Bad Dates

"The problem," my friend told me as we were having coffee the other day, "is that interviewing for a job is like going on a first date and then deciding whether you want to get married afterward." 

I nearly spat my coffee across the table when he said it, because let's face it, there was no denying the truth in his words.  The interview-dating comparison has been made before; Jerry Seinfeld reportedly said job interviews were "like first dates but without the threat of sex at the end."  (One can only assume he was not discussing the adult film industry, but hey, just because rules aren't absolute does not mean they aren't necessarily true otherwise...) 

But this line of thought got me to thinking - what are some of the ways job interviews ARE like dates?  As usual, once my mind got running, it was hard to slow down (for better or worse), so here are a few starter examples:

***

"We'd like you to come in for an interview tomorrow afternoon.  Does that work?"
This is the desperate guy calling you on Thursday for a Friday date.  While not as bad as the schmuck who calls you on Friday evening for one, you have to admit it still has something of an unpleasant odor about it...

"We've restarted our hiring process for this year and were wondering if you were still in the job market."
This is the guy who has already gone through his date book and now wants to talk to you because everyone else has other commitments. (Side note:  A Fortune 50 company called me just this week with a variation on this very same play of words.  I'm not proud of it, but yes, I swallowed my pride and said I would be happy to speak with them.  What can I say, everybody wants a prom date...)

"So-and-so gave us your resume and said we should connect with you regarding an opening we have."
"My friend said you were cute!"

"So, tell me about yourself!"
This is the overly-eager suitor-seeker who wants to run through her mental checklist with you at the dinner table to see how well you qualify against the other guys she's seeing.

"This sounds like a very promising match.  Do you have some references we could check?"
This is the dreaded "friends test."  Sure, her Mom and Dad may hate your living guts, but everyone knows that's not anywhere near the same kiss of death as her girlfriends thinking you're a jerk. 
"While we enjoyed talking with you, we have decided to go with other candidates whose qualifications best suit our needs."
This is the professional equivalent of having just had a bad blind date. 

"Your employment will be conditional on a 90-day probationary period after which your status will be evaluated."
We want to see if you're marriage material or just a summer fling.

"Although we were very impressed with your credentials..."
"He tries too hard."

"I followed up with a thank-you note and left a voice-mail, but they never got back to me."
Same thing.

"We need to perform our due diligence and complete a background check on you before we can offer you employment."
"Honey, Google that guy to make sure he's not a stalker!"


Got some others?  Feel free to share!

What if Candidate Rejections Mirrored Company Ones?

(Editor's Note:  Anyone who's read more than a few of these postings knows one of my biggest pet peeves is the way companies interview candidates for positions that don't exist or post advertisements just to solicit resumes when they have no plans to do any actually hiring.  That led me to wonder, what if candidates could do the same thing to companies?  What would that be like?  Read on and find out.)

(Opening Scene:  A typical household.  The phone rings.  A very qualified applicant picks it up.)

Applicant:  Hello?

Hiring Manager: Hi.  Is Jack there?

Applicant: This is Jack.

Hiring Manager:  Jack!  It's Fred with Widget Makers, Inc.  I'm calling with some great news for you.  Our management team was really impressed with your credentials and enjoyed meeting you last week for that panel interview.  And after running things through the system, we've put together a compensation and benefits package that we think will be right in line with what you outlined.  Therefore, we'd like to go ahead and make you a formal offer at this time.

Applicant: Well, Fred, I appreciate your interest; but due to a realignment of my priorities and business needs, I'm afraid I will not be making any new employment decisions at this time.

Hiring Manager:  (Aghast)  WHAT?!?!

Applicant:  Yes, I really enjoyed talking with you and your managers last week, and your company's qualifications are certainly very impressive.  However, due to an unfortunate freeze in my decision making, I'm afraid I'm not able to accept any offers at this time.

Hiring Manager:  Wait, wait.  Hold on.  I'm confused.  Last week you said you were very interested in working for us.

