Land of Confusion

There's too many people
Making too many problems

Cant you see 

This is a land of confusion.

- Genesis

Sure, I know.  If you grew up in the 80s, you know Phil, Tony, and Mike were more interested using in the Spitting Image puppets to lampoon the Reagan Administration rather than the job market, but in many ways, their outlook seems equally reflective of the kind of sanity-challenging experience that awaits every new job seeker today. 

What often surprises me - although it's admittedly happened with such frequency that I've begun to think I shouldn't be surprised - is how many firms continue to treat candidates in the very way that, were the roles reversed, would get the candidates dropped from consideration almost instantly.  

In my most recent posting, I mentioned a firm that took me through a rapid series of interviews - both over the phone and in person - and e-mailed me the day after the last interview to ask for references before moving forward with an offer.  I eagerly provided the information and contacted my associates so they could be alerted to expect a call.  

Nothing happened.  

So, after a week, I queried the employer - you can probably guess where this is going - and the employer suddenly seemed to have a bad case of cold feet about hiring.  "When we know more, we'll let you know," was the response that I received.  

Jump forward another month.  Here's what I suddenly see in my inbox: 

From: HR DIRECTOR
To: John F
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 2:31 PM
Subject: Checking In

Hi John -

I hope this note finds you well!

I wanted to check in on your status with regard to your job search.  Have you found a position yet?  If not, we'd love to have you come back in and meet with [NAME] and possibly a few other folks. 

Let me know.

Thanks,
[Name withheld]
Human Resources Director
COMPANY NAME

So, let's review.  A month ago I had two face-to-face interviews after a phone screening with the founder of the company and was asked to provide references so the company could move forward with perhaps some sort of preliminary offer.  Then a week went by with no follow up or contacting of my references.  When I inquired about the status, I got a brush off ("We still haven't decided...").  I thanked her for her honesty and placed two follow-up phone calls to the senior-most folks I talked with, saying it had been a pleasure to meet with them, if things changed to please contact me, etc. 

Then, a month later, I receive another e-mail that makes it sound as though we're taking a rather large step backward in the recruiting process.  In other words, a month ago we were in the process of moving forward with preparing a possible offer, now a month later - with no communication in between whatsoever - I'm being asked if I want to come back down to talk with more people. 

Sounds great, doesn't it?  Yet I've seen this happen time and again with employers reaching out to people before they really know what kind of job they need to fill or what sort of qualifications the person they want to fill it needs to have.  The result is a disorganized process that serves neither the employer nor the candidate very effectively.  The employer gets people with all kinds of skills sets that it can't evaluate; and candidates get at best a chaotic or mixed picture in terms of the level of focus and organization at the company.  

To sum up my experience as a candidate:

1.  The company had already received a referral from a respected mutual acquaintance who had written me a phenomenal recommendation. 

2.  The owner had telephoned me for a 1-hour phone screening interview. 

3.  I had scheduled time off from another job to come down and park - at my own expense - to meet with one of the company's team managers and her staff. 

4.  I had followed that meeting with another the following week with one of the co-founders of the firm, the founder herself, and a senior partner.  

5.  Following that final meeting, the HR manager asked me for references so they could "move forward with next steps."  

Then, after this...nothing.  Then backtracking. Then repeating an offer to come back and talk some more.  

Now, how does this appear to the candidate?  Well, for starters - 

1.  If you have a strong referral from a trusted source, it's understandable that you still need to do an interview.  Following a standard screening and discussion process is perfectly reasonable.  But leaving someone  hanging for several weeks and conveying an impression of indecision ill serves you as a firm and does little to inspire confidence in your candidates that yours is a company worth joining. 

2.  The process is extremely inconsiderate of the candidate's time.  Assuming s/he has to secure time away from a part-time job or other appointment(s) to meet with you, s/he is doing a lot to show sincere interest in you and your firm.  Treating him or her shabbily does not show respect for his time, and that makes him wonder - understandably - how you will treat him as an employee if you don't respect his time as a candidate.  Think of it this way, is it unreasonable for the candidate to ask himself, "If this is how they're treating me now, how will they treat me once I'm staff?"

3.  You are not only being highly inconsiderate of the candidate's time but also of his wallet.  Asking someone to come down and meet with you in the city not only means taking time away from other prospective interviews and/or jobs, it also means the candidate has to pay money out of his own pocket to meet with you.  This includes not only gas, parking, subway fare, etc., but it can also include photocopying fees if the candidate takes the time to prepare visuals for you to highlight what work he's done in the past and would be willing to bring in terms of skills to your company.  Even just a couple of interviews can easily run $40-50 in terms of out-of-pocket expenses.  Which begs the question, if you interview someone multiple times without indicating whether you're moving toward an offer - but that you'd rather continue discussions on an ongoing (and undetermined) basis - at what point does it really cease to be cost-effective for the candidate to be talking with you if he knows it's going to cost him money with no real indication of any return on that investment?  

