Okay, this one is for college students and recent grads.
Someone along the way, someone gave you the idea that it's unprofessional to use anything but your full, given name, even if everyone in your life calls you something else. While this is sort of adorable, you should drop this idea.
It's disconcerting to go through the whole interview process with Katherine and hire her, only to discover on her second day of work that she's Katie. Or weirder, to discover that the William who I spent several weeks talking with, and who I now know as William, actually goes by his middle name, Peter.
There's nothing unprofessional about middle names, or about Katie, Jim, Liz, or whatever your nickname is. This isn't like school where you have to register with your full and complete birth name. We're all adults here; just tell me what to call you and don't confuse me.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Friday, April 23, 2010
job offers and lengthy pre-planned vacation time
A reader writes:
I find myself in a really tight position here. I am going to an interview tomorrow for a job that I would really like. However, in less than a month I’m going on a pre-planned family visit in China for a little over a month (May 21 to Jun 29). It is nerve wracking because I do not expect things to happen so close to each other.
I already have a job where they say they will be happy to keep me. So even if they do not hire me I am not going to be jobless. But I really want to get a job that is more in line with my degree.
I am really irritated right now and I hope you can help me out a little.
Don't be irritated. The situation is just going to (maybe) require you to make a clear choice between what's more important to you: the trip or the job.
Now, if the trip were a week or two, it would likely be a non-issue. But given how long it is, you're right to be prepared for it to give them pause. Of course, it depends on how long they take to make a decision too; the longer it takes, the safer your trip gets. Most employers are willing to wait a month for the right person to start and sometimes a bit longer.
In any case, here's what to do:
1. Go on the interview. Don't mention the trip; you don't need to give them a reason to discard you at this stage.
2. After the interview, start figuring out whether or not you even want the job (you never want to decide you do before you've ever interviewed anyway; that's like deciding you want to marry someone hot you see on the street and have never spoken to). And if you do want the job, do you want it enough to either cancel your trip or shorten it, should it come to that?
3. If you get a job offer and you want to accept it, explain that you're in a bind because of this pre-planned trip. And if you're willing, tell them you're willing to shorten the trip and negotiate to see how far out you can push the start date.
But ultimately this is going to require you to be really clear in your own head about what you want more. And clarity isn't such a bad thing.
[By the way, if they haven't made a decision by mid-May, let them know you're going out of the country on May 21 but will be checking email (you'll be checking email, right?) so they can reach you.]
I find myself in a really tight position here. I am going to an interview tomorrow for a job that I would really like. However, in less than a month I’m going on a pre-planned family visit in China for a little over a month (May 21 to Jun 29). It is nerve wracking because I do not expect things to happen so close to each other.
I already have a job where they say they will be happy to keep me. So even if they do not hire me I am not going to be jobless. But I really want to get a job that is more in line with my degree.
I am really irritated right now and I hope you can help me out a little.
Don't be irritated. The situation is just going to (maybe) require you to make a clear choice between what's more important to you: the trip or the job.
Now, if the trip were a week or two, it would likely be a non-issue. But given how long it is, you're right to be prepared for it to give them pause. Of course, it depends on how long they take to make a decision too; the longer it takes, the safer your trip gets. Most employers are willing to wait a month for the right person to start and sometimes a bit longer.
In any case, here's what to do:
1. Go on the interview. Don't mention the trip; you don't need to give them a reason to discard you at this stage.
2. After the interview, start figuring out whether or not you even want the job (you never want to decide you do before you've ever interviewed anyway; that's like deciding you want to marry someone hot you see on the street and have never spoken to). And if you do want the job, do you want it enough to either cancel your trip or shorten it, should it come to that?
3. If you get a job offer and you want to accept it, explain that you're in a bind because of this pre-planned trip. And if you're willing, tell them you're willing to shorten the trip and negotiate to see how far out you can push the start date.
But ultimately this is going to require you to be really clear in your own head about what you want more. And clarity isn't such a bad thing.
[By the way, if they haven't made a decision by mid-May, let them know you're going out of the country on May 21 but will be checking email (you'll be checking email, right?) so they can reach you.]
Thursday, April 22, 2010
was this interviewer out of line?
