Response to Deloitte Report on Long Term Unemployed

“The job situation has NOT improved here in the U.S. We're just hiding some really
desperate and scared people in part-time jobs (sometimes more than one) or in low-
wage temp work which often goes by the more dignifying, less pejorative aliases of
"contract" or "consulting" work. And then there are the jobs that pay no salary at all.
No, I'm not talking about internships, which are also on the rise, but commission-only
positions like the thousands created by [COMPANY REDACTED], where sales reps
make 5% commission and work 60 hours a week just to put food on the table. Don't
even get me started on adjunct instructor positions in universities (the new sweat
shops).”
“ … I have worked my way through a random sample of 514 industry recruiters. This
represents a small portion of my 6,500 LinkedIn connections, which is a percentage of
the total number of recruiters whose connection I sought. Two hundred and eighty-
seven of the 514 recruiters (56%) accepted my LinkedIn invitation. Of the 287 with
whom I connected, 53 (18%) replied to a message seeking assistance and outlining
my value to an organization. Of the 53 who replied to my message, 22 requested a
résumé (42%). (By now this 22 represents 4% of the recruiters to whom I reached
out). Of the 22 who requested a résumé, 8 had a specific position in mind based on
my message or LinkedIn profile. Future updates to this data will be posted.”
Response to Deloitte Report on Long-Term Unemployed: A Return to
Substance
Deloitte Consulting in collaboration with The Rockefeller Foundation presents to the business community the case
for hiring the long-term unemployed (i.e., persons out of work at least 27 weeks) in its Employer Guide to Recruit
and Hire Long-Term Unemployed. This is a noble and necessary purpose, and one in which I have a great personal
stake. You see, I am a senior member of the LTU -- 2 1/2 years and counting. Throughout my unemployment, I
applied to hundreds of jobs nationwide, followed up with HR professionals, and messaged over 4,000 healthcare
industry recruiters who accepted invitations on LinkedIn (as well as professionals who would be my managers if I
were employed in their organizations). I also read every feature article about, pertaining to, or concerning the
unemployed. Some written by columnists and contributors. Some by economic policy experts. The one thing most
of them have in common: they just don't get it. The architects of Deloitte's recommendations to the business
community and The White House, while having a handle on some of the outrageous challenges facing the LTU, are
really no exception.
Contents
ABOUT THE AUTHOR.....................................................................................................................................3
WHO REMOVED THIS REPORT FROM THE FEDERAL SOUP FORUM? .......................................................3
A QUESTION OF COMMITMENT ...............................................................................................................4
NO OVERARCHING FRAMEWORK FOR UNDERSTANDING HISTORY AND ETIOLOGY OF LTU...................4
CULTURE CHANGES: CIVILIZATION IN TRANSITION......................................................................................5
LABOR MARKET DIFFERENTIATION...........................................................................................................5
JOB PORTALS AND ONLINE JOB APPLICATIONS........................................................................................6
HOW THE LTU IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY LINKEDIN..............................................................................8
THE LEGEND OF THE UNDERGROUND JOB MARKET ................................................................................8

VOLUME....................................................................................................................................................8
THE DISQUALIFICATION MODEL (AKA “KNOCKOUT SCREENING”)...........................................................9
SCREENING SOFTWARE AND APPLICANT TRACKING SYSTEMS ..............................................................10
RISE OF THE THIRD PARTY RECRUITER....................................................................................................11
EMPLOYER BIAS ..........................................................................................................................................11
TITLE CONGRUENCY................................................................................................................................12
BRANDING...............................................................................................................................................13
PAINT BY NUMBERS................................................................................................................................13
THOU SHALL HAVE MANAGED A LARGE TEAM ......................................................................................13
CREDENTIALISM: REMEMBER TO KEEP HOLY THE SEAL OF APPROVAL ................................................14
ADVERSE EVENTS....................................................................................................................................16
I AM THE CERTIFICATE THY SEAL OF APPROVAL. THOU SHALL NOT HAVE FALSE IDOLS BEFORE ME ...17
TALES OF THE RECESSION...........................................................................................................................18
Absurd Job Interview 1 ...........................................................................................................................18
BJC HEALTHCARE: A CASE STUDY IN FITTING IN.....................................................................................21
A PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE FOR LABOR ANALYTICS & RESEARCH: WHAT WE NEED TO BE A LITTLE LESS
ADHD...........................................................................................................................................................24
INTRODUCING A NEW UNIVERSITY TO BRIDGE THE CHASM BETWEEN INDUSTRY AND HIGHER
EDUCATION.................................................................................................................................................26

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Some friends and associates have questioned the wisdom of engaging in a solo evaluation of a Guide compiled by a
reputable team of professional consultants for the POTUS. Those close to me are concerned charges of arrogance
will saddle my public persona and prolong my plight. Let it be known I'm a fairly humble man. If 2 1/2 years of
unemployment don't humble you, nothing will. I've simply reached a point where it became necessary to take
more control of my destiny, which in this case means assuming, or attempting to assume, a leadership role in how
unemployment is perceived and perpetuated. And for our purposes here today that means calling attention to
where the Guide's architects stray from the source material -- the so-called "reality on the ground" -- and why the
analysis presented by Deloitte Consulting and embraced by The White House National Economic Council would
likely fall short of its goals.
So bear in mind that the following is the compilation of a single out-of-work professional no employer wants.
Hardly seems like a fair fight. But in my defense, I'm not just an educated member of the LTU, I also happen to be a
social scientist. Or has Deloitte forgotten already (between contracting with the White House and writing the
Guide) that a social science PhD can be unemployed for over 2 years? For those of you who do not know what a
PhD in Social Psychology means -- and that's nearly the entire business community -- I'm trained in organizational
behavior and development, institutional culture, small group dynamics, interpersonal relationships, and
personality theory. Even more to the point, I am trained in research design and analysis, which includes the design,
evaluation, administration, interpretation, and statistical analysis of surveys and questionnaires. I have held a
range of related but distinguishable job titles, including management analyst, operations analyst, business analyst,
research analyst, and data integration specialist. I have served the cause, mission, and business of health care from
nearly every conceivable angle: as the founder and co-owner of a leading psychotherapy practice; as the inventor
of a data integration, analysis, and reporting tool for cancer centers; and as a consultant to the Federal
government's Public Health Emergency Medical Countermeasure Enterprise. I created an original methodology
that led to one of the most successful investigations into both an age-old mystery (i.e., why we dream) as well as
the relationship between psychological and disease processes. I even worked as a senior researcher for the U.S.
Department of Labor (specializing in the biotechnology and health care industries), so I am no stranger to
workforce development. I’ve worked with physicians, government leaders, and captains of industry.
So why not talk to someone like me? What can a Ph.D. social scientist unemployed for 3 years tell us that no
payrolled reporter or Federal worker can? What truths can he reveal from his own extensive job search? From 61
resumes and 6,100 LinkedIn connections? From 2,300 failed job applications? Praise is lavished on the LTU all
throughout the Guide, but this praise rings hollow once it becomes apparent theirs are the only perspectives Guide
authors do not pursue. And it's a glaring omission. If the LTU is as educated as the Guide depicts, then they should
have some interesting things to say regarding the reasons they’ve been given for being passed up. I would think
analysts would want to know if there are any trends or tendencies in how HR professionals and hiring managers
are characterizing their shortfalls. But despite all my education and achievements (and research into my own job
search), I *AM* unemployed, and Guide authors treat me no differently than the employers they seek to correct.
WHO REMOVED THIS REPORT FROM THE FEDERAL SOUP FORUM?
I originally did not intend to release this report on LinkedIn, where I was advised that it might complicate my job
search. So I published it to the U.S. Department of Labor forum on the Federal Soup web site under the title
“Response to Deloitte Report on Long-Term Unemployment: Where’s the Substance?” There is no question the
content of the Report is appropriate to the venue and violates no terms of service, and it held a place on the board
for 3 weeks before vanishing under suspicious circumstances:
“It was unusual how I learned the Report had been removed. I attempted to visit the site one
day to look for new responses to the Report, but I found I was unable to access the web page.
And not just the page to which the Report was published, but the entire Federal Soup web site.

