You're an interviewer. You have a 12:00 interview scheduled. Normally people go in the mildly annoying direction of arriving waaayy too early, but this candidate is late.
How late can the candidate be before you (a) hold it against him/her, and (b) cancel the interview altogether?
I consider lateness of more than a couple minutes very notable. And at 10 minutes, there better be a profuse apology so it doesn't seem like typical behavior for the candidate. If the person isn't there 15 minutes after the scheduled time, I'm likely to cancel the interview entirely. (If the person calls within the first 10 minutes to explain and has a reasonable excuse, I will cut them some slack, but not a huge amount.)
Where do you stand?
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Monday, August 3, 2009
You suck, interviewer!
I'm on a bit of a rampage about interviewers who don't bother to send candidates notices of rejection after a candidate has taken the time to interview with them.
You put hours into preparing for the interview. Maybe you buy a new suit. Maybe you drive several hours to get there, spending gas money you don't really have or taking a vacation day to do it. Then you sweat it out through the interview itself. They tell you that they'll notify you of their decision in a week. And then ... nothing. It's like you don't exist to them.
This behavior is inexcusable -- it's callous and dismissive and lacks any appreciation for the fact that the candidate is anxiously waiting to hear an answer -- any answer -- and keeps waiting and waiting, long after a decision has been made. It's just not that hard to send a quick email, even a form letter, letting the candidate know she's no longer under consideration.
Employers owe interviewees a response, period.
This particularly pisses me off because sane job seekers aren't going to call employers like this on their rude behavior, lest they burn their bridges with the organization. So employers get to act like this with impunity, and the rare person who does complain about it is generally dismissed as naive or crazy, simply because no one else does it.
I'm seriously thinking of offering a service on this site that job seekers could use to generate an anonymous letter to the employer, telling them how rude they are. It would be a public service: the Ask a Manager You-Suck-As-An-Interviewer Automatic Letter Generator ® .
You put hours into preparing for the interview. Maybe you buy a new suit. Maybe you drive several hours to get there, spending gas money you don't really have or taking a vacation day to do it. Then you sweat it out through the interview itself. They tell you that they'll notify you of their decision in a week. And then ... nothing. It's like you don't exist to them.
This behavior is inexcusable -- it's callous and dismissive and lacks any appreciation for the fact that the candidate is anxiously waiting to hear an answer -- any answer -- and keeps waiting and waiting, long after a decision has been made. It's just not that hard to send a quick email, even a form letter, letting the candidate know she's no longer under consideration.
Employers owe interviewees a response, period.
This particularly pisses me off because sane job seekers aren't going to call employers like this on their rude behavior, lest they burn their bridges with the organization. So employers get to act like this with impunity, and the rare person who does complain about it is generally dismissed as naive or crazy, simply because no one else does it.
I'm seriously thinking of offering a service on this site that job seekers could use to generate an anonymous letter to the employer, telling them how rude they are. It would be a public service: the Ask a Manager You-Suck-As-An-Interviewer Automatic Letter Generator ® .
the ethics of cancelling remaining interviews once you find "the one"
Where do you stand on this question?
An employer is interviewing for a position. They have five interviews scheduled. Interview #3 is fantastic, and the interviewer's experience tells them that the other candidates won't beat #3.
If you were candidate #4 or #5 and your interview hasn't happened yet -- say it's scheduled for later this week -- would you rather that the employer continue on with your scheduled interview, even though now they're pretty sure it's going to be a waste of your/their time because they're almost definitely going to offer the position to the other candidate (who appears certain to accept)? Or would you rather they not make you put in the time when it's so unlikely to pay off?
(Assume for the sake of the question that if candidate #3 turns down the offer, the employer will resume the remaining interviews.)
I could argue this either way, but ultimately -- if I'm that sure about candidate #3 -- I'm on the side of not wasting people's time.
An employer is interviewing for a position. They have five interviews scheduled. Interview #3 is fantastic, and the interviewer's experience tells them that the other candidates won't beat #3.
If you were candidate #4 or #5 and your interview hasn't happened yet -- say it's scheduled for later this week -- would you rather that the employer continue on with your scheduled interview, even though now they're pretty sure it's going to be a waste of your/their time because they're almost definitely going to offer the position to the other candidate (who appears certain to accept)? Or would you rather they not make you put in the time when it's so unlikely to pay off?
(Assume for the sake of the question that if candidate #3 turns down the offer, the employer will resume the remaining interviews.)
I could argue this either way, but ultimately -- if I'm that sure about candidate #3 -- I'm on the side of not wasting people's time.
5 ways companies mistreat job-seekers
I've been in a rage lately about some of the ways employers mistreat job-seekers (more on this soon), and today my U.S. News & World Report post is about five of the ways that employers are rude to job candidates.Please check it out and leave your own thoughts in the comments over there.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
bypassing the employment agency
A reader writes:
An employment agency listed a job on a generic website two months ago. At that time, they did not list what company the job was with. I sent my resume to the agency, left messages, and never heard from them. This is my dream job so I was very disappointed.
