Interview This!

One of the chief reasons recruiters are hired to fill job openings is that the employer lacks the time or manpower to deal with job seekers responding to ads. It makes more sense, for a number of reasons, to outsource that responsibility by hiring a recruiter.

One might assume that providing the employer’s name in a job posting would be fine, so long as interested candidates are instructed to apply through the recruiter rather than the employer. But an astounding number of people think that it is perfectly OK to ignore those instructions and contact the employer anyway. They figure that, by applying to both the recruiter and employer, they increase their odds of getting an interview. Or, if they don’t hear from the recruiter (which only happens if they are unqualified for the job), they then contact the employer directly, figuring they have nothing to lose at that point.

The large number of utterly unqualified individuals who respond to a job posting is a sight to behold. Then there are those who feel the need to apply two, three or even four times. In fact, these two categories constitute the majority of responses to most postings.

Unlike most employers—especially those lacking a human resource department—I deal with this every day; I know what to expect and have put in place automated systems to handle the avalanche of responses. From the employer’s perspective, I reduce the workload arising from job postings in two ways: pre-screening qualified candidates, and insulating the employer from unnecessary outside contacts.

Michael G Smith

Question: “I recently left a full-time job to start my own consulting business and wonder what effect this change might have on my career? What downside risk is there in quiting work to go back to school, making a lateral move or staying in a dead end job?”

What are the career consequences if your attempt at self-employment fails and you decide to go back to work? I don’t think you have much to fear. Your career will suffer nothing more than a delay; employers will not hold your entrepreneurial effort against you when considering you for a job. Of course, going back to your former career becomes more difficult with the passage of time as your career skills and knowledge of developments in the field become rusty.

As for the other items on your list: going back to college is not a risk, as you are improving your value as an employee, but only if you acquire technical knowledge you can use on the job–electrical engineering, for example–or general business knowledge, as with an MBA. Otherwise the value gained may be less than what is lost by taking the time off from your career. The one exception is when you become qualified in an unrelated, but intersecting area. An engineer, for example, who earns a degree in law can move to the firm’s legal department and likely secure a substantial increase in compensation.

Changing careers is clearly a risk vs. reward proposition with outcomes ranging from completely unknown to relatively foreseeable. If the field in which you work is in decline (say, film-based photography), the lowest risk option is to leverage your existing skills to enter another field that has long-term growth potential, even if you must take a short term cut in pay.

When changing careers, the least risky move is one that takes advantage of your most valuable knowledge and skills. As a business consultant, are speaking and writing–the skills you now sell–your strongest and most valuable skills? Is knowledge of corporate behavior your strongest area of expertise? Will businesses or consumers be willing to pay more for your expertise and knowledge in these areas than any of your other skills or abilities? If the answer is “no,” then you have taken on more risk than necessary and your willingness to do so is strictly a personal decision. However, you mitigate the extent of your career risk by having a fallback option whereby you can seek employment in the field where your skills and experience are most highly valued.

Staying in a dead end job is like keeping your money in a safe deposit box–there is little risk of theft, but your asset loses value every day compared with money deposited in an interest bearing account. Ideally, one avoids becoming employed in a dead end job in the first place, but for younger workers, a dead end job may be the best job option available at the time a choice must be made. Most people solve the dead end job problem by moving on after several years when future advancement in income and responsibility become less likely.

Making a lateral move is not as much of an issue as the other four concerns you list. If there is no increase in pay or responsibility in the new job, one might still be better off doing the same work for the same pay at a company whose future prospects are brighter, or where advancement opportunities are more plentiful.

Michael G Smith

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal appears to endorse the idea that those who work for nonprofits, particularly libertarian advocacy organizations, earn less than those who “sell out” and work for “corporate America.” In “The Tragic Irony of Beltway Libertarianism” (May 21, 2008) Thomas Frank maintains that individuals can either work for an ideologically compatible, but low-paying, nonprofit, or “forsake, say, the Cato Institute and instead help ExxonMobil pile up the pelf”.

