|
Sometimes, we face the situation that there is a certain number of applicants for a position, let's call it m, and another number of positions that are actually to be filled, let's call it n.
If m=n, there is no choice.
If m<n, you need to use the applicants efficiently, make up for staff shortages with double shifts, and make the positions more attractive.
In our context, most employees and people in the job market are familiar with the other extreme:
m>n
There are more applicants than posts. That's a bad thing, at least for the applicants. In this situation, the selectors have three different ways to select applicants:
1. Define an absolute standard. For instance, award points for every merit and set a certain number as the threshold. Those who meet the threshold can be pass.
The problem is that, in order for this to constitute an actual selection, the threshold must be higher than merit of the people who are more than n.
2. Rank applicants according to their test results and choose a certain percentile.
This is, of course, a bit unfair, because if the applicants are very good, the standard goes up; if the applicants are less capable, the standard moves in the other direction.
The other problem is mathematical. We define a factor q as follows:
m*q=n <-> q=n/m
So, suppose we have 12 applicants but only 3 positions to fill. Then the ratio is (1/4) or 25%. The following year, we may have only one position to fill and still have 12 people who want it. In this case, things become much harder for the applicants the following year.
In the case we fix q, we could still have the problem that mq is greater than n. We would have applicants who pass but no positions for them in the organization.
3. We just go all the way and turn it into a game show. We have one or two positions but 12 people who are interested. Fine, they compete for the positions, and we select the best candidates.
The problem is that this is highly unfair. The difference between the number-one and number-two candidates could be much greater than the difference between numbers two and three. However, both numbers one and two pass the exam, while number three fails, even if the difference between numbers two and three is only half a point, while number one scores 20 points more than they do.
In this scenario, we reduce the number of applicants considered until it equals the number of available positions.
Because of current demographic trends, the world as a whole is increasingly facing a scenario in which n>m. I expect selection to become less stringent over the next few decades.
|
