A reader writes:
I know you tackled the reference for someone when you can't give a good reference, but I really felt that this might be something you've come across and you could provide a bit of insight.
I am a teacher for a local college. I teach part time to professionals upgrading their skills. I've had a student in a series of my classes approach me by email demanding (yes, I say demanding because it wasn't really a request) a reference from me regarding the course. Her wording is as follows: "Would you mind writing a reference letter for me that I can use for any positions I apply for? Please and thank you..." So I feel that this is not really a request at all.
Now, I don't have a problem with her attendance or her work, but I do have a problem being a reference for someone that 1. I don't like, 2. that has never worked with or for me, 3. that I don't trust, 4. that I believe to be a true shit-disturber in every sense of the word. While her class work was excellent, she failed to bond with people in the class and I was constantly receiving complaints about her attitude - she would lie to your face and back stab as soon as you walk away... So for me, this is a really hard thing to do.
I have given references to other students who have excelled in my classes so I can't even say it isn't a practice for me - which I wanted to say, but this woman overheard a conversation between myself and a past student who thanked me for the reference so I'm a little stuck.
Her work in the class was good. She was never late for class and always had her homework done...my problems with her go beyond the superficial...I would never refer her for any position because I wouldn't want what she stands for to come back to me.
I am trying to find a diplomatic way to say that I don't want to give her a reference - or I can provide a very barebones reference about her attendance and work in class...I just can't end the reference the way most letters are ended - with those words "I would refer..." or "I would hire..." because truly, I wouldn't.
You definitely shouldn't write a reference for someone you don't honestly feel you can recommend, and an inability to work well with others is a perfectly legitimate reason not to recommend someone. You have two choices in how you handle it:
1. You can tell a white lie: "I'm sorry but I'm overcommitted right now and can't add anything to my plate." or "I don't feel I have enough of a sense of you and your work to write a compelling letter, so I don't feel I'd be the best choice for this."
2. You can tell the truth: "Jill, to be honest with you, I wouldn't feel comfortable writing a letter of recommendation because I heard so many complaints from other class members who found you difficult to work with. I wish you the best of luck, but I can't in good faith write such a letter."
Number one is the safer and easier option, of course, and you should keep in mind that if you choose number two, you might have to deal with her complaining to the school administration. But I wish more people would choose number two, because, you know, honesty and all that. That said, I've chosen the easy way more than once in this situation.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
reader stumps me
A reader writes:
I have read all of the articles about what to say in an interview when you are asked about being fired, but none of these answers fit. The problem is that most answers are based on explaining why the job wasn’t a good fit or the reorganization of the company resulted in a termination, etc. The problem is this, what if you are fired by a previous manager? I was working in one department for the company and held this position for five years. During the course of these five years I had a change in managers three times. The first two have only good things to say about my work. The third gave me two evaluations, both very positive. When I put in for a transfer to a different department, she did not want to sign the paper allowing the change because no one, including her, knew what was required to do my job day to day. I agreed to stay in the department an extra 6 weeks to train one of the other supervisors, I also being a supervisor.
Approximately three months into my new position, I was called into HR and told I was fired for not performing my job duties adequately in my previous job. After I left, no one was picking up my job duties, which included paying tickets to court systems. After a couple months, collection notices started coming in. When my previous manager was confronted, she stated that the collection notices were because I didn’t do my job, even though I could show that this took place after I changed departments. My new boss was never told that I was being fired and was quite angry when he found out. I know my new boss will give me a good recommendation, as will the 2 first managers I had in the old position. But how do I explain being fired from a previous boss in an interview, if they ask, without sounding like I’m complaining about her blaming me for something I had no involvement in? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Wow. That company is seriously screwed up. They let someone who wasn't your current manager fire you over the objections of your current manager (or without even telling your current manager first, it sounds like)? That is ridiculous. As for the old manager's reason: Well, it's her job to ensure that new employees are trained thoroughly and work is getting done -- not the responsibility of an employee no longer in that department. Honestly, I am fuming about this.