I thought it odd since the rest of the Internet remained available to me. So I attempted to
access the Forum from the other computer in my home, but the connection problem persisted.
After assuming the site itself might have developed maintenance issues over the weekend, I
decided to try again. This time from my iPhone, which had never been used to access the site
previously. Now that I had access, I navigated to the DOL page, where I discovered the Report
had been removed. The question now is, ‘who removed it?’ And who took the additional step
of blocking my ISP so that it would be more difficult for me to discover it had been removed
(and even more difficult to restore). I doubt this is the work of the Forum moderator. I don’t
think he did this of own accord or it would not have been up for 3 weeks. Someone must have
lobbied for its removal. Who? Deloitte? The Rockefeller Foundation? Or someone connected
to the Federal government?”
A QUESTION OF COMMITMENT
I know my stake in long-term unemployment. I also know what skills I bring to bear to an analysis of this issue.
What I want to know before reading a document like The Guide is, what's Deloitte's interest, as a business, in this
phenomenon? In the course of searching the Guide for some answers, I was struck by the following on the
penultimate page.
"... Deloitte is not, by means of this publication, rendering accounting, business, financial, investment, legal, tax, or
other professional advice or services. This publication is not a substitute for such professional advice or services,
nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business. Before making any
decision or taking any action that may affect your business, you should consult a qualified professional advisor.
Deloitte shall not be responsible for any loss sustained by any person who relies on this publication."
This is an odd statement for a document making a strong sales pitch and issuing strategies that affect everything in
an organization from the basement to the rafters, but not so odd when you consider the Report is not only written
on a 6th
grade level but shows arrested development in strategic thinking and analysis as well.
NO OVERARCHING FRAMEWORK FOR UNDERSTANDING HISTORY AND
ETIOLOGY OF LTU
Among the most valuable information acquired during my job search concerns a pervasive and enduring pattern of
employer biases that favor some job seekers and diminish others. The most pervasive and enduring among these
biases serve to build a growing class of long-term unemployed by discriminating against the presence or absence
of certain characteristics, and Deloitte is doing the nation a disservice in neglecting them.
Establishing that long term unemployment exists is no major discovery any more than establishing that it is a
negative outcome is a major act of philanthropy. A Report worth its weight in Rockefeller Foundation dollars ought
to address the cause-effect relationships beneath the surface. Dig a little deeper. Roll up some sleeves. Get
involved. The most glaring omission / oversight by Report architects is that it does not get close enough to the
reality of long term unemployment.
Now to be fair, Deloitte did speak to some employers. Deloitte’s “Maturity Model” of LTU recruitment is in the
authors’ own words "the result of conversations and feedback from hundreds of employers who are leading the
field in accessing this talent pool." But the Report makes no mention of engaging the LTU unemployed themselves.
This is ironic; because while the Report talks up the virtues and skills of the LTU, it refuses to include their
observations and experiences in the making of the Report. Because people who are unemployed cannot possibly
be credible witnesses let alone subject matter experts, right? They can’t even be trusted to serve as authorities on
what is happening in their own job searches.

As a member of the LTU, I was disheartened to learn that the picture of unemployment The White House seeks will
be constructed wholly from (a) CEOs with no clear grasp of what it really takes to perform many of the jobs in their
companies, (b) hiring managers who never look at more than 20% of the applications that cross their desks (and
very few for more than 6 seconds), and (c) HR professionals / recruiters who out of fear of losing their own jobs
follow the specifications handed down from the hiring managers.
The Guide points out that the LTU are not only educated but that the longer you're unemployed the more
educated you're likely to be. PhDs like me remain unemployed because employers do not know what many
advanced degrees mean (and do not care to ask) and because they believe business and technical micro-
certifications offer more clear and precise measures of domain-specific intelligences. And like software, business
certifications are proliferating at break-neck speed. HR professionals looking to hire a project manager tell
applicants who once launched and managed leading businesses that this experience is no substitute for a PMP,
and they tell statisticians with BAs in Business that their PhDs are "just another achievement" and no substitute for
a 6-month Six Sigma certificate from Villanova.
Today you can be a Certified Business Intelligence Professional (CBIP) or enroll in a four-course program at Penn
State that would make you a certified Data Warehousing Professional. Union Graduate College is offering an MS in
Healthcare Data Analytics. If you want a job working in the I.T. department of a hospital, chances are you'll have to
"EPIC certified" -- whatever that means.
And this gets to the core problem of unemployment and where The Guide really whiffs. In the post-Software
Revolution Era, waves of new job titles have the labor market looking like a lava lamp. If anyone in Labor
attempted to classify and assign taxonomic codes to positions like medical professionals do for services (CPT) or
illnesses (ICD-10), they would be overwhelmed by the complexity and dynamism. But as fluid as the titles are, their
boundaries have become thicker between changes and their qualifications more specific and more rigid. Career
pathways today are more highly regulated and more tracked, making it more difficult for people to qualify or move
between them. This increased rationalism may be attributable in part to technical requirements and in part to the
approximation of human thought to the Boolean logic of its creation. Educated professionals who were once
capable of holding Old Economy job titles that broadly encompassed a range of functions may find themselves
unqualified for every one of the more highly specialized New Economy positions created when his / her old job
was carved up.
This flux contributes to a profound misalignment in expectations between employers and applicants. Job seekers
have become so desensitized to hearing they are not a good fit or lack the qualifications, that they dismiss these
assessments as routine and as lacking empirical grounds, particularly when rendered by professionals other than
the hiring managers themselves.
Once upon a time, when hiring managers searched for their candidates, I did very well. I suspect these managers
set some a priori specs but then applied them with flexibility, often setting some aside when they found a person
with compensatory virtues. Unfortunately, recruiters are far less given to this because they view adherence to the
specs as the sine qua none of their jobs.
I’ll introduce some of these etiological factors in my Report, which I divide into two types: culture changes and
employer bias.
CULTURE CHANGES: CIVILIZATION IN TRANSITION
LABOR MARKET DIFFERENTIATION
People today are confused. The information revolution and its infiltration of every industry have resulted in a re-

organization and differentiation of the labor market. There are far more position titles today, which on the surface
would appear to mean more options when in fact the counter-trend toward certification and specialization has
resulted in careers becoming more fragmented and single-tracked. Data suggests that there is remarkably less
mobility in the job market today than decades past, and I suspect this is the primary reason: hard boundaries
between positions precluding horizontal as well as vertical movement. I applied for a variety of jobs in a hospital,
thinking I could flourish in each one of them: Manager of Health Information; Director of Quality Improvement;
Organizational Development & Innovation; Strategic Planner; Business Intelligence Coordinator; and Informatics
Specialist. In the end, for reasons just as varied, the hospital deemed me unqualified for every one of the positions.
Because my work history is broad and touched on a number of these positions, I was not as especially suited to any
one job as most of the other applicants. I was not a square peg for any one of the square holes. And in a labor
market as differentiated as this one, positions become more narrowly defined with a rigid set of qualifications. And
I was not only not as well suited as other sharpshooters, I was deemed unqualified because I lacked credentials
(e.g., RHIA/RHIT for the Manager of Health Information; CPHQ and lean Six Sigma for the Director of Quality
Improvement; EPIC certification for Business Intelligence and Informatics positions).
Fifteen years ago someone with my education and experience would have been a solid candidate for broadly
defined positions that housed under one tent tasks involving performance evaluation, project management,
business intelligence, data warehousing, and enterprise systems management. Today, there are specific jobs for
each of these functions and each requires an appropriate certification. When all the dust settled, some highly
accomplished, skilled, intelligent, creative, and educated people were left without a niche and without a place in
the modern economy.
JOB PORTALS AND ONLINE JOB APPLICATIONS
The Internet not being around all that long – it’s safe to say that job portals and online job applications are fairly
new wrinkles in the job search.
When most people think of online job portals like Monster or CareerBuilder or Indeed, they are thinking these are
technological innovations that can only make positive contributions to job seekers. They do not think about all the
ways they set a job seeker back and maintain his unemployment status. How so? -- by making it that much easier
for people who already have jobs to compete for vacancies. Back when job hunting took leg-work, pavement-
pounding, and elbow grease, people who already had jobs were stuck in their offices having to fulfill the
requirements of their 9 to 5 jobs before they can engage anything extracurricular. But now all they have to do is
upload resumes to job portals and create profiles on social networks – and the recruiters will come to them. With
employers biased in favor of people who already have jobs, they can find their next job with little or no active
searching at all. The people who really need the work, the unemployed job seekers, do not always realize that their
major competition does not come from the millions of chronically unemployed but from the even greater legions
of chronically dissatisfied workers who did not apply for the job, who already have jobs, and who may not even
reside in the country (i.e., H1-B visa).
And this is the truly outrageous part of all this. As Forbes contributor Liz Ryan pointed out in her online column
“The Horrible Truth About Online Job Applications” (11/21/2014), while hundreds of job seekers spend 45 minutes
reproducing across dozens of HTML fields in an online form key elements of the Word-based resume they were
already asked to upload – not to mention completing additional assessments and listing the address of all
residences going back 7 years – oblivious to the fact they are 1 of anywhere between 118 and 1,000 applicants –
the employer is instructing the internal recruiters (or third party professional staffing firms) to scrub social
networks like LinkedIn and job portals like Indeed for the purple unicorn.
Some researchers have taken an even more pessimistic view of online applications. On November 21, Forbes
columnist Liz Ryan (“The Horrible Truth about Online Job Applications”) cites the case of a job seeker who
submitted a late evening job application through a company’s careers page only to receive an automated rejection