Applicant:  Yes, but I'm afraid my needs have changed. 

Hiring Manager:  You're telling me that they've changed just since last week? 

Applicant:  I'm afraid so.  However, I will keep your offer on file for six months, and in the event my needs change, I'll be glad to contact you. 

Hiring Manager:  Jack, this is a one-time offer.  It won't be around in six more months.

Applicant: Well, when organizations tell me they'll keep my resume on file for six more months, that usually means they won't be calling me, either.  I just wanted to be up front with you. 

Hiring Manager:  (Frustrated)  I don't understand, Jack.  We spent a great deal of time putting this package together and scheduling these meetings with you; and last week everything seemed fine.  You're telling me that this was time that was wasted because you were never really interested in finding a job in the first place?

Applicant:  Again, I really enjoyed talking with you and your team.  As I said, your qualifications are quite impressive and commendable.  I'm afraid it's just not the right fit for me at this time.

Hiring Manager:  (Exasperated)  Jack, I'm really confused here.  What do you mean when you say it's not the right fit?  Last week everything seemed to be very positive.  Have you accepted another offer?

Applicant:  No, like any candidate, I need to keep my finger on the pulse of the hiring market to see what's out there.  So I regularly screen employers to measure their value propositions for employees to make sure what I'm offering is competitive in the marketplace.

Hiring Manager:  So, you're telling me that we were just market research for you and that you were never really seriously thinking about working for us at all?

Applicant:  I wouldn't look at it that way.  As I said, I enjoyed meeting with you and your team; it's just not the right match for me at this time.

Hiring Manager:  There's that phrase again about "match" and "fit."  Jack, I have to be honest with you.  This is really putting us in a bad position.  You're telling me we have to start our search all over again?

Applicant: Well, as a job seeker, I know I've been there many times myself.  You've got a good company.  I'm sure you'll find something.

Hiring Manager:  Jack, this search has taken us several months; and as you know, it's a difficult time out there to be hiring right now.  Is there any way we can get you to reconsider?  I mean, perhaps we could schedule another meeting or something -

Applicant:  I'm sorry.  I have business needs that I have to attend to, so I can't just meet with every employer who wants to make me an offer.  If I did that, I'd never be able to do the rest of the things I have to do.  (Side note:  This is an actual paraphrasing of something that was once told to this author by a recruiter - you can't make this kind of diplomatic finesse up.)

Hiring Manager:  Jack, don't you think this is just a little unprofessional?  I mean, you wasted a good deal of our time that could have been spent looking at candidates who were serious about working for us.

Applicant:  Excuse me, Fred, but didn't you tell me you folks had been in a hiring freeze for the past year? That didn't seem to stop you from leaving all those positions up on your Web site during that time.  How much time did you waste looking at all those resumes you received?

Hiring Manager:  We didn't waste any time.  We weren't looking at any resumes -

Applicant:  That's what I mean.  You advertised for jobs you weren't planning to fill and wasted a lot of other people's time that they could have spent more productively talking to companies that were actually hiring; but now that the shoe's on the other foot, you're upset because you think I wasted your time? 

Hiring Manager:  But it's not the same -

Applicant: No, it's not. But you know what it is, Fred?

Hiring Manager:  What?

Applicant:  It's just business.  Thank you for your call.  I wish you well in your future endeavors. 

(Curtain)

Undercover Boss? How About "Undercover Applicant" Instead?

Okay, I admit it.  I've never been a fan of reality TV.  I often think I'm the only person who has never watched a single episode of "Survivor," never got into "The Amazing Race," and never really got "hooked" on any of the shows.  But I know the shows are cheap to produce, and so long as there is good-guy / bad-guy conflict that people can root for or against, we're likely to get more and more of them. 

However, there IS one show I've been tempted to watch but have never actually bothered to, and that is "Undercover Boss."  The premise is that a CEO takes on the role of a lower-level staffer at his - and yes, it's still mostly "his" as opposed to "hers" these days - own firm to see what it's like in the trenches.  The boss takes on the role of a mail clerk, cleaner, or other menial task to view life from the bottom.  How would the boss do at your job?  Could he handle it?  And what would he learn? 