Frank appears to be making the claim that what might (or might not) be true of a sector of the economy (e.g. nonprofit organizations pay less than corporations) is also true for each employee within it. He also points out that, from time to time, individuals leave the nonprofit sector to earn a larger paycheck in the private sector. While true, this implies nothing about the relative pay in either sector, especially considering counter-examples where a private sector job is left for a higher-paying position at a nonprofit.

All employees have preferences about the type of employer they will work for, where they wish to live, length of commute, willingness to travel, and openness to relocation. Exercising any of these preferences potentially impacts income by reducing the number of acceptable employers. An engineer, for example, who prefers to design automobiles, will likely earn less than an engineer who has no preference and is free to take whatever job pays the most. Does this imply that automobile engineers earn less than non-automotive engineers? No. It implies only that those who have few, or no, work preferences have more positions to choose from and sacrifice nothing by taking the most lucrative job.

Generalizations about what “someone” might make at a nonprofit compared to what they might make in the private sector are meaningless. Nonprofits, like any employer, require workers with certain skills and abilities; they pay whatever it takes to get them (or get by without employees). Characteristics such as leadership ability, self-motivation, and critical thinking skills are sought by these organizations, while corporations often seek just the opposite in their employees. A self-motivated leader with critical thinking skills might very well earn much more working for a nonprofit than working in the private sector.

Over time, the likely result of sorting employees in the marketplace according to the skills required by employers is that each worker ends up in the field that most highly values that particular worker’s innate skills, and each worker has maximized income, within the confines of their personal preferences.

Another consideration is that, for the most part, nonprofits of the libertarian type Mr. Frank discusses, are tiny compared with the average business. The Cato Institute—with annual revenue of less than $25 million—is the “ExxonMobil” of the libertarian movement; by comparison, ExxonMobil’s annual revenue exceeds $400 Billion.

There are many types of skills and employee characteristics that may be more highly compensated in one sector of the economy or another, but the private sector, since it is so much larger and complex than the nonprofit sector, simply has more different types of jobs and, therefore, more opportunities for high income. But it is a mistake to average out the incomes from each sector, compare the average, and then conclude that each individual employee earns less in one sector than another. It’s entirely possible for the nonprofit sector to have lower average wages than the private sector, yet each employee in the nonprofit sector is earning more than if they worked for “corporate America.”

Michael G Smith

Resume and cover letter mistakes can be comic or tragic:
comic if we learn from them, tragic if we don’t.
I won’t reject a candidate due to mistakes on their resume or cover letter, but most hiring managers are not as forgiving.
Some examples from which to learn:

“Early Retirement, The website for people who used to work for a living”
  Sounds good, except this site’s author applied for a full-time job.

“Thank you for inviting me to dialogue with you about any/all appropriate positions; I believe my experiences and skill sets closely match the position announcement.”
  Always have a trusted friend read your proposed cover letter in order to avoid a first line fiasco.

“The under mentioned are the highlights of the experience that I can offer.”
  Grammatically correct? I have no idea, but it reads like hell, and that’s why you should have someone read your cover letter.

Many job seekers believe that elaborating on their experience and skills in a cover letter enhances their chances of getting an interview. Although this belief underlies much of the available “advice” on writing cover letters, it is completely mistaken. The simple truth is that hiring managers have limited time and nearly unlimited resumes to screen; they just don’t have time to read cover letters.

(I should point out that “cover letter” in this context means a letter, or more typically, a cover message, as in an email message that accompanies your attached resume or application. Almost all resumes are sent by email these days, so “cover letter” refers to the email message you send to an employer or recruiter, or the text message inserted into the appropriate spot on an online application.)

The most efficient way to screen resumes is, well, to screen the resume and not bother with the cover letter. A quick review of a resume is all that’s required to place it in one of three categories: not qualified (the vast majority of all resumes); possibly qualified; and, almost certainly qualified. If the resume screener has enough candidate resumes in the “almost certainly qualified” category, the resumes in the other two categories are set aside (with the cover letter never having seen the light of day).

