A friend was recently telling me how cumbersome it was to apply to some positions on bigger companies’ online portals. There is so much information you have to enter over and over again, the same information in so many different places, etc. It is really time consuming, and that’s just for one position! If there is more than one of interest in that company, you have to enter the information all over again!
Really? Was it really that bad? So, I took a look. I went to a really large company headquartered here in Southfield (many of us have had to deal with their customer service department at one time or another) to look at their submittal process. First things first, I set out to find a position that would interest me.
Narrowing down the selection started off my conundrum. There are a couple of local offices, which one do I want? More than one? Does that increase my chances of being hired? OK, let’s search under all of the local offices…..
Next, which category? Hmmm, most of my background is in HR/Operations, but to not limit my options, let’s just go with all. Wouldn’t that be easier than trying to figure out which is the right category? So many companies have differing titles for the same position, I don’t know which way to go here. I’ll just do all of them.
Excellent. Narrowed it down to 35 openings. Wow, that’s a lot. More than I thought there would be! Scrolling…..don’t understand what those first two titles even mean, so scrolling…..scrolling….oh, there’s one that looks like it might be HR! Nope, some sort of legal compliance and I’m not an attorney, so scrolling.…scrolling…..
Another one that looks like it might be HR. I pull up the job description and read through. Well, at least as much as I can. Honestly, I don’t understand much of what they are asking me. I am not sure if I have that experience, since I don’t really know what it is. Bummer. Maybe I don’t have the experience I thought I did. Wow, that’s really a bummer. All these years in staffing and I don’t know what that stuff means. How disheartening.
So, back to scrolling……faster this time, since I’m pretty sure I won’t understand what those other openings are either.
Done. How disappointing. Out of 35 positions, I don’t think I’m qualified for one of them. And I didn’t even get to the submittal part! How frustrating. There is a small amount of relief that I already have a job, and one that I love, but still. What if I didn’t? What if my unemployment was running out and I had to go through this every day? Tough, tough gig at this point.
My reaction will definitely be different when someone says they have been applying on line for positions. My sympathies, for sure. Fingers crossed, you have all the key words you need in your resume if you do understand the job description. Oh dear, the resume………
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Friday, September 2, 2011
Slow Down, You Moved Too Fast......
http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news/local/man-gets-tangled-up-in-new-hire-mix-up-20110901-wpms
The attached article will no doubt strike a chord with many. The excitement of the hiring manager’s voice when they pick up our phone call…the adrenaline when they say they got the job…and the disappointment of being told they don’t like us anymore. All these are too familiar a feeling when we are in the job market.
I said I have very strong feelings about this article (please read if you haven’t already since I’ll probably address it more than once!), and I do. I was really intrigued as to the big ‘mix up’, and then really disappointed to learn it was just because the manager thought he was someone else.
Wait…what?! The manager thought he was someone else?!?
Ok, Mr. Manager, I have a concern here. Several, actually. You answer the phone and a couple of things can happen at this point: you recognize the voice of the person you are talking to since you developed some sort of rapport when he interviewed with you; you ask for clarification or spelling of the last name to be sure you were talking to the right person (you said there were three applications in front of you, all with similar names); or you say you will get back to them, when you have a minute to talk, thereby controlling the situation and making sure you are doing the right thing.
So let’s start with the first point: you recognize the voice since you developed a rapport during the interview. Oh, you didn’t interview them in person? You were just hiring off the resume? Oh dear, that is a problem. So you had no idea who you were really talking to, and for a server in a restaurant you really should. As a matter of fact, when you interview a candidate and you love them for the job, you should have just offered it to them on the spot! That would have made for an awesome story for FOX 2 to pick up!
On the second point, you ask for clarification of the last name since you had multiple applications with similar last names. The only thing I could offer to you here is to pay closer attention to detail on this one. It IS a major screw up. I’ll bet if that was one of your servers making this sort of an error, they’d have heard about it, and not been allowed to offer an ‘opps’ as the response.
Behind door number three? Taking control of the situation and calling the candidate back. This would definitely have been my choice. It would have been controlled, exact, communicated clearly and correctly and executed with finesse and a level of respect.