I have a counter-proposal for the networks:  Do another show where the CEO has to interview for that same job. 

You read that right.  Have the guy in the suit with the diamond cuff links actually interview for an administrative assistant position, data-entry clerk, documentation specialist, or similar menial job and see how he does.  Better still, have him do so at several firms like his own and see how many callbacks he gets (or doesn't.)  The scenarios practically write themselves:

• Forget that continuous-improvement thing.  Imagine a documentation specialist trying to "improve" the way things are done in filing system.  He'd be backhanded and out the door in a few days (assuming he even lasted that long) for "not doing things the way we do them around here." 
• Sorry, we need someone with better computer skills.  Sure, in the executive suite you probably have someone to operate your computer and print your calendar; but in the trenches, you gotta do it yourself and know how to do it flawlessly.  Don't know Excel 101 or how to do a mail-merge in Word?  See ya.
• You don't fit within our diversity program.  Let's face it, go into any room full of CEOs or stop by any golf club and it's going to be white-male central.  Now picture those same guys trying to interview for low-level jobs when HR has a set of diversity goals to maintain.  Admittedly, it may be hard on some levels to feel too much sympathy for these guys, but that's only until you realize countless other people out there run into this same wall every day.
• You're just not a team player.  Any executive with years of experience is not likely to fit too readily into a group of people whom he still sees as his subordinates.  Seeing how things are done - particularly if they are done incorrectly or contrary to any initiatives he tried to launch or thought he'd already pushed through - will make him angry and frustrated.  That leaves him a catch-22:  He either becomes part of the problem by adopting the systems and practices he opposed, OR he tries to change them and gets branded - you guessed it - as somebody who's a "troublemaker."  Sayonara.
• This guy can't even use a copier.  Let's face it, once we pass the age of 30, that bloody machine gets increasingly difficult to use.  When you were in your 20s, you knew all the buttons and features; but somewhere along the way, the complexity grew as your ability to handle it fell.  Consequently, it's all most people who aren't admin assistants can do to simply enter an accounting code and press start.  That sorting and stapling function?  Copying on both sides?  Changing paper sizes?  Good luck with that.

Think about it.  Every week having the opportunity to watch CEOs getting bounced from menial jobs that they're not able to handle?  That might be a reality show worth watching.

What I Learned from Classic TV: Star Trek

After drawing life lessons from classic cinema (Animal House, Blues Brothers, Blazing Saddles), I thought I'd give classic TV a shot.  (What can I say, the requests keep coming...)  To that end, we devote today's entry to discussing what the crew of the starship Enterprise taught us about the workplace of the future.  Enjoy!

***

In the future, everybody will speak English.  Yes, this applies not only to all the nationalities here on Earth but also to distant alien races on the far side of the galaxy.  Didn't know that, did you?  (Side note:  On a related tangent, I always wondered why Charlie Heston couldn't figure out he was back on Earth in the original "Planet of the Apes" movie.  You'd think the fact that the gorillas and chimps both spoke perfect English might have given him some clue long before that famous Statue of Liberty shot at the end...)

In the future, your coworkers will be reliable and trustworthy.  I think it was Scott Adams of "Dilbert" fame who pointed out - correctly, I think - that people in the future will have to be much more worthy of your trust than your current coworkers for the following reason:  These people will be responsible for sending your molecules across time and space and reassembling them in their original form via the transporter.  Bear in mind, these are the same people who can't be relied on to refill the copy machine when it runs out of paper, wash out the coffee urn, or complete the simple parts of an assigned project.  Yet in the future, you will be able to literally trust them with your very life.  Amazing!

Never, under ANY circumstances, go to a job interview in a red shirt.  And if, God forbid, you actually make this critical mistake, never let your boss refer to you simply by your last name ("Johnson" or "Williams").  If you do, then it's all but guaranteed that when the malevolent alien life form arrives, you're going to be the first casualty.  Call it "Rule of the Cast Regulars," which you can usually find under "Ratings Preservation" in your textbook...

