This blog post examines what benefits the ‘spec’ system offers to both companies and job seekers, and whether it can serve as a fair and efficient hiring standard.
Many college students and job seekers are still working hard to build their ‘specs’ today. ‘Specs’ originally referred to the performance of computers or smartphones, but its meaning has gradually expanded. Nowadays, it’s used as a new term encompassing all the criteria various workplaces consider when evaluating job seekers. Countless types of specs exist, including official language proficiency tests like TOEIC and TOEFL, awards from competitions related to the job seeker’s field, university GPA, relevant work experience, and club activities. The hiring method that specifically considers these specs in selecting job seekers is called the ‘spec system’. This is used by many companies alongside interview-based hiring methods. Many companies establish document screening criteria by comparing job seekers’ specs to hire suitable employees. Consequently, job seekers accumulate the diverse specs mentioned above to appeal to companies. This spec-focused selection process generates significant controversy, sparking debates from various perspectives—centered on job seekers and companies—about whether this situation should persist. While many question the effectiveness of these qualifications, I believe it is desirable for companies to maintain the current qualification system to evaluate job seekers.
The primary considerations are whether companies can realistically establish clear evaluation criteria for job seekers and whether a system based on such criteria actually benefits the job seekers. To put it bluntly, the credential system seems to be a way to reduce the burden for both companies and job seekers. Let’s first examine it from the company’s perspective. Statistics show that companies typically have to review far more job seekers’ materials than the number of positions they intend to fill. This inevitably burdens companies, and for profit-seeking entities, establishing criteria to independently evaluate and review all these applicants could lead to losses. Therefore, replacing this with objective indicators like credentials is a rational method for companies to save costs and time. This argument is also evident in the weighting of interviews versus document screening. For large corporations, the proportion conducting two or more interviews has increased, and the weight given to interviews in the selection process also rises annually, strengthening the importance of interviews. Conversely, SMEs are responding by emphasizing the reflection of certified foreign language scores, placing greater importance on these scores. SMEs are adopting a recruitment approach focused more on credentials than interviews, often conducting interview evaluations in a simplified manner. This ultimately indicates that increasing the weight of interviews in personnel evaluations could impose a significant financial burden on SMEs. The method of hiring job seekers based on credentials remains a good indicator for evaluating candidates for these companies.
Meanwhile, the credential system also provides sufficient benefits to job seekers. The most important aspect is that if the companies they wish to apply to are in similar fields, the problem of having to prepare entirely different materials for each company disappears. Some argue that certifications or standardized tests become a shackle for job seekers. However, they also serve as an appeal: ‘A job seeker who passed this level of certification/standardized test possesses at least the basic competencies our company needs in this field.’ This becomes a common metric across many companies in similar industries, reducing the burden of preparing for different selection methods at each company. This aspect is particularly prominent in language proficiency tests. For instance, TOEIC is currently recognized by over 4,000 companies and public institutions. This provides job seekers with a clear benchmark. If each company were to administer its own language test and consider those results, the burden on job seekers would be significantly heavier. Therefore, the credential system can be seen as opening a clear and objective path for job seekers to strive to showcase their abilities.
Counterarguments to this position also exist. A frequently cited argument questions whether the spec system can serve as a good evaluation criterion for job seekers. The claim is that the various certification and language test systems currently in place struggle to accurately assess the practical skills companies need, making the spec system an inadequate benchmark for corporate evaluation. While this argument is frequently cited by critics, it falls short of refuting the evidence presented in the preceding two paragraphs. First, even if credentials like certifications or language tests do not perfectly align with practical skills, they clearly have a high correlation. This is because companies demand credentials related to practical skills when selecting job seekers. In practice, “previous work experience in a related field” is used as a crucial qualification for most jobs. Different companies prioritize different aspects of the same language test: some value TOEIC or TOEFL, which focus on reading comprehension and vocabulary, while others prioritize TOEIC Speaking/Writing or OPIc, which emphasize speaking and writing skills. Similarly, competition awards are prioritized if they relate directly to practical skills. The organizations administering certifications and language tests are also aware that these credentials are used as qualifications. Consequently, they are shifting their test questions to focus more on evaluating practical task-handling abilities. Considering these factors collectively, the qualifications demanded by companies are clearly related to job seekers’ ability to perform tasks. Some argue that since credentials don’t perfectly align with practical skills, ranking candidates solely based on them is undesirable. However, most companies already reflect this understanding. Large corporations, for instance, often select candidates solely through interviews once they meet minimum language test scores or essential certifications. Alternatively, some companies announce specific score ranges for each qualification tier, allowing job seekers to prepare accordingly. Many public institutions also evaluate candidates purely through exams and interviews, disregarding qualifications entirely. This applies to companies that use credentials only as a minimum competency check or have their own evaluation methods. These corporate examples indicate that companies recognize credentials and practical skills don’t always align perfectly, viewing credentials as just one of several evaluation criteria. Therefore, this argument lacks significant persuasiveness.
There is also a counterargument that the credential system places an excessive burden on job seekers. It is argued that job seekers engage in meaningless competition to accumulate qualifications unrelated to the job, which ultimately leads to a decline in their actual work capabilities. This problem is seen as stemming from some companies adopting hiring practices that rely excessively on qualifications, prompting job seekers to prepare qualifications excessively in response. Companies should set hiring criteria based on the necessary competencies, and job seekers should prepare accordingly.
