Can't say I'm amazed… this reveals an interesting on-going problem in the U.S. today. The examples you sited were considered straight forward, not very exotic requirements for a candidate. Then again, not everyone can just jump into being a mechanical engineer or a sales director. On the other hand a large portion of job listings out there are intimidating even to people who work in and/or have experience in the listed field of work. The endless list of requirements (software/experience/certifications), duties/responsibilities, this “jack of all trades ” do it all/know it all, work 60 to 80 hours per week type of super person employee is an absurd fantasy creation of HR departments everywhere. Is it any wonder that candidates are running scared or are just flat out giving up on their job search.There has to be a lot of self conscious feelings of inadequacy out there in the land of candidates as well as an attitude of apathy towards the excessive demands employers are putting on their employees.

I think a key component of the problem is employers in this country have forsaken finding good people that they can train and mentor into positions. That means looking at good, educated, hardworking folks that perhaps come from a different field of work and are looking for a career change. The problem is training takes time & investment and in this fast paced competitive world there's simply no time for that anymore. HR departments are not set up to identify candidates of this ilk because they're too focused on finding the “ideal super candidate” who can hit the floor running. Then add the fact that employers are fearful of training someone up only to have them jump ship but that's easily enough remedied by short full time contracts with 1-3 year commitments after the training period.

What we're seeing is technology and the accelerated pace of the digital world taking it's toll. Keeping up with it all is a chore in and of itself even for those that are educated. Other problems such as ageism in the workplace (40 being too old!) is becoming more apparent in certain fields. Hiring young & cheap, turn & burn is still the rule of the day across many industries. Wages continue to fall and the cost of everything continues to go up. Work demands continue to grow and extend beyond the typical work day & week. With all that said, it's no wonder there's an increase in stress, anxiety and the health problems that follow in our society today.

Mike: Thanks very much for sharing this very detailed, thoughtful comment. As I read it I thought "yep, yep, yep, and yep." I can't disagree with a single observation you've made. Companies are paralyzed by uncertainty and performance pressure, and as a result, by and large hold out for "perfection" in candidates since they're afraid to take the risk of hiring/training somebody who hasn't directly done the specific job function before.

I don't think any sane person can disagree with any of these observations you've made or the realities involved in finding work and managing a professional career today. And yet, as a coach, my focus is always on what can people DO to deal with these new realities, if we all agree they exist and aren't going away anytime soon? Until a major social or political movement comes along, leading to a major change of the system as it stands now, people are going to have to learn to cope, adapt, and work around these new dynamics -- as unpleasant as they are -- or they're going to face chronic employment challenges.

No easy answers, of course, but that's largely the mission my fellow NWjobs bloggers and I are trying to fulfill -- offering insights and tactical advice on how best to deal with some of the highly stressful issues taking place out there.

Again, much thanks for taking the time to comment and deepen the conversation...

I've never been one of those people who applies to jobs that they're clearly not qualified for. I wonder what your thoughts are on human resource professionals in this issue. HR departments seem to be the creators of job descriptions that are so complex and detailed that few if any applicants would appear "qualified" for the job. HR departments also seem to be the ones who eliminated the concept of "transferable skills" where qualified professional applicants with general office skills like using MS Office, working in teams, understanding how a business functions, having staff or management experience working in particular industries, are continually ignored when they apply for jobs that they could certainly do, but for which they don't have each and every bullet point match in a job description that asks for tediously specific experience doing a job that probably isn't much like it is being described.

Times Reader: Thanks for sharing your insights and no question about it, the majority of job descriptions out there have become increasingly rigid and specialized. I sometimes joke with my clients that 90% of the people interviewing them wouldn't qualify for their OWN jobs if they had to re-apply for them, under today's rules!

Still, I don't think HR deserves all the blame for this. Often, the HR folks are just having to relay along (and follow) the parameters given to them by internal executives and department leaders, who more and more are insisting on ridiculously stringent qualifications. Companies, like consumers, are seeking instant gratification these days, which is the main factor leading to this phenomenon.

Let's hope that things loosen up in the future -- and that companies wise up and realize that they have to stay a little more open if they don't want to be chronically short-staffed or miss out on some terrific candidates!

I've been bringing up this problem for a long time. The inefficiency in the hiring process not only wastes the job-seeker's (unpaid) paid time and takes up too much unrelated-to-business time for the employer: repeated exposure to judgment and rejection creates baggage that reduces the ability of the job-seeker to present themselves as the best candidate.

Unfortunately, employers are too obsessed with their desire to pick and choose among other people to consider the obvious time-and-money saving solution: choose someone at random from those who meet the basic requirements. This avoids discrimination, and it saves time for all involved.

Make managers responsible for integrating new people into the team. The current systems assumes there is one "best" person, and many of the candidates are "bad fits". If someone is made to feel welcome and able to succeed, they will "fit in". They will adapt to the culture of their work setting. If someone seems like a "dud", there is probably a manager and situation that set them up to be that way.

Job-seekers are already at the bottom of the totem pole, stressed out from having to repeated approach people who tend to run away from those who need help. If they have been unemployed for a while, they probably have many financial and family problem. Why keep subjecting them to "good fit" judgments?

If employers can let go of their power-tripping vanity long enough to give up the "good fit" type of gate keeping, then they can get rid of a lot of the fat in the hiring process, free themselves from discrimination lawsuits, and have managers use the time they usually waste on thousands of interviews in some more business-oriented way.

Ps. I wish government/public employers would lead the way on this. It can take over a year to get a government job that only requires basic clerical skills.