I've done a bunch of interviews recently with candidates who sank their chances by not knowing when to stop talking.
Your answer to the interviewer's question should be direct and to-the-point. It should not result in you rambling on for five minutes, giving tons of background and tangents. If there's more to tell and you believe your interviewer would be fascinated, after giving your direct, concise (two minutes at the very most) response, you may ask, "Does that give you what you're looking for, or would you like me to go more in depth about this?" If the interviewer wants more, believe me, she'll say so.
You must also pay attention to cues. If your interviewer is looking bored, looking at her computer screen, or looking anything less than happily engaged, you might be rambling.
Rambling is the kiss of death because it turns the interviewer off, signaling that you're not good at picking up on conversational cues about where she wants to take the conversation, and raising doubts about your ability to organize your thoughts and convey needed information quickly.
But this is not license to turn into your opposite, the candidate who barely talks and makes me pull information out painfully, sentence by sentence. The middle ground is around one to two minutes per answer, unless you get the signal for something longer.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Sunday, January 27, 2008
denied a promotion
A reader writes:
I starting working at my present company about 1.5 years ago. Before working here, I was doing recruiting for about 2 years at an agency. I came into my current company as an assistant to the recruitment team because I was told I didn't have enough experience as a recruiter in this specific industry. I wouldn't have accepted this position, but the money was the same and the benefits were better and it was a shorter commute. I also thought my career path would be better here.
At the time the person who recruited me turned out to be my manager. I told her I understood she would like me to have more experience, but I also made it clear that I wanted to recruit. She told me that the plan was to stay in the assistant position for 1 year and then move into a recruitment position. Well a year came and went and then it turned into 1.5 year. Well, that looks like it's going to come and go and nothing. In this time they promoted the other HR assistant who was here before me. I have no problem with that b/c she put her time in (2 years), but she had no recruiting experience and I suspect that was their plan all along.
I have since gotten a new manager, but he seems to want to keep things as is and he plans on bringing in a more senior recruiter. I told him I would like to be considered for this position, and he straight up told me I am not qualified for what he needs. I tried every angle, "I know the company, promote within, bla, bla, bla". He stayed at no. I get great evaluations, no one ever complains about my work. Without me doing the administrative things for the group, it would fall apart.
I feel like I am being jerked around. I am not the only person this has happened to in my HR department. My question to you is, is this a common practice among companies? and what do you think I should do? should I wait it out? I am fairly happy with the company and my co-workers. I get paid decent for what I do, but I am not at the top of the scale and I could be making more money recruiting or working for an agency.
This gives me a chance to say something that I think people often lose sight of when they're in the middle of it: You cannot make your company promote or compensate you in the way you want. But you also don't have to stay there. You can lay out your case and ask what you need to do to get what you want, but ultimately, you must decide whether or not you want to stay under the conditions being offered.
Here's how this applies in your case: Go to your manager and ask him to tell you what you would need to accomplish in order to earn a promotion. What specific experience would you need to get, or what areas do you need to improve in? If he's able to give you a specific answer, decide if you're able/willing to do what he's asking. If you are, tell him you're going to make it your goal to meet those criteria in __ months, and ask him if he'll agree to reviewing your progress and considering you for a promotion at that point. But if he's not able to give you a specific answer about how you could earn a promotion, take it a good sign that it's probably not going to happen in this job, for whatever reason -- and start looking at other jobs.
In fact, no matter what his answer is, start looking at other jobs. See what else is out there. Nothing says you have to take a new job if it's offered to you -- but you'll likely feel much more in control once you have more options. Good luck!
I starting working at my present company about 1.5 years ago. Before working here, I was doing recruiting for about 2 years at an agency. I came into my current company as an assistant to the recruitment team because I was told I didn't have enough experience as a recruiter in this specific industry. I wouldn't have accepted this position, but the money was the same and the benefits were better and it was a shorter commute. I also thought my career path would be better here.
