I have been lucky enough to have a few phone interviews today. Woo Hoo...It really does make you feel like you are not just wasting your life away by applying to non-responsive recruitment types...
The interviews were with companies who had received my CV when I responded to their ad directly (not through head hunters) but the companies were anonymous at the time of application, so trying to tailor my CV involved all sorts of international espionage, second guessing and translating euphemisms (much like reading a real estate ad and having to know that 'renovator's delight', really means 'about to be condemned'.)
Do you find that? You may see an ad that says "must understand complex organisations" - how vague is that? Then they ring you and ask if you have worked in the automotive industry, because theyonly want automotive experience. Hint: If that's what you wanted, it should have been in your ad.
Worse still, if you don't think on your feet and re-tailor your CV verbally to the specific industry/company they want, when they call, you don't get to the next stage. It would be so much better if it wasn't such a guessing game. Sunny days if you crack the code!
For example ads should be more bloody specific like 'Must have have security clearances for Department of Defence. Deep understanding of politics and knowledge about International dispute and conflict resolution" (or something)
Instead they say"Must have been to Canberra, and like to wear dark earthy colours in warm tones for this mystery job. Experience debating would be handy."
Thankfully when it came to the interview I DID get, I tried the casserole technique in my last post "the truth about men and women." I was also (coincidentally) lucky enough to know a bit about the company, and have some experience as a customer to hark back to, so hurrah, I have made it to face-to-face stage. I talked about what I like about the company from a customer base and tied in my professional skills, even though I have never worked in that industry.
I haven't heard back from the other company whether I made the face-to-face stage. They didn't invite me straight away so possibly not. It turns out the enigma code that was their ad was a for a pharmaceutical company that specialises in women's hygiene. Like the other role, I have also been a customer of this company, but it is hard thing to talk about by phone. Hell! It's a hard thing to discuss with your best friend,so you tell me to demonstrate product knowledge and experience and discuss tampons in a professional way on the spur of the moment with a complete stranger then?
There's a high chance your customer experience story may fall flat in this scenario. I fear mine did! Oops.
But back to the other role at hand. Now I have to work out what to wear and prepare for the myriad of possible interview questions for the first role. I am confident I have all the criteria listed from the ad (except having experience in the industry involved, but I will go with the casserole analogy again)
Any suggestions on outfits??
Oh and here's a bit of recommended reading:
Here was me thinking my thoughts were unique, and perhaps I was uncharitable to consultants, but I discovered a very interesting blogpost today that resonated and so I wanted to share with you.
http://evenitup.wordpress.com/2009/01/21/dealing-with-recruitment-agencies/#comment-4115
I think we all suffer from crises of confidence, but have you ever noticed the difference between men and women at interview? Many men will go on and on about their successes and experience, even if they are inventing it along the way?
"Why sure I have written a blog on pre-menstrual syndrome. It's a subject I care deeply about. In fact it was me who diagnosed it in the first place. I am a really sensitive guy..."
Most women on the other hand are loathe to carry on like queen of the universe. They generally credit others with helping or being part of the team, even if they led the team.
Are we all just selling ourselves short, or are we just being honest?
I think a vast number of women suffer what is called Impostor Syndrome. I certainly think I do when I am at work. I will defer to the Wikipedia definition here, to explain:
"Despite external evidence of their competence, those with the syndrome remain convinced that they are frauds and do not deserve the success they have achieved. Proof of success is dismissed as luck, timing, or as a result of deceiving others into thinking they are more intelligent and competent than they believe themselves to be."
I raise impostor syndrome because I also have some amazingly talented female friends who suffer from it. One is a brilliant sharp lawyer, who juggles a career and four kids. Another single-handedly pulls together large national entertainment events. I am in awe of these women, but I don't think they appreciate just how amazing they are.
Actually I think an awful lot of us suffer from Impostor Syndrome, and what's more we are completely unforgiving to our own sex, and don't recognise it in women in an interview, thinking she must have been incompetent and not a leader...or else thinking "the woman being interviewed is completely up herself" if she does flag her successes in the same way as a man.
It translates to the workplace too, where women are more willing to tear each other down than they would be if their competition was a man. It's not a game I like to play.
So what are we to do? In truth I don't have the answer, but a wonderfully wise and beautiful woman recently told me about how to sell yourself at interviews and put it into a really simple cooking analogy, and I am keen to see how it works.
