Understanding hiring difficulties and the nature of hiring frictions that employers face is important for the promotion of economic growth and the individual success of both firms and workers. This study sheds light on this issue by presenting evidence from an original, nationally representative survey of information technology (IT) helpdesks that contains detailed measurements of skill requirements, organizational characteristics, and market structure. The results indicate that the incidence of persistent hiring difficulties is modest, and that measures of technology and technical skill demands are not associated with greater hiring problems. Organizational attributes and market structure are generally more predictive of hiring frictions than are skill requirements. Human resource practices, management strategy, and labor-market monopsony power all play key roles. These results cast doubt on simple stories about technology-driven hiring problems and point to the importance of examining a broader range of organizational and market factors when addressing workforce challenges.
AcemogluDaronPischkeJorn-Steffen. 1998. Why do firms train? Theory and evidence. Quarterly Journal of Economics113(1): 79–119.
3.
AnderssonFredrikBrownClairCampbellBenjaminChiangHyowookParkYooki. 2008. The effect of HRM practices and R&D investment on worker productivity. In BenderStefanLaneJuliaShawKathrynAnderssonFredrikWachterTill von (Eds.), The Analysis of Firms and Employees: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches, pp. 19–43. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
4.
AppelbaumEileenBaileyThomas R.BergPeterKallebergArne L.2000. Manufacturing Advantage: Why High-Performance Work Systems Pay Off. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
5.
AutorDavid H.KatzLawrence F.KearneyMelissa S.2008. Trends in U.S. wage inequality: Revising the revisionists. Review of Economics and Statistics90(2): 300–323.
6.
AvgarAriel C.PandeyNitiKwonKiwook. 2012. Discretion in context: A moderated mediation model of the relationship between discretion and turnover intentions. Industrial Relations51(1): 106–28.
7.
AzarJoseMarinescuIoanaSteinbaumMarshall I.2019. Labor market concentration. NBER Working Paper No. 24147. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
8.
BamberGreg J.StantonPaulineBartramTimothyBallardieRuth. 2014. Human resource management, lean processes, and outcomes for employees: Towards a research agenda. International Journal of Human Resource Management25(21): 2881–91.
BartlingBjornFehrErnstSchmidtKlaus M.2012. Screening, competition, and job design: Economic origins of good jobs. American Economic Review102(2): 834–64.
11.
BattRosemaryColvinAlexander J. S.2011. An employment systems approach to turnover: Human resource practices, quits, dismissals, and performance. Academy of Management Journal54(4): 695–717.
12.
BattRosemaryColvinAlexander J. S.KeefeJeffrey. 2002. Employee voice, human resource practices, and quit rates: Evidence from the telecommunications industry. Industrial and Labor Relations Review55(4): 573–94.
13.
BeaudryPaulGreenDavid A.SandBenjamin M.2016. The great reversal in the demand for skill and cognitive tasks. Journal of Labor Economics34(1): S199–S247.
14.
BellmannLutzGrunauPhilippTroltschKlausWaldenGunter. 2014. Make or buy: Train in-company or recruit from the labor market?Empirical Research in Vocational Education and Training6(9): 1–18.
BloomNicholasLemosRenataSadunRaffaellaScurDanielaReenenJohn Van. 2016. International data on measuring management practices. American Economic Review: Papers & Proceedings106(5): 152–56.
17.
BloomNicholasReenenJohn Van. 2007. Measuring and explaining management practices across firms and countries. Quarterly Journal of Economics122(4): 1351–408.
18.
BloomNicholasReenenJohn Van. 2010. Why do management practices differ across firms and countries?Journal of Economic Perspectives24(1): 203–24.
19.
BoalWilliam M.RansomMichael R.1997. Monopsony in the labor market. Journal of Economic Literature35(1): 86–112.
20.
BonthuisBoeleJarvisValerieVanhalaJuuso. 2016. Shifts in euro area Beveridge curves and their determinants. IZA Journal of Labor Policy5(20): 1–17.
21.
BoothAlison L.ZoegaGylfi. 2008. Worker heterogeneity, new monopsony, and training. Labour22(2): 247–70.
22.
BovaElvaJallesJoao TovarKolerusChristina. 2016. Shifting the Beveridge curve: What affects labor market matching? IMF Working Paper No. 16/93. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.
23.
BrownMetaSetrenElizabethTopaGiorgio. 2016. Do informal referrals lead to better matches? Evidence from a firm’s employee referral system. Journal of Labor Economics34(1): 161–209.
24.
CarnevaleAnthony P.SmithNicoleStrohlJeff. 2010. Help wanted: Projections of jobs and education requirements through 2018. Executive Summary. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce.
25.
CombsJamesLiuYongmeiHallAngelaKetchenDavid. 2006. How much do high-performance work practices matter? A meta-analysis of their effects on organizational performance. Personnel Psychology59: 501–28.
DubeArindrajitManningAlanNaiduSuresh. 2018. Monopsony and employer mis-optimization explain why wages bunch at round numbers. NBER Working Paper No. 24991. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
32.
