A reader writes:
Three weeks ago, I interviewed for a job with a major media company. This was/is a dream job . I was interviewed by HR, and after the interview I was taken to a second interview on the same day with my potential supervisor. I believed both interviews went well and was even given an homework assignment to test my skills and qualifications.When I got home later that day, I sent the HR person a thank you note but not my potential supervisor. Was this a mistake?
Four days later, I turned in my assignment to my potential supervisor but I did not receive a confirmation email from him stating that the assignment was received. I wrote a follow-up email asking for confirmation two days later. My letter was a formal, succinct letter, nothing unusual. I felt it I should be formal with my potential supervisor because we are not peers, so addressing him by his first name was a no-no.
Within minutes of my email, I received this note from him: "Received. You will hear from us shortly." No salutations, no closing, just those words.
This email was received about two weeks ago. Since then I have spoken to my references and was told by all of them that no one contacted them about me. These are references from individuals whom I trust to tell me the truth, individuals who are forthright and are great communicators.
A few days ago, I accepted a non-paying position at a company owned by a friend. The position is similar to the one I interviewed for. Although I accepted this job, I am still interested and enthusiastic about working with the media company. I want to show them that I am in demand as well as a valuable candidate. Also: As the job duties with the other company amounts to something that is part-time and unpaid, in the short term, I am hoping that by informing them of my new circumstances, they will give me an answer about the job I interviewed for. Is this crazy?
In informing them of my new situation, I do not want to communicate to them that I am impatient or desperate ( I really am) so what do I do? Should I forget this experience and move on or should I forge ahead and gamble? If I gamble, how do I inform them that I am doing the same thing somewhere else but am still interested in working them? I do not want to communicate that I am unreliable or unfaithful. Please advise.
1. I wouldn't say that only sending a thank-you note to the HR rep and not the hiring manager was a mistake per se, but it would be better to send it to both of them. Of the two, if you were only going to send one, I'd send it to the hiring manager, as he has more influence at this stage over whether you're hired. But that's unlikely to make or break you so you really shouldn't worry too much about it -- although it's not too late to send a follow-up note now.
2. His note confirming receipt of your exercise was a bit brusque, but I wouldn't read anything into that, other than that he's busy.
3. Now as for your major question, whether to tell them that you've accepted a non-paying position: No. For several reasons:
a. First, unless you're very specific that it's short-term and the employer is okay with you leaving at any time, they'll assume you're now committed elsewhere. I would be very hesitant to hire a candidate who just accepted a different position, as her willingness to screw over that employer would be a huge negative. You can explain the situation of course, but then they're just going to wonder why you're telling them at all.
b. The fact that it's non-paying may potentially devalue you in their eyes. I'm not saying it should, but it could. I don't see enough benefit to justify that risk.
c. You're really just looking for ways to push them into action, right? This won't do it. There are only two ways to push a prospective employer into action, and neither of them are guaranteed:
- You can mention that you have another offer and a deadline for answering it. (This is not something you should lie about, since they may just tell you they can't meet your deadline and so you should take it -- and then you're out of the running with them. So you should only do this if it's true.)
- You can contact the hiring manager, reiterate your strong interest, and ask for a timeline. This may or may not get them moving, but it's really all you can do.
(Wow, check out this outline format I used above. The numbers, the letters, the dashes...)
Meanwhile, continue your job search. Hopefully you'll hear from this company with good news, but you can't plan around that. You've got to keep searching until you have an offer in hand. Good luck!
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Monday, June 29, 2009
why do you sound surprised when I call you for our scheduled phone interview?
There's a weird behavior going around, and I have to say, I think I've only seen it in people under 30.
We have a specific time scheduled for a phone interview. I call you at that exact time, precisely on the dot because I'm neurotic that way.
You answer after quite a few rings and sound like you're genuinely curious to hear who might be on the other end.
I identify myself and you say something like "Oh ... hi" with a distinct tone in your voice that really sounds like you weren't fully prepared to hear me on the other end of the phone.
More experienced candidates don't do this. Good interview or bad, they generally at least sound prepared from the minute they answer the phone.
Why are younger candidates doing this? It's as if they think it's some kind of charade where we pretend I just happen to be calling them unexpectedly. And it is very strange.
We have a specific time scheduled for a phone interview. I call you at that exact time, precisely on the dot because I'm neurotic that way.
