Why Confusing Meat Thermometers with Q-tips is a Bad Idea

In his comedy routines, "Blue Collar Comedy" star Bill Engvall includes a segment called "Here's Your Sign."  The bit involves reciting questions that are so completely ridiculous you want to hang a sign around the person's neck that simply says, "I'm stupid." 

And while we've all put our foot in our collective mouths at one time or another - and in some cases probably worried about choking on our neckties if we had managed to push them in far enough - every once in a while someone comes along who asks something so completely over the top we're left to wonder just what planet they think they're living on. (Yes, I'm ending a sentence with a preposition here - it's Monday...)

What brings this to mind is a conversation I had last week with a recruiter that left me wondering if I had slipped into an episode of "The Twilight Zone."  (No, seriously, I was expecting Rod Serling to walk out at any moment...)  The conversation went something like this:

Recruiter:  It sounds as though this may be a good match, so we'd like to bring you in for a face-to-face interview next week.  How does [DATE] and [TIME] look?

Me:  (Checking calendar)  I can't on that date. I have another interview -

Recruiter:  You're interviewing with other companies?

Me:  (Thinking) Why, no, genius!  I'm just spending all of my time sitting here at home waiting for YOUR call!

Now, think about this for a moment.  What kind of unbelievably ludicrous question is this?  I honestly can't think of a metaphor that would do it justice since I think it would be an insult to whichever collective group I compared this sort of thought process to.  (Yep, there goes another sentence ending with a preposition - on a roll today, baby!) 

As I recall, I somehow managed to give what I thought was an appropriately professional (but clearly undeserved) answer, "Well, just as I'm sure you're interviewing other candidates for this position to make sure they're a good fit, I'm looking at different opportunities with different firms to make sure I find a fit that's right for me."  But after I got off the phone, I wondered what would have been an appropriate put-down for such an obviously moronic question.  These were the best I could come up with, but by all means feel free to share your own.

1. "Okay, please tell me how it is that YOU'RE employed while I'M out of work."
2. "Isn't it a little early to be hitting the sauce already, sir?"
3. "You confused meat thermometers and Q-tips again, didn't you?"
4. "Before I answer that, can you tell me what was on 'Barney and Friends' yesterday?"  Reply:  "Isn't that a children's show?"  Zinger:  "You mean I'm NOT talking to a four-year old?"
5. "Wow.  So THIS is the kind of damage one extra chromosome causes..."
6. "You know, sir, most states prohibit relations between family members for good reason, but your question makes me think enforcement of this law really needs to be stepped up..."
7. "Can you please tell me what kind of car you drive?  I want to make sure I keep a look out for someone going the wrong way on a one-way..."
8. "Sir, you sound like what my friends call a 'two-neuron' type."  Reply:  "What's that?"  Zinger:  "Well, you've got just enough there to form a synapse..."
9. "Have you ever seen those bumper stickers that say, 'The gene pool needs more chlorine.'?" 
10. "You sound like someone who should play golf in the rain more often..."

Friday Funnies

Yes, after a week of networking events, phone interviews, face-to-face conversations, e-mails, and general scheduling mayhem, it's good to relax with a cup of coffee and a few jokes as you prepare for the weekend.  Enjoy! 


****

A man applies for a job as a salesman with a company.  While his resume is impressive, the manager is put off by the man's constant winking.  "I'd love to hire you," he tells the salesman.  "But to be honest, your winking is a bit disturbing, and I'm afraid it will upset potential customers."

"No problem," says the salesman.  "Let me take some aspirin and that will stop the winking." 

He reaches into his coat pocket and pulls out several condoms, spilling them all over the desk.  After several more seconds, he finds the aspirin and pops two tablets.  Within seconds, his winking stops.

"Well, now I KNOW I can't hire you," says the manager.  "What's with all the condoms?"

"Oh, that," says the salesman. "Ever walked into a pharmacy and asked for aspirin while winking?"

****

True Story:  Hyman Rickover, aka the "father of the nuclear navy" liked to challenge candidates during job interviews.  "I want people who aren't afraid to tell me what I don't want to hear," Rickover often said.

