The regular logistics job postings on A Humourless Lot always draw a predictable amount of steady attention. Obviously, none of them gets as much attention as, say, the post on pandemic contingency planning, but if you add them all up, they are responsible for a large chunk of traffic on the site. I think it is safe to say that there are quite a number of people out there looking for a (new) job in logistics for health and aid.
I think it is also clear that there are quite a number of organisations that are desperately short of qualified, experienced staff. So why on earth do they make it so difficult for people to find their vacancies?
Some of the worst practices I have seen over the last couple of months:
- Posting vacancies late (less than a week before closing). In one case I even saw a vacancy being posted on ReliefWeb after the closing date[1] .
- Posting incomplete vacancies: no submission details, no person to contact for further information, nothing about the further process, incomplete or missing requirements or even details of job content… the list is endless.
- Spelling mistakes that make finding jobs a lot more difficult. One ‘interesting’ example was how Goal Ireland managed to consistently spell ‘logistics’ as ‘logisitics’ in the titles and descriptions of a whole slew of their vacancy postings – so if anybody had searched for ‘logistics’ vacancies on their site, they would never have found them.
- Posting vacancies that are not really vacancies. We all know them: those job openings for which the ideal candidate is actually already selected, and are only posted for form’s (or internal regulations’) sake. Don’t do it: the word will go around, and your next opening will not get candidates from the people in the know, who will all have heard about your despicable behaviour, but from the poor newbies who haven’t heard – exactly the people who you want to apply for you high-level logistics management position, right?
- Only posting on your own site. You think that everybody has the opportunity to go and make regular visits to every single site? Be smart: post your job openings on the main inter-agency sites.
So next time when you complain about the lack of qualified candidates for your logistics positions, just first look at your own job publication practices
Footnote
Back to post [1] That particular posting was later removed. A pity, I would have loved to name and shame.
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
I see another major problem with recruitment standards for humanitarian logistics. Namely, there are stringent entry-level experience requirements, typically asking for a minimum of four years of field based experience. As some one who does humanitarian logistics professionally, I still find it next to impossible to get noticed for field postings without those requisite years. I see a feed back loop, whereby individuals will continue to stay in the field based positions, regardless if they are effective or not. They keep getting sucked back into the machinery simply because other, potentially more qualified logistics workers cannot meet the entry level minimum standards. Many of these long term field based logistics professional started out in other areas, and slowly worked their way into logistics out of necessity, without receiving the proper training or oversight. It can often be a self defeating cycle, devoid of fresh faces and new ways of thinking.
“… stringent entry-level experience requirements, typically asking for a minimum of four years of field based experience”.
For entry level positions? I can’t remember ever having come across anything that draconian, but I would totally agree with you that it is over the top. What I have seen with most organisations is that they ask a number of years relevant professional experience (not necessarily field based — it could just as well be in your home country), complemented by travel or work experience abroad (not necessarily in your normal field of work).
What would you see as an entry level job? E.g., most (if not all) logistics jobs for international staff with the UN are not entry level, but at least mid level. Real entry level jobs are hardly ever burdened with the same preconditions.
“They [ineffective individuals] keep getting sucked back into the machinery simply because other, potentially more qualified logistics workers cannot meet the entry level minimum standards. … It can often be a self defeating cycle, devoid of fresh faces and new ways of thinking”
Yes, that does happen occasionally. However, I do think you overestimate how often. To give just one example: MSF has an average turnover of field staff of about 30%. Yes, that’s right: on average, field staff stays only three years with the organisation. I think that that is potentially a much bigger problem than people who stay too long.
“…For entry level positions? I can’t remember ever having come across anything that draconian, but I would totally agree with you that it is over the top. What I have seen with most organisations is that they ask a number of years relevant professional experience (not necessarily field based — it could just as well be in your home country), complemented by travel or work experience abroad (not necessarily in your normal field of work)…
…What would you see as an entry level job?…”
I suppose “entry level” is the qualifying statement in this argument. The vast majority of advertised positions require a fairly stringent amount of prior experience. While MSF is an excellent example of ongoing outside recruitment, most organisations simply don’t have a linear and methodical process for recruiting those new to the aid community. With resources stretched thin, HR departments don’t always have the capacity to manage a large volunteer portfolio, and managers don’t necessarily have the time to train new recruits. Besides, there is usually a fairly large applicant pool waiting for openings, so why bother. Even volunteer postings and graduate level internships are fiercely sought after these days (coming form someone who was coming out of a technical masters not too long ago…).
“…MSF has an average turnover of field staff of about 30%. Yes, that’s right: on average, field staff stays only three years with the organisation. I think that that is potentially a much bigger problem than people who stay too long…”
Point conceded, a huge turn over can be very damaging. Most humanitarian agencies have a fairly substantial turn over. I couldn’t venture to guess what the average is, but I assume it varies from organisation to organisation. But, yes, MSF is indeed an island unto itself in many ways…
This rapid turn over probably compounds the problem. Because of short term contracts or the relative mobility of the average aid worker, there is a comparatively higher rate of frictional unemployment among skilled labor applying for humanitarian jobs. Furthermore, just because an individual does not stay with the same organisation for longer than a year or two does not mean they don’t stay in the same roll in the field. Logistics on the whole is probably harder to flub your way through than perhaps a roll like program management, because a failure to perform in a logistical capacity becomes apparent almost immediately. However, we’ve all known a handful of people who’s continued existence in a programme project is almost baffling, and by and large continue to stay there simply because most organisations don’t have the structure to cultivate and recruit fresh help.
{ 1 trackback }