If the number of potentially qualified candidates must be reduced, the resume screener will take a more detailed look at the resume and possibly read the cover letter. It’s at this point the tactic of packing lots of info into the cover letter may backfire: information in the cover letter might be used to reject the candidate. Remember, the resume has survived the first cut and is now sitting in the “to be interviewed” pile, so the ideal letter for this situation says simply, “Please consider me for the position you recently advertised”, as it avoids providing the screener with any information that may be used to reject the candidate.

Rest assured that if the cover letter is long-winded, contains stupid comments (”out-of-the-box thinker”; “I’m a people person”), contains some otherwise benign detail that is viewed negatively, or any one of a thousand other problems that the job seeker may not anticipate, the resume will move out of the “interview” pile and into the “not now, maybe later” pile.

Since one cannot know with certainty how the person reading the cover letter will react to any particular bit of information, it is best to let your resume carry the full load of securing an interview. Don’t risk providing a reason in your cover letter to undo what your resume may have already accomplished.

Michael G Smith

Job candidates sometimes outsmart themselves when discussing compensation with a prospective employer. Forget what you may have learned about negotiating tactics, as you may sabotage the job offer.

Here’s what can happen: if you stretch the truth about how much you currently earn, or provide an inflated “minimum” amount of compensation you are willing to accept, the prospective employer may offer the job to another candidate who has asked for less.

Say, for example, you tell a prospective employer that you wish to earn $100,000, figuring you can then “negotiate” down to $90,000, an amount with which you would be pleased. The other candidate, however, may ask for $90,000, which is the number he or she really wants. Naturally, the employer takes both candidates at their word and proceeds to offer the job to the employee who will cost less (assuming, of course, both candidates have roughly equal skills).

Suppose you give the employer an honest, minimum compensation number and they then make an offer that is lower? This is not a problem; it doesn’t make a bit of difference what amount you ask for, or what amount they offer, since you alone control whether you accept the offer or not. If the offer is too low, turn it down and reiterate that the number you provided earlier–your minimum compensation amount–is truly the minimum offer you will accept.

If the employer is unwilling to come back with an offer at, or above your minimum, then either the employer has another candidate that is not quite as desirable as you, but somewhat less expensive, or the amount the employer offered is simply the most they are able to spend.

In my experience, employers do not typically reduce the amount of compensation they plan to offer when they learn the candidate is willing to accept less. Surprised? Think about it; if the employer decides that, for a variety of reasons, salary “X” is the right amount to pay for a certain quality of employee doing a particular job, then why pay a different amount? If money had been the most important consideration, then the employer could easily have sought out a less expensive employee.

I have also found that it is much better for the employer to find out before the offer is made that the compensation amount is not acceptable to the candidate. It is usually easier for the hiring manager to secure approval for higher compensation during the process of preparing the offer, especially if the request is based on specific information provided by the candidate. Once the offer is made and rejected, though, the manager’s harried effort to secure more money will likely be seen as an attempt to salvage a bungled hire.

Michael G Smith

Question: Are there employers hiring “remote” or e-commuting team members in the area of web production, content management or web editing?

I have read a lot of articles about this growing trend, and some envious examples of people working from the beach. But, in reality, are American companies willing to trust and hire someone for their talents and ability to produce without their regular presence at an office (not contractor or self-employed)? I’m looking for perspective and insight from both management with employees working from home, and from individuals who work from home.

- Is e-commuting a benefit that is offered upfront and detailed in job listings, or is it something that is usually negotiated?
- If you work from home in a tech-related, full-time job (not contractor or self-employed), could you share some tips on how you did it?
- What are some ways to “sell” the idea of working from home to your boss?

I’m not looking for a new job, but more wanting to understand the HR and Management related issues around this topic.

Josue Sierra
Marketing Lead at JPMorgan Chase

Answer
From the employer’s point of view, e-commuting is not viable for most jobs and as a result, some employers are hesitant to open the door to that option. Nearly all management positions require the manager to be on site in order to mentor their staff and direct their activities. By the same token, less experienced employees who wish to develop management skills and eventually become managers themselves cannot expect to do so if they work off site.

From a quality of life perspective, working from home appears to offer advantages—flexibility in regard to work hours, less micro-management, and lower commuting costs. However, individuals who have worked from home or in a one-person office are aware of the disadvantages of this arrangement— loneliness (no social interaction with office peers), difficulty in getting motivated, and lack of real-time information flows that may affect the direction of the project you may be working on.

