At a recent conference sponsored by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), there was a lot of discussion on the huge gap between supply and demand in the cybersecurity industry. The audience was a mix of academics, government and industry, and while there was no dispute over the presence of this talent gap, there were no clear ways to address it.
[visibility type=”hidden-phone”]
Speaker after speaker beat the same drum, each describing the Utopia that would allow for millions of disenfranchised job seekers and long suffering hiring managers to meet. In one session, a startup showed off a timed, scored, challenge-based assessment tool called Hacker Rating that allowed coders to participate in challenges to demonstrate their skills.
Including skills assessments in the hiring process is nothing new, of course. Academia has required whitepapers and presentations as part of the interview process for a very long time. Other industries use puzzles and practice pitches to allow applicants to show off their skills. None of that addresses the establishment of restrictive “minimum requirements”, however.
When we look at the supply and demand of skilled, qualified workers, the challenge is not to fill the talent gap with people, but to fill it with the right people. In academia, government and large industries, hiring the wrong person can cost team’s productivity and management’s time to fix. Applicants have to have “hard skills” like coding or system administration, and these are taught through college programs, certification training or on-the-job experience. Harder to find are the “soft skills,” like conflict resolution or time management, are also important since team dynamics, or the lack thereof, amplify (positively or negatively) productivity.
While the discussion brought up very valid arguments, no one had thoughts on changing the culture of resumes and interviews. One defense contractor pointed out how Department of Defense (DoD) regulations required certifications and degrees, which had the effect of permeating that through the system since all contractors had to follow those rules as well. Even the University of Michigan falls into this category, requiring resumes, minimum criteria and other traditional job application requirements. In the end, neither completely relying on skills assessment or formal education will completely address the talent gap.
As I sat through the conference, I wondered if there was a process that might work to merge the emerging skill assessment method with the traditional formal qualification evaluation. For discussion, I suggest the following:
Start by cutting away any legacy requirements and level setting on real, minimum requirements. Does the job require a four-year degree? Why? If there’s a certification requirement, can the training be done on the job, perhaps during the probationary period?
The second step is a bit tricky, because you need to find a way to distribute an initial skill assessment to all applicants. In other words, let them know that they can “go ahead and submit your resume, but I’m not looking at it until you send me an example of your work.” Then you can use the skill assessment to weed out applicants before investing time to review their resumes.
Having narrowed the pool, give those that made it through to the next round a second skill assessment or practical demonstration. Maybe this is linked to the first round, or maybe it focuses on another critical skill set. At the end, you can call the applicants and discuss how they did in the skill part, saving the evaluation of “soft skills” for the on-site interview.
Creating the skill assessment takes time and resources, so I’m not presenting this as a simple fix, but it should start a serious conversation about how to attract a broader range of applicants with the goal of hiring the best skilled people for the job.
What do you think?