Diversity will be the norm, but some things may not change that much.  Face it, whatever else you might want to say about Gene Rodenberry, the man WAS a visionary.  The crew of the Enterprise was the most diverse of its time - in fact, you had more minorities on the starship bridge than you did on the cast of Friends or Seinfeld thirty years later.  In the future, diversity won't be official policy because it will simply be natural.  That said, however, white males will apparently still occupy the captain's seat...

In the future, things will keep changing even if they worked fine the first go-round.  Ever look at the Klingons in the original show?  Then see Worf on "Next Generation" or any of the movies and wonder, "Hey, since when did the Klingons get those wild craniums?"  Apparently, makeup artists just couldn't leave well enough alone, so the space bikers of the future got a makeover sometime between the show and the sequels.  Much like you were probably happier with XP before Vista, expect things to change for nothing but the sake of change, even in the future.

And on a deeply personal note -

In the future, you will need to guard copyright much more closely.  Why?  Well, back in the early days of the Internet, a friend sent me the now-famous list of "100 Reasons Why Captain Kirk is Better Than Captain Picard."  Being a bit more of a Picard fan than Shatner fan, I laughed, went home, and typed up a similar list entitled, "101 Reasons Captain Picard is Better Than Captain Kirk."  (Ed. note:  Why, yes, I was single at the time.  Why do you ask?)  I sent it back to him, and suffice it to say that more than a decade later, both lists are now all over the Internet.  If I'd only thought to copyright it first, I might not need to be job searching now...

The De-Motivational Job Search Speaker

A de-motivational speaker is someone who does exactly what his title suggests:  Rather than inspire, he deflates.  From Scott Adams's "Dilbert" characters to Chris Farley's hilarious "SNL" failure-in-life Matt Foley (who is "three-times divorced and lives in a van...down by the river..."), such figures are comical in abstract conception and anything but amusing when actually encountered.

I heard one just last week.

Now, first some requisite clarification and honesty:  The gentleman was sincere in his efforts to help those out of work, and he clearly was an expert in his field, so comparing him to Farley (or Foley) is admittedly unfair.  He also was far more grounded than any "Dilbert" character, and I actually liked his presentation for the most part.  The only problem stemmed from his failure at the first rule of any presentation:  He didn't know his audience.

I won't disclose the man's name or the session I attended, but suffice it to say it was a local networking event that was designed to help people learn more about landing jobs with the federal government.  His presentation was well thought out, well delivered, and actually contained more than a few nuggets of useful information.  In that sense, his session was rewarding. 

What bothered me was the fact that the man was speaking to us about how to land a federal position when he himself had been with the government for nearly a decade and had transferred to a government job after retiring from the military. 

Do not misunderstand me here.  The fellow was a veteran who was - and is - clearly entitled to rewards in exchange for his sacrifices and service. No one I know - or would care to be associated with, for that matter - would seek to deny him the benefits to which he is clearly entitled (and priority consideration for employment should certainly qualify). 

But here's the problem:  For this fellow to be telling a room full of civilians how to land a federal job when his status as a veteran undoubtedly helped him with his transition does next to nothing to help people without that background achieve the same goal.  Put another way, if we aren't veterans and don't hold the requisite clearances as part of our background, then moving from a civilian position into a federal one will be anything but as easy or smooth as it was for him. 

The instructor told us - and I'm paraphrasing his words here - that his transition from soldier to government employee "took several months of weathering the application process."  I can name several acquaintances off the top of my head who have tried to land jobs with the government or with federal contractors for years but who were never able to make the jump because they weren't veterans and lacked prior security clearances.  In a sense, the clearance is much like the proverbial Catch-22 recent graduates face when it comes to experience:  You can't a job without it, but you can't get it until you get a job.  Looking back, the instructor's presentation reminded me of Steve Martin's famous "How to Live Like a Millionaire" routine where he starts by telling the audience, "First, go get a million dollars." 