You answer after quite a few rings and sound like you're genuinely curious to hear who might be on the other end.
I identify myself and you say something like "Oh ... hi" with a distinct tone in your voice that really sounds like you weren't fully prepared to hear me on the other end of the phone.
More experienced candidates don't do this. Good interview or bad, they generally at least sound prepared from the minute they answer the phone.
Why are younger candidates doing this? It's as if they think it's some kind of charade where we pretend I just happen to be calling them unexpectedly. And it is very strange.
the #1 question your resume should answer
The vast majority of resumes I see read like a series of job descriptions, listing duties and responsibilities at each position the job applicant has held.But resumes that stand out do something very different. Rather than just providing the job description, for each position they instead answer the question: What did you accomplish in this job that someone else wouldn't have?
Over at U.S. News & World Report today, I explain how to do it. Please check it out!
Sunday, June 28, 2009
company dragging its feet on reference-checking?
A reader writes:
I am trying to find out how long, on average, it would take for a company to check my three references they requested. I have recently checked in with all my references and none has heard anything from that company (no call, email, any contact). It's been three weeks since I forwarded their details to the new employer.
To make things even more frustrating, when asked for an update, the person responsible for checking the references, who is also the person who interviewed me, indicated she has not managed to contact "all my references," implying that they did some. I further heard through the grapevine that she indicated in a meeting with the existing team staff, including the hiring manager, that the "reference" they did do was "lukewarm."
I am totally confused. It is obvious that she did not want me hired, but she could easily have done that by just saying my interview was not that great. What do you make of this?
It certainly doesn't take three weeks to check three references, if you're at all motivated to do it. It usually takes a day or two to check references, assuming the references return your calls quickly (and if they don't, that itself can say something).
There are a few possibilities of what's going on here:
1. The person in charge of checking references is lazy and not doing her job.
2. The person in charge of checking references (and/or the rest of the hiring team) isn't that interested in hiring you, but isn't competent enough to just tell you that straightforwardly.
3. Some or all of your references actually were contacted but since they aren't giving you a great reference are finding it easier to tell you that they weren't, rather than deal with the uncomfortable situation of explaining that they didn't have great things to say.
You can't fully control any of these situations, but you can mitigate all of them. Here's what you should do: Email the hiring manager (not the person in charge of checking your references) and ask for a status update. Mention that your references all told you that they have not yet been contacted, and politely ask what sort of timeline the company is working with, both for when your references might be contacted and when you should expect a decision.
Also, are you very sure that all your references will speak glowingly of you? If you have any doubt at all, you should check in with them and make sure these are the correct choices to offer up as references. Being polite and non-defensive, of course, make it clear that you would never want to influence a reference they give for you, but that you'd also rather not supply references who don't feel they can speak glowingly toward your work. Assure them that if they don't feel they're best suited to serve as a reference for you, they can simply let you know that, without any hard feelings. Make it easy for them to opt out. This is a good thing to do with your references as a matter of course, not just in situations like this.
Good luck!
I am trying to find out how long, on average, it would take for a company to check my three references they requested. I have recently checked in with all my references and none has heard anything from that company (no call, email, any contact). It's been three weeks since I forwarded their details to the new employer.
To make things even more frustrating, when asked for an update, the person responsible for checking the references, who is also the person who interviewed me, indicated she has not managed to contact "all my references," implying that they did some. I further heard through the grapevine that she indicated in a meeting with the existing team staff, including the hiring manager, that the "reference" they did do was "lukewarm."
I am totally confused. It is obvious that she did not want me hired, but she could easily have done that by just saying my interview was not that great. What do you make of this?
It certainly doesn't take three weeks to check three references, if you're at all motivated to do it. It usually takes a day or two to check references, assuming the references return your calls quickly (and if they don't, that itself can say something).
There are a few possibilities of what's going on here:
1. The person in charge of checking references is lazy and not doing her job.
2. The person in charge of checking references (and/or the rest of the hiring team) isn't that interested in hiring you, but isn't competent enough to just tell you that straightforwardly.
3. Some or all of your references actually were contacted but since they aren't giving you a great reference are finding it easier to tell you that they weren't, rather than deal with the uncomfortable situation of explaining that they didn't have great things to say.