The article in itself is a bummer for the guy. He quit a job he already had to take this one and he’s left out on the street, figuratively speaking. It wasn’t his fault the manager made a rash decision, but he’s paying the price for it. It would have been nice for the manager to hire him anyway, or to throw him a bone on another possible position, or even made a call to the former employer. Any one of those things would have been a nice thing to do.
The bigger picture problem here that I have is with the way the whole thing came down. A hiring manager should ALWAYS know who he’s making an offer to! I realize that sounds silly, but that’s exactly what happened here. Managers, or anyone in position with hiring authority, should always be in control of the situation. Phone calls should be made within the privacy of their office (where it is quiet and well, private!). Offers of work, regardless of the role, should be done with a level of professionalism. Only their application, or resume, should be in front of the hiring manager. There shouldn’t still be a stack at this point, unless you have multiple, yet identical, openings. There should be some amount of small talk with the candidate, perhaps enough to authenticate the identity of the person you’re speaking with, if necessary! None of these things should be exempt from the hiring process. Shame on those who make hiring decisions without going through their own version of the ‘triple lock down’. My fellow recruiters will know that, for certain, and probably grimaced when they read that. Duh, triple lock down, dude!
I wish anyone who ever hires had to be trained, or certified, in the process. Not just the ‘legal’ side, but the ‘human’ side, too. It’s not a skill set that is intrinsic for everyone. For most, it’s learned. For some, it’s a talent. For this restaurant manager, it was a tough lesson learned. Hopefully. For the next guys’ sake.
The attached article will no doubt strike a chord with many. The excitement of the hiring manager’s voice when they pick up our phone call…the adrenaline when they say they got the job…and the disappointment of being told they don’t like us anymore. All these are too familiar a feeling when we are in the job market.
I said I have very strong feelings about this article (please read if you haven’t already since I’ll probably address it more than once!), and I do. I was really intrigued as to the big ‘mix up’, and then really disappointed to learn it was just because the manager thought he was someone else.
Wait…what?! The manager thought he was someone else?!?
Ok, Mr. Manager, I have a concern here. Several, actually. You answer the phone and a couple of things can happen at this point: you recognize the voice of the person you are talking to since you developed some sort of rapport when he interviewed with you; you ask for clarification or spelling of the last name to be sure you were talking to the right person (you said there were three applications in front of you, all with similar names); or you say you will get back to them, when you have a minute to talk, thereby controlling the situation and making sure you are doing the right thing.
So let’s start with the first point: you recognize the voice since you developed a rapport during the interview. Oh, you didn’t interview them in person? You were just hiring off the resume? Oh dear, that is a problem. So you had no idea who you were really talking to, and for a server in a restaurant you really should. As a matter of fact, when you interview a candidate and you love them for the job, you should have just offered it to them on the spot! That would have made for an awesome story for FOX 2 to pick up!
On the second point, you ask for clarification of the last name since you had multiple applications with similar last names. The only thing I could offer to you here is to pay closer attention to detail on this one. It IS a major screw up. I’ll bet if that was one of your servers making this sort of an error, they’d have heard about it, and not been allowed to offer an ‘opps’ as the response.
Behind door number three? Taking control of the situation and calling the candidate back. This would definitely have been my choice. It would have been controlled, exact, communicated clearly and correctly and executed with finesse and a level of respect.
The article in itself is a bummer for the guy. He quit a job he already had to take this one and he’s left out on the street, figuratively speaking. It wasn’t his fault the manager made a rash decision, but he’s paying the price for it. It would have been nice for the manager to hire him anyway, or to throw him a bone on another possible position, or even made a call to the former employer. Any one of those things would have been a nice thing to do.