During one interview with a young officer, Rickover mentioned he wanted people who weren't afraid to challenge him.  "P*ss me off, if you can," Rickover told the officer.

The young man thought for a moment, and then with a sweep of his arm knocked every item off the admiral's desk. 

Rickover's face reportedly turned purple.  "You got the job," he said. 

****

A vacuum cleaner salesman (yes, it's pick-on-salespeople week here at Modern Sisyphus) stops by an elderly woman's condominium.  When she opens the door, he pushes past her and promptly throws cow manure all over the carpet.

"Madam," he tells the startled woman.  "If this vacuum cleaner doesn't clear all that up in a jiffy, I'll buy you a new carpet!"

"I hope so," the old woman says.  "My electricity was turned off this morning!"

What if Application Letters Were Written Like Rejection Letters?

Once upon a time, before the Internet, job seekers would desperately tear open envelopes with companies' return addresses on them in hopes of seeing the word, "Congratulations" or "We are pleased to offer..."

More often than not, they groaned at the opener, "Dear Applicant..."

And that got me to thinking - never a good thing, I'll be the first to admit - but what if applicants wrote letters with the same attentiveness that companies write rejection letters?  What if we sent out the same mindless form letters and generic correspondence that firms use when telling people, "Sorry, Charlie!" 

I can hear the push-back now.  "That's not fair!  Companies have to write hundreds of these letters.  There's no way they can possibly personalize them all!"  Well, guess what?  By my count, I've probably applied to well over 300 jobs over the past year, and so have many of my colleagues in the unemployment line.  Yet to my knowledge, we've all personalized each and every outreach letter because, well, that's just the way it's done. 

But what if it weren't that way?  What if an applicant could show the same level of courtesy and attention to a prospective employer that the employer shows the applicant?  What if the playing field was truly a level one?  (While I'm at it, what if we had world peace and a life of abundance?  But I digress...)  Maybe then we could write letters such as these...


Dear EMPLOYER:

Thank you for recently advertising the position that you are planning to fill from within.  Due to the volume of positions I am applying for, I regret I am not able to offer a personalized letter of application. 

After reviewing a number of advertised positions with area companies, I have decided that your firm best fits my hiring needs.  Please know that this was not an easy decision and that it was only reached after careful consideration and evaluation.  Therefore, I am attaching the requisite resume that is as generic as this correspondence and which has not been crafted or customized in any way.  Please consider me for employment with your firm.

Thank you for your interest in my candidacy.  I wish you well in your future endeavors.

Sincerely,


A Job Candidate

Employer Applications: An Idea Whose Time Has Come?

Ah, yes.  The dreaded job application - every candidate's guaranteed eye-roller.  ("Please summarize the last 20 years of your life, including every supervisor you've ever had, the dates for every job you've ever had, any gaps between employment, making sure to translate your past experiences into ones we can relate to using our keywords and phrases...")  The only thing perhaps more cumbersome and complex is your annual 1040 tax form. 

But, as with taxes, the form is a must - but why is it only the candidate who must fill one out?  Granted, it's the candidate who is applying for the job, but shouldn't you as that candidate be entitled to the very same information about your prospective employer?  What's THEIR greatest weakness or failure?  What was the CEO's SAT scores in high school and his or her GPA?  If the company is going to run a credit and criminal background check on you - and you can rest assured that they probably will - shouldn't you be able to know if the CEO is making his child support payments to his third ex-wife?

With that in mind, here's a proposed template for employers' applications - feel free to copy and forward.  Or, better still, offer some suggestions of your own.

Application for Employer Consideration

Name of Company:

CEO:

Please attach a transcript that includes the CEO's GPA and relevant scholastic achievements.  This can include (but is not limited to) SAT, GRE, GMAT scores.

Supervisor's Name:

Please attach a transcript that includes the supervisor's GPA and relevant scholastic achievements.  This can include (but is not limited to) SAT, GRE, and GMAT scores.