Today the employment agency re-listed the job and included the name of the company this time. I sent my materials directly to the company this time. How will this be viewed by the company ? I figure if they hire me without an employment agency involved they would save money. Also, I had no contact with the employment agency so I didn't breach any ethics there. (P.S. I am qualified for the job for sure.) What do you think?
The employer either won't care or will be annoyed that you didn't follow the instructions. If they just hired the agency to expand their pool of candidates for them, they won't care. If they hired the agency to handle the initial screening for them, they'll just forward your materials to them and may or may not be annoyed that you didn't follow directions.
On the other hand, if you get hired for this job, you've screwed the employment agency out of a fee that they should have had ... which is why most agencies don't include the name of the company in their ads.
An employment agency listed a job on a generic website two months ago. At that time, they did not list what company the job was with. I sent my resume to the agency, left messages, and never heard from them. This is my dream job so I was very disappointed.
Today the employment agency re-listed the job and included the name of the company this time. I sent my materials directly to the company this time. How will this be viewed by the company ? I figure if they hire me without an employment agency involved they would save money. Also, I had no contact with the employment agency so I didn't breach any ethics there. (P.S. I am qualified for the job for sure.) What do you think?
The employer either won't care or will be annoyed that you didn't follow the instructions. If they just hired the agency to expand their pool of candidates for them, they won't care. If they hired the agency to handle the initial screening for them, they'll just forward your materials to them and may or may not be annoyed that you didn't follow directions.
On the other hand, if you get hired for this job, you've screwed the employment agency out of a fee that they should have had ... which is why most agencies don't include the name of the company in their ads.
when an employee isn't taking your hint
A reader writes:
I am a sales manager and have a team of 9 Territory Managers. I have one young man on my team without a whole lot of life or professional experience. His father did some consulting for our corporate office and is well known in our company and throughout our industry.
My TM has a habit of bragging about the account he is "about" to get and getting bigwigs involved in little projects. I know they do not have time for this and wish I could get him to understand that this is not a wise thing to do. If anything, he should be waiting until he NAILS the account to communicate with these people - but I feel strongly that he should let his actions speak for themselves. I am really good at bragging about my team and their accomplishments and would do that for him.
Any advice on getting this guy to chill out a bit? I have tried gentle coaching, but he does not get the long-term big picture!
You manage this guy? When gentle coaching doesn't work, you escalate it to something more direct.
You need to tell him directly that there's a chain of command and he needs to follow it. That means not going over your head to involve higher-ups; that's something you will do when the time is appropriate. Then you enforce it.
You're his manager. Don't hint. Tell him the behavior you expect and hold him accountable to it.
I am a sales manager and have a team of 9 Territory Managers. I have one young man on my team without a whole lot of life or professional experience. His father did some consulting for our corporate office and is well known in our company and throughout our industry.
My TM has a habit of bragging about the account he is "about" to get and getting bigwigs involved in little projects. I know they do not have time for this and wish I could get him to understand that this is not a wise thing to do. If anything, he should be waiting until he NAILS the account to communicate with these people - but I feel strongly that he should let his actions speak for themselves. I am really good at bragging about my team and their accomplishments and would do that for him.
Any advice on getting this guy to chill out a bit? I have tried gentle coaching, but he does not get the long-term big picture!
You manage this guy? When gentle coaching doesn't work, you escalate it to something more direct.
You need to tell him directly that there's a chain of command and he needs to follow it. That means not going over your head to involve higher-ups; that's something you will do when the time is appropriate. Then you enforce it.
You're his manager. Don't hint. Tell him the behavior you expect and hold him accountable to it.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
should we report husband's ex-wife to her boss?
A reader writes:
My husband's ex-wife has been breaking into his email for the past year. They have been divorced for 2 years. She just can't stay out of our lives!
Well, here is why I am asking you. She works as a managing editor for a publishing company that produces a Catholic health care magazine. My husband is a physician with all this patient information in his email. We have proof she has been doing this and we have proof she has only done it from her work computer. Should her boss know she might be getting information improperly? Actually it's called federal wire tapping act, and breaking HIPAA violations, which could be thousands of dollars in fines for her company.
My husband's ex-wife has been breaking into his email for the past year. They have been divorced for 2 years. She just can't stay out of our lives!
Well, here is why I am asking you. She works as a managing editor for a publishing company that produces a Catholic health care magazine. My husband is a physician with all this patient information in his email. We have proof she has been doing this and we have proof she has only done it from her work computer. Should her boss know she might be getting information improperly? Actually it's called federal wire tapping act, and breaking HIPAA violations, which could be thousands of dollars in fines for her company.
Why doesn't your husband change the password on his email?
If for some reason that won't solve the problem (and I don't know why it wouldn't), he should set up a new email account.
These are much cleaner and more effective solutions. You're looking for drama when there doesn't need to be any.
Your issue isn't really that there's patient information in your husband's email account, and come on, you know that. Your issue is that she's violating his privacy, period, regardless of where she's doing it from or what she's finding. Don't engage; just change the email password or change the account if necessary, and move on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