But let's put this another way.  Suppose we switched the tables around and our candidate was contacted by the employer for multiple interviews...but then...suddenly...stopped talking with the employer.  ("I haven't decided which way I'm leaning toward in terms of which way I want to go with my next position.  When I do, I'll be in touch.")  Even better, suppose that candidate then reaches out to the employer a month later to ask if they're still looking to hire or would like to get together to "talk" again.  Mind you, the candidate has not indicated he's interested in working for you, only that he would like to continue the discussion, follow up, maybe meet more people at the firm, etc. 

What would the company's likely reaction be?  

My guess is that it would probably something pretty close to, "This guy doesn't know what he's looking for and is wasting my time.  I have more pressing issues requiring my attention, and I'd certainly prefer to spend it talking with candidates who are serious about our firm rather than someone who can't make up his mind." 

And yet, for some inexplicable reason, this two-way nature of exchange that makes up 50% of all job interviews - remember, the candidate is evaluating you as much as you are the candidate - still seems lost on so many employers.  

And while such behavior may work in a recessionary economy where many are desperate for work, such practices run the risk of long-term harm to a company that practices them simply because they show themselves as being unworthy of candidates' time, inconsiderate of their costs, and - bluntly put - they show complete ignorance of what can happen in the era of social media when one disgruntled candidate can post his thoughts and experiences online for the world to see.  

And that will make recruiting future candidates all the more challenging. 

When Companies Burn Money They Don't Have...

Much has been said and written of late about how companies have no one but themselves to blame for their hiring challenges.  PBS blogger Nick Corcodilos has made a career out of it, as have authors as notable as Wharton professor and WSJ contributor Peter Cappelli who has written extensively about the topic as well.  Their basic consensus is that the so-called "talent shortage" is nothing of the sort.  Companies simply don't know how to recruit, and the resulting frustrations are - more often than not - their own fault.

But somehow, reading about this issue never quite compares to encountering it in person.

Over the past month, I've been in talks with a boutique consulting firm regarding a possible opportunity they recently posted on Linked In.  A mutual acquaintance not only connected us but also wrote one of the most flattering recommendations I've had the privilege to receive.  A phone interview was arranged shortly after, followed by not one but two face-to-face interviews with the owner and her team.  The day after the final interview, I was sent a form and told I had to complete it and list some references that could be checked before an offer could be extended.  I did so and eagerly awaited a reply. 

A week later, nothing had happened and none of my references had been contacted.  I wrote the HR manager to see if there had been any developments, and this was the reply I received (identity redacted):

 ----- Forwarded Message -----
From: XXXXX XXXXXXXXX <xxxxxxxxx@companyname.com>
To: John XXXXXXXXXX <jxxxxxxxxxx@xxxx.com>
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:10 PM
Subject: Re: Information Request

Hi John – We aren't quite sure what direction we're going with the position we had in mind for you.  Once we all can touch base and figure out a plan, I will get back in touch with you.
Have a great weekend!

[Name Withheld]
Human Resources Director
[Company]

So, apparently, after three interviews and some discussion, the company is now undecided as to whether it does in fact have a position to fill.   I've written about this experience before a number of times when companies interview a candidate - sometimes inviting them to travel great distances - only to cancel the position or hesitate to extend an actual offer even after the candidate has cleared the final hurdles. 

As frustrating as this can be for the candidate, it's also extremely unhealthy for the company's bottom line (all the more so if the company in question is in fact a boutique consulting firm or similarly sized small business).  To illustrate using just some back-of-the-envelope figuring, let's assume it costs a company $100 an hour to compensate an employee in terms of salary and benefits.  (Yes, the actual number may be higher or lower in some instances, but let's work with a whole number for illustration purposes here.)  Here's what Company X has already spent to interview a candidate that they're now getting cold feet about hiring: 

$300 - Cost of developing content for a job position listing (assume 3 hours of one staffer's time - bear in mind the actual cost is likely to be far higher if the ad has to be approved or reviewed multiple times by higher management before posting)

$200 - Cost to post an ad.  (Again, mileage may vary here depending on the Web site used, the number of clicks, how long the ad runs, etc., but let's just go with this for the time being here.)