The bigger picture problem here that I have is with the way the whole thing came down. A hiring manager should ALWAYS know who he’s making an offer to! I realize that sounds silly, but that’s exactly what happened here. Managers, or anyone in position with hiring authority, should always be in control of the situation. Phone calls should be made within the privacy of their office (where it is quiet and well, private!). Offers of work, regardless of the role, should be done with a level of professionalism. Only their application, or resume, should be in front of the hiring manager. There shouldn’t still be a stack at this point, unless you have multiple, yet identical, openings. There should be some amount of small talk with the candidate, perhaps enough to authenticate the identity of the person you’re speaking with, if necessary! None of these things should be exempt from the hiring process. Shame on those who make hiring decisions without going through their own version of the ‘triple lock down’. My fellow recruiters will know that, for certain, and probably grimaced when they read that. Duh, triple lock down, dude!
I wish anyone who ever hires had to be trained, or certified, in the process. Not just the ‘legal’ side, but the ‘human’ side, too. It’s not a skill set that is intrinsic for everyone. For most, it’s learned. For some, it’s a talent. For this restaurant manager, it was a tough lesson learned. Hopefully. For the next guys’ sake.
Friday, July 15, 2011
Down But Not Out
Reading through Yahoo news this morning, I came across an article, and subsequent link, to this: Down But Not Out: http://downbutnotoutletters.tumblr.com/
It is a compilation of stories (in their own words) of those who have been unemployed for an extended period of time and what it means to them; short and long term effects.
Curiosity got the better of me and I started to read through the individual stories. Once I started, I couldn't stop. Each and every story is one I've heard before; no one story stood out from the others. Not to diminish their situations, it is just that none was unique. I'm not sure what I was looking for, maybe at least one story to say, "See, you could have done something different to change the outcome!", but I never found one. Each of these letters came from someone who wanted to work, and could work, but for reasons beyond their control, weren't doing so.
Instead, what I found were some very cold employers, a market that is severly disabled due to work going overseas, negative stereotypes of people who have been unemployed and a large section of corporate America who is not willing, for whatever reason, to help out those who are trying to do the right thing (mortgage modification, benefit plan adjustments, affording day care to continue to work, etc.).
Another similarity among the stories were the suggestions made by each and every person that were very valid. There is a big difference between a program working 'on paper' and how it works in real life. If these suggestions were made to those doing the hiring, creating and executing programs, foreclosing on homes, etc., we may come to some sort of agreement and be able to help some of these people get back to work.
For any employer reading this, please don't overlook someone who has been unemployed/underemployed at any point over the past 4 or so years. In most cases it was due to some sort of downsizing, layoff, change in ownership or outsourcing. There are some very good, qualified individuals available but we are overlooking them due to our own preconceived ideas of what constitutes a 'good' employee.
So, recruiters and hiring managers everywhere, please do your part to help out. Please give feedback as often as you can to candidates who you have interviewed but didn't receive an offer from you. Please let them know if there is anything they can do next time. Education, age, drive distance, etc, are all poor reasons for not hiring someone. Take a look at their skills and their personalities. Hire people who are qualified and will fit into your company. THESE are the people who will be your most dedicated employees. THESE are the people who aren't going to come to you telling you they are going to quit unless you come up with a counteroffer. THESE are the people who will make sure your clients/customers are taken care of on your behalf. THESE are the people who truly understand the value of the job and will work extra hard to stay employed. THESE are the people on which you can grow and thrive in your business.
You know you will be able to count on them. After all, they are "Down But Not Out".
It is a compilation of stories (in their own words) of those who have been unemployed for an extended period of time and what it means to them; short and long term effects.
Curiosity got the better of me and I started to read through the individual stories. Once I started, I couldn't stop. Each and every story is one I've heard before; no one story stood out from the others. Not to diminish their situations, it is just that none was unique. I'm not sure what I was looking for, maybe at least one story to say, "See, you could have done something different to change the outcome!", but I never found one. Each of these letters came from someone who wanted to work, and could work, but for reasons beyond their control, weren't doing so.
Instead, what I found were some very cold employers, a market that is severly disabled due to work going overseas, negative stereotypes of people who have been unemployed and a large section of corporate America who is not willing, for whatever reason, to help out those who are trying to do the right thing (mortgage modification, benefit plan adjustments, affording day care to continue to work, etc.).