A reader writes:
At a recent interview, I was asked to explain a project that I completed at my previous employer.
I used the website redesign project as an example since it was an important and valued project for the company. I explained that I did 75% of the project, re-wrote content, and created three possible designs using a web design vendor. Then, per my supervisor’s instruction (my supervisor was #3 in charge of the company, Chief Sales Officer), I gave a detailed presentation to the entire management team of 15. During the meeting, the management team provided 15 different opinions. So, I returned to the drawing board and made some changes. Then, my supervisor and the CEO reviewed everything and provided final approval. As the head of marketing for the company, I had to follow these procedures for many projects.
The interviewer asked why I needed to present my project to a large team and gather so many opinions. He judged me on the management style and operational structure of my previous employer. Since I was not the CEO of my previous employer, I did not establish the operational procedures or review procedures – since I did not have ultimate authority. Don’t you think the interviewer was out of line?
What would you have done?
Well, so much here depends on tone and context. Sure, he might have meant it as criticism of you (which would have been unfounded, I agree). But he also might not have meant it that way at all. I can imagine it being more of a sincere request for more information, or even just a musing on why your company structured it that way. So the question alone, without context or tone, isn't inherently out of line.
Now, if he was judging you for your employer's procedures, and seemed immune to your explanation that you didn't control those, that's a bit unfair. On the other hand, it's also possible that he's specifically seeking someone who has experience doing that type of work with more autonomy, who knows.
Overall, though, this doesn't sound too horrific to me. I wouldn't focus too much on it.
At a recent interview, I was asked to explain a project that I completed at my previous employer.
I used the website redesign project as an example since it was an important and valued project for the company. I explained that I did 75% of the project, re-wrote content, and created three possible designs using a web design vendor. Then, per my supervisor’s instruction (my supervisor was #3 in charge of the company, Chief Sales Officer), I gave a detailed presentation to the entire management team of 15. During the meeting, the management team provided 15 different opinions. So, I returned to the drawing board and made some changes. Then, my supervisor and the CEO reviewed everything and provided final approval. As the head of marketing for the company, I had to follow these procedures for many projects.
The interviewer asked why I needed to present my project to a large team and gather so many opinions. He judged me on the management style and operational structure of my previous employer. Since I was not the CEO of my previous employer, I did not establish the operational procedures or review procedures – since I did not have ultimate authority. Don’t you think the interviewer was out of line?
What would you have done?
Well, so much here depends on tone and context. Sure, he might have meant it as criticism of you (which would have been unfounded, I agree). But he also might not have meant it that way at all. I can imagine it being more of a sincere request for more information, or even just a musing on why your company structured it that way. So the question alone, without context or tone, isn't inherently out of line.
Now, if he was judging you for your employer's procedures, and seemed immune to your explanation that you didn't control those, that's a bit unfair. On the other hand, it's also possible that he's specifically seeking someone who has experience doing that type of work with more autonomy, who knows.
Overall, though, this doesn't sound too horrific to me. I wouldn't focus too much on it.
can I ask HR to better explain their application instructions?
A reader writes:
I've been looking for a position for a few months and I've found the advice on your site invaluable in my efforts.
I am finding that often requirements for the submission of an application are written very vaguely and I want to make sure that I get them right. However, most of the online applications do not list an email address to which I can address inquiries.
So my question is this: If I am able to find a contact address through some kind of search engine for corporate contact information (which is unverified). Is it acceptable to send an email there with inquiries if no method of contact for HR is given on the company website or on the application itself?
I really don't recommend this, for a couple of reasons:
1. First, depending on the company, your email may not ever reach HR if you just send it to a general corporate email address. I'm not defending that -- I think companies should have well-trained employees who can recognize who a query is intended for and pass it along to the correct division promptly -- but competence is often lacking in the world, particularly when people don't feel something is their responsibility. And if it does reach HR, you may not ever get an answer anyway because HR is often swamped and doesn't have time to answer every question from candidates they don't even know they're interested in yet (again, not defending, just stating reality).