email upon waking up the following morning. The applicant tracked down the recruiter who posted the position
and recounted what he learned from their correspondence: “The thing is that Andrea doesn’t have time to screen
resumes that come through the company website. She finds her own candidates using LinkedIn, instead. So when
she input the Technical Project Manager job into her company’s jobs portal, she set it up so that every candidate
gets a No Thanks message, the same message I got ... She has her own system for filling jobs. The applications that
come through the company website go straight into the virtual trash.”
This will serve to undermine public trust in corporate hiring and screening practices – and well it should. Yours
truly has submitted at least 5,000 online job applications across four different job searches since the turn of the
century – a century which has witnessed the NASDAQ crash of 2000, 9/11, the War in Iraq, a Great Recession, and
a 5-year budget impasse on Capitol Hill – on top of personal sources of instability such as relocations for a spouse’s
new job – and from all these applications I have received precisely zero interviews. You heard right. Zero. In fact,
I’d say that I received updates on the status of my applications in less than 20% of the cases. If after all this history
you’re still submitting online applications, you’ve just refuted every basic principle of operant conditioning and
may be too stupid to live.
These practices are perfectly legal but they are particularly cruel to older job seekers, journeyman job seekers, and
job seekers who have worked a lot of fixed-term contracts – for these applicants the time spent completing the
online application is multiplied by the number of past experiences. Such a job seeker could spend as much as 3
hours completing a single online application and then have the additional disadvantage of having lapses in
employment which in many cases, unbeknownst to the applicant, will result in him being pre-declined before all
that keyed-in information ever meets human eyes.
The single piece of information I want above all else is how much time a person on average wastes compiling
online job applications and collectively what all this idle productivity amounts to as a % of GDP.
GUIDE NEGLECTS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY AND ITS ROLE AS
MAINTAINING FACTOR IN LTU
The Guide boldly touts the work ethic, loyalty, and diversity of the LTU community and even ventures one bolder
step when it bucks conventional wisdom to headline LTU superior skills:
"A study of nearly 20,000 sales and service workers found that there was virtually no difference between the
performance of those who had not held a job within the past five years and those who had. In fact, the study
found that workers who had been unemployed for five years actually performed slightly."
But a statement like this plays into the hands of most employers, who either work in the I.T. industry or in
industries that run on products of the I.T. industry (i.e., software). Guide readers and cynics will likely point to the
convenient selection of sales and service workers for a highly circumscribed statement of LTU strength.
The Guide may in fact allude to this when it makes a contradictory statement further into the document:
"Because it can result in skills deterioration of the labor force and a reduction in overall productivity, leading
economists agree that the long-term recovery of the economy remains in danger if long-term unemployment
persists at this high level."
So which is it? Are the LTU skilled or are they not? The Guide seems to resolve this inconsistency when it advocates
an evaluation of applicant skills.
"Focusing on an applicant’s skill set as opposed to their previous employment history will enable you to hire the
candidates with the most relevant abilities."

"Instead of traditional interview methods that ask about your previous work experience or positions, use
behavioral-based interviewing techniques to evaluate the candidate’s skills and abilities as well as their work ethic
and motivations. Behaviorally-based selection techniques will provide you with more accurate and timely
information to assess the candidate’s "can do" and "will do" for the position and for the organization."
HOW THE LTU IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY LINKEDIN
The problem with most long term unemployed professionals is that they never seem to fit the profile. This is
entirely a matter of lacking education or skills. In many cases, it’s a matter of having additional experiences that
are not relevant to the job: “Employers are looking for sharpshooters. A sharpshooter is someone who not only
performed the same tasks that make up the advertised position, but that these tasks were performed as part of
the most recent job, that the title of the most recent job matches that of the advertised position, and that there
are no irrelevant jobs in the applicant’s recent work history.” Irrelevant experiences are not the only thing that
could trip up an applicant. Employers often balk at irrelevant education. “Job seekers with PhDs report all too
often being advised to hide their education by removing the advanced degree from their resume.”
In order to ensure he or she fits the profile, the job seeker will revise the resume so that it includes only those
experiences, skills, and degrees that are relevant to the position. This is called a targeted resume. The problem for
many job seekers is that they pursue a range of opportunities, each requiring a different resume. “I knew one
fellow with a broad background who ended up with 61 different resumes, each drawing from different skill sets,
different experiences, and different knowledge bases.”
The real problem however is LinkedIn.
“It seems inevitable that the hiring manager will look for the job seeker on LinkedIn. If he’s a white collar
professional and doesn’t have a LinkedIn presence, he will be bypassed. If he does have a LinkedIn profile, this is
where he runs the risk of exposure. The hiring manager will see everything he did not include in that resume and
will likely conclude this is not a perfect fit. Unfortunately, there’s no way around this conundrum.”
THE LEGEND OF THE UNDERGROUND JOB MARKET
I can’t tell you how often I’ve been contacted by representatives of career management / talent search (CM / TS)
firms that claim to hold exclusive relationships to large swaths of industry-leading (in some cases Fortune 500)
companies. Ostensibly, the relationship works as follows. The company withholds its professional and senior level
positions from the job boards. These jobs are placed in a database to which only the CM / TS firm has access. The
firm then combs profiles on social networks and job portals in search of unemployed job seekers with promising
skill sets willing to pay the firm an exorbitant fee -- somewhere in the $4K – 10K range -- for access to the
opportunity. The unemployed job seeker is then subjected to a comprehensive skills assessment protocol and a
resume makeover, at which point the firm matches and markets the seeker to the most relevant opening. The firm
arranges the introduction, vouches for the job seeker, and coaches the job seeker through the interview process.
This is known as the “hidden job market” and its status and reach remains uncharted. For some, the hidden job
market is an urban legend. For others just one of many rackets unscrupulous hucksters perpetrate upon those
who could least afford to be hustled. And yet for others, it’s a little known labor practice to which most politicians
and journalists, who already have jobs, remain oblivious. But for many people like me, it has face validity because
it jibes with what we see – or fail to see – everyday: a lack of interesting and upwardly mobile knowledge jobs on
the job boards. Even the jobs with the word “analyst” in the title appear to be nothing more computer age clerical
jobs.
VOLUME

The number of un-employed is staggering enough. When you add in the under-employed (i.e., job seekers who’ve
settled for part-time jobs in lieu of full-time employment) and those who are looking for a way out of their current
full-time job, the volume of applications for any opening is eye-popping. This last group is interesting, because
when the employment community goes as long as it has hiring at such a weak pace, employees do not feel free to
leave their jobs. This does not stop them from looking for something new and better, as they may have been
working 3 jobs and have not seen a wage increase in some time. Americans are brought up to climb the ladder,
and so it doesn’t take long for many people to feel restless at their current title and salary.
Volume is the principle driver behind the disqualification model. And it’s the major reason job seekers waste their
time filling out online applications for jobs. It’s also a major impetus behind our next two culture changes:
applicant tracking systems and the third party professionals who love them.
THE DISQUALIFICATION MODEL (AKA “KNOCKOUT SCREENING”)
From the list of employer biases (we’ll take these up later), it’s clear there are a lot of things that can sink an
applicant. Some gauntlets cannot be run. Applicants report feeling they are never fully looked at -- never fully
considered. And it's more than just being drowned out in a wider and deeper applicant pool. The volume of
applications has forced employers to take a different approach to reviewing any ONE of the many applications. The
industry calls it "knockout screening." I call it the disqualification model. This is an approach in which the employer
puts an applicant through a checklist of red flags and outrageous minimum standards, tossing an applicant aside
the moment as many as one of these red flags is raised or the moment the applicants falls a quantum short of the
minimum cut-off. Applicants today could be forgiven for feeling that getting hired is tantamount to stealing the
museum's prize diamond. It conjures memories of every heist film in which some thief in a form-fitting black body
suit contorts to navigate the matrix of invisible red laser beams. Or memories of every Vietnam War film where
infantry are dropped in a foreign jungle and asked to avoid tripwires in the night underbrush. Gone are the days
when the tripwires were located in your own resume or cover letter. Those were the good old days, right? At least
you knew your work was being read. In today's cutting edge screening practices, an employer can eliminate
hundreds of applicants without reading a single resume.
I suspect that if employers were to take the time and review the materials for each applicant with the question:
“what can this person do for me?” they would end up with a list of finalists far different than the list they end up
with when they approach applications with the question: “What's WRONG with THIS one?” The latter approach,
which I call the disqualification model, is more expedient, but fails to affirm the potential value of the applicant, his
or her capabilities and achievements. In seeking to ensure the floor, it fails to recruit the candidate with the
highest ceiling. I have never seen the gauntlet completely spelled out, but this statement on the online application
of Dignity Health comes closest:
"To ensure that Dignity Health employs the best-qualified individuals, as a condition of employment, submission of
past performance evaluations, a drug test, physical, work-related references and a background check (which may
include criminal history, civil history, sex offender search, social security number verification, professional license
validation, education verification, driving history, vehicle insurance verification, and credit check) may be required
as part of our pre-employment process."
I guess Congress was on to something when it passed The Federal Employee Polygraph Protection Act in 1988,
virtually outlawing the use of lie detectors in connection with job searches.
As daunting as that whole "Gotcha" mentality is, I'd be fine knowing my résumé was read in the proper spirit -- my
potential value affirmed -- BEFORE I was subjected to the threat matrix.
Dignity Health, incidentally, is one of the 300 employers celebrated for taking the President’s pledge to give the
long term unemployed a fair shake. I applied for 7 positions at Dignity Health a number of months ago and reached
out to a few of their recruiters on LinkedIn. Am I impressed?

