Is recruitment in the veterinary profession tougher than it ever was?

In the US, good cars are referred to as peaches, and bad ones, lemons.

Ask any veterinary practice owner, employer, or hiring manager and the common reply is that recruiting veterinary professionals is much tougher than it ever was. It takes much longer and far fewer candidates apply.

Go back 15 years or so, the model of recruiting was placing a job ad in your favourite veterinary publication and wait for the CVs, complete with cover letter attached, to arrive a week later.

Go back 15 years or so, the model of recruiting was placing a job ad in your favourite veterinary publication and wait for the CVs, complete with cover letter attached, to arrive a week later. Candidates used to scan the job pages, circle with a red pen those jobs that seemed remotely relevant despite the patent lack of information (due to space limitations and cost being a thing back then) before snail-mailing the employer a complete record of their life achievements. Tens of applicants to choose from within a week. The good old days, ‘ey! Why then, given the prevailing zeitgeist of instant gratification fuelled by ubiquitous, always on and always connected modern devices, does it take much longer to receive far fewer (if any) job applications?

“It’s complicated” I hear you say, with many confounding factors like “geographic location” and “work-life balance” and “millennials" and "gen Z" and "Covid" and...You get the picture. Sure, that may be so (aren’t millennials in charge now?). Many factors contribute to the recruitment and retention crisis we’ve been experiencing for some time now, to be sure. But hundreds of newly qualified vets and vet nurses and at least 40% of their experienced and gainfully employed colleagues are actively looking for opportunities every year. There is one contributing factor that, at least in my mind, isn’t getting the attention it deserves and it involves fruit. Lemons and peaches.

In the US, good cars are referred to as peaches, and bad ones, lemons.

In his book, To Sell is Human, Daniel Pink recounts the story of George Akerlof, an economics professor who in 1970 published a paper in The Quarterly Journal of Economics for which he was awarded a Nobel Prize in 2001. Akerlof identified what has come to be known as the lemons problem referring to the challenges that arise regarding the value of an investment or product due to asymmetric information possessed by the buyer and the seller. To explain the concept of “asymmetrical information” he uses the analogy of a used-car salesman who holds all the information about the product for sale, and the buyer who has very limited information. In the US, good cars are referred to as peaches, and bad ones, lemons. Economic reasoning would dictate that the latter, being less desirable, should cost less than the former. The quandary for the buyer, not being fully informed, is not knowing whether the car is a lemon being sold as a peach. The information disparity between the two parties often leads to the buyer being suspicious of the seller’s honesty and intentions which in turn may result in the sale being called off altogether. But that was 1970. Thanks to web 2.0 and our insatiable need for information on-demand, we now live in a world edging toward information parity.

Employers used to be in the driver’s seat. Now candidates are calling the shots.

Employers used to be in the driver’s seat. They would advertise their job vacancies using 75 words or less imparting only the information they deemed sufficient for job seekers to decide if the opening was something they could or couldn’t apply for. Now candidates are calling the shots. We have moved on from the age of information disparity in which employers held the balance of information about the jobs they advertise. We’ve entered the age of the informed candidate who will spend hours if not days researching potential job opportunities. They want to know who they will be working for, who they will be working with, and why they should choose you. And they are spoiled for choice. Veterinary candidates don’t need to find a job, they need to weed out those jobs they would never take. More choice and more information mean more consideration and more time.

 "To be successful, employers must give candidates enough honest information to make a decision and good reasons to apply."

Things have changed and veterinary employers cannot continue to advertise the way they did 15 years ago. They need to apply the same kind of enthusiasm and effort to winning team members as they have long applied to win clients. Yes, like most professions, recruitment in the veterinary profession is tougher than it ever was, it does take considerably longer, and far fewer candidates apply. To be successful, employers must give candidates enough honest information to make a decision and good reasons to apply. Candidates have choices. Ignore their craving for information, and they will ignore you.