My guest is Dawn Fichter, owner of Tools 4 Hiring and author of the 2024 e-book Recruiting Basics for Manufacturing Hiring Managers: The Ultimate Beginner’s Guide to Manufacturing Talent Acquisition. With more than 15 years of recruiting experience across nearly every level of manufacturing, Dawn works with companies to simplify the hiring process, improve onboarding and build stronger talent pipelines.

In this conversation, Dawn explains why so many manufacturing jobs stay open for months, how employers can stop chasing the so-called perfect candidate and start hiring for trainability, and why speed, communication and better onboarding can make a dramatic difference in both acceptance and retention. We also discuss how automation fits into workforce strategy, why more people still fall into manufacturing instead of planning for it and what companies can do right now to build more inclusive, effective hiring processes.

If you're a plant manager, hiring manager or manufacturing leader trying to improve recruiting and retention, this episode offers practical advice you can put to work right away.

ASSEMBLY: Dawn, thanks for being here. First tell us a bit about the webinar…

DAWN FICHTER: So, on April 22 at 2 o'clock, I'm going to be sharing recruiting basics that work for hiring managers. We're going to be talking about better interviews, onboarding for retention, expanding your talent pool and, in general, taking a look at the processes you have in place.

ASSEMBLY: Fantastic. Well, we're all looking forward to that, and I think we're going to learn a lot. So today's first question: Manufacturing still has about half a million unfilled jobs in the U.S. From what you're seeing, what are hiring managers misunderstanding about why these roles remain open?

DAWN FICHTER: Again, it's not necessarily a people shortage. Time and time again, what I find is that it's a process and expectation problem. You wouldn't start building a new tool or a new piece without having a plan, without having blueprints and without having established tests that show those processes work. I think hiring needs to be very much like that.

We also find that a lot of times hiring managers have overly rigid requirements. They're holding out for that perfect candidate. Maybe this is something that has been done this way for many years, and this is what's always worked, so this is what we're going to look for. But a lot of times, it's not necessarily the perfect candidate they should be looking for. It should be somebody who's trainable. That's a complete mind shift when you're looking at who you're going to bring in.

Speed is another thing that kills hiring in any industry right now. If you take longer than a couple of days to bring someone in for an interview or even to contact them, chances are you're going to miss out on that candidate. So those are the types of things I like to look at. What are your processes? Are you taking too long? Are you looking for this perfect, ideal candidate that doesn't exist? Or should you be flipping that and looking for soft skills? Maybe you can find somebody who is trainable and has transferable skills that will be good in your industry.

The other thing we kind of find, too, is that sometimes there's misalignment within the organization. HR has one idea, the plant has another idea and leadership has its own perspective on what it's looking for. Are we all looking at the same results? Are we all looking at the same type of candidate and what is going to fit? Making sure the departments and the people in the process are aligned is also a huge piece.

And also, you know, laundry lists as opposed to clear lists of what we're looking for. Simplifying it for candidates when they're in the process of looking, because it's as much work for them as it is for us trying to find people. So making sure they truly know what you're looking for quickly, and that you're responding to them in a timely way, are definitely big things. I always say if your roles are open for months and months, it's not the market, it's your process.

ASSEMBLY: Yeah, that's true. Sometimes if you're looking for a job, you see the same position posted continuously, and you're like, why is this still open?

DAWN FICHTER: Exactly. And that's something else that I like to take a look at with folks, even just the jobs and the postings themselves. Starting at the very beginning and making sure you're doing things correctly from the beginning can definitely help speed up the process.

ASSEMBLY: Oh, that's nice. So automation is often discussed as a productivity tool, but it's increasingly being used as a response to labor shortages. How should manufacturers think about automation as part of their hiring and workforce strategy, not just as a technology decision?

DAWN FICHTER: That's a great question, and that's a huge one that comes up a lot. Automation should support your workforce. It should not replace your thinking about your workforce. I like to say that automation is not a hiring strategy, it's a capacity strategy.

I use automation. I love it. It's great when you have a lot of candidates applying and you want to make sure that you reach out to them. Putting some automation in place there can cut down on the time it takes you to get to people and allow you to reach more people, which obviously helps build your pipeline. But you're still going to put eyes on every application. It doesn't hide a bad hiring process. It doesn't hide training gaps. It doesn't hide turnover or bad onboarding.

Sometimes we see automation and think that if we put it in place, it's going to fix the problem. But ultimately, we still need to make sure we're addressing all the other issues and using it as a tool, not as a replacement. Automation doesn't hide broken hiring. It just hides it for a while, if that makes sense.