Names of Internal Candidates Who Want This Job and Who Will Likely Resent Me if I Get It:

In the space below, please provide answers to the following questions:

1.  What is the average length of employment with your firm?

2.  What is the biggest strength of working here?  What is the biggest drawback?  Explain.

3.  Where do you see this company in 3-5 years?  Why?

4.  Please describe your firm's bigggest failure(s).  What did you learn from the experience? 

5.  How many of your supervisors have been referred for anger management training in the last twelve months?

6.  Which of the following have occurred in the last five years?

a.  Lawsuit

b.  Settlement

c.  Downsizing or Restructuring

d.  Buyout Consideration

e.  Pay or Hiring Freezes

f.  Workplace Incident(s)

7.  What is the rate of turnover in this position?  Why?

8.  What is the vesting period for 401(k)?  (Please note question #7 above.)

9.  Number of supervisors who have signed diversity pledges but who only hire people like themselves:

10.  In the space below, please provide the names of five (5) former employees willing to discuss their experiences with your firm:
a.____________
b.____________
c.____________
d.____________
e.____________

Jobspeak: Learning to Translate Interview Questions

When I was in college, one of our textbooks included a humorous series of statements and translations about what the professor says vs. what s/he actually means.  For instance, "The grades were a bit below my expectations" could be translated as "Where was the party the other night, people?" 

That got me to thinking, "Is there a translation for what an interviewer asks vs. what he or she really means?  And if so, what would that translation look like, exactly?" 

So, with that in mind, here are a few starters:


Tell me a little about yourself.
Please summarize your life story in 90 seconds as it relates to this job.

What's your biggest weakness?
Please sabotage your chances during this interview. 

Tell us about a time when you had a conflict with someone in the workplace.
We want to make sure you're mentally stable.

Tell me about a time you experienced a setback or failed at something.
Pretend I'm Barbara Walters and we're on one of my specials.

Where do you see yourself in five years?
I've been here for four years.

Why are you interested in leaving your present job?
What are you running from?

Is there anything that would prevent you from overtime if it's required?This is the only legal way we can ask about your family situation.

What do you know about our company?
Have you checked our Web site? 

Yes, as with anything, communication is the art of the graceful attempt at compromise.  As anyone who's ever had a disagreement with a spouse or significant other, what is said by one is not always what is heard by another...

Friday Funnies

Yes, after a week of job interviews and networking, it's fun to kick back and enjoy a few good jokes - or in this case, whatever passes for 'em.  Enjoy!


True story:  The next time you have a bad job interview, remember you probably have it better than some other poor souls.  For instance, a friend of mine was once running late for an interview.  He pulled on the new suit he'd bought for the occasion, jumped into his new shoes, tied his new tie, and ran out the door.  Sprinting across the lawn, he jumped into his car and sped toward the interview.  Not more than a few minutes later, he noticed a terrible stench in the air.  Glancing around, he tried unsuccessfully to locate the source.  Then a thought hit him.  "Oh, no...." he thought, pulling the car over.  Leaning under the dashboard, he checked:  Sure enough, he'd stepped in dog droppings as he left the yard...


A young real estate agent was showing an elderly gentleman around a new condo unit.  "Best of all, Mr. Johnson," he said.  "This is a sound future investment that will only grow in value." The old man looked at him.  "Sonny," he said.  "At my age, I don't even buy green bananas!"


"A job interview is a lot like a first date, only without the threat of sex at the end."

- Jerry Seinfeld

Pros and Cons of "Practice" Interviewing

A recruiter I know recently gave a presentation to a networking group where she pleaded to everyone, "On behalf of recruiters everywhere, I beg you, please don't interview for practice.  Only interview when you want the job."  I could certainly see her point.  After all, if I were a recruiter and I spent countless hours searching for candidates, preparing them for interviews, talking them up with the company, and getting them in the door for multiple interviews only to have them turn around after all that effort and say, "No thanks!  Just kidding!" I'd probably be pretty tempted to heave something against the wall (or in their general direction) myself.

There's just one problem:  Companies do this all the time. 