ElsbyMichael W. L.MichaelsRyanRatnerDavid. 2015. The Beveridge curve: A survey. Journal of Economic Literature53(3): 571–630.
33.
FirthDavid. 1993. Bias reduction of maximum likelihood estimates. Biometrika80(1): 27–38.
34.
FrankeWalterSobelIrvin. 1970. The Shortage of Skilled and Technical Workers. Lexington, MA: Heath Lexington Books.
GodardJohn. 2004. A critical assessment of the high-performance paradigm. British Journal of Industrial Relations42(2): 349–78.
37.
GreenFrancis. 2008. Leeway for the loyal: A model of employee discretion. British Journal of Industrial Relations46(1): 1–32.
38.
GreenFrancis. 2016. Skills demand, training, and skills mismatch: A review of key concepts, theory and evidence. London: U.K. Government Office for Science.
39.
HambrickDonald C.AbrahamsonEric. 1995. Assessing managerial discretion across industries: A multimethod approach. Academy of Management Journal38(5): 1427–41.
40.
HandelMichael J.2016. What do people do at work?Journal of Labor Market Research49: 177–97.
HeckmanJames J.KautzTim. 2012. Hard evidence on soft skills. Labour Economics19(4): 451–64.
43.
HirschBoris. 2010. Monopsonistic Labour Markets and the Gender Pay Gap: Theory and Empirical Evidence. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems (No. 639). New York: Springer.
44.
HirschBorisJahnElke J.SchnabelClaus. 2018. Do employers have more monopsony power in slack labor markets?ILR Review71(3): 676–704.
45.
HobijnBartBengaliLeila. 2014. The wage growth gap for recent college grads. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Economic Letter, July21.
46.
HuselidMark A.1995. The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal38(3): 635–72.
47.
JensenJaclyn M.PatelPankaj C.MessersmithJake G.2013. High-performance work systems and job control: Consequences for anxiety, role overload, and turnover intentions. Journal of Management39(6): 1699–724.
48.
KaplanKaren. 1999. A high-tech labor crunch hinders firms. Los Angeles Times, April21.
LitwinAdam Seth. 2011. Technological change at work: The impact of employee involvement on the effectiveness of health information technology. Industrial and Labor Relations Review64(5): 863–88.
51.
LiuYujiaGruskyDavid B.2013. The payoff to skill in the third industrial revolution. American Journal of Sociology118(5): 1330–74.
52.
Lopez-CotareloJuan. 2018. Line managers and HRM: A managerial discretion perspective. Human Resource Management Journal28(2): 255–71.
53.
ManningAlan. 2003. Monopsony in Motion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
54.
MishelLawrenceShierholzHeidi. 2013. A decade of flat wages: The key barrier to shared prosperity and a rising middle class. EPI Briefing Paper No. 365. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
55.
NashKim S.2016. Tech talent gaps hold companies back. Wall Street Journal, June2.
56.
NegraoLeony Luis LopesFilhoMoacir GodinhoMarodinGiuliano. 2017. Lean practices and their effect on performance: A literature review. Production Planning and Control28(1): 33–56.
57.
PortmanRob. 2013. Closing the skills gap. Chillicothe Gazette, May10.
58.
RamsayHarvieScholariosDoraHarleyBill. 2000. Employees and high-performance work systems: Testing inside the black box. British Journal of Industrial Relations38(4): 501–31.
RothwellJonathan. 2014. Still Searching: Job Vacancies and STEM Skills. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
61.
SahinAysegulSongJosephTopaGiorgioViolanteGiovanni L.2014. Mismatch unemployment. American Economic Review104(11): 3529–64.
62.
SchlichtEkkehart. 2016. Efficiency wages: Variants and implications. IZA World of Labor 275. doi:10.15185/izawol.275.
63.
SparhamEimerSungJohnny. 2007. High performance work practices: Work intensification or win-win?University of Leicester Centre for Labour Market Studies, Working Paper No. 50.
64.
StaigerDouglas O.SpetzJoannePhibbsCiaran S.2010. Is there monopsony in the labor market? Evidence from a natural experiment. Journal of Labor Economics28(2): 211–36.
65.
TeitelbaumMichael S.2014. Falling Behind? Boom, Bust, and the Global Race for Scientific Talent. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Van ReenenJohn. 2011. Wage inequality, technology, and trade: 21st century evidence. Labour Economics18: 730–41.
68.
WeaverAndrewOstermanPaul. 2017. Skill demands and mismatch in U.S. manufacturing. ILR Review70(2): 275–307.
69.
WebberDouglas A.2015. Firm market power and the earnings distribution. Labour Economics35: 123–34.
70.
WilliamsRichard. 2010. Fitting heterogeneous choice models with OGLM. Stata Journal10(4): 540–67.
71.
WrightRichardEllisMarkTownleyMatthew. 2016. The matching of STEM degree holders with STEM occupations in large metropolitan labor markets in the United States. Economic Geography93(2): 185–201.
72.
YatchewAdonisGrilichesZvi. 1985. Specification error in probit models. Review of Economics and Statistics67(1): 134–39.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