A suggestion?  If you're ever presenting to any group, make a point of knowing the perspective of your audience.  Speaking to a group of civilians if you're a military veteran about your transition to federal employment is a lot like having a senior executive discuss the importance of quality with front-line employees - whose paychecks may be significantly smaller - by mentioning what it's like to shop at Nordstrom or Whole Foods. (Side note:  I actually heard a senior vice president use this very example under just these conditions.  Suffice it to say his talk probably did more harm than good in terms of inspiring people to focus on quality work...) You'll lose your audience from the word "go." 

And unlike a fictitious speaker living in a van down by the river, chances are your audience won't find much to laugh about.

George Costanza as a Role Model? Think About It...

One of the most popular episodes of the TV show "Seinfeld" has perpetual loser George Costanza concluding that, because his life is in shambles, the only logical course of action is to begin doing the "complete opposite" of everything he normally does.  The episode includes a number of hilarious incidents where he challenges street punks to fight in a movie theatre, turns down an offer of sex on a first date, and openly criticizes George Steinbrenner to his face during an interview with New York Yankees.

Believe it or not, he may have been on to something.

No, I'm not advocating trashing your prospective boss in a job interview - nor am I suggesting a head-case like George would actually make a sound role model for life, let alone the job search - but a recent experience taught me that commonly-accepted wisdom may not necessarily be the best course for seeking a job in today's market.  I recently went on a job interview without doing much preparation of any kind.

It was one of the best exchanges I ever had.

Stick with me here.  Normally, I do what all the advice books and seminars tell us to do before a job interview. I check the Web site to learn all I can about the company, and I reach out to contacts to learn what their experiences with the firm have been.  I read press releases, business publications, and blogs to find out as much as I can about the good and bad of the place.  I look up my interviewers on Linked In to see what kinds of tidbits I can learn about their backgrounds, what things we may have in common or what interests we may share, etc. 

Guess what?  After a year of doing this, I'm still just as unemployed. Even worse, I can't begin to count the number of times this preparation turned out to be a colossal waste of time for interviews that were for jobs that either didn't exist or which were frozen. 

So, when I landed a job interview last week with a branch of the federal government, I decided George's approach might be worth emulating, albeit to a lesser extent.  Instead of my usual informational-overload of preparation and research, I decided I would simply look up the organization's Web site on the day of the interview, check the interviewer's name on Linked In, and just bring an extra copy of my resume and a few samples of my earlier work.  I would not do an exhaustive search about the organization's history and mission, I would not print out multiple copies of my portfolio to leave with the interviewer, and I would not memorize complex talking points to recite when I got the usual "tell me about..." behavioral questions.  I wouldn't do any additional checking or researching on anything related to the organization, and I would not reach out to a single person to learn about his or her experiences.   (If nothing else, I figured this would give me an interesting posting for this blog.)

Now admittedly, I didn't undertake this particular initiative without some trepidation.  One frequently-repeated scenario in my head had the following exchange taking place:

Interviewer:  "Tell me what you know about our organization."

Me:  "Just what I know on the Web site...ABC...XYZ..."

Interviewer (clearly put off):  "I see."

Me (clearing throat):  "Well, after the last five or six jobs I interviewed for all got canceled or filled from within, I've learned it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to do too much advance preparation until I know for sure that the company is serious about filling a position and looking to hire externally.  So why don't we put our cards on the table?  Tell me if this interview is for an actual position, and if so, why are you looking at outside candidates?"

Now, most interview guides and advice books will tell you this blunt approach would be suicidal.  But I doubt many seekers in today's job market who have been misled about positions - or worse, openly lied to about offers that never came or jobs that didn't even exist to begin with - would see it that way.  Most, I suspect, would love to have this sort of direct exchange but are understandably too frightened to have it.