At the time the person who recruited me turned out to be my manager. I told her I understood she would like me to have more experience, but I also made it clear that I wanted to recruit. She told me that the plan was to stay in the assistant position for 1 year and then move into a recruitment position. Well a year came and went and then it turned into 1.5 year. Well, that looks like it's going to come and go and nothing. In this time they promoted the other HR assistant who was here before me. I have no problem with that b/c she put her time in (2 years), but she had no recruiting experience and I suspect that was their plan all along.
I have since gotten a new manager, but he seems to want to keep things as is and he plans on bringing in a more senior recruiter. I told him I would like to be considered for this position, and he straight up told me I am not qualified for what he needs. I tried every angle, "I know the company, promote within, bla, bla, bla". He stayed at no. I get great evaluations, no one ever complains about my work. Without me doing the administrative things for the group, it would fall apart.
I feel like I am being jerked around. I am not the only person this has happened to in my HR department. My question to you is, is this a common practice among companies? and what do you think I should do? should I wait it out? I am fairly happy with the company and my co-workers. I get paid decent for what I do, but I am not at the top of the scale and I could be making more money recruiting or working for an agency.
This gives me a chance to say something that I think people often lose sight of when they're in the middle of it: You cannot make your company promote or compensate you in the way you want. But you also don't have to stay there. You can lay out your case and ask what you need to do to get what you want, but ultimately, you must decide whether or not you want to stay under the conditions being offered.
Here's how this applies in your case: Go to your manager and ask him to tell you what you would need to accomplish in order to earn a promotion. What specific experience would you need to get, or what areas do you need to improve in? If he's able to give you a specific answer, decide if you're able/willing to do what he's asking. If you are, tell him you're going to make it your goal to meet those criteria in __ months, and ask him if he'll agree to reviewing your progress and considering you for a promotion at that point. But if he's not able to give you a specific answer about how you could earn a promotion, take it a good sign that it's probably not going to happen in this job, for whatever reason -- and start looking at other jobs.
In fact, no matter what his answer is, start looking at other jobs. See what else is out there. Nothing says you have to take a new job if it's offered to you -- but you'll likely feel much more in control once you have more options. Good luck!
chronological resume?
A reader writes:
Having been in the working world for 7+ years (post college), I've racked up a variety of professional experiences (have had 4 different full-time jobs, as well as done some complementary contract work on the side). I'm currently considering a new opportunity in which not ALL of my professional experiences necessarily apply. Likewise, some of my non-professional experiences from college are VERY applicable. My resume is getting quite lengthy these days, but I'm hesitant to remove any of the jobs that I have because, a: it would result in seeming gaps in employment, and b (more importantly): even though these experiences don't necessarily speak directly to this new opportunity, they've still been an important part of my professional development. I'm curious as to whether you have any advice for how to organize a resume in this situation. To date, my resume has always been organized chronologically, but I'm beginning to think that perhaps a different approach is more fitting. (ie, most applicable to least applicable).
Some people will disagree with me, but I hate resumes that are organized in any way other than chronologically. It makes it look like the candidate is trying to disguise something, and it makes it difficult for me to sort out the person's career progression. So keep the chronological organization.
But four jobs and some work on the side should easily fit on a one-page resume, as long as you're being choosy and concise about what details you include about the work you did there (by the way, to whatever extent possible, include achievements rather than a job description).
But if there's work on there that doesn't relate to the jobs you're applying for -- and which wouldn't leave a sizable gap if you excised them -- you could leave those off. Definitely do include the relevant college experience, though, even though it wasn't paid -- I'm continually surprised by how often I discover "hidden" experience in a phone interview, which the candidate left off the resume simply because it wasn't paid work. Good luck!
Having been in the working world for 7+ years (post college), I've racked up a variety of professional experiences (have had 4 different full-time jobs, as well as done some complementary contract work on the side). I'm currently considering a new opportunity in which not ALL of my professional experiences necessarily apply. Likewise, some of my non-professional experiences from college are VERY applicable. My resume is getting quite lengthy these days, but I'm hesitant to remove any of the jobs that I have because, a: it would result in seeming gaps in employment, and b (more importantly): even though these experiences don't necessarily speak directly to this new opportunity, they've still been an important part of my professional development. I'm curious as to whether you have any advice for how to organize a resume in this situation. To date, my resume has always been organized chronologically, but I'm beginning to think that perhaps a different approach is more fitting. (ie, most applicable to least applicable).