Another similarity among the stories were the suggestions made by each and every person that were very valid. There is a big difference between a program working 'on paper' and how it works in real life. If these suggestions were made to those doing the hiring, creating and executing programs, foreclosing on homes, etc., we may come to some sort of agreement and be able to help some of these people get back to work.
For any employer reading this, please don't overlook someone who has been unemployed/underemployed at any point over the past 4 or so years. In most cases it was due to some sort of downsizing, layoff, change in ownership or outsourcing. There are some very good, qualified individuals available but we are overlooking them due to our own preconceived ideas of what constitutes a 'good' employee.
So, recruiters and hiring managers everywhere, please do your part to help out. Please give feedback as often as you can to candidates who you have interviewed but didn't receive an offer from you. Please let them know if there is anything they can do next time. Education, age, drive distance, etc, are all poor reasons for not hiring someone. Take a look at their skills and their personalities. Hire people who are qualified and will fit into your company. THESE are the people who will be your most dedicated employees. THESE are the people who aren't going to come to you telling you they are going to quit unless you come up with a counteroffer. THESE are the people who will make sure your clients/customers are taken care of on your behalf. THESE are the people who truly understand the value of the job and will work extra hard to stay employed. THESE are the people on which you can grow and thrive in your business.
You know you will be able to count on them. After all, they are "Down But Not Out".
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Wait, what?! Did I read that right?!
Please read this article before you read this blog post…..
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43655299/ns/business-personal_finance/
OK, deep breath….First, I’d like to clarify what I just read….a CEO in New Zealand thinks that ‘menstruation makes women less productive in the workplace than men”. AND, he’s the CEO of New Zealand’s Employers and Manufacturers Association?
So, let me back up for a second. This man, Alasdair Thompson has probably picked up a plethora of tidbits throughout his career, including workplace trending and patterns, issues, concerns, and many more. He must have some sort of insight into the behaviors within the work place, right?
Mr. Thompson asserts that women earn less because ‘once a month they have sick problems’ and that women take time off to go home to look after their children. Wow. Not sure what to say about all that. Actually, he’s right in part. Women do go home to look after their children when necessary. And most have a monthly cycle (I am certainly not going to assert that they miss work due to it, heck, dare I suggest we are more productive and make quicker decisions then?). But to equate that with earning less because of it? No way, buddy.
Interestingly, he also says that women take the most ‘sick time’; presumably to care for their family. I have a suggestion for Mr. Thompson……maybe you should take a look at the amount of time men take off for things like golf weekends, or sporting events, or hunting/fishing trips, or ‘guy’ weekends, or because the fantasy football draft will take hours and they need to get started at 3:00, or to BABYSIT their kids because the wife is gone. Oh dear….please don’t get me started.
I’m not picking on the men, mind you. I just wanted to suggest that the ‘time off’ scale would be equal, if not swayed the other way, if we include ALL time off, not just ‘sick time’. Regardless, as is stated in the last line of the article, that organization needed to take action to ensure ‘businesses understand discrimination is not in their interests and needed to be addressed.”
Mr. Thompson was subsequently fired from his position. His company was right to fire him. I just hope it wasn’t too late; the damage may have already been done.
Afterthought......In irony of ironies, what if his new boss is a woman? Would his biases come into play here? More misconceptions, maybe? Demi Moore in Disclosure, perhaps? As long as it’s not Michael Douglas in Falling Down, I think we’re OK.
Exactly how far away is New Zealand, anyway?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43655299/ns/business-personal_finance/
OK, deep breath….First, I’d like to clarify what I just read….a CEO in New Zealand thinks that ‘menstruation makes women less productive in the workplace than men”. AND, he’s the CEO of New Zealand’s Employers and Manufacturers Association?
So, let me back up for a second. This man, Alasdair Thompson has probably picked up a plethora of tidbits throughout his career, including workplace trending and patterns, issues, concerns, and many more. He must have some sort of insight into the behaviors within the work place, right?
Mr. Thompson asserts that women earn less because ‘once a month they have sick problems’ and that women take time off to go home to look after their children. Wow. Not sure what to say about all that. Actually, he’s right in part. Women do go home to look after their children when necessary. And most have a monthly cycle (I am certainly not going to assert that they miss work due to it, heck, dare I suggest we are more productive and make quicker decisions then?). But to equate that with earning less because of it? No way, buddy.