I did in fact reach out to a handful of the 300 organizations who signed Obama's Pledge -- those I could find within
the health care industry. Oddly enough there is no comprehensive list on the Web -- at least that I could find. You'd
think that making the list available would be step 1 in helping the LTU find employment -- not combing the guest
registry at the Workforce Investment Board. The absence of such publicity raises suspicions and brings into
question whether those pledging to give LTU applications a fair review are not attempting to limit how many
appear on their doorstep. I applied for jobs with a few of these organizations and I contacted their internal
recruiters to let them know I was a member of the long term unemployed class who was drawn to their
organization in part because in signing that high profile pledge they agreed to give the LTU a fair shake.
Thus far, nothing has come of these applications. Not even an interview for a PhD with a great deal of health care
experience.
A NOTE ON REFERENCES
As if the long term unemployed don’t have enough problems, now special services offered by LinkedIn and Spokeo
to premium subscribers allow employers to by-pass the official list of references provided by the applicant to
access and engage a list of former colleagues and supervisors – all without the authorization -- and awareness -- of
the applicant. So when I write that an applicant needs to have a history free and clear of adverse events, that
includes the occasional less-than-stellar first impression. I’ve worked with hundreds of people with varying levels
of affiliation, especially in my tenure with two Federal bureaucracies. So if a prospective employer with premium
LinkedIn membership submits my name to the controversial Reference Search, it’s likely to return a long list of
individuals, and I can’t imagine how many of these people remember me or what they would say if they do. This is
the kind of service that discourages innovation by punishing professionals disposed to more unconventional
approaches. If the professional world were to suspect that such a service has attained normative status among
employee search and screening – and it will be next-to-impossible to tell if and when it does given its inherent
cloak-and-dagger-ness – it will be a major homogenizing force in our society, forcing professionals to self-monitor
and skew actions and decisions toward those expected to win consensus approval.
A NOTE ON THE SKILLS GAP
Employers claim to have a hard time finding skilled applicants. But it’s very difficult to take this position seriously in
light of the absurd list of skills employers claim the candidate needs to function effectively in the position. All the
new certificates created by institutes. All the years of experience working with a vast array of software – some
brand new on the market – some redundant (e.g., SAS, SPSS, and R for a data analyst position; Photoshop, Paint
Shop, Illustrator, and Paint for graphics design position).
SCREENING SOFTWARE AND APPLICANT TRACKING SYSTEMS
Employers resort to some rather strange labor-saving algorithms and devices for screening applications. The Guide
does astutely acknowledge the adverse impact of technology on LTU when it broaches the subject of applicant
tracking systems.
"Remove inappropriate filters and screening procedures, such as asking the dates of last or current employment,
that automatically eliminate unemployed and long-term unemployed applications. Confirm that Applicant Tracking
Systems do not screen out resumes based on age or employment status."
The problem is that the Guide treats all this as incidental – as some kind of accident. This is what employers use
ATS for -- to clear the path to the golden unicorn because the golden unicorn is by definition someone who never
had the misfortune of losing a job. There are employers out there who go much further than question the length of
someone's unemployment. I started getting questions at about the 6 month mark. "What have you been doing
with yourself?" Actually, many employers screen out applicants who've been unemployed for as long as 1 day.

Why do you think employers ask applicants to complete online applications even after the applicant uploaded a
Word resume? Because there is some dizzying disparity among the world's resumes? No. For yuks? No. So they can
more expediently isolate the rule-out parameters. And age and employment status are the big ones. If you did not
check one of the boxes marked "current employer," your resume may never see human eyes. So the 45 minutes
you’re spending reproducing all the elements of that Word resume – the one you already uploaded into their
system – across dozens of HTML fields in an online form, is time spent empowering the bean counter on the other
end make a split second decision to disqualify you without a thorough review of what you’ve achieved.
RISE OF THE THIRD PARTY RECRUITER
Any list of employer biases should be prefaced by a discussion of what prompted them. The real source of all this
strife is the volume of applications. One absurd reality gives rise to another. Employers are responding to
unmanageable stacks of applications. They receive so many that they cannot possibly read them all. For example,
the Smithsonian Institution reports on the government jobs portal USAjobs.gov that it closes the search once it
reaches its cap of 100 applications. This means the ad may run for no more than 1 day. In the days before the
Software Revolution, one CEO informed he did not have time to go through his stacks of applications and so he
“just picked a few off the top until he found someone he liked.” And those were the good old days, when hiring
managers took more of a hands-on approach. In this day and age, employers increasingly rely on emerging classes
of brokers or “middle men” known as talent acquisition professionals. These professionals may live in Human
Resources as company employees or the organization may choose to outsource recruitment to third parties known
as professional staffing firms.
The problem with this system is that it funnels attention to a restricted range of job seekers. When hiring
managers were doing the recruiting, they may have started out with a vision of the qualified candidate, but they
allowed applicants to surprise them from time to time with an alternate vision. “He may not be a Six Sigma black
belt with 5 years of experience in the title of performance improvement specialist, but he received a rigorous
training in organizational analysis and research as part of his PhD in Social Psychology and he’s designed both a
data integration, analysis, and reporting tool for cancer centers and a 4-pronged strategy for improving patient
satisfaction. I’ll talk to him.” The intervention of a third party recruiter results in a rigid adherence to the singular
vision described by the specification list. Recruiters are not concerned about outcomes for the company they serve
per se, but with following the instructions that are presumed to facilitate the desired outcomes, because that’s
how they protect themselves against negative outcomes. “Sorry he didn’t work out for you. He met all the
specifications.” In the vast majority of cases, the spec-driven process will produce serviceable hires – and the hiring
manager will never know what heights could have been scaled with an unconventional alternative.
“There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Human Resources, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” -William
Shakespeare
Increased emphasis on networking and standardization have combined to augment pressures to uniformity and
place additional stress on the job seeker, including but not limited to the operationalization of job qualifications.
Applicants are increasingly asked to “say it in numbers” (e.g., years of experience). Informational interviews are
now more protocol-driven – more scripted – with recruiters asking applicants to walk them through the resume to
identify the previous positions for which each software in a list of software was used. On the other end of the
phone the recruiter is tallying years and months toward some outrageous pre-set minimum. Alternatively, the
recruiter may require a credential, usually in the form of a certificate.
EMPLOYER BIAS
NO ACCOUNTING FOR EMPLOYER BIASES AT ROOT OF LONG TERM UNEMPLOYMENT

A major shortcoming of the Guide is that its authors seem to think the only bias causing long term unemployment
is bias against the long term unemployed. The long term unemployed have been unemployed that long for a
reason. And while sheer volume of applications is certainly a very big reason (the authors correctly cite that for
every opening there is an average of 118 to 1,000 applicants), it's not the only reason. Employer bias is the even
bigger reason. And age and length of unemployment are not the only ones. Any Report, to be truly effective, must
address these biases. They present quite a gauntlet. Perturbing only one of these "tripwires" is enough to sink your
application.
By the way, this is not a broad knock on the community of employers. One could certainly understand the plight of
the modern employer inundated with hundreds of applications per vacancy from both the legion of chronically
unemployed at the red wood forest to those chronically dissatisfied with their jobs on the gulf stream waters. No
one's happy. But in order to help the long term unemployed salvage a scintilla of dignity, I call attention to the fact
too many employers rely on some rather unreasonable labor-saving heuristics and algorithms to pare down that
stack of applications. And one of these employer biases is ... long term unemployment.
Now to a list of employer biases.
TITLE CONGRUENCY
The title of the job you're applying for should match the title of your last job and that job should have logical
predecessors. Just as bad as gaps in employment history are fixed-term contract jobs (i.e., “don’t send me no more
pinballers”) and jobs that are outside the industry in which one is currently seeking employment. Recruiters are
seeking sharpshooters, which is to say your resume tells a simple easy-to-read story. (Like a Hollywood film with
high production values made for the moviegoer of BASIC intelligence. No epics. No indie films).
This places at a disadvantage those professionals who have performed a variety of functions before the cultural
shift toward specificity. Between 1998 and 2005, I was recruited into positions for which I did not think I was all
that suited given my education and training. I had a research PhD in psychology. I can imagine a number of roles
for which I would have been ideal. But I was never considered for these jobs. Meanwhile, recruiters called
offering me technical writing jobs with finance and technology firms. They didn’t offer terrific salaries. They
offered no upward mobility or opportunity for permanent placement. And they diverted me from what I wanted
in the way of a career pathway. But they put food on the table. After 2009, the offers not only stopped coming
but the same finance and technology firms for whom I ably produced just a few years earlier refused to take me
seriously as an applicant. They needed a sharpshooter. The finance firms bristled at the technology and the
technology firms took issue with the finance. And both companies saw me as an academic because I had a PhD
(something they didn’t do years ago). I really felt betrayed. I helped them out in a pinch when they needed me
and now these same firms acted as if they had no memory of my time there. This is due in part to the rate of staff
turnover in the modern age. The old managers were no longer with the company. And apparently I was one of an
army of contractors to work for them, although I did help Fannie Mae when another contractor flaked out and I
was brought in late in the game to write an SOP manual the length of my dissertation in less than a month. Still, I
get the sense that contractors were treated as interchangeable (and therefore expendable and forgettable) and
that they had no problems letting a good writer walk because when a new project called for a writer, they’d just
have the third party professional staffing firm just send them another one. (Fannie Mae policy prohibits managers
from providing references for contract employees).
I didn’t realize when I accepted these offers for fixed term contract positions that 10 years down the road I would
look back and think, “Wow, did I make a mess of my résumé.” I really hurt my brand. But then I just remind
myself that I never really had choices. Of all my job searches since my PhD in 1997 -- through hundreds of online
job applications -- I never received a single interview – not even for the research or data analysis jobs for which I
was so rigorously trained. I must have applied to a few dozen positions with Westat over the years, a Maryland-
based research corporation consulting in statistical design, data collection and management, and research analysis