If the interviewer asks you if you have cooked casserole, and you have only cooked porridge. Tell the interviewer that while you haven't made casserole, you are very competent at turning on the stove, peeling vegetables, adding the ingredients and stirring. In other words, show that you understand, and can do, all the components of the task they are asking about, even if you haven't done that exact task.
Men, of course, would tell you they cook cassoulet daily.
If anyone gets a chance to try this tip, please let me know how it goes. Or if you are man who has taken exception to this post or suffers impostor syndrome, I'd love to know.
I have been for a few interviews lately (well three) and there seems to be no rhyme or reason to them. It doesn't matter how much you prepare and how many interview websites you go to for hints on the latest questions, they are never what you expect.
I went for an interview at an iconic national organisation and spent more than a week researching all the issues and current business initiatives about that organisation, only to be confronted with questions about the whereabouts of colleagues I worked with in 1989. Did I know what they were up to? And was I still in touch with them? It threw me, to be sure.
I declined another interview on the basis of the compulsory psychometric testing that would occur...
I already know I am as mad as a cut snake. I don't need an organisation to confirm it in writing. My mother kindly emailed an example of such testing undertaken in the US. She thought I needed to prepare in order that my true insanity not surface. There were such relevant work questions as:
Which of the following colours do you like most? a) red or orange b)black c)yellow or light blue d)green, e) dark purple, f)white g)brown or grey?
When you are in bed at night, in those last few moments before sleep, you are a) stretched out on your back b) face down on your stomach c)on your side slightly curled d) with your head under one arm or e) with your head under the covers?
Perhaps I like Black because it's slimming and other colours clash with my hair and not because I am a serial killer manic depressive? Maybe I stretch out on my back as I have backache? Maybe my head is under the covers cringing about dumb interview questions I got asked? I mean c'mon! these questions are just stupid...Recruiters need to rely on good old fashioned gut feeling sometimes. Will this person get on with the others at work or not? And are they experienced enough to do the job?
I went for another interview at a global organisation that is renowned for its tricky interview process. Thankfully the questions are mainly used on US intern applicants and not in Australia. The process is now adopted by a number of IT related businesses. So much so, there is now a plethora of websites to help you answer them (incidentally these questions are not just for the techie roles) - Some of the random questions you could be asked include:
Design a cellphone for a blind person.
Design a GPS navigation unit for a hiker
Design an ATM for children
You have a bucket of jelly beans. Some are red, some are blue, and some green. With your eyes closed, pick out 2 of a like colour. How many do you have to grab to be sure you have 2 of the same?
How would you move a Mountain?
How would you test a pen?
I want to know why kids (and I picture my seven and five year old) need an ATM in the first place? And why do I want to move a mountain anyway? Why can't I just build around it? And in a non techical role in a non-confectionary company, will this role involve much random jelly bean picking?
As it turned out, most of the interview was dedicated to espousing the benefits of daily hot-desking (over 7 floors) and entirely paperless offices. As a person who wastes entire forests on a daily basis just scribbling my to-do list, I broke out into hives just picturing the stress of not having my own space and trying to operate without pen and paper (which begs the question: Why do I need to test a pen in the interview anyway?)
I went to another interview with a bone achingly large bag of show and tell stuff. Everything from successful media campaign clippings to annual reports to staff magazines dating back to the 90s. Apparently I was not enthusiastic enough. I suspect because the role paid peanuts, and they had ridiculous expectations. They wanted someone with 10+ years' experience, but only had the budget for a graduate placement.
I don't want to sound finickity, but I suspect a large part of these dumb arsed questions are so some HR people can justify their salaries, because it wasn't so long ago they weren't that common in companies...and heaven forbid the companies work out they can still manage without them.
Do you remember the dim and distant past where you wrote a job application on paper and posted it to the recruiter? It wasn't that dim and distant...I did exactly that for my last role in about 2006. Actually I emailed it. BUT I did ring the recruiter to check if that would be OK and not considered rude. I was worried about sending an application letter via email without an actual pen signature on the bottom of the letter!
That was mainly because I discovered the ad on the closing date and it was to be sent to a PO Box - hard to send a courier there.
Back in the olden days (6 years ago), you would either get a phone call inviting you to interview or a monogrammed envelope...usually the first word of the second paragraph read "Unfortunately..." and that meant you were unsuccessful. But at least you knew one way or the other.