Taking these considerations into account, there are certain types of work where the trade-offs are worthwhile. By foregoing the requirement that an employee work on site, an organization can gain access to a larger pool of qualified candidates and possibly lower their costs as well. In fact, this is exactly what outsourcing is, since there isn’t really much difference between having an off site employee and an off site vendor—the considerations underlying the decision-making process are much the same.

To answer your last question first, selling the idea of working from home is tough, since your boss already has the preferred situation and is not likely to settle for less. The only real leverage you have is if you offer to work from home instead of quitting. This may appear to contradict what I’ve just said above, but keep in mind that you’ve already been hired and so the employer has already considered the question of hiring someone to work off site. The reasons for hiring someone off site—access to a larger candidate pool and potentially lower cost—don’t apply to you as an existing employee.

From the employer’s perspective, converting an onsite employee to an off site one has few advantages (your office or cubicle becomes available to another employee, yet only if you never work in the office), but many disadvantages (less accountability, and more difficult and slower communication). Unless the employer is faced with losing the employee and having to find a replacement, there is no advantage to the employer in agreeing to your proposal.

As for job listings, sometimes the employer will state upfront that the position can be performed from home. If the employer does not mention that in a job posting, you should raise that point during the first conversation with an interested employer and see how they respond.

Michael G Smith

What candidate resume management tools or process do you find effective?

“We are a consulting firm and receive and retain hundreds of resumes annually. Currently these are retained physically in folders in a file cabinet in alphabetical order with notes detailing the hire/do not hire decision. Several people may take notes during the interview and they are all placed in the folder. We retain every candidate resume in order to be able to recall what it was that we liked or disliked about them and to have their contact info available on a moment’s notice; we frequently land an opportunity that prompts a quick hire or encounter the same folks during subsequent searches.

“You may have deduced that the volume assembled over more than fifteen years has become difficult to reference. Can you offer an application or process that you find effective?”

Philip J. Leonard III
Vice President of Operations
Diversified Project Management
Drawingfromnature.com

Answer:
Philip, I am surprised that, in this day and age, you work with paper resumes. By printing out a resume (or any document for that matter) you forgo the ability to search and retrieve it using powerful computer-based tools. Moreover, if you loose the paper resume, you also loose the notes and comments.

As a recruiter, I am deeply reliant on retrieving bits and pieces of information I’ve collected over time–including resumes and notes of conversations. Although I sometimes print out resumes in order to take notes, I always copy the notes back in to my PC. It doesn’t matter where or in what format notes are kept since I use Google Desktop to retrieve all the information I need.

Say, for example, that I am aware of a potential candidate for a position I wish to fill and I want to pull together any notes or resumes I might have. I type the candidate’s name (”pete moss”) into my Google Deskbar search (on my computer’s taskbar) and Google will retrieve every reference to that name anywhere in my PC–every resume, note, outlook file, spreadsheet, email, even any website I’ve visited that had the words “pete moss” on it.

This ability to search through my whole computer (like Google searches the entire web) without regard to the location of data frees me from the requirement of keeping my information neatly stored in some particular “resume management system.” My computer IS the system.

Furthermore, Google allows you to coordinate searches between computers, so you can search through resumes, notes, and other data that the HR Director has on the HR department system and they can search through your information as well.

Ideally, you should not be storing hand written notes of interviews anyway. Each interviewer should debrief in a consistent manner–a short memo is fine–and then email that to the person coordinating the hire. Better still, upload the note to Google documents for storage and sharing, or use one of Microsoft’s many group collaboration tools. This solves the problem of record keeping, searching and group access all at once.

I realize it’s comforting to know exactly where your data is stored, but you no longer need to do so. Tools exist that can instantly retrieve information from the nooks and crannies of your hard drives–Google remembers where your data is, so you don’t have to.

Michael G Smith

If you have a question you would like to have answered, post it as a comment to this blog entry (in the box under Leave a Reply below). Time permitting, we will answer all reasonable questions.