work. I kicked myself in the ass after I finally phoned the Director Human Resources. If I had been even vaguely
familiar with this person’s mentality and worldview, I never would have wasted my time on a single application.
BRANDING
Some job seekers, usually before they ever become unemployed, enjoy a remarkable advantage simply because
they once worked for a reputable organization (e.g., Boeing; Northrop Grumman; PwC) or one with "cool
company" status (e.g., Google). There are a lot of mediocre professionals who bask in the reflected glory of a
former employer with panache. There's no prize for being a great talent swimming against the current in a Federal
bureaucracy or for launching and managing a leading medical practice. You have to have a brand.
PAINT BY NUMBERS
Recruiters are not much different from insurance underwriters. They’re assessing risk posed by applicants and
finding reassurance in quantity. Over the years it seems employers are requiring more experience in a similar job
or more experience with an even greater range of relevant software. It’s less a matter of knowing the software or
having used the software – and more a matter of how well you know the software as measured in years and
months of prior use. After complimenting my history of unique accomplishments, a recruiter for Truvent Analytics
informed me she couldn’t even submit me for any of the positions for which I applied because I fell 6 months short
of the 5 year minimum requirement in SAP Business Object. I don’t think I have to explain to anyone the fallacies in
the assumptions signified by this approach.
GUIDE FEELS EMPLOYER BIAS (AND CRISIS) WITH EMPHASIS ON SKILLS ASSESSMENT
I think The Guide misses an opportunity here. What the Guide should advocate for is the assessment of potential
and capabilities based in part on one's record of achievement. By advocating employers to ignore employment
history and by advocating for the measurement of skills, the Guide is feeding the crisis by playing into the hands of
employers who demand x number of years of experience with a, b, c, d, e, and f software at g level. This is how the
Guide will be interpreted by most employers (i.e., "yeah, we do that") who do not understand that the Guide is
advising them merely to ascertain whether applicants have the skills, which is a far cry from industry efforts to
measure experience as some sausage-d combination of "how long?" and "how recently?" -- both of which put the
LTU at a disadvantage. Software requirements alone put the LTU at a disadvantage. Most analysts, the architects
of The Guide included, do not seem to appreciate the contribution of the Software Revolution -- and the Internet --
to a growing LTU class. Employers are sold unnecessary software all the time. Some employers even list redundant
software programs in the qualifications just to keep the applicant pool manageable by discouraging some people
from applying -- SPSS, SAS, and R for data analysts -- Photoshop, Illustrator, and Quark for graphic designers --
when in most cases, the person hired for the job will only have to use one. And new software is being invented all
the time. One could hardly keep up with it. Employees are trained and retrained on the latest and greatest all the
time -- and yet employers would never hire an educated, creative, accomplished person who has not already
mastered a list of software. I look at the software required for some positions and I can't help but think, "What the
hell is all this? I never heard of half of these things? I didn't need all this software to be a technical writer 3 years
ago?"
THOU SHALL HAVE MANAGED A LARGE TEAM
Many management jobs today require not only that applicants were responsible and accountable for a project, but
that they managed a team of people. And not just a team. A large team. How many multiple choice questions have
I had to answer in which I was asked to select the size of the team I managed: 1-3? 4-6? 8-10? >10? Seriously?
After following up with hiring managers, the sense is that if you as an applicant answered 8-10 but enough

applicants marked the >10 range, your full application may never see human eyes – even if the actual job for which
you’re applying only involves managing 1-3 people.
Additional options in the multiple choice item might even require you to affirm or deny that you’ve trained,
selected, and appraised the performance of team members. There's no prize for designing and managing a
groundbreaking project from end to end if you did so independently – even if you engaged clients, end users, and
subject matter experts in the design of the project – unless these people were accountable to you.
CREDENTIALISM: REMEMBER TO KEEP HOLY THE SEAL OF APPROVAL
"WANTED: Six Sigma Black Belt. Business graduates with PhDs in Statistics need not apply."
"Out, out, brief candle! The Six Sigma black belt is but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his
hour upon the stage and then is heard no more: a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”
It’s not uncommon to see names on LinkedIn who have a half dozen acronyms in tow. And I’m not talking about
PhD, MBA, or FACHE. There’s big money in the certification racquet. New certifications are being created every
day. I’ve applied for jobs where I’ve known I would not be a preferred or even a qualified candidate because I
lacked one or more of the following:
“The CPHQ is the only certification in the profession of healthcare quality. The program is fully accredited by the
National Commission for Certifying Agencies of the National Organization for Competency Assurance in
Washington, D.C.”
“Future-proof your BI expertise by earning the MCSE: Business Intelligence certification and get the skills needed
to deliver more data to more people … ”
“TDWI's CBIP (Certified Business Intelligence Professional) program helps you define, establish, and distinguish
yourself professionally with a meaningful … ”
“The MISonline Business Intelligence (BI) and Analytics Certificate helps you define, establish, and distinguish
yourself professionally as you gain the skills and … ”
"Members of the ACMPE may obtain recognition for their knowledge and experience by becoming Certified
Medical Practice Executives (CMPE)."
“PMI's Project Management Professional (PMP)® credential is the most important industry-recognized certification
for project managers.”
“The Chartered Enterprise Risk Analyst (CERA) credential is the most rigorous and comprehensive demonstration
of enterprise risk management expertise ...”
“ERMCP is given to professionals who are well experienced in the field of enterprise risk management and can
demonstrate their knowledge, experiences and ... ”
“The three levels (Data Mining, Predictive analytics or Marketing Data Science) of the SAS and OSU certificate
programs build on each other and are designed to … ”
People who are already employed can rather easily acquire these certifications, which in many cases are
recommended and subsidized by their employers. But if you’re unemployed, you may not have the money for
what amounts to a speculative investment in a job you do not yet have.

For years I’ve wondered why I was unable to land a single interview for a research position when I am a PhD
trained researcher. It’s not necessarily that schools are offering degree programs that are more rigorous, but they
are more career-preparatory as well as more branded and marketed to students-as-job-seekers. Today master’s
degrees in Data Mining and Health Analytics are available from select schools.
Unfortunately, there’s no grandfather clause for seasoned professionals in the middle of their careers. As an
applicant for some Project Manager positions, I’ve been told by some bean counters in HR who know next-to-
nothing about working in the world my launching and running a leading business is no substitute for a PMP.
And everywhere I turn, there’s evidence that the answer to innovation and productivity is NOT more credentials.
NOT more training. As I will discuss later, I was contacted by corporate recruiter representing a hospital seeking a
performance improvement consultant to address its problem raising patient satisfaction scores. My first instinct
was to wonder whether I was the first performance improvement specialist to grace their doorstep. I figured,
‘Someone told these guys they need this kind of professional in their organization.’ But as it turns out, they have
hundreds! Hundreds! In fact, in addition to the PI specialists who work in the facilities themselves, the health &
hospital system has its own Center for Clinical Excellence – six floors in a freestanding building across town. Here
are some of the titles under which this glut of talent is laboring:
Performance Improvement Manager / Director Quality Management / Executive Director, TFC / Solution Engineer /
Performance Improvement Consultant / Supervisor, Quality Surveillance & Reporting Systems / Transformation
Support Manager / Manager Imaging Informatics / Process Improvement Leader-MBB / Manager, Patient Safety,
Quality & Regulatory / Executive Director, Transformation Support / Senior Consultant, HR Analytics / VP Clinical
Improvement / Quality & Outcomes Consultant / Senior Transformation Consultant / Quality Analytics Manager /
Operations & Performance Improvement / Compliance & Quality Metrics / Manager of Transformation Support /
Senior Informatics Specialist / Process Improvement Specialist / PS-QI Coordinator / Transformation Support
Associate / Clinical Informatics Services Manager / Performance Improvement Engineer / Patient Safety-Quality
Improvement Specialist / Associate Transformation Support / Director, Clinical Advisory Services / Director of
Strategy and Operations / Quality Patient Care Consultant-Outcomes / Group Manager, Transformation -
Communication & Org Development / Informatics Specialist / Manager of Operations / Clinical Process Leader /
Transformation Support Group Manager / Certified Pharmacy Informatics Technician / Director, Performance
Improvement / VP Clinical Improvement / Transformation Consultant / Director, Supply Chain Analytics / Sr.
Project Manager, Clinical Workflow Improvement / Survey Research Manager / Business Process Consultant
(“promoting healthcare delivery transformation”) / Engagement Manager - Supply Chain Analytics / Performance
Research Analyst / Clinical Epidemiologist / Director, Transformation Training Division / Director, Utilization
Management / Supply Chain Analyst, Performance Measurement / Supervisor, Clinical Epidemiologist / Sourcing
Manager, Supply Chain Transformation / Supply Chain Analytics-Coordinator / Sr. Analyst, SCM ERP Operations /
Lead Clinical Epidemiologist / Senior Associate - Strategic & Capital Planning / Market Research and Evaluation
Analytics Associate / Epidemiologist, Analyst / Manager, Planning, Analysis, and Evaluation / Nurse
Manager/Project Improvement / Manager Oncology Data Services / Value Analysis Manager / Group Manager,
Clinical Outcomes / Strategic Planning Associate / Statistical Data Analyst / Clinical Asset Management / Corporate
Planning Analyst-Research Manager / Director of Performance-Based Design / Director Clinical Informatics /
Director of Activation Planning Director / Clinical Documentation Improvement / VP Clinical Asset Management /
Quality Patient Care Senior Consultant / Quality Coordinator / Physician, Quality and Outcomes / Patient Centered
Outcomes Intern / Quality Patient Care Consultant / Director of Patient Experience / Senior Analyst - Accountable
Care Organization
The statistics on the long term unemployed population show that they are older and educated. Pundits and
analysts are shredding their scalp trying to figure that one out, but age discrimination is not the sole cause – at
least not directly or overtly. The proliferation of industry-specific micro-certifications is a key obstacle for seasoned
professionals who believe to have completed all their training and education requirements years ago and for
whom advances in professional development have come in the form of added experience and achievements.
Forty-four year old MBAs who minored in Statistics or PhDs in Statistics with business experience never imagined
having to go back to school for that $2,000 Six Sigma black belt. In fact, even advanced degrees are viewed