I am also stumped about the best way to explain this to prospective employers in the future. As you know, you don't want to sound negative about the old employer, but it would be very difficult to find an honest way of framing this that doesn't sound negative because their behavior was so crappy. If I were in your shoes, I think I'd end up saying something like, "I worked for the company for five years and had excellent evaluations from two managers (who I can put you in touch with), but three months after I was promoted to a new position, the manager from the old position became upset that my replacement in the old job was letting things slip through the cracks and I guess thought I hadn't trained her sufficiently. I had stayed in that job an extra six weeks to train her, and my other bosses can speak to my effectiveness." But I'm not totally happy with that response, so I'm sending out a plea for help from readers: How would you frame this? How would you want to hear a job applicant frame it?
I have read all of the articles about what to say in an interview when you are asked about being fired, but none of these answers fit. The problem is that most answers are based on explaining why the job wasn’t a good fit or the reorganization of the company resulted in a termination, etc. The problem is this, what if you are fired by a previous manager? I was working in one department for the company and held this position for five years. During the course of these five years I had a change in managers three times. The first two have only good things to say about my work. The third gave me two evaluations, both very positive. When I put in for a transfer to a different department, she did not want to sign the paper allowing the change because no one, including her, knew what was required to do my job day to day. I agreed to stay in the department an extra 6 weeks to train one of the other supervisors, I also being a supervisor.
Approximately three months into my new position, I was called into HR and told I was fired for not performing my job duties adequately in my previous job. After I left, no one was picking up my job duties, which included paying tickets to court systems. After a couple months, collection notices started coming in. When my previous manager was confronted, she stated that the collection notices were because I didn’t do my job, even though I could show that this took place after I changed departments. My new boss was never told that I was being fired and was quite angry when he found out. I know my new boss will give me a good recommendation, as will the 2 first managers I had in the old position. But how do I explain being fired from a previous boss in an interview, if they ask, without sounding like I’m complaining about her blaming me for something I had no involvement in? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Wow. That company is seriously screwed up. They let someone who wasn't your current manager fire you over the objections of your current manager (or without even telling your current manager first, it sounds like)? That is ridiculous. As for the old manager's reason: Well, it's her job to ensure that new employees are trained thoroughly and work is getting done -- not the responsibility of an employee no longer in that department. Honestly, I am fuming about this.
I am also stumped about the best way to explain this to prospective employers in the future. As you know, you don't want to sound negative about the old employer, but it would be very difficult to find an honest way of framing this that doesn't sound negative because their behavior was so crappy. If I were in your shoes, I think I'd end up saying something like, "I worked for the company for five years and had excellent evaluations from two managers (who I can put you in touch with), but three months after I was promoted to a new position, the manager from the old position became upset that my replacement in the old job was letting things slip through the cracks and I guess thought I hadn't trained her sufficiently. I had stayed in that job an extra six weeks to train her, and my other bosses can speak to my effectiveness." But I'm not totally happy with that response, so I'm sending out a plea for help from readers: How would you frame this? How would you want to hear a job applicant frame it?
Monday, February 25, 2008
company won't give references
A reader writes:
I retired early from my last job, because of the new technology and, therefore, they were doing a reduction in force. I took several years off to update my skills and to do some renovating of my home myself. Now I feel qualified to work as a administrative assistant but the company where I worked for the last 18 years does not give references. They only will answer three questions: when I started, when I left and would they re-hire me again. This company doesn't even list an HR phone number. Do you have any advice? I am not getting hired by anybody...not even the temp agencies. Help!
Some big companies do have this policy, but you should be able to get around it by using your direct supervisor as a reference, not simply "HR." It's usually HR types who adhere to the letter of these policies; individual supervisors are usually willing to give more detailed references, particularly if you explain that your job offer hinges on it. (Contact this supervisor directly and make sure he or she is able to give you a good reference first though.) You can also offer up former coworkers, clients, and others who can speak to your work, or -- if all other wells run dry -- explain the company's policy and offer old copies of performance reviews if you have them (they're good to keep for this reason).
That said, I wonder if this is the reason you're not getting hired. Normally if a company is running into a wall when trying to get a reference, they'll tell you that (because often a candidate is able to push references to talk). Unless you have evidence to believe the reference issue is the problem, I'm more inclined to think the problem is something else -- the fact that you took several years off from the work force, or the way you're marketing yourself, or something along those lines. If you're not having any luck with the temp agencies, I'd try asking them for feedback on what you could do to make yourself more hireable; they're likely to be pretty candid with you. Good luck!