But I digress.
These days it is all about online applications...and it's kind of fiddly to be honest...I need to check all my job alerts that come in from SEEK, My Career, CareerOne, JobRapido, Linkedin and any number of other emails.
That means I have to trawl through ads that have been selected for me by a computer with no actual intellectual comprehension. I have the words "Communication" and "Communicate" in my search terms, so with the exception of roles that require you to speak with no-one at all, just about every single ad that states you must be able to communicate, and therefore I have received alerts for everything from mushroom picker to highly technical roles requiring an ability to assemble the entire NBN single handedly.
Once I have trawled through these, I need to "copy and paste" the ads into a word document for filing and tailor my application and CV accordingly (only now I have eight of those buggers, it adds another element of confusion - will they want the one pager? The one with the picture? The interpretive dance Youtube version?)
In simple terms, I now need to go to ALOT more effort to apply for job.
Normally I get the acknowledgement from the website (eg: SEEK) to let me know that my CV has been received and passed on to the advertiser...and then.....nothing....
Most advertisers no longer bother to let you know if you haven't been successful. It's not like they couldn't have a template email prepared, with the first word of the second para still saying "Unfortunately" and just drop your name in the opening line and insert an email address. It's pure laziness.
In fact I think it would be a damned sight easier than the old days when there was complex fine motor skills involved like envelope licking and stamp sticking! It's mostly the recruitment consultants (whose whole bloody job is placing people) who are so lazy and rude. One recruiter whose name rhymes with Dudson is especially notorious for this. I have even rung them and pointed out they have not responded, and kindly asked if they are in fact still receiving CVs via online sources and they promise the right person will ring back...but guess what? They don't.
Some of them are even so rude as to say "only successful applicants will be contacted"...I put this down to Gen Y laziness again...but I am sure then are gen Xers and boomers in the rude mix too.
Some companies get it right. These are the ones that also acknowledge the effort you put into the letter and CV. Even if I am unsuccessful, I come away with a positive perception of those companies.
This makes it sound like I have applied for a gazillion jobs. I haven't, but enough to see a pattern. Hint: The recruiters that do bother to respond are definitely the recruiters I will use once I am employed again and making recruitment decisions.
Are there other lazy things recruiters do, that really, they have no excuse for?
So many roles I have seen advertised lately spruik work/life balance in the description.
Personally I suspect this is to offset the ridiculously low salaries they are offering whilst trying to lure highly experienced applicants....These applicants are usually guilt infused mothers, who will give 300% in exchange for the chance to start after school drop-off time, or the possibility to go to little Johnny's athletics carnival once a year. They will sacrifice salary for family. And I mean enormous salary sacrifice. I know some who are being paid roughly 70% of their industry average wage and still averaging around 50-60 hours per week. As much as that makes them sound like complete mugs, I'll admit to being one of them.
What shits me is that after you go to the effort of responding to an ad shouting the possibility of real work/life balance, you discover in reality the company has nothing of the sort in place, unless they mean you have the option to sleep at work due to the long hours they expect....or you can shag your workmates, because you'll never be home to nuture the relationship with your own partner...or there's a dry-cleaner, cafeteria or day care onsite, because that's the only way you will get your work clothes clean or see the kids and they don't encourage lunch breaks away from your desk. And handy home hint to advertisers -"Work Hard, Play Hard" is not the same as work life balance.
Now I do still naively keep my eyes open for these roles, and in my mind I would love a company that will let me start late so I can do school drop-offs and miss the horrendous peak hour traffic, and in exchange I will work later at the other end of the day as my partner can do the after-school collections. It doesn't seem unreasonable does it?
Anecdotally I have heard from HR friends (and believe it or not I have a couple) that they know they get alot more out of working mothers exactly because we all flagellate and stress about ensuring we pull our weight at work as well as at home...apparently we demonstrate amazing multi-tasking skills.
However none of this can be raised in a job interview because it is percieved that our family is more important - which, let's face it, it is.
However, despite claims of work life balance and family friendliness, actually raising it in an interview is the proverbial "elephant in the room."
My last role was good for the staggered start times and being around for the kid stuff, but I did give them 100% and did take the reduced salary and mega workload...but on the whole, I would rank them higher than many for work life balance. I had a nice boss who valued his time with the kids, (his kids, not mine) and I think that helped.