skeptically or with morbid suspicion by employers who understand them less and who are looking for more clear
and more precise measures of domain-specific intelligence. For this reason, the very notion of subject matter
expertise – what it is – how to measure it – is transitioning from advanced education to targeted certification.
Universities are responding by tailoring MA programs to business interests so as to create a more consumer-
friendly product. The young professional can now pick up an MA in Health Analytics along with certifications in
Business Intelligence and Data Warehousing. Frustrated job seekers can be forgiven for feeling that employers are
putting the cart before the horse or confusing the predictor with the criterion.
The infiltration of information technology into virtually every industry has resulted in bloated lists of software
requirements. To qualify for a job today, one often has to know a lot of software one didn’t need to know just 3
years ago to do the same job. Not all employers need the software proficiency listed in the job ad; some programs
are listed because the employer assumes (a) the specific software, or the quantity of software listed, will
guarantee better candidates or (b) all the right job seekers will be discouraged from applying, resulting in a more
manageable vetting task.
ADVERSE EVENTS
A criminal background test and drug screen is no longer enough assurance for employers, who probe your past
with a finer tooth comb in search of a wider variety of adverse events. Employers want to know if you’ve ever been
terminated, and some will go so far as to ask whether you have ever resigned to avoid termination. There are job
seekers who would rather take their chances than admit to a termination, knowing full well that a termination
carries about as much taint as a misdemeanor conviction.
For hiring managers seeking quick and dirty ways of eliminating applicants, employment gaps present a flag with a
nice shade of red. You really can't be out of work for any length of time. At the 6-month mark, I was starting to
field questions like "You've been out of work since June? Err. What have you been doing with yourself?" And a
recruiter attempting to sell me to one of her clients was told the following: "He has some marvelous
accomplishments, but we're looking for evidence of more recent leadership experience." (You can only imagine
what these same individuals would think now that I have been unemployed two-and-a-half years). Research has
estimated the tipping point at 6 months, but there’s no shortage of anecdotes involving employers who use
screening software / applicant tracking systems to weed out applicants who did not check the box marked
"Current Employer." This means you can’t be unemployed for even a day. Think of employment like health
insurance. Don't let it lapse. Just ask the Stanford Medical Center:
"Account for all gaps in employment of 1 month or greater for the past 10 years."
If you’ve maintained a job through this medieval period in our country’s Labor history, you simply don’t have any
insight into what it’s like to look for work. None. And with the media towing the President’s line, you’d be
mesmerized by headlines touting the longest consecutive stretch of job creation and the steep decline in the
unemployment rate. When in fact traces and shadows of the truth can be found in other statistics, like the 151
million Americans receiving government assistance, the decline in wages, the decline in the net worth of middle
class families (now at 1968 levels), and the decline in the labor participation rate (1978 levels). The truth is the job
situation has NOT improved here in the U.S. We're just hiding some really desperate and scared people in part-
time jobs (sometimes more than one) or in low-wage temp work which often goes by the more dignifying, less
pejorative aliases of "contract" or "consulting" work. And then there are the jobs that pay no salary at all. No, I'm
not talking about internships, which are also on the rise, but commission-only positions like the thousands created
by [COMPANY REDACTED], where sales reps make 5% commission and work 60 hours a week just to put food on
the table. Don't even get me started on adjunct teaching positions in universities (where unemployed PhDs unable
to find tenure-track assistant professorships labor under the title of “instructor” for $2,500 a course, making
universities the biggest sweat shops in America).

And then there is the Credit Report. Just about every online application I’ve encountered for a health & hospital
system presents me with the Fair Credit Reporting Act and requires me to authorize a check on my credit.
Employers seem incapable of understanding that one’s employment status is the cause of and solution to poor
credit. Being unemployed can wreak havoc on your credit score, but don't expect logic or sympathy from an
employer looking for a quick-and-dirty and superficially reasonable reason to dismiss an applicant. And this is
where the Deloitte Guide really falls short. Deloitte is complacent / complicit in its treatment of credit reports.
While the Guide advocates for best practices in use of credit reports --
"Organization performs standard due diligence that includes credit checks for relevant roles only. Credit checks
are performed for final round candidates only and abide by FCRA obligations and other applicable legal
requirements. For long-term unemployed candidates for the final round and only for relevant roles, organization
investigates history behind a poor credit score to determine if the applicant has undertaken a good faith effort
to meet his or her financial obligations."**
-- the only best practice – the only fair, compassionate, and non-discriminatory practice – is NOT TO USE THEM.
** And that's the recommendation for the business that wants to be a "leading LTU organization." (You don't want
to read the recommendations for "basic" and "progressive").
Good faith is not going to put money in the bank account. Employment will. The irony is that the financial industry
giants are among the organizations that screen applicants for credit. These are the same organizations whose
lending practices tanked the world economy, sparking the loss of millions of jobs and for those who lost jobs, loss
of credit standing.
Employers also want to sleuth you out in Google in search of words or deeds anywhere in your past that might
raise suspicion. I for one published a novel. Even if I decided to keep that from my LinkedIn profile, an employer
will find it on the Web. This is not to say novels are evil, but it’s the kind of hobby that makes employers nervous.
It’s time-consuming. Mentally distracting. And it suggests the applicant is a thinker. What if he/she is a purveyor of
unconventional wisdom? How will the plot of this or any future novel reflect on the organization? What kind of
views does this “author” maintain? Is he/she going to be resolving work-related issues on the weekends, or is
he/she going to be busy dreaming up the next story? We’re living in the age of the 24/7/365 kind of worker.
A friend of mine who works for a financial industry behemoth handed my resume to a number of department
heads. One of these department heads, who performed an Internet search on my name, found the images and
related articles that feature me standing in my best suit and tie in an unusual ploy to call attention to my job
standing and raise awareness of labor issues. (I was attempting to exploit the government shutdown as a catalyst).
"Have you googled your friend?" sayeth he who manages operational risk for a living. "I would never hire him." He
also had a problem with me issuing an occasional blog post to LinkedIn. (“Did you see all that stuff on
unemployment?”). I would have thought I was offering valuable high-level, issue-driven tips and perspectives, but
so much is violently construed.
I AM THE CERTIFICATE THY SEAL OF APPROVAL. THOU SHALL NOT HAVE
FALSE IDOLS BEFORE ME
This is the common thread among biases. There are many reasons for long-term unemployment. But what it boils
down to is that millions of job seekers will never "be a square peg for a square hole." They never fit the profile, the
a priori vision of the ideal candidate, which contains a great deal of pork and pork fat and which also overlooks
knowledge bases, experiences, capabilities, and virtues that would also contribute to the position. Be a square peg
for a square hole. This is the Fundamentalist interpretation of a "Perfect Fit." That means tetrahedrons are as
much at a disadvantage as triangles. Sorry, but the following explains why some of you heathens and infidels (me