ASSEMBLY: No, that does make sense. That's very good advice. So when manufacturers say they're looking for skilled workers, what skills actually matter most today, and where do companies tend to set the bar too high or in the wrong places?

DAWN FICHTER: Yeah, that's another great point. A couple of years ago I was actually talking to a plant manager, and he said, “I cannot find machine operators.” And he meant manual machine operators, which is obviously very different. There are different titles and different responsibilities and duties. I know a lot of schools aren't teaching that, so we addressed it by saying, great, stop looking for that exact phrase on resumes, and start looking for candidates who have skills you can teach and train.

I would say the top skills you're looking for are more soft skills. Are they reliable? Are they coachable? Are they going to be able to take constructive criticism when you're teaching them and use that to grow and do better? Do they have the basic aptitude?

So instead of looking for a very high-level manual machinist who also needs to be able to do CNC and all these other things, maybe you're looking for somebody who has applicable experience but can learn the other pieces. I think that's where we miss a lot of people, because managers are looking for the resume to read like a laundry list and match the job description, and they're very much not going to find that most of the time.

A lot of times the best candidates are not even people the hiring manager would have first looked at. We're looking for those other indicators that are going to lead them to being good candidates. Most technical skills can be trained. It's the mindset you can't train. Either somebody is mechanically minded and can pick up and learn the things, or they're not.

If you're looking only for specific technical skills, you're going to miss a lot of people who could be a really good fit for you. Also, if you're changing the mindset and looking for folks who have that growth mindset and can grow into the role, those are also the kinds of people who down the road could grow into manager roles. So you might also be looking at succession planning.

What happens is companies are often looking for the wrong kinds of skills when it comes to technical versus soft skills. They're also stuck in that old mindset of, this is how we've always done it. This person needs to come in, they need to have all this experience and they need to be able to start immediately. So we're requiring experience on jobs that could actually be entry level or adjacent to entry level.

On the flip side, we see someone with 20 years of machining experience and just assume they can do all the other things without really digging in during the interview and screening process to find out if they have the soft skills and if they're going to be able to adjust. Sometimes the shift is just to hire for trajectory, not necessarily experience.

I've told you this before: stop hiring for who they are now or where they were. Start hiring for who they can become and what they can do for you.

ASSEMBLY: There was a study that came out a few weeks ago, and I actually wrote an article about it back on March 23, about how people don't necessarily plan on going into manufacturing careers. They sort of fall into them. I think a lot of what you just spoke about lines up with that. Do you have any insight as to why that might be?

DAWN FICHTER: I do, actually. I think there was a shift at some point. I don't even know when exactly, but I remember the shift. You're in school, and they're asking you what you want to be on Career Day. Then you're in high school, and everything is geared toward getting you ready to go to college.

There was a period where we just stopped talking about moving into these roles, into the trades and into manufacturing as a good career path. Instead, everything you were doing as a student was positioned around getting you ready to go to college. So people got this mindset, and it was almost like it was somehow less than to want to go into these roles.

So someone might take a role at a factory because they have a friend or a family member or a parent who works there, and they think, I'll get a job here, but ultimately I'm going to use this money to go to college. That replaced the older mindset of, this is a company I can retire from, or this is a company where I can gain a ton of experience.

That mind shift just kind of happened, and I think we're finally getting back to where we're telling young people, go into the trades. We now have a lot more vocational programs and things like that. When I was in school, and I'm not going to age myself, I think there was auto mechanics, woodworking and maybe one other option. The rest were more geared toward nursing or other fields. Vocational options just weren't as broad as they should have been. Now I feel like there are more options. And I think we're also finally getting back to where we're stopping the message that every high school student has to go to college.

We're starting to ask what people actually want to do. We've seen growth in STEM programs and in showing that you can combine education and experience and build careers in these kinds of roles. I've seen in this industry where people come from an engineering background and then move into more mechanical roles, and that's a nice transition for them.

The other thing, too, and I think it ties into this, is that people may say they fell into manufacturing because most employees today only stay about two to four years on average. Thirty years ago, you got a job and stayed. My dad worked for Automated Packaging for 38 years. You just don't see that anymore. People get to a point where they're done with a job, or they feel like they need to move on, or they're not getting what they need.

So sometimes we see people saying, “I fell into manufacturing. I want to switch industries and try something else,” instead of saying, “I chose this,” or “I was guided into this,” and “This is something where I see growth.” I think continuing to talk about manufacturing as a growth opportunity, and showing all the different things that can be done and how much ties into it, will help make these careers more desirable. I have definitely heard people say that, so I can relate to that “I fell into it” mentality as well.

