Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Carnival of HR
The Carnival of HR is up over at The Rainmaker Group. Go and check out 27 HR-related posts.
Monday, April 28, 2008
why don't companies get back to applicants?
A reader writes:
I am amazed at the number of times companies have stopped communicating during the interview process without explanation. In this era of email, I don't understand why a brief note isn't sent to let a candidate know they are no longer under consideration.
My most recent experience was with a company that flew me, at great expense, out to their HQ on the opposite coast for a round of in-person meetings with company executives after three earlier phone interviews. The hiring manager stated I was "on top of his list" and "I'll talk to you on Monday"; this was a Friday.
I immediately sent thank you notes to everyone I had met, yet received no responses. After a week I left a voice message requesting an update. After 4 more days I sent an email requesting a status update and including a proposed 30-60-90 day business plan, to which I received a brief email thank you and a promise of a call within two days. This was more than two weeks ago and I haven't heard anything.
I've heard similar stories from friends also in the market. What am I expected to do now?
It seems to be increasingly common, and you're right that it's inexcusably rude. It's just not that hard to tell candidates where their application stands, in every case but especially when someone has taken the time to come in for an interview. And to ignore you when you're explicitly asking for a status update is beyond rude.
I would try one more time, and I would be more explicit, saying something like, "Would you let me know when you expect to be making decisions? I'm extremely interested in the position, but I'm talking with other companies as well so would love to have a better sense of your timeline."
If you don't hear anything back, move on -- that's really all you can do. If they resurface in a month with an offer, you''ll have to evaluate at that point whether it's even a company you want to work for. And if they don't -- well, perhaps bullet dodged.
As for what companies are thinking when they do this, it's one of four things:
1. They are moving more slowly than expected and haven't ruled you out, but for some reason they don't think they need to get back to you until they have something definite to report. Rude, inconsiderate, and short-sighted (since candidates will have other options).
2. They have ruled you out and now don't feel like spending the time responding to you. Rude, inconsiderate, and short-sighted (since you may tell others how they treated you).
3. They are completely disorganized. Rude, inconsiderate, and a place you don't want to work.
4. There is a tiny outside chance that there's an innocent explanation, although I'm having trouble thinking of what it would be. That's why it's worth that one final try, and then write them off and focus on places that treat people politely.
I am amazed at the number of times companies have stopped communicating during the interview process without explanation. In this era of email, I don't understand why a brief note isn't sent to let a candidate know they are no longer under consideration.
My most recent experience was with a company that flew me, at great expense, out to their HQ on the opposite coast for a round of in-person meetings with company executives after three earlier phone interviews. The hiring manager stated I was "on top of his list" and "I'll talk to you on Monday"; this was a Friday.
I immediately sent thank you notes to everyone I had met, yet received no responses. After a week I left a voice message requesting an update. After 4 more days I sent an email requesting a status update and including a proposed 30-60-90 day business plan, to which I received a brief email thank you and a promise of a call within two days. This was more than two weeks ago and I haven't heard anything.
I've heard similar stories from friends also in the market. What am I expected to do now?
It seems to be increasingly common, and you're right that it's inexcusably rude. It's just not that hard to tell candidates where their application stands, in every case but especially when someone has taken the time to come in for an interview. And to ignore you when you're explicitly asking for a status update is beyond rude.
I would try one more time, and I would be more explicit, saying something like, "Would you let me know when you expect to be making decisions? I'm extremely interested in the position, but I'm talking with other companies as well so would love to have a better sense of your timeline."
If you don't hear anything back, move on -- that's really all you can do. If they resurface in a month with an offer, you''ll have to evaluate at that point whether it's even a company you want to work for. And if they don't -- well, perhaps bullet dodged.
As for what companies are thinking when they do this, it's one of four things:
1. They are moving more slowly than expected and haven't ruled you out, but for some reason they don't think they need to get back to you until they have something definite to report. Rude, inconsiderate, and short-sighted (since candidates will have other options).
2. They have ruled you out and now don't feel like spending the time responding to you. Rude, inconsiderate, and short-sighted (since you may tell others how they treated you).
3. They are completely disorganized. Rude, inconsiderate, and a place you don't want to work.
4. There is a tiny outside chance that there's an innocent explanation, although I'm having trouble thinking of what it would be. That's why it's worth that one final try, and then write them off and focus on places that treat people politely.