$300 - Cost to review responses to the ad by just one staffer (assuming s/he spends at least 3 hours doing so)

$100 - First phone interview by one person

$300 - First face-to-face interview with three employees (assuming the interview lasts exactly one hour only vs. 90 minutes or more)

$300 - Second face-to-face interview with three senior managers (similar time assumption)

$300 - Cost for three senior managers to spend one hour discussing whether to move forward with extending an offer

Total Cost:  $1800 minimum

Bear in mind the actual cost to the firm in terms of time wasted is very likely to be far higher since this calculation does not include additional costs for reviews and revisions to the posted advertisement, scheduling requirements for internal staff, or the other candidates the firm may be interviewing as well, etc.  Taken together, the likely costs are probably several thousand dollars in lost time and productivity, to say nothing of the frustration that results on the part of candidates who may take time away from other promising opportunities and interview at great personal expense in terms of travel, parking, subway fare, etc. only to be essentially told at the end of the process, "We're not sure whether we want to make a decision at this time."  These candidates will likely dissuade others from applying to the company, and if this word-of-mouth goes digital, the company will find itself at a disadvantage in terms of being able to recruit the talent it needs to remain competitive. 

That will do more to create a talent shortage than anything else. 


 

Some Good Food for Thought -

Keeping a blog and keeping it current are not always one and the same, but once in a while you find reason to remember why you started one.  Last fall I had the opportunity to be interviewed on PBS as part of a story they were doing on the job search, and one of my co-interviewers shared some insight from his many years as a recruiter.  He was good enough to respond to one of my follow-up queries regarding what readers here know as "zombie descriptions."  Read all about his response - and others like it - here:

http://corcodilos.com/blog/6036/systemic-recruitment-fraud-how-employers-fund-americas-jobs-crisis/comment-page-1#comment-666553

Forgetting Your 15 Minutes... 

One of the joys of keeping a blog such as this one is that you get to share other people's stories about their job search experiences.  This applies when they're good, or - more often - when they're not.  (But then, who'd want to read a blog about happy job search experiences?  Are there such animals?)

Anyway, to the larger point, it's easy to get a bit carried away covering the stories of others and forgetting that - just once in a while - your own story deserves a bit of coverage as well.  To that end, I thought I'd post this clip from a recent PBS News Hour story that featured none other than yours truly in the lead-in.  While it hasn't translated into the hundreds of offers from agents and press managers ("Mr. John will be signing autographs in the lobby from noon until six..."), it's nevertheless worth sharing and enjoying.  (Hey, those 15 minutes don't last long!)

Cheers!


John

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/july-dec12/makingsense_09-25.html

When a Job Interview is Neither

Okay, I admit it.  I was once as naive about the job search as everyone else.  I foolishly thought that when you saw a job ad online that it meant there was an actual position behind it and that, if you were qualified and presented yourself properly to the hiring manager, you might have a good chance at landing the job.

Boy, was I wrong.  That's like thinking you can drive NASCAR because you played a lot of "Pole Position" at the arcade during your teen years.  (If I can date myself any more with that video game reference - either for the game in question or the use of the word "arcade" - don't tell me; I don't want to know...)  The reality is so far removed from what you thought you knew, it's difficult to know where to begin. 

 

So, let's start with what appear to be some of the actual and more common reasons for job interviews.  These are based solely on personal experiences friends and I have had and is in no way intended to be an actual statistical representation of the job market.  (Yeah, go ahead and insert your own legal jargon here - I was a business major in grad school, not an aspiring lawyer.)  In reverse order -

 

3.  The market research interview.  This is where the interview isn't being done to fill a position but is instead part of a company's desire to gather intelligence before crafting a new position that they intend to fill internally all along.  For instance, earlier this year I interviewed with a well-known wine distributor for a training and learning position.  Like any job seeker, I spent a few days researching the firm, learning about its business model and competitors, rehearsing my answers for the most likely interview questions ("Tell us about yourself and why you want to leave your current job and why we should hire you and how you handled a setback and dealt with a difficult coworker while managing a team and produced something successful and profitable in 60 seconds, please."), and signed out for a half day's leave to make the interview 25 miles away.  About halfway through our talk, the manager told me, "One of the reasons I ran the ad for this was to get a sense of the compensation levels people were expecting.  What is your salary range?"

 

Again, in my naivete, I didn't translate this fully until several weeks later:  "I'm just talking with  you to get a sense of what I'm going to have to pay the person I already plan to hire for this job."

 

I'll spare the extra details here, but suffice it to say I sent the interviewers three handwritten thank you cards a few days and never heard a word back - no offer was extended, no courtesy reply thanking me for my time and interest, no acknowledgment of any kind.  However, the same ad did run again several weeks later - with the same range I and others requested. 

 

2.  The free consulting interview.  This is more common but no less frustrating.  Here, the company isn't trying to hire someone so much as it is trying to use the job interview process to gather free consulting advice it can use to help it improve different aspects of its business (online image, market practices, etc.).  One nonprofit I worked for made it a practice of having applicants edit article submissions from the slush pile as part of their evaluations - it was a good way to get free labor out of candidates while testing their skills.  The managing editor even laughed about it as a source of pride.