I retired early from my last job, because of the new technology and, therefore, they were doing a reduction in force. I took several years off to update my skills and to do some renovating of my home myself. Now I feel qualified to work as a administrative assistant but the company where I worked for the last 18 years does not give references. They only will answer three questions: when I started, when I left and would they re-hire me again. This company doesn't even list an HR phone number. Do you have any advice? I am not getting hired by anybody...not even the temp agencies. Help!
Some big companies do have this policy, but you should be able to get around it by using your direct supervisor as a reference, not simply "HR." It's usually HR types who adhere to the letter of these policies; individual supervisors are usually willing to give more detailed references, particularly if you explain that your job offer hinges on it. (Contact this supervisor directly and make sure he or she is able to give you a good reference first though.) You can also offer up former coworkers, clients, and others who can speak to your work, or -- if all other wells run dry -- explain the company's policy and offer old copies of performance reviews if you have them (they're good to keep for this reason).
That said, I wonder if this is the reason you're not getting hired. Normally if a company is running into a wall when trying to get a reference, they'll tell you that (because often a candidate is able to push references to talk). Unless you have evidence to believe the reference issue is the problem, I'm more inclined to think the problem is something else -- the fact that you took several years off from the work force, or the way you're marketing yourself, or something along those lines. If you're not having any luck with the temp agencies, I'd try asking them for feedback on what you could do to make yourself more hireable; they're likely to be pretty candid with you. Good luck!
should you confess a DWI to prospective employer?
A reader writes:
I am a college student in my junior year, double majoring in Marketing and Management. In November, I was accepted for an internship at the corporate headquarters of a major retailer for this summer. I passed the drug screening and background test. However, in late December, I got a DWI while out with friends over winter break. Yes I know, very, very stupid mistake with very serious consequences, which I am dealing with right now. The case has been settled in court and I was convicted of a 4th degree, the least severe DWI offense. This is the only offense on my record.
I was recently reviewing my paperwork for the internship, and it says they will conduct a second background check 30 days before my start date in June. The job does not involve any driving. I am wondering if I should contact my recruiter and be up front about what happened, or not do anything to incriminate myself. I am somewhat hesitant to call and tell my recruiter because they are now conducting their second round of on-campus recruiting/interviewing and I feel they would have more reason to let me go and hire someone else if they found out about this now. I also feel that I have not yet established a good relationship with my recruiter, there were staff changes so this is actually the second recruiter I've been in touch with. If they do the second background check will show the DWI, but I wasn't lying on my application when asked if I had any convictions since I did not at the time. Do you think I should tell my potential employer or not?
Yes. It will come up in the background check, so hiding it isn't an option anyway. Therefore, the question is how to best manage it: Is it better for them to hear it from you, where you can provide a context, or to discover it on their own? Obviously it's better for you to volunteer the information, explain that it happened after your initial application, and explain that it was a one-time mistake that you have learned from, are shaken to the core over, and will never repeat. (Right?)
They're unlikely to withdraw the offer over it, assuming the job doesn't involve driving, but you maximize your chances by coming clean now. Good luck, and please don't do it again.
(Speaking of which, I assume you are writing to me because the Evil HR Lady announced she will no longer take DWI questions. Apparently there are a lot of drunks out there.)
I am a college student in my junior year, double majoring in Marketing and Management. In November, I was accepted for an internship at the corporate headquarters of a major retailer for this summer. I passed the drug screening and background test. However, in late December, I got a DWI while out with friends over winter break. Yes I know, very, very stupid mistake with very serious consequences, which I am dealing with right now. The case has been settled in court and I was convicted of a 4th degree, the least severe DWI offense. This is the only offense on my record.
I was recently reviewing my paperwork for the internship, and it says they will conduct a second background check 30 days before my start date in June. The job does not involve any driving. I am wondering if I should contact my recruiter and be up front about what happened, or not do anything to incriminate myself. I am somewhat hesitant to call and tell my recruiter because they are now conducting their second round of on-campus recruiting/interviewing and I feel they would have more reason to let me go and hire someone else if they found out about this now. I also feel that I have not yet established a good relationship with my recruiter, there were staff changes so this is actually the second recruiter I've been in touch with. If they do the second background check will show the DWI, but I wasn't lying on my application when asked if I had any convictions since I did not at the time. Do you think I should tell my potential employer or not?