Friday, April 25, 2008
"But I'm qualified for that job - why did you reject me?"
There's an interesting discussion going on over at Evil HR Lady about whether it's okay to ask for feedback when you don't get a job, with a lot of people pointing out in the comments section that when they've agreed to give rejected candidates feedback, it inevitably ends with the candidate trying to convince them that the feedback is wrong and they should get the job. (I think it's great when candidates ask for feedback, but that's precisely the reason I'll only give it via email and not over the phone; I don't want to get trapped in that conversation.)
Anyway, it made me think about how often candidates are convinced that they are precisely right for the job and they become baffled when they don't get an offer. Sometimes they even become aggressive and hostile, but that's another post.
There are all kinds of reasons for why you might not be chosen for the job, no matter how qualified you think you are, including:
1. Your qualifications aren't as strong as you think they are. Your assessment of your skills isn't in line with the reality of the situation.
2. Your qualifications are very strong, but someone else's are stronger. (It's odd how often candidates shocked that they didn't get the job overlook this possibility, which is one of the most common.)
3. You don't have an accurate understanding of what the job is all about, and therefore your opinion of how well-matched you are is based on an erroneous foundation. This one is surprisingly common. For instance, I did a phone interview with a guy today who really did have an impressive business background and kept referencing examples from it -- but the job he's applying for wouldn't make much use of those skills. He picked out a couple of smaller aspects of the job description and focused on those, missing the larger picture (which is that the job is way more clerical than he realized).
4. You're well qualified, but you have some other characteristic that would cause you big problems here, such as an inability to listen without interrupting, or trouble answering questions clearly, or a hostility problem. I'm not going to knowingly put someone in a job that they're likely to run into problems in -- both for the manager's sake and the candidate's sake.
So don't become shocked and irate if you don't get a job you thought you were perfect for. After all, chances are good that the hiring manager knows better than you do about who will thrive in the position. That is a good thing, because you do not want a job that you will not excel in.
People do make hiring mistakes, of course, but in general, it makes sense to respect the opinion of the people who work there, who know the needs of the job intimately, and who know better than you whether or not you're likely to be a good fit for this particular position with this particular boss in this particular culture in this particular company.
None of which is to say that you shouldn't ask for feedback. Just be sure you're asking out of a sincere desire to know, not to try to argue your case.
Anyway, it made me think about how often candidates are convinced that they are precisely right for the job and they become baffled when they don't get an offer. Sometimes they even become aggressive and hostile, but that's another post.
There are all kinds of reasons for why you might not be chosen for the job, no matter how qualified you think you are, including:
1. Your qualifications aren't as strong as you think they are. Your assessment of your skills isn't in line with the reality of the situation.
2. Your qualifications are very strong, but someone else's are stronger. (It's odd how often candidates shocked that they didn't get the job overlook this possibility, which is one of the most common.)
3. You don't have an accurate understanding of what the job is all about, and therefore your opinion of how well-matched you are is based on an erroneous foundation. This one is surprisingly common. For instance, I did a phone interview with a guy today who really did have an impressive business background and kept referencing examples from it -- but the job he's applying for wouldn't make much use of those skills. He picked out a couple of smaller aspects of the job description and focused on those, missing the larger picture (which is that the job is way more clerical than he realized).
4. You're well qualified, but you have some other characteristic that would cause you big problems here, such as an inability to listen without interrupting, or trouble answering questions clearly, or a hostility problem. I'm not going to knowingly put someone in a job that they're likely to run into problems in -- both for the manager's sake and the candidate's sake.
So don't become shocked and irate if you don't get a job you thought you were perfect for. After all, chances are good that the hiring manager knows better than you do about who will thrive in the position. That is a good thing, because you do not want a job that you will not excel in.
People do make hiring mistakes, of course, but in general, it makes sense to respect the opinion of the people who work there, who know the needs of the job intimately, and who know better than you whether or not you're likely to be a good fit for this particular position with this particular boss in this particular culture in this particular company.
None of which is to say that you shouldn't ask for feedback. Just be sure you're asking out of a sincere desire to know, not to try to argue your case.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
can I vent about workload?