 

But back to the present.  Last week, a good friend of mine received an invitation to interview for a position with an Internet management firm for a marketing position.  The interview would consist of an actual discussion about her background and qualifications, discussions with various employees at different levels from the firm, and a presentation where she would need to address the following:  "What 3-5 things would you help us do to improve our Web site's search ability?"

 

My friend hit the ceiling and called them back right away.  "Look," she said.  "I'm very interested in this opportunity, and I'm happy to talk to everyone and do a presentation if that's part of the evaluation process; but there is no way I'm giving free advice to an employer who hasn't even hired me yet.  That tells me you just want to take my input and everyone else's to make improvements to your Web site without even hiring somebody." 

 

She went ahead with the interview, but the requirement put her in the perfect Catch-22:  If she gave them full input on what they were doing, there was no need to hire her; but if she kept it high-level without going into sufficient detail, the firm would conclude she wasn't knowledgeable or forthcoming ("she's not a team player") and not hire her.

 

So what did she do?  She decided to focus on the company's strengths and gave a few high-level suggestions on some possibilities it could explore but left the finer details out of the discussion.  "If they want to hire me, great," she told me.  "But there's no way I'm giving away the store to somebody for free."  (The jury is still out as of this time.)

 

And the most common practice -

 

1. Talent pool updating.  I've written about this practice before, but the sad fact is that it's not a rarity; it's standard in today's job market.  Once upon a time - see the "arcade" reference earlier - companies could never afford to keep and track hundreds (if not thousands) of paper resumes in a giant vault somewhere that they would pay low-level HR staffers (or interns) to venture, torch in hand, down a winding stone staircase to explore the catacombs where the resumes of qualified applicants were kept.  With the PC revolution and explosion of the Internet in the '90s, however, this quickly became easier and cost-effective.  Now, instead of running ads any time a company needs to fill a position, they can simply run advertisements year-round to be ensured of a current supply of qualified candidates' resumes, salary expectations, experience levels, and so forth.  And the best part?  They can do this even if they have no plans to do any hiring of any kind. 

 

Let's say, for example, that Company X wants to make sure it keeps a current resume pool so it can always have access to available talent.  They run an advertisement on Linked In, Career Builder, or any number of job sites every 2-3 months to ensure a steady influx of resumes from eager job applicants.  Those on file more than 90 days are tossed so only the most current resumes are kept.  This ensures that the company always has a current database from which to pull a resume if it ever wants to fill an actual position, obtain some market research on age, experience levels, and salary expectations, etc.  And the best part?  They don't need to fill a position or conduct an interview to get any of it.

 

Does this sound good?  Well, from an employer's perspective, it certainly makes things a great deal easier, but it doesn't come without a cost, and that cost unfortunately has to be born by the job seeker.  Mainly, s/he now has to spend more time chasing down advertisements in hopes of finding one that has an actual opening behind it vs. one that is simply being run as part of the latest talent bank update.  That, in turn, makes the job search process all the more difficult and requires significantly more time before a matching position is to be found.  When politicians and researchers talk about why unemployment is so persistent and hard to bring down, practices such as these might be worth taking into account.

 

But to put this in immediate perspective, I recently attended a local job networking event where there were probably over a hundred people in the audience.  (Again, this is all based on personal experience, not scientific research.)  An interviewer asked how many people found positions via advertisements they answered online.

 

Exactly three people raised their hands. 

It's the Economy, Stupid - More Specifically...

I confess I'm admittedly among those who believe more federal spending is only likely to exacerbate the deficit and contribute further to the economic problems facing so many out-of-work taxpayers, but this is still an excellent take on how much of the media - like our elected officials - is/are missing the ball on the primary issue of importance to so many voters...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/28/opinion/sunday/kristof-did-we-drop-the-ball-on-unemployment.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

Friday Funnies

With all the recent haranguing in Washington over the debt ceiling - and with the expected release of new job figures later today - perhaps it's best to remember the funnier side of politics...

***

"He knows nothing and thinks he knows everything.  That points clearly to a political career."

- George Bernard Shaw

"[The difference between American politicians and English politicians is] American politicians will do anything for money; English politicians will take the money and won't do anything."

- Stephen Leacock

John F. Kennedy reportedly toured a Virginia coal mine and was asked by a miner, "Is it true, sir, you've never worked an honest day of hard labor in your life?"  Kennedy admitted he had not.  "Believe me, sir," the miner replied, shaking his hand.  "You haven't missed a thing."



And just to show nothing beats bureaucracy when it comes to crazy humor...



"Your food stamps will be stopped effective March 1992 because we received notice that you passed away.  May God bless you.  You may reapply if there is a change in your circumstances."