Yes. It will come up in the background check, so hiding it isn't an option anyway. Therefore, the question is how to best manage it: Is it better for them to hear it from you, where you can provide a context, or to discover it on their own? Obviously it's better for you to volunteer the information, explain that it happened after your initial application, and explain that it was a one-time mistake that you have learned from, are shaken to the core over, and will never repeat. (Right?)
They're unlikely to withdraw the offer over it, assuming the job doesn't involve driving, but you maximize your chances by coming clean now. Good luck, and please don't do it again.
(Speaking of which, I assume you are writing to me because the Evil HR Lady announced she will no longer take DWI questions. Apparently there are a lot of drunks out there.)
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
management and the Democratic primary
It's been frequently observed that there are few policy differences between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, but here's something that is a major difference between the two: management.
Ironically, it's Clinton who was originally heralded as a manager extraordinaire, to the point that she was derided for being too focused on mundane details of managing the federal government. In the most basic shorthand, Obama was being painted as a leader, and Clinton as a manager. But we've had a peek behind the myth in the last month, and the picture emerging is one of serious management failure from Clinton. Consider:
* Reportedly prizing loyalty above results, Clinton allowed a campaign manager long acknowledged by other top campaign officials as unqualified for the job to remain until a near-mutiny finally forced her hand. (Patti Solis Doyle, Clinton's scheduler-turned-campaign-manager, was apparently notorious for ineptness, including not informing Clinton until after Iowa of the campaign's dire financial situation. Interestingly, in turn, Clinton didn't bother to inform Solis Doyle that she was making a $5 million loan to her own campaign. In a well-run organization, you don't have the #1 and #2 keeping major information from each other.)
* Despite every delegate being painfully precious, her campaign somehow neglected to file a full slate of convention delegate candidates for Pennsylvania's primary, falling 10 short of the full 103 expected. "For a national campaign stressing competence, experience, 'ready day one,' one might expect a full slate in what could be a key state," a Philadelphia Daily News column noted.
* After deciding to bank almost everything on Texas, the campaign running on competence didn't bother to research the delegate apportionment rules there and discovered just a few days ago that the state's convoluted rules mean that even an overwhelming win could give her just a small edge (if any) in delegates. This is the kind of thing that's good to know when designing a strategy.
* As we all know now, the campaign apparently had no plan for after Super Tuesday - and is just now opening field offices in Texas and Ohio, upon discovering ground organization would be needed. This is crazy: While thinking the fight would be wrapped up by Super Tuesday might have made sense last fall, the campaign has had months to adjust its strategy after it became clear that Obama was catching on in a big way and just ... didn't.
Now, there's no question that Clinton is up against an extraordinarily adept candidate in Obama. But the inability to make sound decisions about where to put resources and where not to, to ensure a staff is functioning smoothly and effectively, to adjust to new conditions and information, to budget, to know the rules and strategize accordingly -- that's mismanagement and incompetence that strikes at the heart of the Clinton brand, and I find it scary to think of it at work in the White House.
Conversely, Obama -- who was never billed as the manager candidate -- has built and presided over a remarkably effective organization, with rigorously disciplined ground operations churning in every state, an astounding and historic fundraising machine, and a methodical advance on the candidate whose win was supposed to be a foregone conclusion.
If you're the hiring manager deciding between these two candidates (and we all are), the choice seems pretty clear.
Ironically, it's Clinton who was originally heralded as a manager extraordinaire, to the point that she was derided for being too focused on mundane details of managing the federal government. In the most basic shorthand, Obama was being painted as a leader, and Clinton as a manager. But we've had a peek behind the myth in the last month, and the picture emerging is one of serious management failure from Clinton. Consider:
* Reportedly prizing loyalty above results, Clinton allowed a campaign manager long acknowledged by other top campaign officials as unqualified for the job to remain until a near-mutiny finally forced her hand. (Patti Solis Doyle, Clinton's scheduler-turned-campaign-manager, was apparently notorious for ineptness, including not informing Clinton until after Iowa of the campaign's dire financial situation. Interestingly, in turn, Clinton didn't bother to inform Solis Doyle that she was making a $5 million loan to her own campaign. In a well-run organization, you don't have the #1 and #2 keeping major information from each other.)