A reader writes:
I work at a small nonprofit gallery as the office manager. With a staff of only 9 people, it's critical that everyone is here to assist with each other's projects (especially on board meeting days). Well, today is one of those days: we are in crisis, the board members' books aren't ready, the curator is trying to put up a show for Friday, three people are out of the office for meetings and such, the press is calling about the upcoming show, and on top of that we are trying to get ready for our really busy summer season. I'm running about 4 hours behind in terms of work that is critical today. Is it appropriate that so many responsibilities need to be given to just one employee (especially if the employee is the lowest ranking one) and also is it ever appropriate to send your boss a venting email detailing what the actual situation is rather than what they perceive?
I wouldn't use an email to address this. I also wouldn't just vent, but rather try a more constructive approach: Once the current situation is over and things are calmer, ask to meet with your boss. Ask her for clarification about how she expects those sorts of situations to be handled: Does she expect others to pitch in or should you solely responsible? If she expects others to pitch in, ask if she'd be willing to ask people to be in the office and available before board meeting days (and other crisis points) and to be make her expectations clear to them. If she says it's really your job to handle it all and you shouldn't count on help for others, then there are two possibilities: (1) She's being unreasonable, possibly because she doesn't fully understand the amount of work involved, or (2) her expectation is reasonable, and while the bar may be high, it's not crazy to expect the person in your role to meet it. I have no idea which one it is, of course, but usually in your situation people assume it's #1 without ever considering #2. So don't overlook #2 as a legitimate possibility.
If you're sure she's being unreasonable (and I mean really sure), try explaining to her the amount of work that's involved, why planning ahead doesn't solve it, and what the impact is on the office. But if there's a chance she's not being unreasonable, tell her you've been struggling to juggle everything and ask how she's seen people handle it successfully in the past. Listen with an open mind -- maybe changing details of your approach,or getting some things out of the way earlier or simply pushing through some things faster would help. Maybe there are short-cuts that are okay to take. Maybe she'll tell you everyone struggles in the beginning but after a few situations like the one you just went through, they get the hang of it. Hard to predict what she'll say, but whatever her answers is, it should give you more information to help you figure out how to proceed. Good luck!
I work at a small nonprofit gallery as the office manager. With a staff of only 9 people, it's critical that everyone is here to assist with each other's projects (especially on board meeting days). Well, today is one of those days: we are in crisis, the board members' books aren't ready, the curator is trying to put up a show for Friday, three people are out of the office for meetings and such, the press is calling about the upcoming show, and on top of that we are trying to get ready for our really busy summer season. I'm running about 4 hours behind in terms of work that is critical today. Is it appropriate that so many responsibilities need to be given to just one employee (especially if the employee is the lowest ranking one) and also is it ever appropriate to send your boss a venting email detailing what the actual situation is rather than what they perceive?
I wouldn't use an email to address this. I also wouldn't just vent, but rather try a more constructive approach: Once the current situation is over and things are calmer, ask to meet with your boss. Ask her for clarification about how she expects those sorts of situations to be handled: Does she expect others to pitch in or should you solely responsible? If she expects others to pitch in, ask if she'd be willing to ask people to be in the office and available before board meeting days (and other crisis points) and to be make her expectations clear to them. If she says it's really your job to handle it all and you shouldn't count on help for others, then there are two possibilities: (1) She's being unreasonable, possibly because she doesn't fully understand the amount of work involved, or (2) her expectation is reasonable, and while the bar may be high, it's not crazy to expect the person in your role to meet it. I have no idea which one it is, of course, but usually in your situation people assume it's #1 without ever considering #2. So don't overlook #2 as a legitimate possibility.
If you're sure she's being unreasonable (and I mean really sure), try explaining to her the amount of work that's involved, why planning ahead doesn't solve it, and what the impact is on the office. But if there's a chance she's not being unreasonable, tell her you've been struggling to juggle everything and ask how she's seen people handle it successfully in the past. Listen with an open mind -- maybe changing details of your approach,or getting some things out of the way earlier or simply pushing through some things faster would help. Maybe there are short-cuts that are okay to take. Maybe she'll tell you everyone struggles in the beginning but after a few situations like the one you just went through, they get the hang of it. Hard to predict what she'll say, but whatever her answers is, it should give you more information to help you figure out how to proceed. Good luck!
Saturday, April 19, 2008
how to answer "why did you leave your last job?"