Some people will disagree with me, but I hate resumes that are organized in any way other than chronologically. It makes it look like the candidate is trying to disguise something, and it makes it difficult for me to sort out the person's career progression. So keep the chronological organization.
But four jobs and some work on the side should easily fit on a one-page resume, as long as you're being choosy and concise about what details you include about the work you did there (by the way, to whatever extent possible, include achievements rather than a job description).
But if there's work on there that doesn't relate to the jobs you're applying for -- and which wouldn't leave a sizable gap if you excised them -- you could leave those off. Definitely do include the relevant college experience, though, even though it wasn't paid -- I'm continually surprised by how often I discover "hidden" experience in a phone interview, which the candidate left off the resume simply because it wasn't paid work. Good luck!
leadership style in Afghanistan
A reader writes:
I have been working with First Micro Finance Bank of Afghanistan for the last 8 months and I am leaving this organization because of personal problems. The leadership style in Afghanistan is very authoritative and I have brought a new sort of leadership style in this company where everyone is open and free to speak up. I think I have spoiled my employees a little. Now that I am leaving, they are hiring another Training Manager for my department. How do I talk to the new manager and what should I tell him/her how to handle the training department’s employees?
What an interesting dilemma. You probably can't change the new manager's management style, since you'll presumably only have a limited period of overlap with him or her. But you likely have the most chance of having an impact if you talk to him or her about how a more open style has benefited the company. Are there bottom line results you can point to, as support for a less authoritative leadership style?
Of course, many incoming managers may have their own plans and reject this advice, particularly if the advice is contrary to the dominant culture you're operating in. So to get the best results, frame it as much as possible as being the approach that got you the best results, rather than a personal preference that you're pushing on the new person.
You might also talk to the department employees and prepare them for the fact that the new person is likely to bring his or her own style to the job.
Beyond that, I'm not sure how much of this is in your hands. Any ideas from anyone else?
I have been working with First Micro Finance Bank of Afghanistan for the last 8 months and I am leaving this organization because of personal problems. The leadership style in Afghanistan is very authoritative and I have brought a new sort of leadership style in this company where everyone is open and free to speak up. I think I have spoiled my employees a little. Now that I am leaving, they are hiring another Training Manager for my department. How do I talk to the new manager and what should I tell him/her how to handle the training department’s employees?
What an interesting dilemma. You probably can't change the new manager's management style, since you'll presumably only have a limited period of overlap with him or her. But you likely have the most chance of having an impact if you talk to him or her about how a more open style has benefited the company. Are there bottom line results you can point to, as support for a less authoritative leadership style?
Of course, many incoming managers may have their own plans and reject this advice, particularly if the advice is contrary to the dominant culture you're operating in. So to get the best results, frame it as much as possible as being the approach that got you the best results, rather than a personal preference that you're pushing on the new person.
You might also talk to the department employees and prepare them for the fact that the new person is likely to bring his or her own style to the job.
Beyond that, I'm not sure how much of this is in your hands. Any ideas from anyone else?
Thursday, January 24, 2008
be honest about employee problems
Do you have an employee whose performance you're unhappy with? Tell them.
Do you have an employee who you strongly suspect isn't going to work on in the long-term? Tell them.
All too often, managers avoid being candid with employees about concerns over performance or fit. They want to avoid a difficult conversation, or they don't believe the person can fix the problem, or they're hoping they can ignore it a little longer.
This is horribly unfair to the employee, who deserves the chance to know about the issues, and it's unfair to your company, which has hired you to, in part, address employee problems head-on.
Yes, a conversation about performance problems isn't pleasant. It sucks for anyone on the receiving end, and it sucks for the manager who has to deliver it. But it is far, far worse to be an employee whose boss doesn't care enough to speak candidly with her about areas in which she needs to improve in order to do well.