And no, two wrongs don't make for a right, and if a practice is wrong for a firm it's certainly wrong for a job-seeker.  But as readers of this blog know, many firms leave zombie job descriptions online even if they're in a hiring freeze or have no plans to fill a particular position.  Others - particularly large consulting firms - regularly interview for "fit" as part of a rolling or ongoing process to keep their fingers on the pulse of available talent.  Once the screening process is complete and "fit" is determined, the company then looks to see if there is an opening that would fit that particular candidate or fill a particular need on a project.  If no such fit exists, the candidate is told, "Thanks for playing!  Please keep checking our Web site..."  And that's the end of that.

Leaving aside the frustration on the candidate's part - all that preparation, research, practice, gradually elevated levels of expectation - such practices don't really put the companies that utilize them in the best possible light, either.  Firms that burn too many candidates in this manner can quickly become blacklisted on informal networks and risk having their brand name tarnished in the blogosphere. 

Perhaps the best thing that can be said is that interested candidates should stick to mock interviews with friends and associates.  And companies should learn to be up front with candidates when interviewing them about whether there is an actual position waiting for them at the end of the process or if the entire series of conversations is simply speculative. 

A little honesty might go a long way. 

A Dad Looks at Transition - Humorously

Earlier this week I attended a networking session at a local church.  One of the openers was this amusing clip one father put together with his daughters - I don't know if it's worked for him yet, but if it does, I think a lot of people will be wanting to star with them in their own visual resumes.  Suffice it to say you just can't compete with cute kids.

The clip is called "In Transition" and can be viewed on You Tube here.

When It's HR Who's Asking the Wrong Questions...

As I've already told a number of people, I started this blog after reading one too many articles about all the things candidates were doing wrong in their job interviews.  Nobody, it seemed, had anything to say about what companies were frequently doing to turn off their prospective employees, and after one too many negative experiences myself, I figured the time had come for someone to put some examples and notes together to (hopefully) level the playing field of gripes just a tiny bit.

Boy, was I ever dreaming.

A few weeks ago, I was at a happy hour with some former colleagues and one commented about how life was different when she started in the workforce a number of years ago.  (How many she did not say, but out of respect for her privacy I'll mention neither her name nor her age, basically because I don't know her exact age but do know better than to ask...keep reading)  Anyway, she mentioned how when she started that it was not atypical for a woman to be asked - point blank, mind you - "You don't plan to get pregnant and have children, do you?" during a job interview. 

Granted, nowadays the closest a company can come to asking about parenting issues conflicting with job demands is to say, "Is there anything that would prevent you from being able to fulfill your duties in this job if it requires occasional overtime or extensive travel?"  We all know that this is doublespeak for "Do you have kids?" but the law's the law as far as this kind of questioning is concerned, so such is life.

But not more than a few days later, I got a bomb dropped on me.  I was at another networking group meeting, and one of the women - I'll call her "Ashley" - related that she was actually asked how old she was during a phone interview.  The interviewer even prefaced the question with, "I know this is not legal, but I have to ask..."

Now, here's where I'm not sure which point of Ashley's story is the most interesting.  One one hand, the question itself is so blatantly politically incorrect (to say nothing of illegal and discriminatory) that it boggles the mind.  But here's some more fuel for the fire:  The person who asked the question was the HR representative for the company.  As if that were not enough, here's the final kicker:  The person asking the question was herself another woman. 

Granted, I may admittedly be as thick-headed from time to time as the next person, but I seem to remember being advised long ago that there were certain topics that were taboo in polite conversation, and asking a woman her age was pretty much toward the top of the list.  (Although I suspect asking her about her weight would undoubtedly rank even higher...)  What's most surprising about this story is it's difficult to determine which aspect is most puzzling - was it the fact that the questioner was herself female, that she was in HR, or that she asked such a blatantly improper question in the first place?  It boggles the mind, if "boggle" can indeed be a verb.

On the other hand, ask anyone in the workforce (or who's trying desperately to re-enter it) and you'll probably find all sorts of slyly camouflaged questions that seek to skirt around (note word choice here) legal and sensitive issues.  In that respect, learning to deal with the occasional impropriety (or illegality) to a large extent comes with the job market.  But it does represent yet another "facepalm" moment if you're a candidate doing your very best to appear qualified and professional only to have something so directly inappropriate and irrelevant thrown directly in your face.  ("For this I got all dressed up and prepared today???")