After twelve months of frustration, however, I was looking forward to it.  Much like another "Seinfeld" episode where Elaine decides she only wants to attend a wedding in India to spite the bride - who, it turns out, only invites Elaine at the last moment because she does not expect her to actually attend - I decided that for just this once, I would go into an interview with almost no preparation and just see what happened.  If it went south?  Well, it wasn't as if all the hours of preparation, effort, and "doing the right thing" had paid that many dividends anyway. 

What happened? Well, for starters, it actually turned out to be one of the best interviews I've had in a long time.  Why?  Because like a lot of searchers, I lowered my expectations.  Once upon a time, you prepared for interviews and hoped they would lead to a job.  Not so much any more.  Nowadays, chances are the interview is for a position that may or may not be filled because the company offering it may - or may not, depending on whom you talk with  and when you talk with them - be in a hiring freeze.  I didn't walk in expecting a job; I went in expecting the usual song and dance about getting to know you and then deciding whether to keep in touch in the near future, etc.

And that's exactly what the interview was.

The interviewer - a very polite and likable guy - wanted to see what skills I had and talk about some "possible openings" in the future.  More to the point, since I had figured there would not be an actual position behind the interview, I was far more relaxed than I normally might have been.  During our conversation, I even suggested a couple of Web sites that I thought would be helpful in dealing with some work issues he was wrestling with.  By the time we were done, instead of feeling I had to go that extra mile somehow to show my interest in any job he had that might fit me, I simply thanked him for his time; and we exchanged business cards.  That was all.  I walked out relieved that I had not wasted countless hours preparing for the interview, and while it hadn't led to a job, I had at least managed to get out of the house on a sunny afternoon.  Best of all, I hopefully made a contact that would help me expand my network.  If nothing else, it was another step toward something down the line if things do go well.

And there, in fact, is the irony in all of this.  In today's job market, you may actually have to go into an interview not expecting a job but to simply build a connection instead.   All those instructions to meticulously research a company and learn as much as you can before going in may still be valid; but when actual unemployment hovers near 16-17 percent (9.6 percent officially as of this writing; but it's actually closer to 16-17 percent when people who have given up the search are counted) and companies are extremely reluctant to hire anybody, perhaps doing the opposite can actually pay more emotional dividends than conventional wisdom.

Or to put it another way, maybe like the proverbial stuck clock that's still right twice a day, George wasn't always off target with some of his ideas...

A Leveling of the Playing Field?

Traditionally, job interviews have never been anything close to a level playing field.  You need the job, but the hiring manager holds all the cards.  He or she can select you or any of the countless other candidates pounding on the office door.  You, on the other hand, have only your services to offer, so the weight is on your shoulders to prove yourself worthwhile. 

That may finally be changing.

The Internet has led to an explosion in available information that both job seekers and corporations are learning to exploit, but trends favor the former more than the latter.  Why?  Because job searchers' desperation makes them more likely than companies to use every available tool to learn about firms and positions.  Corporations, on the other hand, have to wait for applicants to come to them and then run the usual credit / background checks once selections are made.  Here's the problem:  The new tools will soon give applicants enough advance information to decide whether or not the interview should even take place.  

Glassdoor is one such example.  Unlike Hoovers or the Vault, which offer basic business insights (company profiles, competitors, financial performance, etc.) Glassdoor offers job seekers insight into the inner workings and experiences of actual employees at a given firm.  Workers post anonymous thoughts - both positive and negative - about what it's like to work at the company.  Salary ranges, interview experiences (including actual questions) are posted, as are additional tips and suggestions for interested applicants.  In short, the site is a gold mine of critical information an applicant should know before interviewing with the company - or even deciding whether the company is worth interviewing with in the first place.

This last point is where companies ignore the Internet at their own peril.  While it may be commonplace nowadays to interview candidates for positions that don't exist or for jobs that are ultimately canceled if they ever existed in the first place, in the long run such shoddy practices risk getting the company blacklisted on any number of different job-related Web sites.  In the not-too-distant future, multiple postings from mistreated applicants will make it increasingly difficult for companies to hire the talent that they need to succeed.  And while one can always dismiss a few negative postings as the inevitable disgruntled complaints from a few bad apples,  multiple criticisms on different sites will eventually be seen as a warning for prospective employees to either stay away or to ask very direct, challenging questions that will almost certainly catch unprepared interviewers by surprise.

