I’m curious about all of the rhetoric regarding H-1B visas for specialty skills that are not demonstrably available through available US Citizens.
When I was a senior manager at a Bay Area medical device company, I had several H-1B’s reporting to me when I assumed the role. They were mostly from India but also from México, and were engineers all.
During my tenure, I had three openings I attempted to fill with US Citizen talent. I hired US Citizens from Silicon Valley and had to terminate all three during the probationary period for being largely ineffective. There were no candidates that met the minimum requirements AND did not have prior performance or behavioral red flags.
The team I inherited was strong and effective.
This was near the end of a five year period of remediation, and prior to my arrival the recruitment process was led by a turn-around team who knew how to, you know, recruit.
Recruitment is not an instantaneous process of looking for a “clot for a slot” as Dr. Laurence J. Peter (Peter Principle fame) would coin the phrase.
Recruiting growable, loyal, passionate talent takes time, typically months, including scouring outplacement sessions for Armed Services officers, warrant officers, and technical enlistees, and having a network in place and pre-established contacts with high-performers in the market space who may suddenly become available or otherwise entertain evolving their career.
This does not happen without planning led by senior leadership.
Regrettably, HR departments don’t work that way.
They are driven by finance and open requisitions that if not filled in 90 or 120 days, are rescinded by management to stay true to the tyranny of the budget and/or EBIDTA short term bogies, and not the long term.
When a prospective “highly desirable” candidate does became available, there is usually a hiring freeze in effect to cover an operational or programmatic shortfall, or no open position to allow for such a hire. The approval process for a new role takes weeks to months to push through the hiring wickets and checkbox controls to get an answer, and always exceeds the window opening that these sudden candidates have to act upon.
Effectively managing this process takes management focus (and is aided by metrics).
Well run companies budget for and hire candidates on-the-spot, and find roles for them knowing the organization must constantly evolve to stay relevant, and scour the market to identify and be at the ready for future acquisitions.
Poorly run companies do not hire sudden employees, nor develop recruiting networks. Most companies are barely minimally functional with LinkedIn, and are not proficient in my opinion.
I chuckle at the overseas “outsourced” recruitment copy / paste operations that pester LinkedIn members with “opportunities”.
"Dear [LinkedIn member name], I note from your résumé you are a warm body with a heartbeat, a LinkedIn account, and your background is highly impressive. Please do the needful and apply for this junior deputy assistant specialist third class role at a undisclosed company way across the country from your location. No relocation compensation. Six month term. W2’s only.”
In my opinion 95-98% of companies are fairly poorly run from a recruitment standpoint.
Southwest Airlines used to have a process (I do not know if it is still in place) to deliberately manage staffing to place in job openings internal employees two out of three times, and hire outside one out of three times. This was (at that time) a key business metric.
You don’t do this kind of staffing unless you have a constant attention to effective cross-training, regular staff rotation and rigorous evaluation as to how the rotated employees have assimilated their required competencies in their new roles, and whether they demonstrate an ability to stretch to a higher role.
The only way this works is if you have an effective lean internal training system tailored to each role, and (I detest using this word) ‘mentoring' from key employees.
Allied-Signal and General Electric had / have the four (or nine) block system of assessing employees and managing under performers out of the organization and identifying high performers, but generally instead of a core tenant to a manager’s function, this activity devolves over time to a once a year check-box activity, and the output is placed in a three (or two) ring binder where it gathers dust until next year.
No further work stems from the four block to work on improving the company systems and processes, nor helping folks get the help they need to overcome obstacles and grow or feel more loyal to the organization.
Staffing from a pool of high potential (HIPOT) recent college graduates, in-turn rotated through various high profile (and often demanding) roles in an organization (in various capacities, both in and outside of their domain expertise) is another method of developing and identifying internal leadership. The problem with these programs is that after 3-5 years the vast majority of these folks invariably strike out and move on to another employer who values your employees more than you do; program participants having assessed that their larger opportunities lay outside of the current organization.
The process to on-board a H1B through USCIS (for me) was rules based, onerous and pedantic, requiring multiple engagements with the cognizant government agency and a six to nine month time period, and sponsorship. We had to conclusively demonstrate the job market did not have a single person with the requisite skills to staff the role. We had to advertise (canvass) and disclose the applications and CV’s and show why the US Citizen or green card holder applicants did not meet minimum requirements, and could almost automatically expect a challenge from USCIS if you passed on 'minimally viable' domestic applicants.
The H1B’s that worked for me were well above par in performance, but were always worried of losing their jobs, being deported, and always had their recruitment antennae out. So, while diligent and high performers, they were not loyal to the company, despite being loyal to me.
I think the real problem is how companies view “talent”, and treat them.
That is the villain — not the H-1B’s or the program as intended.
The H-1B’s I am familiar with are here (in the US) as a bandaid for a larger problem, and, by-in-large contribute positively corporations.
Additionally, in my opinion, with the decline in primary, secondary and higher education quality, and the obscene cost growth in higher education, it seems to me the talent pool is shrinking, and companies will need to focus more on internal growth and retention and better manage their affairs for the immediate future.
This secular decline has been aided and abetted by the SARS-CoV-2 Wuhan Lab leak (funded by the brightest elites in US government), the resulting COVID-19 pandemic, and especially most world governments’ response to the pandemic and the knock-on effect to children and young adults marching through our educational system.
This all finds us here with a younger population struggling, often working two (or three jobs), concerned that no one cares much about their condition (except every four years), taking basic service roles to bide their time in the hope that manufacturing rebounds in the US (and with each manufacturing job the addition of two to three support and untold supply chain jobs).
It will take more than two years to rebuild our collective hollowed-out manufacturing base; I foresee a decade of necessary change, which must start with leadership and a change in corporate culture. Increasing the cost of commodities
Changing leaders is easy.
Permanently changing culture (and sustaining it) is hard.
