Posts Tagged ‘hiring companies’

Are you making these mistakes in your job search?

Wednesday, June 27th, 2012 by Judi

imagesCAYJS1USThis is a great article by Charles Purdy of Monster.   I’ve added some additional thoughts to each of his points.
  Stupid Job Search Mistakes   (The link opens in a new window.)

1.  RESTING ON YOUR PAST ACHIEVEMENTS:  One of the things I teach my clients how to do in their cover letter, their resume, and on the interview is show how their past will benefit the company interviewing them. In order of interview mistakes, here are the greatest to the least. The first two are the most common; number 4 is what you need to do.

2.  GOING OVERBOARD WITH INFORMATION:  I’ve done a few columns on variations of this. 

  • One version is the person who constantly interrupts, saying “Oh, I know what you mean.  When I was….” or “Oh I can do that.  When I was….” and launching into some long story about what they did with a previous employer  that they think ties in to the topic and is relevant, but isn’t.
  • Another is the person who provides endlessly inane details, thinking they’re relevant to the story, but aren’t.  And the lack of awareness not only impacts their story, but their inability to register that the interviewer is getting bored, is restless, and is looking for a place to break into your monologue.

3.  TRYING TO OUTSMART THE RECRUITER:  These include:

  • sending your resume everywhere, then working with a recruiter to get you in somewhere you couldn’t get in on your own
  • trying to find out the company so you can go behind the recruiter’s back, figuring the company would rather hire you if you don’t have a fee attached
  • agreeing to work with one recruiter and their client, then agreeing to work with a second recruiter hoping they’ll do better for you with the same client company
  • not telling them your salary because you think you’ll get undercut
  • play an offer you got on your own off against an offer you got through a recruiter

As a recruiter for 22 years before I became a career coach, the best way to work with your recruiter is to be honest.  About everything.   They’re a partner, not a foe.  Yes, not all of them are good, and many of them don’t “get it.”  But that’s no reason for any of the above – or similar – behaviors.  Here’s what happens when you do that kind of thing:  your file gets marked and no one in the firm will work you for any reason on any search even if you’re perfect for the position.

4.  THINKING YOU’RE TOO IMPRESSIVE TO NEED A DIGITAL PROFILE:  Before there was the internet, companies who were in the news had to manage their reputation.  When there was a problem or something damaging that came out, they had to take steps to control it.  It’s called spin and it means managing your public image, and expressly stated is that you need one.  At the very least, LinkedIn.  These days, no digital image screams OLD more than a degree date that is 1978.

5. NOT ASKING YOUR NETWORK FOR HELP:  Here’s the best way to do that:

  • Remember it’s not always about you.  Pay attention to people and think of ways you can help them by providing information or articles that might be of interest
  • Develop a relationship.  That means take an interest in them.  Take a few notes on things they mention like kids or vacation.  Ask about those things. One of my friends, who also has a sales background, once asked me, “Did you ever notice how many people don’t know how to hold a conversation?”  Yes, I have.  Don’t be one of those.
  • Ask for help.  And make a concerted effort to provide some in return.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Is a job ever worth handing over your social media log-in info?

Wednesday, March 21st, 2012 by Judi

Coercion“Oh brave new world! That has such people in’t!”  In context, this line by Miranda in Shakespeare’s The Tempest (Act V, scene 1), was ironic.  Huxley’s title Brave New World, also ironic.  Let’s visit another literary work:  A Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood.  A little less facetious and considerably closer to Orwell’s 1984.  

AP recentlyreported that Justin Basset was asked for his FaceBook log in info during an interview so that the company could examine his page because his profile was set to private.  Basset withdrew his application.  (Job seekers getting asked for Facebook passwords)

This egregious request – and expectation that it will be met – isn’t a stand-alone act.  It just happens to be blatant enough that there’s action moving against it.  But the principle is  condoned within the parameters of other invasive acts, some of which we willingly participate in.  So allow me to digress a bit and follow along outside of the job search world for a minute.

  • Want gas or electricity? A phone? Cable service?  Hand over your ss#. 
  • Get savings and gifts!  Just swipe this little tag you carry on your keychain…. (how many of those do you have?)
  • Prevent terrorism!   Millions support the Patriot Act, which allows the FBI to freely search emails,  phone records, and financial records without a court order. 
  • Been “frisked” or searched when you went through the metal detector prior to flying?
  • How much of the world knows who you are, what you’re doing, who and what you like and don’t like, where you live and went to school, when your birthday is…..because you’re all over social media?

This is not an exhaustive list by any means.

Hiring companies have always conducted references.  Government related entities have always done their checking a little more arduously, and in some cases, rightly so.  But then private companies started with the background checks and fingerprinting.  Then drug tests – even if you weren’t operating machinery.  In the last few years credit checks were added to the mix.

As a career coach, I teach job seekers how to  take back control of their career by not doing everything they’re told, showing them why they don’t have to follow rules such as submitting their resume online and teaching them more productive and effective ways.   I’ve long maintained the reason the companies take all the power is because job seekers give it to them.