* Despite every delegate being painfully precious, her campaign somehow neglected to file a full slate of convention delegate candidates for Pennsylvania's primary, falling 10 short of the full 103 expected. "For a national campaign stressing competence, experience, 'ready day one,' one might expect a full slate in what could be a key state," a Philadelphia Daily News column noted.
* After deciding to bank almost everything on Texas, the campaign running on competence didn't bother to research the delegate apportionment rules there and discovered just a few days ago that the state's convoluted rules mean that even an overwhelming win could give her just a small edge (if any) in delegates. This is the kind of thing that's good to know when designing a strategy.
* As we all know now, the campaign apparently had no plan for after Super Tuesday - and is just now opening field offices in Texas and Ohio, upon discovering ground organization would be needed. This is crazy: While thinking the fight would be wrapped up by Super Tuesday might have made sense last fall, the campaign has had months to adjust its strategy after it became clear that Obama was catching on in a big way and just ... didn't.
Now, there's no question that Clinton is up against an extraordinarily adept candidate in Obama. But the inability to make sound decisions about where to put resources and where not to, to ensure a staff is functioning smoothly and effectively, to adjust to new conditions and information, to budget, to know the rules and strategize accordingly -- that's mismanagement and incompetence that strikes at the heart of the Clinton brand, and I find it scary to think of it at work in the White House.
Conversely, Obama -- who was never billed as the manager candidate -- has built and presided over a remarkably effective organization, with rigorously disciplined ground operations churning in every state, an astounding and historic fundraising machine, and a methodical advance on the candidate whose win was supposed to be a foregone conclusion.
If you're the hiring manager deciding between these two candidates (and we all are), the choice seems pretty clear.
coworker makes higher salary
Sorry for the silence. I've been fighting a horrific flu but am slowly returning to life again.
A reader writes:
I am an Executive Assistant for the CEO of digital printing firm. I worked in this position since 2005. I also worked as his assistant when he was SVP of another firm for 4 years prior to his coming to this firm. When he took this CEO position back in 2005 he called me and asked if I would leave my job at that time, as Admin Asst with major pharmaceutical firm. I left that job to come and work for him.
Here's the issue. Our COO's assistant moved to another position in the company. He was looking for another assistant and he hired a young lady that was EA/right hand for a major news anchor until he died last year. Of course, I was part of the interview process and my recommendation to hire her played a part in her getting the job. I heard from someone else in the company that she was hired making at least $10,000 more a year than my current salary. I don't have the real figure but this assistant made a comment to me a month ago that I should get significant salary increase to bring my salary up to hers...she made this comment to me unsolicited and she apparently knows what I currently make. We are friendly with each other personally and professionally and I feel she was trying to look out for me by saying this to me. My review meeting will be in a few days and I want to know what to say if my pay is not significantly increased to at least be on the same level as the COO's assistant. Our standard raise percentage is 5% and that will not bring me up to the same salary level as the other assistant.
What should I do/say to the CEO if I don't get a significant raise, well over that 5%, without mentioning the salary for the COO's assistant? I can definitely prove my value and worth in this company. He would be lost without me here and has said that to me several times. I've been with the CEO since 2005 and with him prior to that at the other firm. Plus, I am the top EA in the company, and I don't think it's fair that my salary is not commensurate with what I do.
This is sticky. Would you believe your salary wasn't commensurate with what you do if you didn't know the other assistant's salary?
Basing your own salary request on someone else's salary is problematic because people's salaries vary for all sorts of reasons -- one person was a better negotiator than the other when first being hired, or the job market was tighter when she was hired, or she has a particular degree or skill set that the company rewards, or the budget for her department is different than yours, or her boss is a nightmare and the company pays people working for him a premium.