Then again, sometimes even stories as these have the occasional happier ending.  For instance, Ashley advised us last week that she landed a new job and will start next week - with the same company whose representative asked her that inappropriate question...

To Slater or Not to Slater, That is the Question...

Every so often a fluff story comes along that captures everyone's attention for a few weeks and then fades into obscurity.  (Remember the sneezing baby panda on YouTube?)  This week, we have someone who has rapidly become a hero to anyone who's ever reached the breaking point from dealing with difficult people.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Mr. Steven Slater, public hero.

For those who haven't heard the story - both of you out there - Slater is the JetBlue attendant who reportedly snapped after dealing with one unruly passenger too many.  After telling the passenger to sit down because the plane hadn't stopped at the gate, Slater was reportedly cursed and ignored by the offending passenger.  (Granted, we've all wondered about the stifling rules regarding this or that on a plane, but hey, a rule's a rule and hardly worth snapping out over in most cases.)  When he rose to confront the passenger, the passenger - again, reportedly here - yanked his luggage from the overhead compartment and conked Slater on the head.

That was the last straw. 

Slater reportedly went to the intercom, swore at the passenger, and resigned on the spot.  He deployed the plane's emergency chute to make good his escape but not before stopping on the way out to grab a couple of beers.  Ta-da!

Why has this story captured the public's attention?  Simply put, everyone identifies with Slater.  Who hasn't dealt with a jerk on the job and gritted his (or her) teeth in frustration?  Dealt with an unruly boss who chewed them out over something completely beyond their control?  Handled one obnoxious customer too many on a given day and felt the end of the rope slipping past? 

But there's something about air travel - perhaps the tension associated with sitting inside a pressurized metal tube tens of thousands of feet in the air in confined and cramped spaces - that seems to bring out the worst in people.  In my own case just last week on a flight, I watched some jerk open the overhead bin and cram his too-big-to-fit-but-by-God-I'm-going-to-MAKE-it-fit suitcase into the overhead compartment.  That wasn't enough for Mr. Self Important, however; he also had a second leather bag that he decided was simply too big to fit beneath the seat in front of him, so he decided to jam that in as well.  When my duffel bag got in his way, he simply pounded and punched it without any regard until he could sandwich his obviously-much-more-important leather suitcase into place.  (Thankfully, I had only clothes and small unbreakables in the bag, but God forbid anyone else's luggage should have gotten in Mr. Important's way.)  Afterward, he took off his blazer and smoothed it over the top of everyone else's bags and closed the compartment. How nice he was to share his personal storage space with the rest of us.

But anyone who has ever flown - attendant or passenger - has dealt with this sort of rude, obnoxious behavior.  Who hasn't cringed watching the overweight passenger heading toward them with a couple of double-bean burritos from Taco Bell crammed under his arm and thought, "Oh, boy, this is going to be a looong flight...I wonder, can they deploy the air masks in non-emergency situations?"  Had to listen the crying baby for hours on end and found your sympathy for the obviously-trying parent slipping away despite your best intentions to be "understanding?"  Endured the body odor and bad breath of someone beside you and thought, "You know, there's a reason why God gave man knowledge about personal hygiene, buddy..."

And it applies to every workplace.  How many HP employees will likely now have to be made to sit through another mandatory workplace seminar on sexual harassment because of what may-or-may-not have happened between Mark Hurd and Jodie Fisher?  (Side note:  It's nothing short of hilarious that Ms. Fisher now claims she didn't want Hurd to lose his job.  I mean, that makes perfect sense when you consider she hired professional spotlight-chaser Gloria Allred to be her attorney.  Obviously, maximizing the potential for damaging publicity in order to secure a large settlement was the last thing on her mind...)  Told they have to shoulder still more responsibilities because of layoffs?  Been given the thankless task of organizing another "Take Our Child to Work" day series of activities nobody wants to do because it interferes with what they're actually being paid to do? 