It also affects interviews. If that's the mindset you have, and you're part of the interview process, is that coming across? We'll talk about it in the webinar, but the interview is so key. The people conducting the interview need to be bought in. If they are telling candidates, “I just fell into this,” that's part of the problem too. That also factors into growth within the industry.

ASSEMBLY: Oh, absolutely. And you hear about it today, now that AI is replacing a lot of these entry-level roles in traditional fields that people go to college for. They come out of college and now nobody is going to hire them because those jobs are going to artificial intelligence. So it's an interesting shift that's happening on that front too.

DAWN FICHTER: Oh yeah. I saw a post not too long ago about a massive number—something like 60 million jobs within the next three years could be replaced by AI. And you're right, those are a lot of entry-level office-type roles: customer service, reception and all that can be done with AI.

On the flip side of that, we need to do a better job of making sure people in school and people entering the workforce understand that there are other options and that they can go into other industries and fields, even taking some of the soft skills they already have. I think smart companies are going to realize that they need to branch out in who they're looking at and maybe look at some of those people and see what other skills they may have.

I know a lot of people who are in customer service roles who would be amazing in logistics roles or maybe working in warehousing. There's definitely room for some of these folks to make switches. But yeah, it's going to be very interesting over the next three to four years to see that shift. Hopefully we're doing the right things in schools and preparing them and giving them those other options.

ASSEMBLY: One can hope so. For plant managers competing for a limited talent pool, what are the most effective changes they can make to recruiting and onboarding that actually improve acceptance and retention?

DAWN FICHTER: Perfect. This is really the meat of what I talk about. These are the things we can do to make changes, and a lot of times small organizational changes can produce big results.

Some of the things we'll talk about in the webinar, and that I talk about with clients all the time, start with speed. You don't always realize that the person who applied for your job on Indeed—or whatever platform, I don't want to promote one over another—has probably also applied for multiple jobs. Chances are they didn’t just see your job and thought, oh my gosh, this is a perfect job at the perfect company, I need to apply today. They are not likely to wait around while your process drags on.

Their stress is up. They're looking for a job for a reason. They may be trying to support their family or improve their lifestyle. So we have to keep all that in mind. Speed is a huge factor, and I think that's the biggest thing we can change immediately. How quickly are we getting back to candidates? How quickly are we bringing them in?

When I was in executive recruiting, I talked to multiple candidates who were getting ready for long, full-service interview processes. Then another company brought them in, they liked the company, they had only a couple of interviews, and they took the job because they didn't want to go through the longer process. So sometimes simplicity is the quickest fix you can make.

Sometimes it's communication. We want to make sure we're communicating with candidates just like they are communicating with us. When I talk to companies that are having issues and ask how they can compete, the real question is not about competing with HR or another company. It's about thinking through what has changed for the people applying on the other side. What has changed since the last time you looked for a job, or the last time your organization had to bring in people? What can you adjust to be more accommodating in a way that makes sense to them?

And I always tell folks, if people are not staying within that first week or two, you don't have a retention problem, you have a training problem. Or an onboarding problem. Do you have any training for them to come into? There are lots of things we can look at there too. It really depends on where they're losing people in the process.

If they're not even getting people to apply, then again, let's go back to the beginning. Let's look at your job descriptions. Let's look at your postings. Then let's look at your interview process. A lot of times it's very simple fixes. I think what happens is companies have systems in place that worked for a very long time, but they have become antiquated. So again, having a plan, and if we find out something isn't working, making sure we can adjust that plan.

It's really not that you're necessarily competing. You want to make your offering the best that you possibly can and present yourself in the best way so a candidate says, that's an organization I want to work with. I would say how you sell to somebody is how you're going to serve them. If you have a long, complicated interview and hiring process, what is a candidate going to think their first few days, or first few weeks, are going to look like? People have a lot of choices. They want to make sure they're being treated well.

So it's not necessarily compensation or benefits alone. A lot of companies want to jump to, “We'll just offer more money.” That's great, but if the process and everything else doesn't work, then throwing more money at it doesn't really solve anything. It might buy you a little more time, but that's it.

ASSEMBLY: You mentioned people quitting in the first 30 days. How common is that?

DAWN FICHTER: You might be surprised. A lot of times when I talk to companies, they think the problem is recruiting or filling the pipeline. It's not always identifying people. It's people leaving within the first 30 days.

