If you've read enough of these blog entries, you know one of my pet peeves about the job search - aside from the others too numerous to mention - involves companies that advertise for openings that don't actually exist. Unlike what my friends and I refer to as "zombie" positions that linger long after they have "died," these "phantom" jobs earn their name because they were never really physical to begin with.
In case you're wondering, I encountered yet another such position just last week from a supposedly reputable education firm. After learning of the position from a fellow job seeker who actually took the time to pass it along to me after seeing it would fit my background, I checked the company's Web site and made two phone calls. After connecting with the placement firm's manager and discussing the job, I quickly customized a resume and forwarded it. (Full disclosure: By "customized" I mean I "modified a few bits and pieces" only; I've long since given up spending hours tailoring something specifically to a position for, well, just this reason. Read on.) Sure enough, on Friday I get this e-mail:
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Exxxx Gxxxxxxxx <exxxx@xxxxxxxxx.com>
To: John xxxxxxx <jxxxxxxx@xxxx.com>
Sent: Fri, October 29, 2010 4:21:41 PM
Subject: RE: xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx Position
Hi John. Thanks for sending me your resume. We are “on hold” with this search for the time being, as Pxxxxxxxxx is re-defining the role. It may move to another city as well. I’ll get in touch if they decide to move forward, or if there are other opportunities that seem like they may be a fit.
Best, Exxxx
So, in other words, this (supposedly) reputable company not only authorized a search firm to begin soliciting resumes for a position, it did so before it had even determined the city in which the position would be located. That speaks pretty poorly of the firm, but it's not all. As it turns, out, this job never actually existed to begin with.
How do I know this? Because when I made my two phone calls last week, the other one was to the HR department of the company itself to make sure the position actually existed before I applied. The job had no requisition number - something that, in retrospect, should probably have qualified as a "clue" - and I was lucky enough to get a helpful HR manager who checked the database using the listed title, city location, and keywords.
She found no such position.
Now, as I see it, there are two possibilities. Either the position did exist, but the company's database was too complex for one of its own employees to use - a scenario that I admit is probably far more realistic than most of us would care to admit - or the position was advertised by a placement firm at the company's request to gauge talent and measure responses without actually being real. If we were in Vegas, you can probably guess where I'd be putting my money.
If an appliance store advertises sales for models that are no longer in stock just to get you in the door, we consider that a shady - and in court it would be probably be considered illegal - practice. Jim Bakker went to jail for continuing to sell rooms at his PTL resort after there was literally no more room left at the inn. In short, if someone falsely advertises for something they don't have or can't offer, we rightfully regard that as something to be frowned upon. Yet if my own recent experiences are any judge, this is not only a common practice when it comes to posting positions, it's practically standard. At one recent networking event, I heard a number of HR professionals complain that far too often companies use position advertisements to build databases of potential talent for future positions. In other words, this is not so much a questionable practice involving one possible position, it's a commonly misleading one for gauging and measuring talent in the market, not for actually advertising positions that the company needs to fill.
If that's the case, then many firms - even the supposedly reputable ones - are no more trustworthy than the proverbial used car salesman or jukebox dealer. In that sense, there's another term that might be more applicable than "shady" or "misleading" when it comes to how companies engage in supposed hiring practices.
Fraudulent.
No comments:
Post a Comment