Everybody feels for Steven Slater.  Simply put, he did what everyone has probably at one time or another wanted to do; but rather than resort to violence, he went out in what can only be considered a hilarious style.  Kudos.

Testing the Waters

An acquaintance of mine happens to have an upcoming interview with the same firm I'm interviewing with on Friday.  We're both in the same line of work, but neither of us is too worried that we'll be competing against each other.

That's because neither of us expects this firm to be hiring at all any time soon.

If that sounds strange, think again. As I pointed out last month in my warning about "zombies" ("Beware the Undead Job Description" - July 28) it is increasingly common for companies to interview candidates even if they have no position available to offer them.  The candidate comes in expecting to have a shot at an actual job, maybe gets called back once or twice more, and then gets told that while his/her qualifications are "outstanding," the firm "just doesn't have a match at this time."  What gives?

Well, for starters, most companies - particularly the larger ones - tie their hiring plans to their projected growth.  This is another way of saying that if you think you'll have more work next quarter, you want to make sure you're doing your best to hire today.  From the DC job market perspective, this means if you're expecting to land several million dollars in federal contracting work, you need to make sure you're staffed and ready to go.  That means hiring now vs. later so you're not scrambling to meet deadlines once deliverables start coming due.

But what if you're not sure about next quarter?  That's the multi-million dollar question.  If companies are unsure what their needs will be, they may still interview to "test the waters" and see what kind of talent is available, but that doesn't mean that they're necessarily looking to hire right away or even that they will be hiring at all.  They just want to know what's out there right now so if they need to grab someone quickly, they have a talent pool to select from. 

On some level, this makes professional sense; but on another, it's terribly misleading to the poor candidate who probably gets his/her hopes up about an impending offer - especially if they've been out of work for a number of months and find themselves quickly moving through the interview process - only to be let down at the end.  If companies were more honest about this approach, it might help clear up any potentially damaging misconceptions.  On the other hand, candidates might just as well feel justified in refusing any interviews that aren't tied to actual positions companies look to fill since this means time taken away from preparing for and pursuing actual openings elsewhere. 

Bottom line: It would be nice if companies that plan to interview could at least inform candidates up front if they are being considered for actual positions or merely being screened for possible "fits" in the event openings occur down the line.  If nothing else, it would certainly be a refreshing sense of honesty and perhaps even improve the quality of any discussions that take place.

Advice for the Modern Job Seeker

(Editor's note:  Last month I published a post about how the job market is still in a deep freeze due to government spending and the fear it's causing among businesses.  Today no less an authority than the WSJ published an editorial by a business owner lamenting how high costs for compliance with new regulations and taxes are preventing him from hiring new people & actually making him wonder how many current employees he can retain. To paraphrase Bruce Willis from "Die Hard," I hate it when I'm right.  However, since the purpose of this blog is both to track what it's like in today's job market while still maintaining a humorous outlook - or whatever can pass for one these days - I hereby offer some advice for the prospective job seeker.  Feel free to suggest your own as well.)  


1.  Remember, no matter how nice of a guy he is, your parole officer should not be considered a good character reference.  Just sayin'.

2.  While honesty is the best policy in a job interview, be selective.  Telling the interviewer that his wife looks attractive in the photograph he's displaying on his desk may make him uneasy; telling him she "looks a lot different on the Internet" will almost undoubtedly make him so.

3.  This advice also extends to his daughters' pictures as well.  Put another way, it's best to refrain from pointing out how much you liked them in the last Girls Gone Wild DVD.  This is what's known in the business world as a "non-starter."

4.  Comedians are meant to be funny, not followed.  When Jeff Foxworthy said, "You might be a redneck if you've ever brought a beer to a job interview," he meant it as a joke.

5.  Be careful in describing difficulties with past coworkers.  Saying "office politics can make things difficult sometimes" is probably something you can get away with.  Saying "the women in my last office were SO catty - let me tell you what they did," however, could probably best be described as "exercising a self-select-out option." 

Thinking About a Government Job? Better Start Thinking About 2011

The woman who chairs one of my networking groups dropped a bombshell on us this past Monday - she found a job with a government contractor and will be starting week after next.  Not only did this surprise our group, but I confess it left a number of us wondering:  "Whoa!  How'd she pull that off in just a few weeks while the rest of us have been searching for months???"  But there was something she had in addition to connections and good fortune.

