If you are following the job boards at all there seems to be a slight up tick in the hiring of training personnel. I would like to assume this means that companies are preparing to gear up for growth and realize that training is a major component of successful implementation of a growth strategy. Yet there seems to be a conscious effort lately by most (not all) employers to connect a robust job description with a lower grade title.
If you are requiring 5 years of training facilitation, design and management experience, and oh, throw in organizational development competencies as a plus, you don’t call this person a Training Coordinator! They are at a minimum a Training Officer or Training Manager. There are reasons companies match this way, and yet in the end it does not serve their recruiting needs well.
Companies that pair incorrectly as the above posting did this week are saying we want the competencies but don’t want to pay for it. We believe that there are so many qualified and yet unemployed people out there we can convince one of them to accept an administrator level pay and get a manager’s level work out of them. Although this is tacky, it is also quite transparent and potential employees have been warned as to how they are going to be treated.
Two things come to mind when we pair incorrectly a title and job description like this one. First, we are not attracting the talent that can do the job we need and the job description is advertising. People skim and scan job searches and the title is often what promotes the person to click to read more. If the title is less than my desired role I will over look it. Second, even if we are able to hook a desperate talent that really needs work; they are very apt to leave us as soon as something better comes along.
I’ve mentioned in this blog before that sometimes the title is better than the job description. The company was advertising for a Director of Training and the job description was that of a trainer only. I went on one of these kinds of interviews and what they wanted was a trainer (job description). What they needed was a Director of Training (title) and yet they were stuck on the original job description. This mismatch attracts the talent they need, but the inaccurate job description pushes the talent away from applying or after the first interview.
Yesterday I ran across a job title of Director of Talent Management with a job description that was so spot on it was scary. It was not only a true description of talent management versus training, OD and HR, but it was a very comprehensive description. I was stymied by the lack of anything missing that I researched the company further to find out who is in charge of HR. Well once I realized that this person was a solid as this job description it made perfect sense.
Maybe having a mismatch in the title and description is a conscious effort to find a bargain but my gut tells me that most of the time it is just a basic misunderstanding of what training personnel should be doing for the company. Then occasionally I run across a solid match and I feel that not all hope is lost.