You can't fully control any of these situations, but you can mitigate all of them. Here's what you should do: Email the hiring manager (not the person in charge of checking your references) and ask for a status update. Mention that your references all told you that they have not yet been contacted, and politely ask what sort of timeline the company is working with, both for when your references might be contacted and when you should expect a decision.
Also, are you very sure that all your references will speak glowingly of you? If you have any doubt at all, you should check in with them and make sure these are the correct choices to offer up as references. Being polite and non-defensive, of course, make it clear that you would never want to influence a reference they give for you, but that you'd also rather not supply references who don't feel they can speak glowingly toward your work. Assure them that if they don't feel they're best suited to serve as a reference for you, they can simply let you know that, without any hard feelings. Make it easy for them to opt out. This is a good thing to do with your references as a matter of course, not just in situations like this.
Good luck!
Thursday, June 25, 2009
is it strange to email a job offer?
A reader writes:
I had an interesting experience with a company a few weeks ago that I felt handled the job interviewing process a bit sloppily, something a lot friends who are also unemployed and interviewing are noticing these days.
The interview with the hiring manager went well. In fact, the following day I got a voicemail from HR recruiter asking for references. I knew that that the manager wanted to make a decision quickly (recruiter told me), but I was kind of surprised that there were no additional rounds of interviews, since the team consisted of 10+ people.
This is kind of a red flag for me since I’d like to know more about my future peers and the company culture. Also on their end, is the hiring decision based on one person only?
Seem strange?
In addition, based on a couple of incidences, I knew the HR person was either lazy or extremely busy. But she emailed me the job offer later that week. No phone call that one was even being extended to me! It was a day or two before I realized it was sitting in my inbox. I should note that email was our main way of communicating prior to this.
Is this the norm for companies these days -- just email the job offer? I believe a verbal conversation or voice mail that one is coming is still a MUST. As a candidate, you want to hear the enthusiasm and sales pitch of a job offer.
What are your thoughts on my scenario? Should I hold this against the company?
An emailed job offer is a bad idea for a lot of reasons -- you have no way of knowing the email was received, for one thing. And you want to hear the candidate's reaction and get a sense of where they're at with it. And you want to take that opportunity to express your enthusiasm for them. It's an odd choice.
But is it a red flag? I'm not sure; it could just indicate an inexperienced or lazy HR rep, or an incredibly email-centric company. What do others think?
On the issue of there not being additional rounds of interviews and the decision being made just by one person: No, that's not strange (assuming your one lone interview wasn't just 15 minutes or something). Lots of employers do it that way. But if you feel you don't have enough information to make a decision on the offer, now's the time to ask your questions. Ask about the culture and anything else you're wondering about. And if you really want to, you can certainly ask if you can meet or talk with some of the others you'd be working with. If the company balks at that, that's the red flag.
Oh, and by the way -- call the hiring manager to talk over the offer, not the HR rep. You're clearly not getting a great feeling from the HR rep, and the hiring manager's the one you're going to be working with anyway. Good luck!
I had an interesting experience with a company a few weeks ago that I felt handled the job interviewing process a bit sloppily, something a lot friends who are also unemployed and interviewing are noticing these days.
The interview with the hiring manager went well. In fact, the following day I got a voicemail from HR recruiter asking for references. I knew that that the manager wanted to make a decision quickly (recruiter told me), but I was kind of surprised that there were no additional rounds of interviews, since the team consisted of 10+ people.
This is kind of a red flag for me since I’d like to know more about my future peers and the company culture. Also on their end, is the hiring decision based on one person only?
Seem strange?
In addition, based on a couple of incidences, I knew the HR person was either lazy or extremely busy. But she emailed me the job offer later that week. No phone call that one was even being extended to me! It was a day or two before I realized it was sitting in my inbox. I should note that email was our main way of communicating prior to this.
Is this the norm for companies these days -- just email the job offer? I believe a verbal conversation or voice mail that one is coming is still a MUST. As a candidate, you want to hear the enthusiasm and sales pitch of a job offer.
What are your thoughts on my scenario? Should I hold this against the company?
An emailed job offer is a bad idea for a lot of reasons -- you have no way of knowing the email was received, for one thing. And you want to hear the candidate's reaction and get a sense of where they're at with it. And you want to take that opportunity to express your enthusiasm for them. It's an odd choice.
But is it a red flag? I'm not sure; it could just indicate an inexperienced or lazy HR rep, or an incredibly email-centric company. What do others think?