But this Facebook thing is different.  There’s not a way around it.  You either give it up or go home.  Obviously not everyone is going to be able to go home, like Basset was.    So what do you do if that’s you?  You still go home.

Don’t be cowed into submission or rationalize it by telling yourself you’ve nothing to hide.  A company who will ask you to hand over that information has no respect for boundaries and that will show up elsewhere after they’ve employed you.  Signing yourself in so they can nose around isn’t any more acceptable. 

Acquiescing is the same as condoning.  Letting a company blur your boundaries is no different than being in a relationship where your partner has no respect for your boundaries.  They’re both invasive and abusive.

Nothing is black and white, especially to a private company who wants to rationalize their screening process for hiring, because unacceptable behavior is tough to define.  What is one company’s harmless behavior can be another company’s cause for dismissal.  It’s the principle we’re talking about here, and the principle is controlling others.  It’s coercion.

For the record, note the article says the Dept of Justice regards it as a federal crime to enter a social networking site in violation of the TOS (although they’re not prosecuting for it), and that both MD and IL have proposed legislation making this illegal.

Have enough respect for yourself to leave, just as Bassett did.  Because if too many people don’t, then bit by bit, it becomes acceptable, simply because there are too many complying.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in case studies, heinous, interviewing, job hunting advice | 2 Comments »

will protection help?……….or not?

Monday, October 10th, 2011 by Judi

446604344_UnemployedNeedNotApplyIllegal_xlargeIt was about two years ago when I began learning from  emailers and clients and job seekers in general that unemployed job seekers were being discriminated against.  It’s great to see an issue getting national exposure that we in the career niche have known about for awhile.

Obama’s proposed bill prevents companies with 15 people or more from not hiring someone who is unemployed.  Cheers, right?  Advocates of job seekers have applauded the proposed measure.  But others say it fosters discrimination in favor of the unemployed and may well result in unnecessary litigation. 

According to Wikipedia:  “Unemployment (or joblessness), as defined by the International Labour Organization, ocurrs when people are without jobs and they have actively looked for work within the past four weeks.”  Not hiring the unemployed goes back further than you might expect.

Wikipedia also says that in the 1576 Act each town was required to provide work for the unemployed. The Elizabethan Poor Law of 1601, one of the world’s first government-sponsored welfare programs, made a clear distinction between those who were unable to work and those able-bodied people who refused employment.

I googled various phrases to see what’s happened in the past, but didn’t find much.  In 2006, Gary Aguirre was hired by the SEC, but sued them for not hiring him when he earlier applied for the job.  In 2010, a job applicant asked on a Colorado website if he could sue a company for not hiring him when they required a degree, hired someone who didn’t have one, and he didn’t have one either.  In 2004 a male wanted to sue Hooters for not hiring him as a waiter.

In a 2007 blogpost, one executive advises HR people on how to “delicately” handle the subject of why someone wasn’t hired by issuing any number of vague phrases – none of which are new to so many of todays job seekers.   I can’t count the number of times job seekers have asked me what to do when they have the qualifications, are ignored, and see the job ad remain or even be reposted on a job board.

Personally, I can argue both sides of this.  In deference to the job seekers, I’ve written several articles about the stupidity of companies not hiring the unemployed (here’s the most recent: 
http://findtheperfectjob.com/archives/264.html   In deference to employers, I know from having been a recruiter and now from working with my clients there are an awful lot of job seekers who think they are qualified….and aren’t. 

Companies who don’t hire the unemployed are discounting a valuable resource.  After all, it’s not as if it’s a candidates’ market and thus those who are unemployed are, generally, not the cream of the crop.  These days, there are a lot of very good people who were  let go individually or as a group for reasons having nothing to do with their performance. 

On the flip side, there are going to be job seekers who have a history of not accepting responsibility for their actions and aren’t going to change that if this law goes into effect.  In a world where people sue for spilling hot coffee on their lap, for getting cancer from cigarettes and equally absurd reasons that spend taxpayer dollars and tie up the courts, this attempt at fairness will most definitely have its boundaries tested.

It may well be that a few cases have to be litigated in order to set some sort of a precedent, with or without EEOC guidelines.  This issue isn’t really anything new – it just has a different shape to it. So, whether it’s enacted or not is a moot point, really.  Only in an ideal world will companies consider candidates based solely on their capabilities and credentials, and will job seekers take responsiblity for their decisions and actions and not look for the easy way out.

I’m just wondering………so you sue a company for not being hired and then…..you get lots of money for not being hired which underlines your lack of interest in conducting  a  productive job search in the first place (and shows what type of person you really are) or you get to work there after all.  You lose either way , no?  

Or you can look at it this way – if they don’t want to hire you because you’re unemployed, it’s not likely to be a place you want to work anyway.  Then you’re at a meet up group and run into the hiring manager who put you in the “no” stack because you were unemployed, you can quietly hope he’s learned something from his earlier decision.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized, behavior/psychology, heinous, interviewing | No Comments »