What I recommend is doing some research on industry norms in your area for your particular work and seeing where you fall relative to those. In fact, up those a bit, because you're not average, right? Hopefully you're better than average and it's reasonable to ask the company to pay you a bit better than average. But if your research leads you to discover that your pay is pretty in line with what makes sense for your industry and the only issue is that your coworker makes more than you, you can (and should) still try for more, but consider that it might be okay not to get it. Not an insult, just a pretty typical result of the way different people negotiate different packages for themselves. And at that point, you'd want to think about whether you're happy with the job, whether you think you could do better elsewhere, and what the job is worth to you, not your colleague.
(And always keep in mind that negotiating a higher salary is much easier before you've accepted the job than it ever is again.)
Good luck!
A reader writes:
I am an Executive Assistant for the CEO of digital printing firm. I worked in this position since 2005. I also worked as his assistant when he was SVP of another firm for 4 years prior to his coming to this firm. When he took this CEO position back in 2005 he called me and asked if I would leave my job at that time, as Admin Asst with major pharmaceutical firm. I left that job to come and work for him.
Here's the issue. Our COO's assistant moved to another position in the company. He was looking for another assistant and he hired a young lady that was EA/right hand for a major news anchor until he died last year. Of course, I was part of the interview process and my recommendation to hire her played a part in her getting the job. I heard from someone else in the company that she was hired making at least $10,000 more a year than my current salary. I don't have the real figure but this assistant made a comment to me a month ago that I should get significant salary increase to bring my salary up to hers...she made this comment to me unsolicited and she apparently knows what I currently make. We are friendly with each other personally and professionally and I feel she was trying to look out for me by saying this to me. My review meeting will be in a few days and I want to know what to say if my pay is not significantly increased to at least be on the same level as the COO's assistant. Our standard raise percentage is 5% and that will not bring me up to the same salary level as the other assistant.
What should I do/say to the CEO if I don't get a significant raise, well over that 5%, without mentioning the salary for the COO's assistant? I can definitely prove my value and worth in this company. He would be lost without me here and has said that to me several times. I've been with the CEO since 2005 and with him prior to that at the other firm. Plus, I am the top EA in the company, and I don't think it's fair that my salary is not commensurate with what I do.
This is sticky. Would you believe your salary wasn't commensurate with what you do if you didn't know the other assistant's salary?
Basing your own salary request on someone else's salary is problematic because people's salaries vary for all sorts of reasons -- one person was a better negotiator than the other when first being hired, or the job market was tighter when she was hired, or she has a particular degree or skill set that the company rewards, or the budget for her department is different than yours, or her boss is a nightmare and the company pays people working for him a premium.
What I recommend is doing some research on industry norms in your area for your particular work and seeing where you fall relative to those. In fact, up those a bit, because you're not average, right? Hopefully you're better than average and it's reasonable to ask the company to pay you a bit better than average. But if your research leads you to discover that your pay is pretty in line with what makes sense for your industry and the only issue is that your coworker makes more than you, you can (and should) still try for more, but consider that it might be okay not to get it. Not an insult, just a pretty typical result of the way different people negotiate different packages for themselves. And at that point, you'd want to think about whether you're happy with the job, whether you think you could do better elsewhere, and what the job is worth to you, not your colleague.
(And always keep in mind that negotiating a higher salary is much easier before you've accepted the job than it ever is again.)
Good luck!
Sunday, February 10, 2008
explaining a firing when interviewing
A reader writes:
A few months ago, I was asked to resign from a management position. I’ve begun consulting on my own, but still find it difficult to explain how and why I left that last job. I’m not without fault in being asked to resign, but I believe that my boss long hoped I would and was trying to push me in that direction. That may sound paranoid or delusional on my part, but there are some facts that support me.
For nearly two years, I was working sixty to eighty hours each week and sometimes seven days a week. Despite the hours I worked, I let some things slip and took too long to complete some other projects. The stress I felt also contributed to my making some bad decisions. I spoke many times to my boss about my schedule, time management, and the need for assistance. In response, he would tell me that I wasn’t managing my time well, and that the stress and problems were due to my own shortcomings. I believe now that I should have resigned earlier on my own terms, but there were many things about the company that I liked.