Recently I responded to a "work life balance" ad, which was located absolutely miles away from where I live.
I had the telephone interview with the obligatory recruitment consultant first, and he was a lovely man. He promised to raise the later start, later finish thing with the company, who flatly refused to entertain the notion of a staggered start time.
I put a friend in touch with the company.
This friend lives close to the company and is amazingly talented at what she does.
Perfectly suited for the role. Much more than me.
She was a shoo-in for the job, but was also sadly saddled with a child. However as it was still possible for her to start at the start time, she went for the interview and reported back the company's version of work life balance was the opportunity to join the company's triathlon team in your down-time. Strangely not her idea of work life balance. She did not pursue it any further.
**late addition to this post - she also reported they asked her if she planned to have more children...Is that even legal? I undertand the job subsequently went to a man. Probably better for their triathlon team that way**
What does work life balance in a role mean to you?
That first clumsy post that I don't want anyone to read, but need to do, in order to see if I am getting this right...
It's been almost two months that I have been actively looking for work after being made redundant, from a role I loved, in a global company, which, I suspect may not be around in a few years' time.
The thing is, this company is loved around the world as a brand that brings comfort just to see it round the house. It reminds you of your much loved Granny, and has history. It's a brand you trust (even if it reminds you of cardigans with leather patches)...but the flip side is that it is like poison on your CV.
Despite the young and vibrant people who worked there and its innovative approach to online and iPad apps and the like, it is not seen as edgy, new or relevant. It's staid and musty to the current batch of Gen Y recruitment consultants.
Quite frankly I would probably be better to have any number of other brands or roles on my CV than my last (respectable) role ..Lehman Brothers perhaps? Or Exxon Valdez? Campaign Manager for Bob Katter? Maybe I will add these in future and see if they work better...
In the time since I left that company I think I have seen about eight head-hunters...for the most part (with the exception of two similarly mature women with brains and a varied CVs) they are the all same...from the uber manicured nails to the complete lack of understanding about what I do.
It's simple - I do exactly what my CV says I do. It's one of those careers that is hard to muddle up. Like Taxi Driver or Doctor.
They all ask me to promise they can exclusively represent me for any role I apply for (even if it's advertised privately), because of course my salary would attract a rather generous commission...In return, they will do absolutely sod all to generate any proactive leads for me, and putting every candidate on the books forward for the same role at the same time for listings that come in. Sounds fair eh? Hell... why not?
Without fail, when a role comes up they all ring me and preface it with: "I know this role is a little bit left of centre..." - that means it ticks absolutely none of the boxes I want in a job, but they know I am redundant and therefore must be desperate. And after two months attempting the at home mummy thing, they may have a point.
I have had 8 different consultants tell me 8 different ways to write my CV and have even had one suggest I remove the year I did my HSC...It's not like I finished school just before Arthur Philip and his mates clambered ashore at Botany Bay. It was exactly 200 years AFTER that point! I have a good two and a half decades of working life in me yet!
I have been told to "condense" my decades of experience into a single A4 sheet...presumably this is for the brain dead Twitter generation with ADHD after 140 characters. I have also been told to stretch it to a page per job, which equates to probably half the world's sustainable timber just to print off. So frankly I now have about eight CVs and no idea which one people prefer.
The fun thing about recruitment consultants is that they INSIST on meeting you face-to-face before putting you forward for a role. Now there's nothing wrong with that, but I live a fair way out of town, so if we can ensure I am half way suitable for a role before I schlepp into the CBD, that would be great.
Take today for example, I travelled three hours there and back for a meeting that took about 25 minutes, for an consultancy role. Now even though consultancy work is not my first choice, I am trying to be open minded about things...The recruitment lady (or rather girl) has had my CV for around 10 days...Only after I have schlepped into town did she bother to look at my CV and tell me that as I haven't worked in an consultancy for about 15 years, that may be an issue for the role she has in mind. Couldn't she have decided that before I spent $30 on tolls and parked in a car park that would cost me $49 after 30mins?? Luckily the interview was so damned short, I still got the discounted rate. She was the Twitter generation after all.
The other thing was she transcribed what I said verbatim, without bothering to process the information. After asking me about a role I left in 2003, she honestly wrote down "entered captive breeding program - 2 kids". I. Shit. You. Not.
Anyone got any bright ideas about surviving the recruitment consultant interview phase? How about new ways to present your CV?