2. Far more importantly though, I question the idea of asking for clarification about the application instructions in the first place, because I think you risk looking like a pain in the ass. Look, I know some job ads appear to have been created by someone with zero command of the written language. But they're rarely impossible to figure out how to reply to, and if you're finding this "often," that tells me that you're over-thinking this. If you write to them asking for help understanding what they want (when they're getting flooded with applications from people to whom the instructions didn't give pause), some managers are going to sigh and think you're going to need hand-holding every time they give you an assignment. You want to show self-sufficiency and confidence here.
Now, maybe I'm wrong and you're truly running into loads of undecipherable instructions. If so, post an example or two in the comments section and we'll see if we can help. But I think this is a case where the best advice is to make an educated guess about what they're asking for and push forward.
I've been looking for a position for a few months and I've found the advice on your site invaluable in my efforts.
I am finding that often requirements for the submission of an application are written very vaguely and I want to make sure that I get them right. However, most of the online applications do not list an email address to which I can address inquiries.
So my question is this: If I am able to find a contact address through some kind of search engine for corporate contact information (which is unverified). Is it acceptable to send an email there with inquiries if no method of contact for HR is given on the company website or on the application itself?
I really don't recommend this, for a couple of reasons:
1. First, depending on the company, your email may not ever reach HR if you just send it to a general corporate email address. I'm not defending that -- I think companies should have well-trained employees who can recognize who a query is intended for and pass it along to the correct division promptly -- but competence is often lacking in the world, particularly when people don't feel something is their responsibility. And if it does reach HR, you may not ever get an answer anyway because HR is often swamped and doesn't have time to answer every question from candidates they don't even know they're interested in yet (again, not defending, just stating reality).
2. Far more importantly though, I question the idea of asking for clarification about the application instructions in the first place, because I think you risk looking like a pain in the ass. Look, I know some job ads appear to have been created by someone with zero command of the written language. But they're rarely impossible to figure out how to reply to, and if you're finding this "often," that tells me that you're over-thinking this. If you write to them asking for help understanding what they want (when they're getting flooded with applications from people to whom the instructions didn't give pause), some managers are going to sigh and think you're going to need hand-holding every time they give you an assignment. You want to show self-sufficiency and confidence here.
Now, maybe I'm wrong and you're truly running into loads of undecipherable instructions. If so, post an example or two in the comments section and we'll see if we can help. But I think this is a case where the best advice is to make an educated guess about what they're asking for and push forward.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
how to take vacation when there's always work to be done
A reader writes:
Summer's almost here, and I'm meant to be taking a week off for holiday. The trip is booked, it's been approved months ago by my boss, I've scheduled my requested time with an eye to our work cycle and done my best to get everything done and covered before I'm gone. However, two days before departure, my manager says perhaps I can't go, as we are not as far along as she'd hoped (it's impossible to do a month's load of work in three weeks, and while I attempted to get all of it done and create the minimal amount of stress and bother for those left behind, there is still work to be done of mine in that week I'm away that will have to be covered by someone else). She says I can either not go, or be available during my leave at all times for work, or I can pay, out of my own pocket, for a freelancer to come in to backfill me.
There may be no way to save this vacation, however I wonder: how does one responsibly actually take some time off? I haven't had a holiday in nearly two years for this exact reason, that every time I try, there always seems to be more work or responsibilities that only I can attend to that can't be put on hold even for a weekend. How does a responsible employee in a management position get away for a break?
Well, the real way is that one works for an employer who recognizes the importance of time off.
Did you make any agreement with your manager about how much you'd have done before you left, and she just discovered that you didn't meet that agreement? Because that would be the only thing that would justify her now telling you that you can't go.
But I'm betting that that's not the case, because her suggestion that you hire a freelancer at your own expense is a little absurd.
The nature of many jobs is that there's never a time where all the work is done and where you can take a vacation without some accommodations being made, no matter how well you plan for it in advance. But because good managers recognize that it's in the employer's best interest to have well-rested and recharged employees, they find ways to help employees take time off anyway. It's in their best interest not only because employees who get breaks from work generally do a better and more focused job in the long run, but also because good people will eventually leave if they're working in a culture that doesn't support their quality of life. And good management is about getting good results in the long run, not just the short-term.
