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!

The Return of the Purple Squirrel

Earlier this year I wrote about the mythical purple squirrel that one fellow job seeker told me about.  The term represents the mythical perfect-fit companies always seek but can never find.  Rather than compromise on expected perfection, they keep searching and hoping they'll find that jack-of-all-possible-trades who can:

• Solve every single problem and need
• Get along perfectly with ever single conflicting personality in the office
• Bring decades of experience to the position without somehow being over 40 years of age, and yet is still
• Willing to work for the lowest salary grade possible.

Well, as they say in horror movie circles, "He's baaaack..." 

True enough, no less an authority than Juan Williams's favorite former employer NPR posted an excellent article on just how far companies are willing to hold out as they search for that ultimate candidate.  With rising health care costs, leaner budgets, and a continuing anxiety over the ongoing recession, firms are so reluctant to hire that it's not uncommon for them to decide even after finding suitable candidates with strong records that, "Well, for us the time is just not right at the moment.  Call us back in another 6 months."  (Which makes perfect sense, actually, since most job seekers have little else to do but circle back to the same companies that reject them every six months, right?) 

Anyway, you can read the full article here.  It's part of an ongoing series NPR is producing on how skills gaps (or perceived gaps) are in many instances keeping companies from hiring.  A particularly notable part of the series addresses the fact that many applicants apparently continue to "live in the past" when it comes to salaries.  The argument goes that if an applicant has transferable-but-not-identical skills, s/he should be willing to compromise on salary to take a position. 

This would be almost comical if it didn't ignore the more fundamental fact that employers often won't hire someone who used to make a higher salary in his or her previous job.  The reason?  Once the economy picks back up, they fear, the candidate will bolt for a higher-paying position elsewhere. 

This puts candidates in a perfect Catch-22:  If they disclose what they actually made at their last jobs, they may price themselves out of consideration.  On the other hand, if they lowball what they were actually making and the discrepancy is discovered as part of the standard due diligence normally done before a hiring decision is made, the candidate looks dishonest and won't receive an offer.  In short, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. 

Bottom line?  Candidates may indeed have to get used to living in a different world as far as compensation is concerned, but they also shouldn't be penalized for once making something more at their previous positions, either.  Put another way, companies shouldn't expect to have it both ways, or they may find themselves unable to hire anyone at all.