- Department of Social Services, Greenville, South Carolina

Friday Funnies - Revisited

With unemployment still stuck in the double-digits and layoffs increasing, we all can probably use a laugh or two now more than ever. (Remember, we make no promises for the quality of these jokes, only that they should bring a smile or two if for no other reason than because, well, bad humor is still humor, folks...)

Enjoy - and keep those interview stories coming!

***

"What's the best way to make $10 million running a winery?  That's easy.  First, start with $100 million."

- Anonymous

***

A lawyer dies and - for some reason - goes to heaven.  "There has to be a mistake," he tells St. Peter.  "I'm only fifty-five."  St. Peter checks his book and smiles.  "Not according to the timesheets you submitted..."

***

Two friends who love baseball make a promise to one another that the first one to pass on will somehow find a way to let the other know whether there is baseball in heaven.  Sure enough, after many years together, one of them passes away quietly.  A week later, his friend gets a very unusual long-distance call.  "Fred?" the voice says.  "It's Sam.  Listen, I'm up here in heaven, and I've got good news and bad news."

"What's the good news?" his friend asks.

"Turns out there IS baseball in heaven," his friend replies.  "In fact, I'm playing second base right now."

"Great," his buddy says.  "What's the bad news?"

"Well, the roster says you're going to be our starting pitcher next Wednesday..."

***

Return of the Zombie Descriptions

I've admittedly written far too many posts that include zombie similes - job descriptions that come back from the dead, opportunities that were never really "living" to begin with, etc.  And like many Gen-Xers, I probably watched far too many horror movies as a teen-ager.  (One of my favorite shows from last year was AMC's "The Walking Dead."  Women still love fairy tales and royal weddings, guys still love their gory movies and laughable monsters. What can I say, some things you just never really outgrow...) 

What brings this to mind was yet another "zombie job description" that caught my eye last week. I've spoken with a number of people about the less-than-honest practice many companies have of advertising positions that do not exist or that they have no intention of filling.  From the employers' perspective, this shady tactic always ensures a steady supply of current resumes from which the company can quickly select a few in the event a contract is won or if there is a sudden need for filling a position due to someone quitting or being transferred.  "Oh," they will say.  "We are always on the lookout for great talent!"

The problem with this practice is that it is really nothing more than false advertising and would be considered criminal if it were done by retail outlets trying to promote models that they no longer carry.  If you spot an advertisement for a new television and get to the store only to be told, "Oh, we're all out of that model - but for a few dollars more, you can have THIS one over here..." you can write to the Better Business Bureau and complain.  (Whether anything happens may well be another story, but at least you have some means to pursue your grievance.)  With employers, however, such advertising is not only common but all too standard a practice. 

Here is the latest zombie description I recently saw on Linked In that looked remarkably similar to a position I applied for last year.  The company's name has been redacted, but I'm posting a few lines from the description:

Job Title: Manager, Learning and Development - Learning Consultant
Job Summary:
This consulting role is responsible for working with the manager community and HR professionals to identify and understand learning and development needs and delivering programs to meet those needs (through vendors or internal design).  The consultant will execute against an annual Development Plan and is expected to work with the manager community (i.e., Manager through VP) to integrate them into the learning process.

Responsibilities:
1.    Identify capability gaps and develop plan to close gaps for the designated region

• Consult with manager community to determine short and long-term needs with respect to talent and capabilities
• Help delivery teams take full advantage of L&D to improve their performance
• Work closely with local People Strategists and Staffing team members to determine development needs.
• Produce an annual regional Development Plan
• Translate the capability needs into learning solutions (with either the L&D Design Team in India or local vendors)
• Work with the L&D Design Team in India to translate the capability needs into learning solutions

Now, check out this position advertised on Linked In just a week ago:

Type: Full-time
Experience: Mid-Senior level
Functions: Human Resources, Training, Education 
Industries: Information Technology and Services 
Job ID: 1723108
Manager - Learning & Development
[Company Name Redacted] (Washington D.C. Metro Area)
Job Description
Location(s) : United States-Virginia-Arlington

Schedule : Full-time

Job Summary:
This consulting role is responsible for working with the manager community and HR professionals to identify and understand learning and development needs and delivering programs to meet those needs (through vendors or internal design).  The consultant will execute against an annual Development Plan and is expected to work with the manager community (i.e., Manager through VP) to integrate them into the learning process.