I recommend addressing this head-on with your boss: "I haven't been able to have a vacation in two years because it's so hard to get away, and obviously that's not sustainable in the long-term. Can we talk about how to arrange things so that I can plan for some time off with confidence?" Sometimes some bosses are so caught up in the day-to-day rush of work that they need prodding to step back and look at long-term needs like this. By helping frame the issue for them, you can sometimes come to a good solution that everyone is happy with. But if you get the sense that you're never going to be able to be confident you can keep vacation plans, or if it's given only begrudgingly, or will be so rare that your mental health will slowly degrade until one day you'll just need to run screaming from the building -- well, this is not a great employer. So make your decisions accordingly.
Summer's almost here, and I'm meant to be taking a week off for holiday. The trip is booked, it's been approved months ago by my boss, I've scheduled my requested time with an eye to our work cycle and done my best to get everything done and covered before I'm gone. However, two days before departure, my manager says perhaps I can't go, as we are not as far along as she'd hoped (it's impossible to do a month's load of work in three weeks, and while I attempted to get all of it done and create the minimal amount of stress and bother for those left behind, there is still work to be done of mine in that week I'm away that will have to be covered by someone else). She says I can either not go, or be available during my leave at all times for work, or I can pay, out of my own pocket, for a freelancer to come in to backfill me.
There may be no way to save this vacation, however I wonder: how does one responsibly actually take some time off? I haven't had a holiday in nearly two years for this exact reason, that every time I try, there always seems to be more work or responsibilities that only I can attend to that can't be put on hold even for a weekend. How does a responsible employee in a management position get away for a break?
Well, the real way is that one works for an employer who recognizes the importance of time off.
Did you make any agreement with your manager about how much you'd have done before you left, and she just discovered that you didn't meet that agreement? Because that would be the only thing that would justify her now telling you that you can't go.
But I'm betting that that's not the case, because her suggestion that you hire a freelancer at your own expense is a little absurd.
The nature of many jobs is that there's never a time where all the work is done and where you can take a vacation without some accommodations being made, no matter how well you plan for it in advance. But because good managers recognize that it's in the employer's best interest to have well-rested and recharged employees, they find ways to help employees take time off anyway. It's in their best interest not only because employees who get breaks from work generally do a better and more focused job in the long run, but also because good people will eventually leave if they're working in a culture that doesn't support their quality of life. And good management is about getting good results in the long run, not just the short-term.
I recommend addressing this head-on with your boss: "I haven't been able to have a vacation in two years because it's so hard to get away, and obviously that's not sustainable in the long-term. Can we talk about how to arrange things so that I can plan for some time off with confidence?" Sometimes some bosses are so caught up in the day-to-day rush of work that they need prodding to step back and look at long-term needs like this. By helping frame the issue for them, you can sometimes come to a good solution that everyone is happy with. But if you get the sense that you're never going to be able to be confident you can keep vacation plans, or if it's given only begrudgingly, or will be so rare that your mental health will slowly degrade until one day you'll just need to run screaming from the building -- well, this is not a great employer. So make your decisions accordingly.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
a tale of bad interviewer behavior, this time with reference abuse
A reader writes:
After a 45-minute phone interview with a small non-profit in another state, I was invited to interview in-person. The interviewer contacted me two days prior to the interview to request that I provide the following to her, in less than 24 hours:
- Phone numbers for four references, who were then subjected to their own 45-minute interview prior to my in-person interview. (Two of them have since indicated they cannot be a reference for me again as they were offended and put off - I would have warned them but I had no idea that would happen!)
- A complete executive level communications plan. (I provided 10 pages).
- Two writing samples on a topic of the interviewer's choice, written in two different styles.
To comply with these demands, I had to rearrange my work schedule, already crammed by the planned out-of-town interview. I lost business, and a lot of sleep.
When I reached the interview, they informed me that I would be in back-to-back 35-minute interviews with SIX people, one of whom was the prior holder of the position. Then I would lead a strategy session. After all that, they told me they'd let me know in two weeks.
After three weeks, they told me the position was no longer available. I found out they kept the prior person, who was, unsurprisingly, a rather unpleasant interview who spent the group session literally making unpleasant faces in response to my answers, although I tried to be as tactful as possible.
I guess all you can do is laugh, but I have two questions:
1) Do you think this was some sort of shock-and-awe interview system, that I failed?
