Sixty-six per cent of Canadian employers are having trouble finding suitably talented workers compared with 40 per cent worldwide, according to a study by the Manpower Inc. employment firm

Manpower said Tuesday it surveyed nearly 33,000 companies in 23 countries including 1,000 in Canada, and found that the hardest-to-find workers in Canada are, in order, sales representatives, customer service representatives, engineers, drivers, mechanics, labourers, chefs, electricians, skilled trades and nurses.

The survey, conducted last month, found the shortage of suitable workers most pronounced in Mexico, Canada and Japan. The situation was least problematic in India, where only 13 per cent of employers reported having difficulty filling positions.

"Across North America and Asia, the top three talent shortages are identical — sales representatives rank No. 1, followed by engineers and technicians," said Jeffrey Joerres, chairman and CEO of Manpower Inc.

"Employers are telling us that they are not just looking for bodies to fill sales jobs; they want experienced salespeople who know their respective industries and can drive revenues," Joerres said.

He added that compensation packages in hot job categories will be rising rapidly, and "anyone who is currently searching for a new job or a different career path should seriously consider the results of this survey, and set their sights on getting the education and training required to pursue one of these promising career paths."

Joerres predicted: "In 10 years we will see many businesses failing because they haven't planned ahead for the talent shortage and are unable to find the people they need to run their businesses. This is not a cyclical trend, as we have seen in the past; this time the talent crunch is for real, and it's going to last for decades."

Factors contributing to the talent-hunting woes of Canadian employers include "demographic shifts like aging population and lower birth rates; inadequate education programs; globalization; social evolution; and entrepreneurial practices like outsourcing and off shoring," said Lori Procher, general manager of Manpower Canada.

MetLife's annual "Employee Benefits Trend Study" found that 22 percent of all employees changed jobs in the last year and-a-half, compared to 17 percent in a similar period in their 2004 study. In one demographic subgroup of young families with children under age 6, it was nearly one-third higher!

Employee participants in the study reported their top priorities when deciding to stay or go (and where to go) were the "quality of co-worker and/or customer relationships," "opportunity for work-life balance" and "an organization whose purpose/mission I agree with."

Obviously, a great deal of money and time has already been invested by the time an appointment begins, and both the company and the salesperson need to close a high percentage of the interviews conducted. New salespeople complete a five-week training course and transition from an hourly compensation period to a commission-only system within a relatively short time.

The company currently staffs approximately 130 full-time sales positions. They anticipate, based on last year's statistics, that they will need to hire 200 new salespeople to fill an anticipated 76 new vacancies in the sales staff since only about one-in-three hires actually finish the training and succeed in their first few weeks in becoming commissioned salespeople. As with the sales process itself, this process of developing new sales representatives is very expensive. The company is highly motivated to reduce sales turnover and to increase average close ratios of the sales force, if possible.

For this initial study, three groups of salespeople were selected by management, based on tenure (on the sales floor more than six months) and closing ratios. These groups were separated into "top," middle" and "marginal" performers, based on the closing ratios. All subjects completed the Profile XT™ assessment. A job match pattern was prepared for the top-performing group, and all subjects were matched to this pattern.

The results were dramatic. The top performing group matched the pattern at an average of 88.5 percent, and no member of that group scored less than 83 percent. The middle group averaged 71.8 percent match, and the marginal group averaged 70 percent match. Clearly, the assessment differentiated between people who were top performers and those who were not. To a lesser extent, it also differentiated between middle and marginal performers.

In this setting, top performers produced annual sales of $500,000-plus and earned commissions in the six-figure range. By contrast, marginal performers produced in the range of $200,000, earning average commissions less than $50,000. Not surprisingly, this was the group with the most turnover. They did not fit their jobs well and they presumably had employment alternatives compensating as well or better.

For the company, the opportunities are clear. If they are making 76 selections in a year, each good decision (hiring a likely top performer) is worth an additional $300,000 in potential sales. In the first year, this represents a potential $22-million-plus sales increase! In addition, if they hire more people with the characteristics and production of their "top performers," their recruiting, training, turnover and missed opportunity costs will decrease. The combined result should be significant gains in overall profitability.