Responsibilities:
1. Identify capability gaps and develop plan to close gaps for the designated region

• Consult with manager community to determine short and long-term needs with respect to talent and capabilities
• Help delivery teams take full advantage of L&D to improve their performance
• Work closely with local People Strategists and Staffing team members to determine   development needs.
• Produce an annual regional Development Plan
• Translate the capability needs into learning solutions (with either the L&D Design Team in India or local vendors)
• Work with the L&D Design Team in India to translate the capability needs into learning solutions

Not only was this the same company, it was obviously the exact same position description.  Verbatim.  And just to add some additional background:  This was the same firm that flew me up to Boston for a final interview and then never bothered to follow up with me about the job.  It is frustrating enough for any job seeker to be turned down, but to never even be told so much as, "Sorry, kid..." paints a particularly unprofessional picture. 

Granted, a cynic might say that the firm may well have hired someone else, forgotten to notify me as a candidate (a finalist???), and then had things not work out with that person, but it would seem to me that when such instances occur, the companies usually revise the description.  Maybe someone else has left & her responsibilities need to be taken over by someone else.  Maybe the last person couldn't do XYZ that wasn't on the description but which turned out to be an increasingly critical part of the job.  The point is that rarely if ever do companies simply post the same exact description for an actual opportunity. Unless, of course, they're just recycling dead copy for another zombie position that does not exist. 

And the sad thing is, as I write these words, many desperate job seekers are no doubt jumping at what they honestly think is a real opportunity that, in reality, is no more real than zombies themselves...

And the Updates Continue!

Sometimes the most difficult challenge of managing a blog about the job search process isn't coming up with material, it's sorting through all that's out there & trying to decide, "Okay, but is any of this really helpful?"  (Oh, sure, it can be funny, but trying to find something that's both amusing and helpful is, well, a Quixote-esque quest, if I can show my undergraduate English major roots here...)

That said, I thought this link was helpful and amusing, if for no other reason than for the photo selections the editors chose.  (Relax, it's safe for work and review - because if it weren't, well, it wouldn't be getting posted here!)

http://www.businessinsider.com/headhunters-reveal-11-ways-to-ruin-your-chances-of-getting-a-job-2011-6#holding-back-information-can-make-you-look-sneaky-1

How NOT to Write a Cover Letter

Most networking and job hunting seminars now advise people not to waste their time writing cover letters since - more often than not - they're simply not read.  Your resume goes into a database, and when the company wants to fill a position, they scan the database for relevant keywords and call the people whose resumes score within a certain range.  Consequently, spending hours crafting the perfectly worded cover letter seldom pays the benefits you would expect after investing hours of careful effort.

That being said, this guy seems to have the right approach - unless, of course, he wants to be taken seriously...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/23/epic-cover-letter_n_865569.html

The Jokes Keep Coming

One of the blessings of keeping a blog on a subject as universal as the job search is that people never stop sending tips, stories, or even the occasional cartoon (below).  In this case, while it's obvious this friend had the Mets on his mind, any Nats fan can undoubtedly share in the sentiment that also parallels this blog's thematic imagery.  (Could I sound any more like the proverbial English major with that sentence?  On second thought, don't answer that...)

Keep the faith!

Friday Funnies - Belated

Been a while since I updated these for Friday, but a friend forwarded this & it was too good not to post. 

(Reminder:  I have no copyright to this image, but since this is not a profiting blog, hey, take it as a chance to chuckle, okay?)

Friday Funnies

Just a few random bits to wind down the week & hopefully bring a much-needed smile.  Enjoy!

***

"Until you've stepped in dog doo on the way to an interview, you haven't had a bad experience yet."

- A Friend of Mine Who Actually Had This Happen to Him

***

"I once had a training session for a position, and the instructor kept checking her instant messenger and giggling over an exchange she was having with a co-worker.  This not only cut into our instruction time but made it abundantly clear where her primary focus was.  After about 15 minutes of this, I took out my Blackberry to check my messages.  Much to my surprise, the instructor glared at me almost immediately and said, "Could you please put that away while we're in this session?"  I left four months later!"

***

And this one from a few years back that actually made all the people in my grad school class groan because, well, it hit a bit too close to home for many of us:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcoDV0dhWPA

***

Friday Funnies - Resume Bloopers

Several years ago, I was having lunch with an intern and making the same hopeless attempt to educate someone who was 20 years old about the ways of the real world.  (To be fair, I am sure I was no different when I was his age, but that's beside the point here...) 

"Always proofread your resume," I told him.  "I can't emphasize that enough.  If you have even a single typo, it'll be the kiss of death - if you're lucky."

He paused.  "Just one typo?"

"Yes," I told him.  "And that's if you're lucky."

"What do you mean, 'if I'm lucky'?" he asked.

"Well," I told him.  "If it's just one typo and you're lucky, they'll just throw your resume in the wastebasket."

"What if it's more than one?" he asked.

I smiled.  "In that case, they'll put a post-it note on your resume and route it through the office so people can laugh at you." 

His face froze.  "Welcome to the real world," I told him.  "By the way, how's your sandwich?"

