BRANDON

As A/E/C firms continue to look for ways to gain a competitive advantage in the industry, the lost labor hours associated with dead-end candidacies hurts utilization. Here are some causes and potential solutions to this negative trend.

Have you ever embarked on a career campaign with the intention of improving your professional situation, only to find yourself frustrated and uneasy as the effort culminates with several, challengingly similar offers of which only one can (obviously) be accepted? Or worse still, have greatly varying offers been tendered with the most incongruous, required response time?

Conversely, have you ever been a key decision maker for a firm that has worked diligently through a long, time-consuming interview process only to find your employment offer rejected by a candidate who you were certain would become an excellent addition to your organization?

In today's competitive, engineering job market, a certain amount of rejection is inherent at the offer stage. There are, however, some instances in which this can be avoided. When an employment offer is extended and subsequently turned down, several proverbial dominoes are potentially tumbled depending on the circumstances surrounding the rejection. The culpability for this negative trend is shared in many cases, by both the hiring firm and the respective candidate.

First, let's look at the most common reasons for why offers are rejected, and the potentially negative impression each can, and often does leave with the tendering firm. Additionally and more positively, let's highlight the ways in which both parties can work to proactively avoid unnecessarily rejected employment offers in the future.

Engineering candidates in today's employment market should be aware of the reality that their professional leverage has as much of its derivation in the market conditions themselves, as in their respective strengths and skill sets. This awareness will greatly improve a candidate's sensitivity to the process, and as a result will help guide his or her professional behavior throughout. This is not to say that there aren't innumerable, exemplary engineering professionals performing at the highest levels. There are, and they should and will reap the benefits of their work.

If you're sure you're going to turn down an employment offer, let the tendering firm know of your decision as soon as possible. Be clear about your reasons. The rejected firm may have other candidates under consideration, and will appreciate your prompt reply. After you've completed your research, if you've determined that the compensation offered is inadequate, discuss it with the potential employer, or with your recruiter. Often, there are ways in which compensation packages can be bolstered to suit your needs as well as those of the employer. If it's the firm's culture and/or staff personalities that are prohibitive to your career goals, communicate such clearly and neutrally. Try to avoid leaving a sense that there's been a winner and a loser; convey that the decision is about the lack of fit. This same approach also serves well when you've determined that there aren't strong enough advancement opportunities to suit your career goals. Finally and most easily accomplished, be as proactive and thorough with your pre–campaign research as possible. Talk with your family, close friends and trusted colleagues about the opportunities you'd like to consider before you engage in an interview process. It is possible to learn a great deal about the market and your specific firms of interest well in advance of making a query. Reputable and well–networked recruiters are also excellent sources of information. They usually have intimate knowledge of the firms and industry trends.

We've all heard it before, but it bears repeating: This is a candidate–driven employment market. In other words, there are more open positions in engineering than there are qualified candidates to fill them. (For more information on specific engineering disciplines, the Bureau of Labor Statistics is an excellent resource.) Hiring authorities should remain sensitive to this fact, and that awareness should help to guide their conduct as much, if not more than the reputation of their firm and/or the strength of their opportunity. In this market, the probability of intense competition for talented engineers is high. Here are a few things that you can do as a hiring authority to improve your firm's chances of acquiring the services of the market's best and brightest, while mitigating the possibility of costly, fruitless candidacies.

Communicate clearly and promptly with your candidate or recruiter throughout the interview process. A candidate's first impression of your firm and work style will be formed during the initial stages of dialogue. Take full advantage of every opportunity to showcase your firm's professionalism throughout. I recently represented a candidate for two opportunities that each culminated with the tendering of very similar offers at the same time. The candidate, with little to separate one offer from the other, chose the firm that nailed all of its commitments and provided the most clear, open and timely feedback. A good example of how the interview process itself, if conducted efficiently and professionally, can facilitate the acquisition of a strong candidate.

Avoid perceived ambiguity as often as possible. A well–prepared professional candidate will be aware that there are only so many tangibles that can be committed to until they are proven in the new firm. Aspects such as advancement opportunity and performance bonuses are difficult to quantify and commit to. It's imperative to speak to as many tangibles as possible. The more quantifiable components contained in your offer, the easier for a disciplined, linear thinker to make his/her decision.

Finally, and perhaps most controversially, is compensation. More often than not, this part of the process is unnecessarily complicated. If you're aware of your candidate's compensation requirement, either through your recruiter or directly from the candidate, it's a no–brainer if the candidate's desired compensation for your open position is aligned with what your firm is prepared to extend, make your best offer accordingly. The risk associated with possibly losing an impact player unnecessarily over compensation is too great to take in this market. If you're unaware of a candidate's desired compensation at the onset of the offer stage (you've inquired about this several times throughout the process and the candidate has been courteous but elusive each time), do nothing differently than if you were aware. Present your best offer to the candidate or recruiter, and do so with confidence. Candidates are schooled to professionally avoid salary inquiries, as to answer such may be misinterpreted as inflated, overly important and/or inflexible.

It's safe to assume that all hiring authorities were once candidates themselves. Try to visualize yourself as a candidate in this market, and put the empathy that will result to work for you and your firm.

Richard Brandon, senior managing partner, Jonathan Paul Associates, Freehold, N.J., can be reached at 732–845–8200 x 102 or rich@jpamri.com

If you have an idea for a Viewpoint or opinion piece, or want to respond to this Viewpoint, please contact Viewpoint Editor William J. Angelo at william_angelo@mcgraw-hill.com.