, a candidate drawing 5-5.5 LPA, we would pay 7.2 to 7.5 LPA for the right candidate. However, they are demanding 8.4 to 9.6 LPA, which is a huge jump. We cannot pay so much. In fact, we have compromised to an extent on the experience but do not want to compromise on the communication skills. Any suggestions on this?

Thank you, Hiten, for your reply. Well said about the demand and supply and the situations we are facing, dear friend. However, the other problem associated with this is that even if we hire a competent employee with a high salary, the rest of the team only tries to compare the salary and create a negative environment, making the situation even worse. You cannot give hikes to everyone nor replace them. If small companies try to invest in manpower as per market standards, there is no guarantee on the returns, and it can survive only to an extent.

Dear Sari,

At times, you may have to compromise. Rate factors as per importance. Train the hired staff if necessary; it would be a one-time cost, and employees would feel good too.

Nidhi

Dear friends (love birds),

I didn't mean we are not ready to pay. We would pay market standards. For example, a candidate drawing 5-5.5 LPA, we would pay 7.2 to 7.5 LPA for the right candidate. However, they are demanding 8.4 to 9.6 LPA, which is a huge jump. We cannot pay so much. In fact, we have compromised to an extent on the experience but do not want to compromise on the communication skills. Any suggestions on this?

I told you need to wait until you get a candidate who is interested in any other feature or component of the job apart from pay. You need to wait, Sari dear. Have patience. 😉

Dear friends,

Now that we are ready to compromise, which of the following aspects do you believe we can compromise on for quality hiring:

- Experience
- Skill set
- Communication skills
- Salary above market standards

Thank you.

Hi Sari!

I feel you can compromise on the first parameter - experience. My opinion is subject to my practical understanding of work 'experience' whereby I consider it as the number of years, the number of assignments, and the number of encountering situations. Compromising on skill set, soft skills, and salary is again entering into the vicious cycle.

One more thing I would like to share is that soft skills are becoming scarce these days. There is superficialness in soft skills these days, and not genuineness in communication and leadership skill people possess these days. These are my views and based on the experience I have had.

- Hiten

Thank you, Hiten, for sharing your ideas, views, and valuable time. I will definitely work on it; it sounds very reasonable. :)
As you said, soft skills have become a matter of concern; it's tough to judge in the first instance.

Dear Sari,

I think you have got the answer now. Yes, compromise is the only solution according to me, but you will be left with the option of selecting on which you will compromise, obviously not on salary because you can be sure that the employee will not stay back for a long time. And not even on the skill set to a larger extent as Hiten has mentioned. So you can always compromise on experience. Hope now you have a better idea about how you can approach this problem.

Thanks to all of our friends for sharing your thoughts on a useful topic posted by Sari.

Regards,
Amith R.

Dear friends,

Compromising on the experience has also not been an easy task. I have been trying to place someone for a project leader who would lead the team and be involved in the entire life cycle of the project. The person with lesser experience hardly has exposure to the entire life cycle... :(

Any inputs?????????

Hi Sari, Amit, and others,

Compromises are never easy, be it in personal life or professional life, or in a social or professional context.

Everybody likes to be on the side that gains in any situation. However, this is not always feasible for employers, especially those in smaller organizations, in the recruitment arena.

Regarding 'experience,' I would like to emphasize that it may involve fewer years, fewer encounters, etc., but it certainly does not equate to 'less exposure.'

This complexity is where the role of the head of the organization becomes crucial. In tall structures, such problems are inevitable. For small organizations, a flat and lean structure is essential, with the head or in-charge being highly involved in supporting the functionaries.

Of course, this may be hindered by the leader's 'span of control' and will require them to be an expert with exceptional leadership skills. Moreover, the organization needs to consider its growth aspirations. In such situations, attempting to grow rapidly may not be advisable.

The last paragraph is not directly related to your discussions, but I felt compelled to share my thoughts.

- Hiten