***

In keeping with this theme, here are some (supposed) actual bloopers from resumes.  Read at your own risk.

"Salary requirements: The higher the better!"

Explanation for any gaps in employment:  "I was unemployed."  (Well, hey, it's honest...)

Computer skills:  "I use a laptop."

"Directed $25 million anal shipping and receiving operations."  (Didn't we just talk about the importance of proofreading?)

"Received plague for performance."  (Well, I guess it bears repeating...)

"Position desired: Profreader."  (Double whammy.)


Got any zingers of your own?  Feel free to share - because, as always, the best ones are the ones we can't make up...

Sometimes They Come Back...

Okay, I admit it.  I overuse living dead analogies and zombie references far too often.  I've written about zombie job descriptions, undead positions, and countless interviews that made me feel as if I was conversing with someone whose pulse rate was questionable at best. 

And yet just when I think I've completely run my analogy into the ground and tell myself, "There can't POSSIBLY be another reference for this sort of thing," Fate decides to prove me wrong.  (But then again, if I learned my lesson, what would I post on a humor blog about job searching?)

Anyway, once upon a time I wrote about a particularly unfortunate interview experience involving a recruiter who forgot we had scheduled an interview. While that may in most circumstances be merely unfortunate and frustrating, this particular individual sought to place the "blame" for the miscommunication on me. ("Did anyone call you to confirm this interview?"  Silly me, I took him at his word when he scheduled the interview with me 48 hours prior...)  He then compounded the mistake by asking me to come back later, giving me a 45-minute rush-through, and then never replying to any of my subsequent e-mails.  (To be fair, I only sent him two - one to thank him for his time and the other to inquire if he had any leads or wanted to reconnect.  Apparently, he didn't.)  When I realized I was not working with a professional recruiter, I decided to focus my job search efforts elsewhere. 

About a year later, this same recruiter - again, who never provided me with any leads or replied to any of my inquiries - suddenly reached out.  He wanted to connect on Linked In!  As I wrote in my earlier posting, I declined. You would think that this was the end of the story, right?

Not quite.  It turns out this same fellow can be rather persistent in his desire to stay connected when it comes to trying to publicize his business and services. (These would be the same supposed services he could not be bothered to utilize my behalf when I sought to be one of his clients).  How do I know this?  Because just this week he tried to connect with me on Twitter. 

So picture this:  A fellow misleads you about his business services and capabilities, never follows up with you about any opportunities or positions, doesn't respond to any messages you send him, but then years later seeks to connect with you to help publicize his business.  When you turn that down, you would expect him to get the hint, but apparently that's asking a bit much of some people - especially if he can find you on Twitter and make yet another attempt to glom onto your likeness if he thinks it will help further his business.

Needless to say, I blocked him.  But the experience remind us all that there are plenty of unscrupulous souls out there.  As always, forewarned is indeed forearmed.

THIS is How Job Rejections Should Be Handled!

Admit it, it's the best use of those all-too-common finds in the mailbox during the job search:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RP4abiHdQpc

Friday Funnies

Sometimes a few puns are all it takes to bring a much-needed smile to the job seeker's face.  Enjoy!

***


"I've got a picture of the Supreme Court, but it really doesn't do them justice."

- George Carlin

"Advertising is the art of making whole lies out of half truths."

- Edgar Shoaff

"An optimist is one who knows exactly how bad a place the world can be; a pessimist is one who finds out anew every morning."

- Peter Ustinov

"Idealism increases in direct proportion to one's distance from the problem."

- John Galsworthy

"Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality the costs really do become prohibitive."

- William F. Buckley

When Companies Don't Know What They Want...

Everybody remembers the teenage breakup.  The long staring into one another's eyes, the endless tears, the never-ending pseudo-drama that inevitably ended with the same five words:

"It's not you, it's me."

And while we all probably contemplated various acts of revenge - breaking into the offending ex's house while s/he was away and dialing automated long-distance calls in order to run up enormous phone bills was a common fantasy among many of my friends - most of us inevitably just settled for the typical 16- or 17-year old idea of vengeance and TP'd the offending ex's house.

If only there were some modern equivalent for the job interview.

This week's story comes from a friend of mine who has seen the same position advertised by the same company not once, not twice, but three separate times.  What's changed, you ask?  Only the title.  Some of the following text has been changed to preserve anonymity, but the basics are regrettably all too accurate:

Director of Marketing
[Type] of firm seeks marketing director for media outreach and development...

My friend applied for the position and received a notice that the position had been canceled.  "Well," she said.  "Another case of a company talking before doing its thinking."  

But it didn't end there.  A couple of months later, she saw this position advertised by the same firm:

Marketing Manager
[Type] of firm seeks marketing manager or outreach and business development...

My friend applied for the job through the agency running the position and was surprised to be told, "Sorry, you already applied for this position a couple of months ago."

