Blog :

When referring to the candidate market, the term market is often used in relation to candidates as a commodity, but the more traditional definition of the word as it pertains to a store is also applicable. To run with this analogy, we have to think about candidates as products, but we also have to be careful to not lose track that unlike typical products on a store shelf, candidates aren’t simply there for the taking. They are in greater control of their destiny than a bag of chips or a case of water. Unfortunately, too many prospective employers misunderstand the candidate market and cost themselves exceptional professionals in a market where the shelves are not so easily replenished.

Candidates Have a Shelf Life

Candidates aren’t canned goods. They aren’t going to sit on the shelf forever. In the words of a fellow recruiter, when it comes to explaining “the lifespan of a person’s psychological excitement when approached with an exciting career opportunity,” candidates are like bananas. After about a week on the shelf, bananas have passed the threshold for most people’s taste preference. When searching for talented professionals to meet your staffing needs, it’s important to understand that the best are not products filling the shelves. The best candidates aren’t really candidates at all. They are passive talent. Fresh and handpicked. Like the freshest produce at your local market, these professionals are only going to remain ripe for your opportunity for a limited time.

Supplies Are Limited

It takes extensive experience and a concerted effort to locate the best passive talent to match the unique needs of an organization and specific opportunity. Our experience has proven that the best are rarely already on the shelf, and they are even less likely to remain available after they’ve been given the chance to consider new opportunities. As we’ve already established, passive candidates have short shelf lives. It’s equally important to understand that there isn’t a deep back stock of candidates with the right combination of qualifications and culture like those we present to our clients. If you allow a candidate’s interest to expire, don’t be surprised to not find another as talented or as qualified.

Beware Other Shoppers

When professionals are recruited for specific opportunities, it’s important to keep them focused on the client for whom they have been sourced. But this is where the market analogy begins to break down, because as much as we can make these comparisons, candidates aren’t products, they’re people, and when people are made aware of one opportunity, it isn’t long until they grow curious about other opportunities. The goal is to encourage smooth and seamless processes that keep candidates excited about the specific opportunity, but there is only so much that can be done to maintain their interest. In the end it is not the candidate, but your opportunity that becomes the banana, and the longer they wait the more sour it becomes to them.

Ultimately, the market works both ways. Candidates have expiration dates, but so do opportunities. When a passive candidate moves past their expiration date, they either move back into the comfort zone of their current position or they move on to a newer opportunity. When an opportunity reaches its expiration date, it loses out on the best talent and either settles on less-qualified candidates or remains vacant, both of which can be a strain on the resources of an organization. Passive candidates have an exceptionally short life cycle and positions that are open too long quickly become less appealing to more discerning talent. At The James Allen Companies, we rely on years of experience and extensive sourcing to locate and present our clients with the most relevant passive talent. Our efforts uncover professionals that have the skills and background needed to not only fit the needs of the opportunity but also the culture of the organization. Often, the vital difference as to whether or not our clients are successful depends on how aggressively they move on the talent we present.

“Adapt or die.”

That’s the response Billy Beane offers his head scout when the latter challenges
Beane’s (at the time) unorthodox method of recruiting the best baseball talent in the film
Moneyball, the 2011 sports drama that chronicles the true story of the Oakland A’s 2002
baseball season and how they found success by ignoring the traditional methods of
recruiting talent and relying instead on a data-driven approach. The movie, based on a
2003 nonfiction book of the same name, took the story to a broader audience and
inspired people of various industries to reconsider the way they approached the search
for talent. Unfortunately, six years later we still find ourselves engaging with clients who
haven’t shed themselves of poor hiring practices, and, at the peril of their company, fail
to heed Beane’s advice to either “adapt or die.”

In the film, there is a scene that shows a group of scouts discussing and discounting
players on such ridiculous attributes as how the player walks into the room or the
attractiveness of their girlfriend (“Ugly girlfriend means no confidence,” says a straight-
faced scout to the protest of no one in the room). While in the context of the film, this is
a comedic moment, it also highlights the failures of a multibillion-dollar industry that is
over 150 years old. It also calls into question the validity of how we measure talent. Are
we truly respecting and considering the professional performance of the candidates, or
are we allowing ourselves to pass over the right candidate because of the firmness of
their handshake, the tone of their voice or, dare I say, the attractiveness of their
significant other?

We have written in-depth about the impending shortage of talent that is already
beginning to show its effects on the insurance industry (if you missed it, check out the
first of our four-part series covering the talent shortage, The Crises at Hand). Now more
than ever, it is time to take an objective and serious look at the way we evaluate and
assess prospective talent. At the risk of seeming too heavy handed, there is a fair
amount of research that shows following the often-overvalued “gut decisions” as
opposed to relying on an unbiased approach of data is more often a path to failure than
success. However, with the right approach and the right recruiting partner, there is room
for opportunity for companies to secure top talent.

Like Billy Beane and the Oakland A’s discovered in 2002, there is a wealth of talent out
there that is being overlooked because they don’t fit the classic perception of what we
think of when we envision the perfect candidate. Whether it’s their age or their haircut,
but there is a growing pool of hyper-talented candidates who are going to prove to be
the all-stars organizations need to succeed now and in the future. At The James Allen
Companies, we are always cognizant of your company’s culture, and we have the
experience and success to prove we understand how important it is to an organization’s
potential; however, we also have the industry expertise to locate the highest level of
untapped potential in the insurance industry that can help a company transform and
grow.