A reader writes:
I've given my notice to the company I've worked for for four years, without another job lined up. I know that this is against general recommendations, but it was just getting to be too much for me to handle; I don't want to get into details too much, but my micromanaging boss just got to be too much for me to handle, coupled with the fact that my work schedule is so crazy I couldn't go interview at places.
I don't want to walk into an interview and be negative about my boss and the situation I was in, because I can definitely handle a LOT. But what are your suggestions for explaining why I left a job without another one lined up?
I'd go with something like, "After four years, I feel like I want to take on new challenges and I wanted to take some time to really focus on finding something I'd love." It's vague, but it's reasonable (because you'd been there four years; it wouldn't be reasonable if you'd been there a year). Employers are going to be satisfied with this answer, because it's one they'll understand themselves.
Here is the secret about the "why are you leaving your current job" question that every interviewer asks: It is totally fine if the real reason you are leaving is because of a crazy micromanaging boss, unpleasant coworkers, a toxic culture (we've all had those experiences ourselves and know in the back of our minds that it might be why you are leaving). You just can't tell us that. Instead, you have to pick a cover story, like "leaving for new challenges," because if you tell the truth, we start to worry about things like: Is your boss really a micromanager or is it that you require a lot of oversight? Are you just hard to get along with? Are you a troublemaker? A primadonna? Are you going to be impossible to please here too?
Now, this may seem unfair. Given how many crazy bosses and toxic workplaces are out there, why shouldn't you be able to tell the truth and have the interviewer give you the benefit of the doubt? Two reasons: First, while we absolutely will allow for the possibility that your account is completely correct and objective, it raises enough of a question mark that we have to wonder and worry, and it doesn't help any candidate to have those sorts of questions hanging over her. And once those questions are raised, it is very difficult to definitively put them to rest during the hiring process (unless we happen to know someone who worked at your old company, in which case they can often confirm that indeed your boss was a nightmare -- but that's the exception to the rule). Second, rightly or wrongly, the interviewing convention is that you don't badmouth a previous employer -- and we're looking for evidence that you know what is and isn't appropriate to say in business situations.
All of which leads to: Use an appropriate cover story -- leaving for new challenges, excited about this particular opportunity, taking the time to find something right, and so forth. We may realize there could be more behind it, but we'll be pleased that you're handling it appropriately, not boiling over with rage, etc. (You have to deliver the line naturally though; I've had candidates say it in a way that sounded overly formal and rehearsed, which immediately made me think they were hiding something and that's when I probe for more details. So watch your delivery; sound sincere.)
By the way, although you can't tell us the truth about your crazy boss in the interview, you can definitely tell us after we've hired you and you've been working with us for a while. We love to hear such stories after we've learned that we don't need to worry about you, especially if you then contrast the old boss to us and tell us how much happier you are now.
P.S. This is the one and only area of job-searching in which I'd ever recommend being anything less than forthright, and I don't feel good about it. I'm a big proponent of being honest about your weaknesses and other things job-seekers are routinely advised to lie about. But in this area, the potential for giving an employer an incorrect impression is just too great to do it safely.
I've given my notice to the company I've worked for for four years, without another job lined up. I know that this is against general recommendations, but it was just getting to be too much for me to handle; I don't want to get into details too much, but my micromanaging boss just got to be too much for me to handle, coupled with the fact that my work schedule is so crazy I couldn't go interview at places.
I don't want to walk into an interview and be negative about my boss and the situation I was in, because I can definitely handle a LOT. But what are your suggestions for explaining why I left a job without another one lined up?
I'd go with something like, "After four years, I feel like I want to take on new challenges and I wanted to take some time to really focus on finding something I'd love." It's vague, but it's reasonable (because you'd been there four years; it wouldn't be reasonable if you'd been there a year). Employers are going to be satisfied with this answer, because it's one they'll understand themselves.
Here is the secret about the "why are you leaving your current job" question that every interviewer asks: It is totally fine if the real reason you are leaving is because of a crazy micromanaging boss, unpleasant coworkers, a toxic culture (we've all had those experiences ourselves and know in the back of our minds that it might be why you are leaving). You just can't tell us that. Instead, you have to pick a cover story, like "leaving for new challenges," because if you tell the truth, we start to worry about things like: Is your boss really a micromanager or is it that you require a lot of oversight? Are you just hard to get along with? Are you a troublemaker? A primadonna? Are you going to be impossible to please here too?