Even if you're convinced such a conversation would be fruitless and the employee can't change, she deserves to know. She deserves to know because maybe you're underestimating her, or maybe it would be useful for her to understand the ways in which she's a bad fit for this work, or maybe she just deserves a chance to see the writing on the wall so she can start looking for other positions.
The worst thing you can do when you're unhappy with an employee is stay quiet. Tell the person, and tell them now.
Do you have an employee who you strongly suspect isn't going to work on in the long-term? Tell them.
All too often, managers avoid being candid with employees about concerns over performance or fit. They want to avoid a difficult conversation, or they don't believe the person can fix the problem, or they're hoping they can ignore it a little longer.
This is horribly unfair to the employee, who deserves the chance to know about the issues, and it's unfair to your company, which has hired you to, in part, address employee problems head-on.
Yes, a conversation about performance problems isn't pleasant. It sucks for anyone on the receiving end, and it sucks for the manager who has to deliver it. But it is far, far worse to be an employee whose boss doesn't care enough to speak candidly with her about areas in which she needs to improve in order to do well.
Even if you're convinced such a conversation would be fruitless and the employee can't change, she deserves to know. She deserves to know because maybe you're underestimating her, or maybe it would be useful for her to understand the ways in which she's a bad fit for this work, or maybe she just deserves a chance to see the writing on the wall so she can start looking for other positions.
The worst thing you can do when you're unhappy with an employee is stay quiet. Tell the person, and tell them now.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
I've been tagged
I have been tagged by The Ethical Slut.
The rules:
Link to the person who tagged you.
Post the rules on your blog.
Share six non-important things/habits/quirks about yourself.
Tag at least three people at the end of your post and link to their blogs.
Let each person know they have been tagged by leaving a comment on their blog.
So let's see.
1. I own three copies of Pride & Prejudice. I keep one at home, one in my desk at work, and one in my car. The last two are in case I ever get caught somewhere without reading material. It can be opened to any page and immediate literary bliss will result.
2. I know all the words to all the songs from the musical "1776."
3. I am a terrible driver. Yet oddly, I am an excellent parallel parker. Once I was so proud of the extremely tight space I parallel-parked in that I took a photo of it on my cell phone, showing the mere half inch between my car and the cars in front of and in back of me. I spent the next week insisting that people admire the photo.
4. In high school, I was the editor of the school newspaper AND the underground newspaper. Which is weird, since the whole point of an underground newspaper is supposed to be to go head-to-head with the legitimate one. Yes, I am that much of a dork.
5. I once appeared in public naked, in Aspen in 12 degree weather.
6. My new favorite charity is The Innocence Project. I think they're amazing.
I hereby tag The Career Encouragement Blog, HR Wench, and the Evil HR Lady, who I fear is tagged way too much.
The rules:
Link to the person who tagged you.
Post the rules on your blog.
Share six non-important things/habits/quirks about yourself.
Tag at least three people at the end of your post and link to their blogs.
Let each person know they have been tagged by leaving a comment on their blog.
So let's see.
1. I own three copies of Pride & Prejudice. I keep one at home, one in my desk at work, and one in my car. The last two are in case I ever get caught somewhere without reading material. It can be opened to any page and immediate literary bliss will result.
2. I know all the words to all the songs from the musical "1776."
3. I am a terrible driver. Yet oddly, I am an excellent parallel parker. Once I was so proud of the extremely tight space I parallel-parked in that I took a photo of it on my cell phone, showing the mere half inch between my car and the cars in front of and in back of me. I spent the next week insisting that people admire the photo.
4. In high school, I was the editor of the school newspaper AND the underground newspaper. Which is weird, since the whole point of an underground newspaper is supposed to be to go head-to-head with the legitimate one. Yes, I am that much of a dork.
5. I once appeared in public naked, in Aspen in 12 degree weather.
6. My new favorite charity is The Innocence Project. I think they're amazing.
I hereby tag The Career Encouragement Blog, HR Wench, and the Evil HR Lady, who I fear is tagged way too much.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