included) may never work again in the new world order.
This bias also claims the candidacies of many job seekers with superfluous degrees. Your PhD may be a source of
pride, and a living knowledge base, but it's "just another achievement" in the words of a couple bean counters I
talked to -- and bringing it up will only cause consternation and possibly even draw charges of vanity. Many PhDs
will tell you they've been advised to remove the degree from their resume because employers don't know how to
make sense of it and because in this day and age, certifications are far more precise measures of domain-specific
intelligence. The new certifications are de facto creations that prepare someone specifically for a job (like teachers
using a sample SAT to teach their students how to take the SAT). While one could debate the viability of these
targeted credentialing programs (i.e., or is this ADHD?), the more salient issue is that there are millions of older job
seekers whose education predates this era of credentialism. When they find themselves out of a job, they’re also
finding it increasingly difficult to get back in. Most people casually chalk this up to age discrimination, because age
is a correlate; when in actuality, age may be concealing that hidden variable I’m calling credential madness.
The LTU consists of a large group of individuals with advanced degrees. In fact, the Guide points out that the long
term unemployed tend to be slightly more educated than those who are unemployed less than 27 weeks. One of
the maintaining factors in LTU is an anti-intellectual bias within the business community. In a half-dozen interviews
I’ve been told something to the effect of (or in a couple cases, these exact words) "you're an intellectual." And I
must say, never is it meant as a compliment. “I think, therefore, I am unemployed.” I expect this sort of thing from
Pol Pot -- not from the American business community. On second thought, America does have that rich history of
conceptual pragmatism. "All that damned book learnin'."
LTU UNDERMINED BY CALL TO IGNORE THE PAST
The Guide also makes a number of statements that appear to position a skills-based assessment as a foil to
"history."
"Focusing on an applicant’s skill set as opposed to their previous employment history will enable you to hire the
candidates with the most relevant abilities."
Good God! They're long term unemployed. They're not ex-convicts. History is important. I for one would like
employers to focus on what I've achieved in the face of challenges. I have taken on challenges most professionals
will never face. And in the face of these challenges, I have notched some rather unique and remarkable products,
insights, and discoveries.
The problem isn't too much focus on history. It's a focus on gaps in employment at the expense of one's record of
achievements. Achievements, which by definition means prior achievements, as in what one's achieved (in the
past), remains the best indication of one's capabilities. The problem is a focus on measuring skills (or an obsession
with certificates that serve as measures of skills) at the expense of more important qualities contained in
achievements and in one's education. If you can find a person who has demonstrated a knack for coming up with
all the right ideas, that's more important than software. That person will pick up the software.
TALES OF THE RECESSION
When you’ve been looking for work as long as I have, you encounter a number of employers who engage in
questionable self-serving practices that on the surface appear to exploit the number of and desperation of
unemployed job seekers. Review the following and judge for yourself. I hope you enjoy it.
Absurd Job Interview 1
I remember how excited I was to be granted an interview. I studied the history and business of the company all
week. When I arrived at the interview site, there were dozens of job candidates in suits entering and exiting

through a revolving door. I signed my name to a registry that included hundreds of names going back a week. As I
carefully observed how the job seekers were summoned into back rooms one at a time like patients in a large
medical practice, it became clear to me the company assigned a staggering number of applicants to 20-minute
time slots with one of six interviewing employees.
While my interviewer worked her way through a list of questions from a sheet of paper, asking me how I'd solve a
variety of problems, a co-worker seated beside her – a woman to whom I was never introduced and who never
looked up from her pad and pen – took copious notes. I came prepared with samples of marketing materials,
including some which helped create a leading medical practice. The interviewer asked me if she could keep the
materials. Just before the conclusion of the interview, I asked the interviewer if she had a "horse in the race"
which is to say an internal candidate. The interviewer then waxed romantic about some woman named "Trudy"
who worked down the hall in a clerical position for the past 12 years. Under my breath I muttered, "oh %$#!" and
from intel I was later able to gather, I suspect the company intended all along to hire Trudy and used a number of
leading job candidates as a source of ideas so she could function viably if not successfully in a position for which
she was marginally qualified.
I remember how excited I was to be granted an interview. The job description detailed a well-paying managerial
position with a local “company confidential.” When I arrived at the interview site, I was directed into a suite where
I joined an audience of 50 people seated in folding metal chairs. We were soon joined by a woman who
introduced herself as the Director of Human Resources. She wheeled a television and VCR into the room on a
movable stand and hit the play button. At that time I realized this was a fire safety equipment company, as the
video contained a list of episodes in which a commercial portable fire extinguisher snuffed out different kinds of
fires.
The HR director then began describing an unpaid 3 week training period. The training consisted of hours of
supervised cold-calling during which each of us would attempt to “move” as many “units” as possible. Ideally
more than anyone else we see in this room. Because the person who sold the most fire extinguishers would be
given preferential consideration for the job.
I remember how excited I was to meet Vickrum and his wife in Baby's R Us. This was a well-dressed couple indeed
-- he in the 3-piece suit and she in a power suit herself. After the friendly chat expanded to touch on my
employment status, he handed me a business card and invited me to an interview at the Marriott Hotel in Tyson's
Corner, Virginia. When I arrived at the hotel, I was directed to a conference room where I joined an audience of
100 people seated in chairs. I scanned the room and found Vickrum and wife observing me from seats in the back.
Then the diamond-level Amway salesman entered to address the room.
I bolted. Vickrum and a male cohort chased me down the hall and all the way to the lot, where I found a third
confederate staking out my car. I nearly ran him down on the way out of my space.
I remember how excited I was to receive an invitation to interview for a business development position with the
Gallup Organization. Its Education Division created a 180-item online questionnaire called StrengthsFinder that
categorizes people based on some 32 skill domains. The web site promoting StrengthsFinder talked endlessly
about the importance of StrengthsFinder in customizing employee recruitment and curriculum development
solutions for the individual client. I was excited by the discussion of individuality and customization, which

appeared to indicate a high value on personal strengths. I spent the entire week refining my pitch, which included
my philosophy of science and technology and how it meshed with Gallup's own philosophy and the requirements
of the position. I was also prepared to discuss how I was trained -- as a rare PhD in social-personality psychology –
to construct, administer, score, interpret -- and evaluate the psychometric properties of – assessments of
personality and cognitive functioning.
Then I received a call from the interviewer, who identified herself by a 6-digit number. With all the customary
pleasantries of a DMW driving test coordinator, she launched into a discussion of something she called “ground
rules.” I was quite surprised to learn I would not be permitted to speak freely and would be disqualified if I
provided anything more than yes /no responses to the pre-determined series of questions. The interviewer
explained that the point of the structured interview protocol was to eliminate salesmanship (i.e., self-promotion)
during the interview. "But this is a SALES position," I protested, shortly after which I was disqualified.
I received a call from the administrator of the oncology business unit for a prominent medical center in Richmond,
Virginia. From her tone it would appear she was making a genuine effort to recruit me into a rather unique
position in which I would spend half my time writing reports for the analytics team in the university across the
street and half my time engaged in strategic business planning for her office. She told me it was my rare PhD in
social psychology that attracted her to me. She understands the value of that degree, as the employee I would be
replacing – a wunderkind she romanticized often during the conversation – had this same PhD. And what made
me an even more rare find to her was that I used this social science doctorate in an oncology setting, having
designed a data integration tool for a cancer center and also having founded and co-owned a leading healthcare
practice. In short, I understood both the business and science of medicine. She also lured me with the prospect of
replacing her when she retired in 5 years. “We’re right down the street,” she said in reference to the 2-hour drive
to meet the team in person.
One week later I showed for the interview. First I met with an informatics professional and the social psychologist
himself, who surprised me by referring to his future with the organization as “uncertain.” I remember thinking
that the administrator spoke as if the social psychologist was leaving and that I was expected to replace him and
now he’s speaking as if he doesn’t know whether he’s even leaving. When this interview concluded I met with the
administrator herself, who presented with noticeably less enthusiasm than in her a phone call a week earlier. She
wanted me to verbally commit not only to take the job should it be offered but that I would remain in the job for
at least 5 years, and then she entered into a maudlin retelling of how she lost an employee who’d been on the job
only 6 months – just long enough to change the way they did business – before accepting a $40,000 raise to rejoin
her former employer at the HCA in Nashville (healthcare industry hub). But I appear to have surprised her when I
told her I’d accept the position right now. At that point she backpedalled, telling me “well let’s not get ahead of
ourselves. I suppose anyone would say anything to get the job.” Then she felt obliged to tell me they received
hundreds of applications for the position and that there was in fact one other person she planned to interview.
Naturally this came as a surprise to me. Before I left the building, I asked the administrator’s assistant if she were
at liberty to disclose whether the other candidate was an external or internal candidate. Her reply was interesting:
“ah, both. This was someone who used to work here and who wanted to come back.” Now I’m more confused
than ever.
One month passes and there’s no further word from anyone about the job. Three days after sending the
administrator an email I received a letter by snail mail informing me that despite a difficult decision, she’d decided
to pursue another candidate. I emailed her and her assistant a few times over the next few weeks seeking some
insight into the basis for their decision. You know, so I could learn as much as I could from the experience.
Eventually I was able to coax an email out of the assistant, who informed me that they had interviewed a great
many people. Yet a third version of the truth emerges.
It would appear I happened into a drama of sorts. Was I really intended to replace the social psychologist? Did he
change his mind about moving on to greener pastures? His LinkedIn page still identifies him as an employee
although he apparently has also started his own small consulting firm. Was the other candidate, described as