"But that position was canceled, I was told," my friend replied.


"No, it's the same job," she was told.  "The company couldn't find anyone qualified as a director, so they bumped it down." Well, my friend thought, so much for that.


But it doesn't end there.  Two weeks after this conversation, my friend was contacted by the agent and asked if she would be interested in the following position with the same firm:

Marketing Manager for Business Development
[Type] of firm seeks marketing manager for business development and outreach projects...

"So, let me get this straight," my friend told me.  "You have a company that advertises a position at one level, can't find anyone willing to take it the given salary, but rather than raise the salary a few thousand dollars to the competitive level necessary to attract qualified candidates, they bump the job down instead.  When that doesn't work, they bump it down EVEN MORE, thus wasting more time, effort - and yes, money - going through all these pointless efforts just to 'save' a few thousand dollars? 

Or, to put it more directly, how much is the company really "saving" if it is wasting so much staff time and effort running in circles like this one?

"It reminds me of Alice in Wonderland," my friend concluded.  "Where the cheshire cat says, 'You must be mad, or else you wouldn't have come here!"

How to Turn Off a Candidate, Part VI - The Disinvitation!

Almost everyone who has ever watched more than a few episodes of "Seinfeld" sooner or later starts drawing the inevitable comparisons between the show's quirkier settings and life's equally unusual events.

But sometimes the parallels are really uncanny.

In the famous "backwards episode," (aka, "the one where they go to India"), Elaine receives what she regards as a "disinvitation" to a friend's wedding.  The reasoning behind the "disinvite" stems from the fact that she receives the invitation only a few days before the actual event itself (which is in India).  Feeling deliberately snubbed, she decides to attend the wedding as a means of avenging the apparent slight.  "You mean you're going to go all the way to India just to attend a wedding out of spite?" Jerry asks.  "Yep," Elaine says.

What brought this to mind was the experience a woman I know had recently where she received what can probably only be described as a "disinterview."  Put more simply, the company asked her to "keep Tuesday morning open" for a possible interview but never actually got around to confirming either the interview or the planned time for it until after 9:00 p.m. the night before:

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Exxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: "[Name]" &lt;[Name]@yahoo.com>
Sent: Mon, January 31, 2011 9:06:09 PM
Subject: Tomorrow

Hi.  I meant to give you a call today, but the day got the better of me…apologies.

As mentioned on Friday, mid-morning tomorrow works to meet with some of the team.  I have you starting at 10am and meeting with me, [PERSON] (who is a Marketing Manager on the [XTZ] team) and [SOMEONE] (whom you spoke with).

Please let me know if that works for you.

Thanks.

Exxxxxxxxxxxxxx


I've written before about some of the ways companies try to shift the blame to candidates for mixups regarding meetings and planned events or how they can be known to cancel interviews on the spot after someone has driven across town, but even by forgiving standards, this is another low.  You have to wonder if,  like Elaine's "disinvitation," the company is deliberately trying to dissuade the candidate from interviewing.

Suppose a candidate tried this approach and tried leaving a voice mail on someone's office machine at 9:07 the night before. "Mr. Johnson?  Suzie Q. here.  I apologize for the late notice, but I appreciate your keeping "mid morning" open for me tomorrow.  As luck would have it, I can see you at 9:00 a.m...." Chances are the candidate would not only be denied an opportunity for interviewing with Mr. Johnson, she probably wouldn't even be admitted to the building.

But leaving that aside, this candidate was apparently expected to block out her entire morning - remember she needs to allow for time to and from the location - for an interview that might or might not come through.  And on top of that she somehow was expected to be online after 9:00 p.m. to get the message that the interview would be going forward.  She would then have to make arrangements to get out of whatever professional obligations she already had scheduled for the next day (part time job, volunteering, personal commitments like child care, etc.) and get downtown for the interview.  And assuming she was able to do that, would there be an actual job waiting for her?

"No, there wouldn't," the woman told me after sharing her story. "They indicated the already had other candidates for the position, so this would simply have been another informational or pipeline interview.  In other words, even if I could have made it, you could hardly say it would have been worth it."

So what did she do?  Upon receiving the e-mail the next day - at 9:15 a.m. when she logged onto her personal e-mail from her office location - the woman sent a polite but steadfast reply advising the recruiter that the time did not work, that she had a part-time job she would need to arrange time away from (and which she indicated she had mentioned during initial conversations) but that she was still interested in possibly rescheduling for another time.  She followed up with a voice-mail that afternoon and another the next day.

She never received a reply. 

"I can't say I'm that upset," she confessed.  "Given the lack of notice that they gave and the lack of any follow-up or response, I'm not convinced it would have been a good use of my time to have tried to interview with them anyway."