Now, this may seem unfair. Given how many crazy bosses and toxic workplaces are out there, why shouldn't you be able to tell the truth and have the interviewer give you the benefit of the doubt? Two reasons: First, while we absolutely will allow for the possibility that your account is completely correct and objective, it raises enough of a question mark that we have to wonder and worry, and it doesn't help any candidate to have those sorts of questions hanging over her. And once those questions are raised, it is very difficult to definitively put them to rest during the hiring process (unless we happen to know someone who worked at your old company, in which case they can often confirm that indeed your boss was a nightmare -- but that's the exception to the rule). Second, rightly or wrongly, the interviewing convention is that you don't badmouth a previous employer -- and we're looking for evidence that you know what is and isn't appropriate to say in business situations.
All of which leads to: Use an appropriate cover story -- leaving for new challenges, excited about this particular opportunity, taking the time to find something right, and so forth. We may realize there could be more behind it, but we'll be pleased that you're handling it appropriately, not boiling over with rage, etc. (You have to deliver the line naturally though; I've had candidates say it in a way that sounded overly formal and rehearsed, which immediately made me think they were hiding something and that's when I probe for more details. So watch your delivery; sound sincere.)
By the way, although you can't tell us the truth about your crazy boss in the interview, you can definitely tell us after we've hired you and you've been working with us for a while. We love to hear such stories after we've learned that we don't need to worry about you, especially if you then contrast the old boss to us and tell us how much happier you are now.
P.S. This is the one and only area of job-searching in which I'd ever recommend being anything less than forthright, and I don't feel good about it. I'm a big proponent of being honest about your weaknesses and other things job-seekers are routinely advised to lie about. But in this area, the potential for giving an employer an incorrect impression is just too great to do it safely.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
irritated by interrupting coworker
A reader writes:
Here's something kind of petty, but it's getting to me. Every time I ask my supervisor a question, one of my colleagues (who sits next to my supervisor) butts in and starts answering the question too. Suddenly what could be a quiet, 2-minute discussion is turned into a loud conversation. Grrrr. Every time he does this it throws me off track.
Why do people find the need to interfere in this way? Don't they have enough work to do? Do they really have to prove to the world how knowledgeable they are every second of the day?
Ah, I'm probably being hypersensitive because this guy is not great at his job -- lazy and disorganized -- but is a champion schmoozer, very self-satisfied. So you'll probably tell me to just grow up, and rightly so, but I'm hoping someone will have some insight so I can control my irritation better.
No way, I'm not going to tell you to grow up over this. It drives me crazy too. I think there's only one way to make it stop, and that's to address it head-on. The next time it happens, say something like, "Actually, I really wanted to get Jill's input on this. Would you give us a minute?" If he doesn't back off, say it again: "Thanks. Actually, I really want to talk to Jill about it." Say it nicely but be firm about it.
As for your question about why he does it ... Insecurity might be at work. You mentioned that he's not that great at his job, and if he realizes that at some level, pushing his opinions on all who will listen probably pumps him up in his own head. Doesn't mean you have to accommodate him though.
Here's something kind of petty, but it's getting to me. Every time I ask my supervisor a question, one of my colleagues (who sits next to my supervisor) butts in and starts answering the question too. Suddenly what could be a quiet, 2-minute discussion is turned into a loud conversation. Grrrr. Every time he does this it throws me off track.
Why do people find the need to interfere in this way? Don't they have enough work to do? Do they really have to prove to the world how knowledgeable they are every second of the day?
Ah, I'm probably being hypersensitive because this guy is not great at his job -- lazy and disorganized -- but is a champion schmoozer, very self-satisfied. So you'll probably tell me to just grow up, and rightly so, but I'm hoping someone will have some insight so I can control my irritation better.
No way, I'm not going to tell you to grow up over this. It drives me crazy too. I think there's only one way to make it stop, and that's to address it head-on. The next time it happens, say something like, "Actually, I really wanted to get Jill's input on this. Would you give us a minute?" If he doesn't back off, say it again: "Thanks. Actually, I really want to talk to Jill about it." Say it nicely but be firm about it.
As for your question about why he does it ... Insecurity might be at work. You mentioned that he's not that great at his job, and if he realizes that at some level, pushing his opinions on all who will listen probably pumps him up in his own head. Doesn't mean you have to accommodate him though.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)