She had the gift of timing. 

According to a number of people I've talked with recently, she may be one of the last people to get hired on a government-related job before next year.  Why?  Well, for starters, we're now about 90 days out from the November mid-terms, and that means many government departments - and their corresponding contractors - will be holding off on any hiring until after the elections.  (Side note:  A few years ago I interviewed with a contractor a few weeks before the midterm elections.  Everything seemed to go well, and I was told to expect a follow up call.  The elections came and went, and none of us ever heard back from them.  Apparently, the results shifted the company's focus and their expected hiring plans.)  This makes sense since a change in the power balance - which usually occurs during midterms when most presidential administrations (particularly those in recessionary economies) lose some of their standing with voters - means changes in needs and resources.  In other words, hiring goes on a deep freeze until the results are known and people can plan accordingly. 

But there's more.  Once the elections are done come November, there's not likely to be much hiring before 2011 since few companies fill new positions during the last 6-8 weeks of the year.  The Thanksgiving holiday basically eliminates one week, and Christmas & New Year's essentially knock out two more as well.  Combine that with most people taking end-of-year vacations because of use-it-or-lose-it leave policies (to say nothing of new budgets that do not kick in until the new year starts) and chances are there won't be too much hiring before January at the earliest. 

That's not to say that there won't be ANY new jobs out there.  People will leave some positions, and occasionally a few of them will be designated as "essential" and probably filled.

But for DC job hunters, it means a tougher road ahead for at least the next few months.

R.I.P., Two Week Notice

It's often been said that economists exist only to make fortune tellers look good when it comes to predictions, but that's never stopped them from trying.  And while I'm not an economist (or Miss Cleo), I do have one prediction for the future of the workforce:  The customary two week notice will soon be a thing of the past.

Don't believe me?  Here are three reasons why we shouldn't expect this traditional business practice to be around much longer:

3.  Downsizings and layoffs have changed corporate culture.  Those of us who have been in the workforce for several years came of age when giving two weeks' notice was considered professional courtesy, but millennials are entering a much different environment.  Simply put, they expect to be laid off from time to time; and they know it will likely happen several times in their careers.  (Note plurality.)  And to them, it seems unusual at best - and completely unfair at worst - for companies to expect you to provide ten days of warning when leaving while they reserve the right to cut you at the drop of a hat with no notice whatsoever.  "Why should I give them advance notice? They didn't give Fred or Suzy any notice when they got cut.  They just showed up at work one day and were escorted out the door.  When my time comes, I'm outta here."  The more layoffs someone endures, the less loyalty they have and the less concern they feel about jumping ship. On top of that -

2.  Most companies don't want employees around after a resignation because of security risks.  Too many horror stories of disgruntled or apathetic short-timers helping themselves to office supplies, stealing files, or hacking into company resources - or even inserting viruses - have led many firms to simply cut employees off once there is a separation.  You get your two weeks of severance, and your cutting-of-the-cord becomes "official" ten days later; but you're out the door immediately. In other words, even if you do give two weeks' notice, you're gone right away regardless.  My guess is that within just a few more years, this practice will make the standard two week notice seem antiquated and more like a formal custom rather than expected practice.

But perhaps the biggest reason is this one -

1.  There's not much of a bridge to burn any more.  Hear me out on this one.  Once upon a time, failing to give two weeks' notice meant leaving on an unpleasant note and jeopardized your chances at getting a positive referral.  However, the workplace has become so litigious lately that many firms have adopted strict confirmation-of-employment-only policies.  In other words, the company will only confirm that you worked there from date X to date Y.  Moreover, many companies now forbid supervisors from writing letters of recommendation. The fear is that even if the supervisor writes a positive letter singing your praises, some aspect of the letter's content could be misinterpreted, cost the employee a shot at a job, and open the company up to a lawsuit.  ("The supervisor acted on behalf of the firm to cost me a job!")  The obvious upside of this policy is that it protects the firm from being sued; the downside is that it gives employees little reason to part on good terms when they leave.  It also seriously undermines any incentive they might have to put in stellar efforts during their employment since the end result - regardless of whether the employment record was outstanding or abysmal - is the same:  a voice on the phone saying, "Mr. Jones or Ms. Smith was employed from dates X to Y." 