someone who left but wanted to return, the woman who had already returned to one former employer (i.e., the
wunderkind from HCA)? Or is the truth something entirely different? In the words of the late Robert Stack, that’s
what makes this … an unsolved mystery.
BJC HEALTHCARE: A CASE STUDY IN FITTING IN
So now you’re a well-branded and well-connected fit – a “perfect fit” in fact -- a square peg for a square hole with
no superfluous education or out-of-place consulting gigs, experienced and amply credentialed – outfitted with the
most modern certifications -- and free of adverse events. You survived the computer screen, the 6-second eye
scan, the brief phone screen, and the informational interview, and you’ve now been invited to meet “the team” in
person.
You can take comfort in knowing you’re halfway home.
But they still have to like you. The focus has now shifted to personality.
No sweat, right. You’re still young – or so you think – you’re 44, but you still have most of your hair, very little grey,
and you’re thin and youthful looking. What you don’t know is that of the 12 people who are going to interview you
over 5 sessions, 9 are under 35. You haven’t worked in 2½ years and the last time you were introduced to this
many potential colleagues, you were fairly new to the 40s.
And you feel like you’re more than halfway home. I mean, the executive recruiter who has an exclusive contract
with the hiring company – in this case a hospital – told the hiring manager “this – this is your guy.” The hiring
manager liked you so much on paper – one of the first not to have a scathing criticism of your resume style -- that
he wooed you by saying that he has every intention of making the 6 month contract a permanent job but just
hasn’t had the time to gather all the signatures and complete all the documentation necessary to create the
position. In the meantime, he vowed to extend the contract another 6 months. You returned the favor, justifying
his love by providing him with a brief but cogent synopsis of the entire patient satisfaction literature and
tantalizing him with some insights into why, despite dozens of six sigma black belts and specialists in the fields of
clinical informatics and epidemiology, his Center of Clinical Excellence has been unable to provide the hospital with
the guidance needed to re-tool operations, improve outcomes, and raise patient satisfaction scores. You
demonstrated you not only listened to what he had to say, but that you understood him – possibly better than he
understood himself – when you reframed his statement of the problem:
“Let me see if I understand you. You’ve seen enough logistic regressions and you’re looking for the cure for the
common “expert.” While you’re hiring me in part because I am uniquely qualified among your staff to assess
reliability and validity, you also sense that the gaps extend beyond the mechanics of the survey instruments and
you’re open to new directions that would broaden your current approach. Toward this end I have a 4-pronged
strategy for moving things forward.”
And you knew you had a solid opportunity when he interceded:
“I’m going to cut you off right there. I’ve heard all I need to hear. I will reach out to [NAME OF CORPORATE
RECRUITER] and he will get back to you with the arrangements for next steps. We want to fly you out to meet the
team.”
A week later you land in St. Louis where you spend a night in the Hyatt’s junior suite working on the mechanics of
delivering your strategy. The next day kicks off with an introductory meeting with the hiring manager. The meeting
feels more like a working meeting than an interview. He presents you with PowerPoint print-outs probing deeper
into the problem space, and you respond with the finer details of your strategy. The hiring manager than orients
you to a day of interviews:

“You should know that many of the people who will be speaking with you today do not understand why they’ve
been asked to meet with you. I have not yet informed anyone as to why you’re here. This is out of respect for one
member of the staff who has not worked out for us and does not yet know that.”
And it showed. The interviewers were not prepared to ask me questions. I tried to ease their burden by doing most
of the talking. So when they led with a question as non-specific as “So tell me about yourself,” I ran with it. There’s
a lot in my history that has a bearing on the challenges facing this organization. I made the best possible case for
why this organization should put its faith in me – and I did this by discussing the uncommon challenges I faced, the
decision making in the face of these challenges, and the outcomes. And I transitioned seamlessly into a discussion
of the challenges facing their organization and how my past was instructive in providing me with some useful ideas
– ideas I’ve applied before. And I smiled. I smiled a lot. And I made reference to the deep talent pool within their
organization and where I felt I fit in and filled a small but vital gap. What happened next I could not have planned
for.
Three days after returning home, I received a call from the corporate recruiter. Without customary pleasantries,
icebreakers, or ado, he delivered the news.
“They don’t want to work with you in a consulting or any other capacity.”
He then proceeded to tell me that they thought I was qualified for the job, which is an understatement considering
they will instruct the person they do hire to implement my ideas.
“They have a problem with your personality. They found you arrogant, pompous, and dismissive.”
At this point I’m beside myself. Perhaps I reacted too passionately to a very rare opportunity in the making. I came
in with a relevant history and an intimate understanding of the challenges they faced, as well as some unique skills
to fill a very small but vital hole in their Center. I reacted by trying to make the best possible case for why should
hire me. I realize I was light years ahead of where most candidates should be at the interview stage. Some of the
folks on staff had been informed just minutes before my arrival that the Center intended to hire an outside
consultant and that that they should ask me some questions. And so the room was NOT very balanced. On one
side of the table there were ill-prepared professionals -- responsible for a status quo they may not have known
needed fixing – with half-baked questions for a candidate who stayed up all night polishing his delivery of a 4-
pronged operational research strategy for resolving a challenge that remained in spite of hundreds of employees
with backgrounds in research, informatics, transformation, and epidemiology.
I understood my contribution to my plight, but then I miscalculated when I assumed the staff would welcome with
open arms anyone who could help them. I never realized that I had to make an entirely separate case for fitting in.
I thought that just by virtue of dedicating myself to their challenge – making their challenge my challenge – I was
fitting in. I was wrong. They had far more social – far more “Party of Five” ideas of what it took to fit in, and as long
as this eluded me I did not stand a chance; for the staff consisted primarily of younger, female professionals from
the Midwest.
Still, after spending the past couple years banging my head against the wall, this was no way for a candidacy to die.
I was miffed. From what information I could cobble together, it sounds like the first thing this group did was to
subject my business case to some violent inferences about my sense of self-worth. The discussions were very
preoccupied with my ego rather than their operations. This was a cult-like group who felt close enough with one
another socially to engage in that kind of character assessment and assassination. They were more concerned with
how they envision me around the water cooler than the white board and frankly their conversation was more
suited to an Internet chat room than a board room. None of them seemed concerned about the implications of
such a line of inquiry for the perceptions of their own professionalism or maturity. And perhaps in that lies the
answer to my question -– and I imagine it’s your question as well -- about how a hospital system could fall so short
so long in its goals despite such a broadly and deeply skilled talent pool. You cannot address patient satisfaction

without addressing patient psychology, and despite all the training in statistical analysis, information systems, and
process improvement systems, how this group handled my candidacy points to a blind spot when it comes to the
human element.
Naturally, I followed up with the hiring manager via email, who responded as follows:
“I appreciate the heartfelt note and it personally touches me as both a father and as someone who grew up in a
similar situation. I certainly didn't feel dismissed by you and enjoyed our exchange of ideas. I lead by consensus
and the room was very mixed - too much to move forward. I hope good work comes for you soon in an
environment that will be able to take advantage of your unique skills.”
The bottom line is I did not get the job. More egregiously, the humble hipster they do hire will not only get a
$120,000 salary but the ideas to do the job effectively.
DELOITTE FAILS TO MAKE A STRONG CASE AS TO WHY BUSINESSES & COMMUNITIES SHOULD CARE ABOUT LTU
The Guide's strength lies in its statistically-driven statement of the problem. Three million long term unemployed is
a problem -- for the three million long term unemployed. The Guide runs out of gas when it argues how the
problems of the long term unemployed ripple outward to impact businesses and communities. And long term
unemployment IS a problem. I confer with many unemployed people. I know what it could do to marriages,
families, and to businesses most directly connected to the job loss. If you've never had to pull a child out of
daycare, default on a lease, accept money from an ailing parent who retired on less than a high school diploma,
share small living quarters with in-laws who jealousy guard their space, hock sentimental family heirlooms,
liquidate a 401k, dispute every overdraft fee with your bank, file Chapter 7, and lose a spouse because you could
no longer cope as a unit, you may not understand. The long term unemployed get less sympathy than they
deserve. The reason for this is that most people who have jobs do not find their jobs very difficult. They did not
have trouble finding their job at the time they found it. And they know they're in no real danger of losing it
because employers are not laying people off. Our Commander-in-Chief enjoys talking about the number of
consecutive months of positive job growth. But then what else would you expect? Employers probably over-
reacted in 2009 and cut more jobs than they needed to, and so they've been hiring in drips and drabs ever since --
if you could call all these part-time, low wage, fixed term project-based work "jobs." (I've received hundreds of
spam emails from self-proclaimed recruiters -- for some reason with Indian or Pakistani names* -- looking for
someone to fill a 3-6 month position in a city some 1,000 - 2,500 miles away). So when the unemployed talk about
how bad things are, they're often greeted with derisive chortling and morbid suspicion. I’m sorry, but you can’t
address the crisis in unemployment without addressing psychology. Deloitte sidesteps psychology entirely and this
is the reason it comes across as lacking both a heart and a brain.
GUIDE ASPIRES TO NOT BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY
The other problem with The Guide, besides lacking an overarching diagnosis of the root causes of LTU, is that it
reads like the prospectus for a charity fundraiser. Employers who hire LTU are helping out a fellow human being.
They're making a contribution to the community. They're promoting diversity. With section headings like "Focus on
Inclusion" and "Strengthen Local Communities," Deloitte sounds like it's going door to door selling peanut brittle
for ALS.
"65% of global spending power is controlled by women and the LGBT community’s buying power topped $830
million last year."
And the guide also makes the mistake of using race and ethnicity as a proxy for diversity. There is just as much if
not more variation within these social categories than between them. I for one have been penalized for
unconventional interests and approaches to problems (see my groundbreaking work with dreams). And I was a
white heterosexual male aged 18-49. Still am. True diversity of thinking and experience is not a product of one's
skin color and any formula that equates the two labors under a misapprehension of diversity that's black-and-

Response to Deloitte Report on Long Term Unemployed

Response to Deloitte Report on Long Term Unemployed

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Ähnlich wie Response to Deloitte Report on Long Term Unemployed

Ähnlich wie Response to Deloitte Report on Long Term Unemployed (17)

Response to Deloitte Report on Long Term Unemployed