There is a statistic I like to share: employees who have a structured onboarding experience are far more likely to stay longer than six months. First impression is everything, and that is 1,000-percent true when it comes to employees.

Sometimes in manufacturing or service-industry jobs, where people are not coming into a desk job with a welcome setup and all that, companies don't realize those people still need structure. They need to feel welcome. They need to know what they're doing, and they need support right there in front of them, just like somebody going into any other position.

You wouldn't want to go to camp and not know anybody, not know where your cabin is and see everybody else going down to swim while you don't even know where to put your suitcase. So you want to keep that in mind. In that first 30 days, everything is still new. They're not seasoned yet. They're still getting to know you. They're still figuring out where everything is located. You want to make sure that process is good.

So yes, I do see companies losing people in that first 30 days, and I tell them if they leave within that first 30 days, it's an onboarding issue, and that's the process we need to address. I talk about this in the webinar too, because I have some tips and some things I like to point out that are good processes to put in place. It is actually a bigger problem than people realize.

ASSEMBLY: No, that's a fascinating problem. I just can't imagine getting a job and then quitting within the first 30 days. But I guess if you go to a place and find out it's chaotic and you're not getting a lot of support, that might happen.

DAWN FICHTER: Yeah. Funny story, I'll just throw this at you real quick. I've been in staffing for a long, long time, and it takes me more than two hands to count the number of candidates I have had, or known of, who started a job and did not even make it to the end of the first day. They left at lunch, or they went on break and never came back. Literally.

Out of the thousands of people I have helped, I can tell you that it is actually more common than you realize. These are folks who are just going to leave and you're not even going to hear back from them. Nine times out of ten, they're not going to give you feedback and tell you why they left. But yes, it does happen.

ASSEMBLY: I'm going to lunch. See you never!

So if manufacturers want to build stronger, more diverse teams over the long term, what needs to change in how they recruit, train and develop people, starting right now?

DAWN FICHTER: Starting right now, I love this topic. I love talking about this. I actually got into Tools 4 Hiring when I was working on my master's because I realized there is a lot of discrimination in the hiring process. Most of it is not intentional, but it's there, and it's keeping companies from bringing in more people.

My role, and what I wanted to do, was cut down on discrimination in the hiring process to improve hiring outcomes. I think, or at least I hope, we know that in 2026 the more diverse your team is, the more successful it will be. It improves access, points of view and things like that.

And I always joke, if your workforce looks all the same, your hiring process probably does too.

This could be a whole other hour, and I will go over some of this in the webinar too, but the biggest thing I have people look at immediately is their job descriptions, interview questions and where they're recruiting from. A lot of times we use phrases and words in interviews or job descriptions that are off-putting to certain groups. For example, the word “seasoned.” I used it earlier and I shouldn't have. If you say you're looking for seasoned employees, well, we're not chicken. What you really want is a certain amount of years of experience. So make sure you're advertising yourself and your job in a way that is more inclusive and that more people are going to read and say, that applies to me.

Or using phrases that feel like boys' club language or gendered language. Simple switches like that can be very effective. I also look at where people are recruiting. Do you just post online and that's it? You might want to expand. There are community organizations, trade programs and Second Chance hiring opportunities.

The other thing we want to talk about is rethinking requirements. I see this a lot lately, where companies say, okay, I'm not getting what I'm looking for, let's go back and revamp what I'm actually requiring. You should only have a couple of hard requirements and then maybe three or four nice-to-haves. Everything else should be optional or nonessential.

If we cut down the number of degrees or certifications we require, that's going to broaden the number of people who apply. If we go back to that mindset of someone saying, I kind of fell into manufacturing, I was initially going to go to college, but I didn't, and now I'm working in manufacturing, they may look at a job and think, I can't apply because I don't have that certification. So making more things optional and more attainable can help.

And in general, think about building a more inclusive environment and culture. If you have a diverse hiring team, you're going to attract more diverse candidates. If somebody comes in and they're speaking with four different people and every single person they talk to is, let's just say, a white male, they may not feel represented or comfortable in that environment.

Those are the kinds of things we can take a look at that can make an immediate impact. But overall, I would say the first thing is to take a look at your job posting. Who are you appealing to? Then look at who is interviewing these folks. Are those people representative of your company, and can they also help broaden that perspective? That is definitely a topic that is near and dear to my heart.

ASSEMBLY: Dawn, thank you so much for being here. Join Dawn’s webinar on April 22 at 2 p.m. ET right here on Assemblymag.com. Thank you, to all of your – our listeners – for joining us on ASSEMBLY Audible. I hope you’ll tune in again soon.