Now, let me be clear here:  I not advocating that people refuse to give two week's notice.  At the same time, I have to confess that I'm part of the workforce that came up having learned you never do anything to jeopardize a referral.  In other words, while I think this practice is outdated and will soon be gone, it's nevertheless ingrained in me for better or worse.  And in truth, you simply never know who might be in position to feed you that next lead or talk you up at a networking event - or shoot you down without your ever knowing it - so it never hurts to go the extra mile to make sure you part on good terms. 

But as time passes and workforce dynamics continue to change - and as more and more millenials enter a workforce that no longer expects or rewards them for being loyal and which adopts policies that minimize the incentive to put a stellar effort into play - chances are this is a practice that will soon go the way of the floppy disk...

How to Turn Off a Prospective Employee, Part II

I concluded long ago that no list of complaints or grievances can ever be considered truly "complete." (Even George Carlin's famous list of dirty words started with just seven and eventually grew to more than several hundred suggestive phrases over the years...) But after posting a few common gripes about how some companies treat prospective candidates, well, let's just say more experiences began trickling in. See if any of these seem familiar & by all means, keep the good (or bad) ideas coming...

Insist that the candidate complete the job application in the office instead of sending a soft copy to be filled out ahead of time. Sure, in the Internet age it's easy to forward a job application in advance so you both could maximize your face-to-face time, but this is a much better use of the candidate's time and yours. Bonus points? Require them to restate everything that's already on the resume you'll be attaching to the application anyway.

If a candidate flies a great distance to meet with you and your colleagues, let them know you are too busy to meet with him or her. I once flew to California - the most opposite point of the continental United States from where I currently live - because I was considering a job with a large firm based in Fresno. As things were winding down, I overheard the office manager ask one of the women I'd been in touch with on e-mail if she could stop by and introduce herself to the fellow who was thinking of joining her team. (Her office was right next door to the conference room where I was interviewing & the door was open, so it was impossible not to hear the conversation.) "Why do I have to meet with him?" she asked irritably. "I already talked to him on e-mail last week!" Yes, nothing makes a stronger positive impression on someone than overhearing how you can't spare two or three minutes to be courteous after they've spent an entire day flying across the country to meet with you and your team.

Tell the candidate you'll follow up by a certain time - then don't do it. One woman I know in a networking group waited for more than three months about a job she interviewed for, and the only updates she received were in response to queries she herself made every few weeks. In my own case, I once had a firm tell me on a Friday I'd hear from them the following Tuesday. It was another six weeks before I got a call to tell me that - not suprisingly - they wouldn't be filling the position after all.  This brings me to -

Always keep your right hand and your left hand from talking with each other. Over the past year I can remember three instances where I'd passed all the interview hurdles only to be told at the end, "Our business needs have changed, so we won't be filling this position after all. But thanks for your interest and please check our Web site!" Think about the time a candidate puts in to preparing to interview with you - especially if they do it two or three times - and then imagine how it feels to discover at the end you weren't going to fill a job anyway. How much time does the candidate waste - to say nothing of your staff interviewing him or her on your dollar - and what does this say about your company?  What kind of message do you send as a result of behavior like this?

Better still, don't follow up at all after interviewing the candidate. Ask any job seeker how many times this has happened and you'll be surprised how frequently it occurs. Granted, it's never easy to hear bad news, but if you're going to ask someone to block out time to come in for an interview - especially if they have to step out from a current job to talk with you - a little common courtesy demands that you at least follow up with them to let them know of any decisions. Failure to even acknowledge their time and interest not only makes you look unprofessional but also guarantees that the job seeker will warn anyone and everyone about your company. ("Oh, man.  Stay away from that place...")  And in the digital age, word of mouth can go pretty far...

Stay tuned - I'm sure there will be a part III soon enough...