Can a specification system be a fair and efficient hiring criteria that benefits both employers and candidates?

This article analyzes how the specification system benefits both employers and candidates, and argues that the current hiring process is a reasonable way to reduce the burden. It also addresses criticisms of the specification system, but acknowledges the correlation between specification and practical skills, and concludes that with the right awareness and improvements, it is still a valid recruitment tool.

 

Many college students and job seekers are still working hard to build their “skills” today. Originally used to refer to the performance of computers, smartphones, and other devices, the term has expanded to become a neologism that encompasses the criteria that many employers use to evaluate job applicants. There are countless different kinds of specifications, such as certified language tests such as TOEIC and TOEFL, awards in various competitions related to the candidate’s field, university credits, relevant work experience, extracurricular activities, etc. In particular, the hiring method that takes these into account when selecting candidates is called a “specification system”. In many companies, it’s used in conjunction with interview-based hiring. Many companies compare job applicants’ specifications to determine the criteria for hiring the right person. This has led to job seekers accumulating a variety of the above-mentioned skills to sell themselves to companies. This specification-driven selection of candidates is highly controversial, and there are many different perspectives from both candidates and employers on whether it is desirable for this situation to continue. While many have questioned the utility of specifications, I believe that companies should continue to use the current system to evaluate candidates.
The first thing to consider is whether it is realistically possible for companies to come up with clear criteria for evaluating candidates, and whether a system based on those criteria would be beneficial to candidates. In conclusion, I think that a specification system is a way to reduce the burden on both companies and job seekers. First, let’s look at it from the employer’s perspective. Statistics show that companies usually have to review far more candidates’ materials than the number of people they want to hire. This is a burden for companies, and it would be detrimental for a profit-minded company to have its own criteria to evaluate and review all these candidates. Therefore, replacing it with an objective metric, the specification, is a reasonable way to save companies money and time. This argument can also be seen in the weighting of interviews and documentation. In large companies, the proportion of companies conducting two or more interviews has increased, and the proportion of interviews in the selection process has also increased every year, reinforcing the importance of interviews. SMEs, on the other hand, are more likely to emphasize the importance of certified foreign language scores. SMEs are also showing a recruitment approach that focuses on specifications rather than interviews, such as shortened interview evaluations. This suggests that increasing the weight of interviews in the hiring process could be a significant financial burden for SMEs. Hiring by specification is still a good indicator for these companies to evaluate candidates.
On the other hand, job seekers can also benefit from the specification system. Most importantly, if the companies you’re applying to are in a similar field, you won’t have to prepare differently for each one. Some people argue that certifications and certifications are a handicap for job seekers. However, it can also be a way to say, “If you have passed this certification, you at least have the skills we need in this area. This is an indicator that many companies in similar fields can look at, and it reduces the burden of preparing based on different selection methods. This is especially true for language tests. In the case of TOEIC, it is currently used by more than 4,000 companies and public organizations. This provides a clear standard for job seekers. If each company had to take a separate language test and use the results, it would put a lot more pressure on job applicants. Therefore, it can be said that the specification system provides a clear and objective path for job applicants to try to sell themselves.
There are counterarguments to this argument. A common argument is whether specification systems are a good way to evaluate candidates. The argument is that specs are not a good way for companies to evaluate candidates because the various certifications and language tests that are currently in place do not accurately assess the practical skills that companies need. While this argument is used by many naysayers, it falls short of refuting the evidence in the previous two paragraphs. First of all, even if the specifications of certifications, language tests, etc. don’t exactly match the actual skills, they are clearly highly correlated. This is because employers are looking for skills that are relevant to the job. In fact, “previous relevant work experience” is an important specification for most jobs. Different companies value the same language tests differently, with some emphasizing reading and vocabulary skills, such as TOEIC and TOEFL, while others emphasize conversational and writing skills, such as TOEIC Speaking/Writing and OPIc. Competition awards are also prioritized if they are directly related to workplace skills. Organizations that administer certifications and language tests are also changing their questions to focus on practical skills, as they recognize that the material will be used as a specification. Taken together, these factors clearly correlate with the skills required by employers. Some might argue that it’s not a good idea to line up based on specs because they don’t 100% match on-the-job skills. However, this argument is already taken into account by most companies. In large organizations, if you have a certain level of language test scores or required certifications, they no longer consider your specs and hire you based solely on your interview. Alternatively, some companies publish tiered score bands so that candidates can prepare in advance. Many public organizations don’t even consider specs at all, instead relying purely on tests and interviews. This is the case for organizations that use the specification as a minimal competency check, or may use their own assessment methods. This suggests that companies recognize that the specification and on-the-job skills don’t fully align, and that they see the specification as only one of the criteria for evaluation. Therefore, this argument is not very convincing.
Another argument is that the specification system puts more pressure on candidates. It is argued that candidates are forced to compete in a meaningless race to accumulate non-job-related skills, which in turn leads to poor performance. The problem stems from the fact that some companies rely too heavily on specs to hire, and candidates over-prepare for the job. Instead, companies should focus on the skills they need, and candidates should prepare accordingly.