On the issue of there not being additional rounds of interviews and the decision being made just by one person: No, that's not strange (assuming your one lone interview wasn't just 15 minutes or something). Lots of employers do it that way. But if you feel you don't have enough information to make a decision on the offer, now's the time to ask your questions. Ask about the culture and anything else you're wondering about. And if you really want to, you can certainly ask if you can meet or talk with some of the others you'd be working with. If the company balks at that, that's the red flag.
Oh, and by the way -- call the hiring manager to talk over the offer, not the HR rep. You're clearly not getting a great feeling from the HR rep, and the hiring manager's the one you're going to be working with anyway. Good luck!
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
should I mention a job I was fired from after 6 weeks?
A reader writes:
I have a question for you regarding being fired. The quick setup is that after several years in my profession, I accepted a management position at an expanding organization. After 6 weeks, I was fired for "not fitting in." The meeting where I was fired was the first and only indication I received from my manager that my performance was anything other than exactly what he wanted.
I am not sure if I should put this position on my resume. I am actually proud of the work I did in that job but it's probably unwise to draw attention to the fact that I was only there 6 weeks. I understand that if I had to complete a job application where I verify all information to be complete, I would include it, but what do you think about putting the position on a resume? Would a resume that showed a six week position as the most recent position pass your initial scan of resumes?
Don't include it.
Here's what goes through my mind when I see a six-week stint: "Is this ... six weeks? Was she fired? Did she quit before even giving it a chance? Why is this even on her resume?"
If the rest of the application is good, this wouldn't stop me from doing a phone interview, but it would absolutely be one of the questions I'd ask early on. And so then we're talking about you being fired, which isn't something insurmountable, but it's really not worth taking the hit when you could have avoided the whole conversation and concerns it raises. It's like deliberately putting a typo on your resume -- there's nothing good that's going to come of it.
Also, six weeks isn't long enough to have meaningful accomplishments of the sort that belong on a resume anyway. So there's nothing here to be gained. Don't include it.
I have a question for you regarding being fired. The quick setup is that after several years in my profession, I accepted a management position at an expanding organization. After 6 weeks, I was fired for "not fitting in." The meeting where I was fired was the first and only indication I received from my manager that my performance was anything other than exactly what he wanted.
I am not sure if I should put this position on my resume. I am actually proud of the work I did in that job but it's probably unwise to draw attention to the fact that I was only there 6 weeks. I understand that if I had to complete a job application where I verify all information to be complete, I would include it, but what do you think about putting the position on a resume? Would a resume that showed a six week position as the most recent position pass your initial scan of resumes?
Don't include it.
Here's what goes through my mind when I see a six-week stint: "Is this ... six weeks? Was she fired? Did she quit before even giving it a chance? Why is this even on her resume?"
If the rest of the application is good, this wouldn't stop me from doing a phone interview, but it would absolutely be one of the questions I'd ask early on. And so then we're talking about you being fired, which isn't something insurmountable, but it's really not worth taking the hit when you could have avoided the whole conversation and concerns it raises. It's like deliberately putting a typo on your resume -- there's nothing good that's going to come of it.
Also, six weeks isn't long enough to have meaningful accomplishments of the sort that belong on a resume anyway. So there's nothing here to be gained. Don't include it.
which office should I pick?
A reader writes:
We’re moving our offices, and I have been given a nice sunny one near my boss. However, I can have any office I want. Should I give up this office so I can be closer to my other colleagues, as well as nearer to the action? Or should I remain in the nice office, nearer the boss but out of the loop?
I don't think there's a right answer here. It depends on: what office you like better, whether being near your coworkers has any impact or is important to you, and whether being near your boss has any impact or is important to you. Personally, I'd take the nice office and find other ways to stay in the loop, but that's 100% personal preference, based on a fondness for nice things.
That was easy.
We’re moving our offices, and I have been given a nice sunny one near my boss. However, I can have any office I want. Should I give up this office so I can be closer to my other colleagues, as well as nearer to the action? Or should I remain in the nice office, nearer the boss but out of the loop?
I don't think there's a right answer here. It depends on: what office you like better, whether being near your coworkers has any impact or is important to you, and whether being near your boss has any impact or is important to you. Personally, I'd take the nice office and find other ways to stay in the loop, but that's 100% personal preference, based on a fondness for nice things.
That was easy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