We have discussed how the three primary generations that comprise the pool of insurance industry talent (baby boomers, generation x and millennials) each present a unique problem in terms of the workforce. In part two we continued to explore how betting on technology to compensate for dwindling manpower could be nothing more than wishful thinking. Now, as we enter part three of our four-part series, we focus at another growing epidemic that is proving to be just as confounding as the generational and technological dilemmas. While the shortage of incoming talent is a clear problem facing the industry, the looming experience gap threatens to weaken the core of the insurance hierarchy. In this article we lay out the reasons behind this gap and how it resonates at all levels of the industry.

The “Donut Hole Gap”

As has been previously covered, the talent crisis in the industry is most directly being spurred by the mass retirement of the baby boomers who monopolize not only the executive and management sectors of the industry, but nearly all levels of talent in the insurance ecosystem. What their exodus does is expose the absence of insurance professionals between the ages of 35 and 45. This phenomenon, commonly referred to as the “donut hole gap,” represents the already slim field of Gen Xers that are expected to inherit the executive mantle. As more boomers leave, the next generation of leadership proves to be too shallow to allow for an adequate transition.

A Numbers Game

A lot of emphasis has been placed on the impact millennials are having and will continue to have on the industry, and rightfully so. The population of millennials is estimated at around 83 million, followed by baby boomers who boast a population of approximately 77 million. But the story lies in the space between those generations. Generation X has an estimated population of 65 million, which is roughly twice the difference between it and the boomer population in comparison to the difference between boomers and millennials. This population differential exposes that from the gate Generation X is not prepared to make a spot-for-spot replacement of boomers leaving the industry.

A Closer Look

The population gap is only the surface of the problem in relation to the experience gap created by Generation X. When Gen Xers were entering the insurance workforce, boomers were in full force. This pushed many Gen Xers to exit the insurance industry as they saw themselves in a career with few advancement opportunities. The effect of this Gen X departure is evident today in the insurance workforce population of those in the 35-50 age range. With a workforce population already considerably smaller than its preceding generation, a lack of advancement opportunities only further depleted the talent pool that should have served as a bridge between incoming millennials and departing boomers.

The first three parts of this series have focused on the problems of the insurance workforce as it relates to specific generational dilemmas. In the fourth and final installment of our Eleventh Hour series, we will focus on the future, discussing how the insurance industry can prepare itself for a crisis that is already at the door. What we can already say is that for companies and hiring managers looking for the next executive or mid-level manager, it is time to be open and creative to how talent is sourced for these positions.

As suggested by the title, this post is only one piece of a larger series entitled The Eleventh Hour. In this four-part series we outline the major crises facing the job market of the insurance industry. We find the title of this series apt in that it accurately portrays just how close the industry is to being overwhelmed with a critical talent shortage. To open the series, we feel it is vital to delineate the three major dilemmas that are actively destabilizing the market of highly qualified candidates within the insurance industry. As we move forward with the series we will scrutinize these issues as well as the supposed solutions to an evaporating talent pool, which may prove to only worsen the situation.

Instead of viewing the three crises of the insurance job market as separate issues, it is best to understand these as three distinct patterns that are converging to produce a perfect storm capable of dismantling the foundations of the established hiring practices of the industry.

The Baby Boomer Crisis—The first, and most foreboding, blow to the talent pool is the mass retirement of the baby boomers. For nearly two decades, speculators have warned that the saturation of boomers in the insurance industry would, like any other economic bubble, reach a bursting point. It is clear now that these were not “the sky is falling” prophecies, as the data only encourages the position that the insurance talent pool is on the verge of falling beneath its critical mass. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts this mass retirement will result in as many as 400,000 vacancies by 2020. Even more urgent is the prognosis that 25% of professionals within the insurance industry will retire by 2018.

The Generation X Crisis—The second prominent concern facing the industry is the scarcity of midlevel professionals in the insurance industry. When facing such a mass exodus of senior leadership, it is only natural to look down the bench toward those candidates with 10-15 years of experience and the résumé to inherit the executive mantle. Unfortunately, this is an especially deficient demographic as it is largely populated by Gen-Xers, a relatively diminutive generational population (in comparison to Baby Boomers and Millennials) whose professionals largely forewent careers in insurance to pursue opportunities in the world of finance. This deficiency has set the stage for a daunting experiential gap between rising Millennials and retiring Boomer executives.

The Millennial Crisis—As the Boomers who dominate the market retire, with no one to whom they can pass the torch, the generation most saddled with the future of the industry is the one with the least interest in insurance careers. The technology- and data-focused Millennials are highly sought across a number of industries that more closely align with their philosophies of a work-life balance. According to the Insurance Careers Movement, less than 5% of Millennials have expressed interest in the insurance industry.

Without dramatic adjustments to the processes of recruiting and retaining talent, the insurance industry faces an unprecedented shortage that could only exacerbate itself as it places an increasing burden on the current professionals who comprise the industry. In our next post we will address in greater detail experience gap presented by a sparse Generation X population and how companies can position themselves to address this gap.