Interestingly, he also says that women take the most ‘sick time’; presumably to care for their family. I have a suggestion for Mr. Thompson……maybe you should take a look at the amount of time men take off for things like golf weekends, or sporting events, or hunting/fishing trips, or ‘guy’ weekends, or because the fantasy football draft will take hours and they need to get started at 3:00, or to BABYSIT their kids because the wife is gone. Oh dear….please don’t get me started.
I’m not picking on the men, mind you. I just wanted to suggest that the ‘time off’ scale would be equal, if not swayed the other way, if we include ALL time off, not just ‘sick time’. Regardless, as is stated in the last line of the article, that organization needed to take action to ensure ‘businesses understand discrimination is not in their interests and needed to be addressed.”
Mr. Thompson was subsequently fired from his position. His company was right to fire him. I just hope it wasn’t too late; the damage may have already been done.
Afterthought......In irony of ironies, what if his new boss is a woman? Would his biases come into play here? More misconceptions, maybe? Demi Moore in Disclosure, perhaps? As long as it’s not Michael Douglas in Falling Down, I think we’re OK.
Exactly how far away is New Zealand, anyway?
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Asking for Help
Now, more than ever, is the time to ask for help in your job search. Whether it be about your resume, the interview or how to network your way in to the perfect position; go for it, ask the question, ask for help.
Before you do that, however, I caution you: Be open to the responses.
Just a couple of weeks ago a candidate who contacted me directly had asked for feedback on her resume. I asked her if she had specific questions that I could address or just my impressions in general. “In general” she said, so off I went.
My first response was the Objective didn’t give me any additional or new information, so delete it. It’s not necessary if it offers nothing of value. Her response was that she read about it online and was keeping it.
My second response was to create a heading for “Volunteer Work” to clarify which positions were volunteer and which ones were for pay. The response was that it was obvious which positions were volunteer positions since they were all located in the same city where she lived. I’m sorry, I missed the connection. As a recruiter or hiring manager, how would I know that was volunteer work? Never before in my career have I come across this theory. I’ll have to think about this one.
Wearily, I ventured in to my third thought. Since the most recent experience was all volunteer (and not directly related to the overall career goals), let’s put the Education section first and highlight the Masters level degree obtained in the desired field. This will draw attention to the degree and bring into focus the scope of her education and how it will relate to the positions she’s interested. Back to the online article she read: the Education section should always be last on the resume, right above ‘References will be Provided Upon Request”.
After a long, really long, pause in which my jaw was slightly dropped, I asked her if there was anything else I could do to help her out. “Resume aside”, she said, “I just don’t know why no one will hire me”.
Hmmm. Me either.
Before you do that, however, I caution you: Be open to the responses.
Just a couple of weeks ago a candidate who contacted me directly had asked for feedback on her resume. I asked her if she had specific questions that I could address or just my impressions in general. “In general” she said, so off I went.
My first response was the Objective didn’t give me any additional or new information, so delete it. It’s not necessary if it offers nothing of value. Her response was that she read about it online and was keeping it.
My second response was to create a heading for “Volunteer Work” to clarify which positions were volunteer and which ones were for pay. The response was that it was obvious which positions were volunteer positions since they were all located in the same city where she lived. I’m sorry, I missed the connection. As a recruiter or hiring manager, how would I know that was volunteer work? Never before in my career have I come across this theory. I’ll have to think about this one.
Wearily, I ventured in to my third thought. Since the most recent experience was all volunteer (and not directly related to the overall career goals), let’s put the Education section first and highlight the Masters level degree obtained in the desired field. This will draw attention to the degree and bring into focus the scope of her education and how it will relate to the positions she’s interested. Back to the online article she read: the Education section should always be last on the resume, right above ‘References will be Provided Upon Request”.
After a long, really long, pause in which my jaw was slightly dropped, I asked her if there was anything else I could do to help her out. “Resume aside”, she said, “I just don’t know why no one will hire me”.
Hmmm. Me either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)