Australian Recruiters Risk Averse, Lose out on tapping humanities talents such as Gail Kelly

Peter Cai has courageously opened up a controversial topic which many in Australia have not dared to confront and address.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/business-can-benefit-from-students-of-humanities-20130127-2deuy.html

Indeed, compared to UK and US where everyone could almost certainly become anybody they wish, this luxury does not exist in Australia, the lucky country.

There is a strange contradiction in the Australian job market. Most potential job seekers find employment scarce while recruiters are facing difficulty filling positions that require specialised skills.

For the same MNCs and global consultancy firms, the Australian branches are not as generous and receptive to building a diversity of talents. I know some executives who started in non-business and non-core business areas of reputable international companies that are not based in Australia. Managers were very supportive and gave their staff many opportunities and time to upgrade their skills and move on to more challenging roles.

My Australian contacts in recruitment and HR have confirmed that there is a tendency to find an exact match even if this meant leaving positions vacant for months or years, if no such ideal candidate is to be found. The environment has become more rigid than say 20 years ago. That Gail Kelly made it to the top of Westpac despite her education in language and history, showed that employers were probably more open-minded than now.

The cautious approach mirrors the overall mentality of corporate Australia regardless of which department they represent. As long as you stick closely to rules it is quite safe, all is well and safe, and this would help to cover one's back if things do not go according to expectations or go wrong.

There are advantages in selecting human resources that are trained in a specific area and have the relevant experience. However, many other talents have been disregarded in the process.

Of course, successful business executives who had arts background must be competent in business management. They have to work hard to learn relevant skills and industry expertise quickly and do better than their peers with a business degree.  It may also help if one has a good network and get noticed early in life, such as being awarded prizes and scholarships and well connected with the rich and famous.

If certain employers in Australia rely on old boys' network and retired sportsmen to fill their top positions, and willing to overlook their lack of skills and experience in business management, why can't they offer the same treatment to high flying humanities graduates?

Because of market demand, herd instincts and parental influence tend to favour studies in business, finance, technology and law. This has perpetuated a vicious cycle of channelling academically excellent to do professional degrees. On the other hand, the humanities are the reserve of either those who can't make the grade, or clever students who are too innocent or not too worried about the rat race.

Many a times, some humanities undergraduates feel offended and lose hope when peers and seniors ask what they could do with their training? It is not so much an education we are after now, but vocational skills. It is surprising that some are unaware that universities offer post-graduate professional courses.

The least we could do is not to accept the status quo and liberate our minds.