About a month before I was asked to resign, I was finally given an assistant, but only for five hours each week. In the two weeks before the resignation, I made two errors which my boss said caused him to lose all trust in me. I take responsibility for the mistakes I made, but what happened after I left most disturbs me. When my boss hired my replacement, he gave that person a new assistant for thirty hours each week. Recently, the assistant was made full time. In short, two people are now doing the job that I was told I should have been able to handle. I honestly believe that if I had been given that support, I would have accomplished more with fewer errors and much less stress.
I’m not trying to avoid admitting any errors that led to my termination, but I would like to be able to explain the situation without placing all the blame on myself. If I speak negatively about my former boss or the company however, I believe that also reflects badly on me. Given these circumstances, how might I best explain why I left the job?
Before I get to your question, let me say this: You're likely in no mood to look on the bright side, but it does sound like this job wasn't a good fit for you and it's good that you're out of it. Whether the problem was that the company had unrealistic expectations or that your work style simply didn't match their needs is sort of beside the point; what matters is that the fit was off. So in the long run, getting away from there (regardless of how that separation came about) is a good thing.
Now, on to your question. Your instincts about not speaking ill of your boss or the company are right on track; even if a candidate is 100% right in his or her criticism of a former boss, it never comes across well. I would start with something like, "The workload was very high and the company wasn't able to hire another person to help at that point. However, since I left, the position has been turned into two full-time positions in recognition of the workload." If they push and specifically ask if you were terminated, be honest -- but explain what you've learned from the situation. For instance, you might say, "The workload ended up getting the better of me. I generally worked 60-80 hours a week to try to stay on top of everything, but I did end up making some mistakes because of the sheer volume. What I've realized since then is that I need to communicate better with my boss when workload is a problem and figure out ways to we're on the same page about priorities if we're in a triage mode."
Good luck!
A few months ago, I was asked to resign from a management position. I’ve begun consulting on my own, but still find it difficult to explain how and why I left that last job. I’m not without fault in being asked to resign, but I believe that my boss long hoped I would and was trying to push me in that direction. That may sound paranoid or delusional on my part, but there are some facts that support me.
For nearly two years, I was working sixty to eighty hours each week and sometimes seven days a week. Despite the hours I worked, I let some things slip and took too long to complete some other projects. The stress I felt also contributed to my making some bad decisions. I spoke many times to my boss about my schedule, time management, and the need for assistance. In response, he would tell me that I wasn’t managing my time well, and that the stress and problems were due to my own shortcomings. I believe now that I should have resigned earlier on my own terms, but there were many things about the company that I liked.
About a month before I was asked to resign, I was finally given an assistant, but only for five hours each week. In the two weeks before the resignation, I made two errors which my boss said caused him to lose all trust in me. I take responsibility for the mistakes I made, but what happened after I left most disturbs me. When my boss hired my replacement, he gave that person a new assistant for thirty hours each week. Recently, the assistant was made full time. In short, two people are now doing the job that I was told I should have been able to handle. I honestly believe that if I had been given that support, I would have accomplished more with fewer errors and much less stress.
I’m not trying to avoid admitting any errors that led to my termination, but I would like to be able to explain the situation without placing all the blame on myself. If I speak negatively about my former boss or the company however, I believe that also reflects badly on me. Given these circumstances, how might I best explain why I left the job?
Before I get to your question, let me say this: You're likely in no mood to look on the bright side, but it does sound like this job wasn't a good fit for you and it's good that you're out of it. Whether the problem was that the company had unrealistic expectations or that your work style simply didn't match their needs is sort of beside the point; what matters is that the fit was off. So in the long run, getting away from there (regardless of how that separation came about) is a good thing.
Now, on to your question. Your instincts about not speaking ill of your boss or the company are right on track; even if a candidate is 100% right in his or her criticism of a former boss, it never comes across well. I would start with something like, "The workload was very high and the company wasn't able to hire another person to help at that point. However, since I left, the position has been turned into two full-time positions in recognition of the workload." If they push and specifically ask if you were terminated, be honest -- but explain what you've learned from the situation. For instance, you might say, "The workload ended up getting the better of me. I generally worked 60-80 hours a week to try to stay on top of everything, but I did end up making some mistakes because of the sheer volume. What I've realized since then is that I need to communicate better with my boss when workload is a problem and figure out ways to we're on the same page about priorities if we're in a triage mode."
Good luck!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)