Risk Adverse

In the movie (and book) Moneyball, Billy Beane is faced with the task of replacing an all star with a limited budget. His recruiting staff is looking for  ways to assess players (workers) and have a list of requirements. The requirements they are coming up with are absurd and don't deal with the reality that the team doesn't have the money needed to hire an all star. Billy Beane tried with limited success to use different requirements to replace one all star with other players using on base percentage (OPB) to evaluate potential candidates.

Think of it this way, your team needs a 40/40 man who can compere for the batting title. This is someone with the speed and power of Barry Bonds on steroids, and with the finesse and patience of Ichiro Suzuki or Derek Jeter. And you want him to take the minimum salary and be a proven performer. In reality if such a player exists, he's going to be expensive, or cheating, or be unknown. Or  you are going to need to use Billy Beane's strategy and hire three players, all of who will be a bit more than the minimum salary but less than your all star.

In a way the player I've described is like the job ads my Father used to make fun of -

Entry level engineer. Mechanical or Structural. Must have ten years experience with ISO9001. A proven leader. Be able to lead projects. Background reviewing architectural drawings and CAD preferred. Management experience preferred.

Of course there are no entry level engineers with 10 years experience. I have heard recruiters have taken to calling these kinds of jobs - unicorns or purple squirrels - things that don't exist. Apparently the issue is some employers don't know what they want or are looking for "perfect" instead of "good enough". Businessmen don't like to take risks, and taking anything less that perfect is a risk. It's also a risk to leave a position unfilled and work undone. People don't get fired until something critical breaks. Or as the saying goes no one ever got fired for buying IBM. No one gets fired for not hiring a good enough candidate, but plenty get fired for hiring people that aren't good enough. So the message is clear, if you want to keep your job, play it safe.

Billy Beane's thinking could suggest some alternatives to stay in business and keep competitive. Here are some ideas:

1. Remember people can learn. What appear as gaps may be opportunities that can be filled quickly with a little training. Make certain minimum requirements reflect needs and not wants. You may want someone with experience in your industry, or someone who knows your particular brand of software. Both of these can be filled quickly if the individual can learn and if you are willing to teach.
2. Be realistic about costs. You may not be able to offer better than average wages, but you can offer a good work environment, and a good community. You may find if you live in a relatively low cost community and can offer a good work environment, candidates would consider to work for you. What may appear to be a pay cut, can work the other way if the candidate receives something of value. I have seen people take apparent pay cuts for  things like better schools for their children, shorter commute times, or more autonomy in when and how they do their work.
3. Consider hiring more than one person. If you can't find some one with all of your requirements you may be able to find more than one person with some of your requirements. 

Do you have any other ideas that could help hiring managers find better candidates?

More on how companies could be creating a skills gap:

Search for the Perfect Job Candidate an Imperfect Strategy
Why Good People Can't Get Jobs: The Skills Gap and What Companies Can Do About It