In fact, according to a recent white paper by Simplyhired, the job market of the future will be marked by almost perfect information as both candidates and companies know more about one another long before meeting for an actual interview.  However, the changing dynamics will come to favor the candidate as the process evolves:

In the future, job seekers will be able to access a complete and accurate picture of all information related to a job opportunity. For example: a mechanical engineer in San Francisco will be able to view available jobs and top hiring companies not only in his field and location, but in other areas as well ... He will know that the salary range is $62,000 to $84,000, and that the top hiring companies for his field are Southwest Airlines, Raytheon and Ford. He will also be able to note that while transportation remains a top industry for his occupation, there are a growing number of mechanical engineering jobs in a different industry (aerospace), or a different location (Atlanta). Knowing this, he may approach job search in an entirely new way. By centralizing job listings with all the other information that job seekers must consider, future job search applications will be able to build a holistic picture of each potential job opportunity. Job seekers will be able to compare positions side-by-side and point-by-point, allowing them to make informed decisions for their individual situations.

True Example:  Several months ago I interviewed with one of the Big Four firms for a consulting position.  The manager asked for my salary requirements, and when I answered, she grimaced.  "I'm sorry," she said.  "But that's outside our range for this position."  I smiled and opened one of the folders I had brought and took out a printout that showed the different salary ranges her company reportedly paid for various positions.  Her eyes widened.  "Where did you get this?" she demanded.  I politely explained that as a good candidate, it was my job to research a company "as thoroughly as possible" before an interview.  "May I keep this?" she asked.  "I know what I'm going to be checking when I get back to my desk!" 

Now, admittedly, disproving the manager's assertion in this manner may have been counterproductive to my job search - I never did receive an offer from that particular firm after the interview - but knowing what the reported ranges were going into the interview did empower me in ways that would not have been possible before the Internet.  And while one should certainly always be suspicious of anything found online, being able to locate and cross-check such information on various sites gives the candidate a much better ability to challenge mistaken (or false) assertions about jobs and their reported pay scales. 

In short, the playing field may finally be starting to level in ways that finally begin to favor the candidate as opposed to the company.  Expect this to shake things up in the very near future.   

The Process Begins - Again

For me, this process started more than a year ago when I joined the estimated 18 million Americans out of work. My story was no different from anyone else’s – I showed up at work, was told to report to HR as part of a “reorganization,” and within twenty-five minutes I was out on the street with my desk in my hands wondering what exactly had just happened.

Over the next 14 months, I reached out, e-mailed, called, begged, and networked my way to no particular destination. I joined job search groups, revamped countless resumes, answered myriad advertisements, rehearsed multiple elevators speeches, and after several near misses and close calls, I finally managed to achieve…

…nothing.

Well, technically that’s not true. I gained a lot of friends, learned a great deal, and found out more about myself than I ever knew before, but to imply that all of these achievements and learning experiences in and of themselves should be some sort of reward means trying to ignore the pile of bills that come in each month with only a slowly dwindling savings account to cover them. Life doesn’t follow the predictable pattern of television sitcoms where everything is happily resolved at the end of a half hour with some lesson to be learned by everyone – no, it’s actually a much longer, frustrating, and tedious process. And it’s one that continues as I type these words.

So, why am I starting this blog? I mean, there are countless other Web postings about the job search process out there, so why add yet another voice to the cacophonous process that marks the modern job seekers’ dilemma? I can’t promise my experience will be any more “unique” than anyone else’s; but then, a shared experience hopefully offers some value if for nothing other than entertainment for the equally misfortunate. And if we can share a few stories and tips along the way, who knows what might happen?

Stay tuned – it should be an interesting ride!