In this blog post, we will look at what benefits the spec system provides to both companies and job seekers, and whether it can be a fair and efficient hiring standard.
Many college students and job seekers are still working hard to build their “spec” today. “Spec” was originally used as a word to describe the performance of computers and smartphones, but its meaning has gradually expanded and is now used as a neologism to refer to the criteria that various workplaces consider when evaluating job seekers. There are countless types of specifications, such as official language tests such as TOEIC and TOEFL, awards from various competitions related to the field of job seekers, university credits, related experience, and club activities. In particular, the hiring method that considers these in the selection of job seekers is called the “spec system.” This is used in conjunction with the interview-based hiring method in many companies. Many companies set the criteria for document screening by comparing the job seekers’ specs in order to hire the right employees. As a result, job seekers are accumulating various specs mentioned above to appeal themselves to companies. This spec-oriented job seeker selection is causing a lot of controversy, and there are various debates from the perspectives of job seekers and companies on whether this situation should continue. While many people question the usefulness of the current system, I think it is desirable for companies to maintain the current system for evaluating job seekers.
The first thing to consider is whether each company can actually come up with clear standards for evaluating job seekers and whether the system based on those standards is helpful to job seekers. To conclude, I believe that the spec system is a way for both companies and job seekers to reduce their respective burdens. Let’s look at it from the perspective of companies first. According to statistics, companies usually have to review far more data from job seekers than the number of people they want to hire. This is bound to be a burden for companies, and for profit-seeking companies, it can be a loss to have to create criteria for evaluating and reviewing all of these job seekers on their own. Therefore, replacing them with objective indicators such as specifications is a reasonable way for companies to save money and time. This argument can also be seen in the weight of interviews and document evaluations. The percentage of large companies that conduct more than two interviews has increased, and the percentage of interviews in the selection process has also increased every year, strengthening the weight of interviews. On the other hand, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are showing a greater emphasis on official foreign language scores, as they are responding to the government’s plan to strengthen the weight given to official foreign language scores. SMEs are showing a hiring method that focuses on qualifications rather than interviews, such as conducting interview evaluations in a simplified manner. This ultimately shows that increasing the weight of interviews in personnel evaluations can place a heavy financial burden on SMEs. The method of hiring job seekers based on qualifications is still a good indicator for these companies to evaluate job seekers.
On the other hand, the spec system is also beneficial for job seekers. The most important part is that if the company you want to apply to is in a similar field, you no longer have to prepare for it in a completely different way for each company. Some argue that certifications and official certification tests are a burden for job seekers. However, this also serves as an appeal that “job seekers who have passed this level of certification/certification test have at least the skills required by our company in this field.” This is an indicator that many companies in similar fields can look at, and it reduces the burden of preparing for different selection methods for each company. This is especially true for language tests. Currently, more than 4,000 companies/public institutions, etc. use the TOEIC. This provides clear standards for job seekers. If each company takes a separate language test and reflects the results, it will add even more pressure to job seekers. Therefore, the spec system can be said to open a clear and objective path for job seekers to strive to appeal themselves.
There are also counterarguments to this claim. The claim that many people mention is whether the spec system can be a good standard for evaluating job seekers. The claim is that the spec system is not a good standard for companies to evaluate job seekers because the various certifications and language tests currently in place are difficult to accurately assess the practical skills required by companies. This argument is often mentioned by many critics, but it is not enough to refute the evidence in the two paragraphs mentioned above. First of all, even if the qualifications, such as certificates or language tests, do not exactly match the practical skills, they are clearly highly correlated. This is because companies require practical skills-related qualifications when selecting job applicants. In fact, “previous work experience in related occupations” is used as an important qualification in most jobs. Different companies may place more importance on TOEIC or TOEFL, which focus on reading comprehension and vocabulary, or on TOEIC Speaking/Writing or OPIc, which focus on conversation and writing skills. When considering awards, preference is given to those that are directly related to practical skills. Organizations that administer certifications and language tests are also aware that the relevant data is used as a specification, so they are changing the questions to focus on assessing practical skills. When these factors are considered in combination, the specifications required by companies are clearly related to the job-seeking students’ ability to handle tasks. There is also an argument that it is not desirable to rank job seekers based on their specifications because the specifications do not correspond 100% to their practical abilities. However, this argument is already reflected in most companies. In the case of large companies, if you have a certain level of language test score or required certification, you will no longer be considered based on your qualifications, and the job seeker will be selected solely based on the interview. Or, some companies announce the score range for each level of qualifications so that job seekers can prepare in advance. Many public companies also do not consider qualifications at all and evaluate job seekers purely based on their test scores and interviews. This is the case for companies that use the specifications for the minimum competency check or use their own evaluation methods. The case of such companies means that they are aware that the specifications and practical skills do not completely match, and they see the specifications as only one of the evaluation criteria. Therefore, this argument is not very convincing.
There is also a counterargument that the specification system puts a burden on job seekers. It is argued that job seekers repeat meaningless competition to build up non-work-related qualifications, which ultimately leads to a decline in their work ability. This problem stems from some companies’ hiring practices that rely too much on qualifications, and job seekers’ excessive preparation for qualifications accordingly. Companies should use qualifications that match the required abilities as hiring criteria, and job seekers should prepare according to these criteria.