2) Is there a way to reassure my references this won't happen again? Or should I just try to develop new ones? I really feel awful!
For that matter, if I can throw in a third question, should someone request my references prior to the interview again, is there a way I can tactfully find out whether they're planning to ambush them prior to even meeting me?
Wow.
No, I don't think it was an intentional shock-and-awe approach. I think it was just bad hiring. Where to begin...
Warning sign number one was when they gave you less than 24 hours to provide fairly involved work, without any notice or any consideration that you might have other commitments for that time. That screams "we're self-centered and think we hold all the cards, so prepare yourself for further inconsideration from us."
And of course treating candidates poorly indicates an employer isn't particularly strategic about hiring, which was further backed up when they did lengthy reference checks before they even interviewed you. It's silly to do that before an interview -- a smart employer waits until they know they're strongly interested in a candidate before investing that sort of time. Plus, once they know the candidate better, they may find there are specific things they want to ask her references about. Talking to references before an interview denies them that opportunity (not to mention potentially wastes the references' time).
I suggest contacting your references and apologizing profusely. Tell them you had no idea this was going to happen, that your experience with the company after that indicated that they weren't the sort of company you'd want to work for anyway, and that you're terribly sorry that the company was so inconsiderate of their time. Ask them to please forgive what happened. And they should -- this is obviously not your fault. The two references who have said they won't speak on your behalf again -- what's up with them? This is obviously the employer's fault, not yours, and it's not as if there's something about you that's likely to provoke this sort of thing again in the future. Apologize profusely and ask if they'll reconsider; if they won't, they weren't great references to start with anyway. Great references are your champions and want to help you.
And yes, in the future it's absolutely okay to request that your references not be contacted until the employer is seriously interested in making you an offer. It's reasonable to want to protect your references from fatigue.
After a 45-minute phone interview with a small non-profit in another state, I was invited to interview in-person. The interviewer contacted me two days prior to the interview to request that I provide the following to her, in less than 24 hours:
- Phone numbers for four references, who were then subjected to their own 45-minute interview prior to my in-person interview. (Two of them have since indicated they cannot be a reference for me again as they were offended and put off - I would have warned them but I had no idea that would happen!)
- A complete executive level communications plan. (I provided 10 pages).
- Two writing samples on a topic of the interviewer's choice, written in two different styles.
To comply with these demands, I had to rearrange my work schedule, already crammed by the planned out-of-town interview. I lost business, and a lot of sleep.
When I reached the interview, they informed me that I would be in back-to-back 35-minute interviews with SIX people, one of whom was the prior holder of the position. Then I would lead a strategy session. After all that, they told me they'd let me know in two weeks.
After three weeks, they told me the position was no longer available. I found out they kept the prior person, who was, unsurprisingly, a rather unpleasant interview who spent the group session literally making unpleasant faces in response to my answers, although I tried to be as tactful as possible.
I guess all you can do is laugh, but I have two questions:
1) Do you think this was some sort of shock-and-awe interview system, that I failed?
2) Is there a way to reassure my references this won't happen again? Or should I just try to develop new ones? I really feel awful!
For that matter, if I can throw in a third question, should someone request my references prior to the interview again, is there a way I can tactfully find out whether they're planning to ambush them prior to even meeting me?
Wow.
No, I don't think it was an intentional shock-and-awe approach. I think it was just bad hiring. Where to begin...
Warning sign number one was when they gave you less than 24 hours to provide fairly involved work, without any notice or any consideration that you might have other commitments for that time. That screams "we're self-centered and think we hold all the cards, so prepare yourself for further inconsideration from us."
And of course treating candidates poorly indicates an employer isn't particularly strategic about hiring, which was further backed up when they did lengthy reference checks before they even interviewed you. It's silly to do that before an interview -- a smart employer waits until they know they're strongly interested in a candidate before investing that sort of time. Plus, once they know the candidate better, they may find there are specific things they want to ask her references about. Talking to references before an interview denies them that opportunity (not to mention potentially wastes the references' time).
I suggest contacting your references and apologizing profusely. Tell them you had no idea this was going to happen, that your experience with the company after that indicated that they weren't the sort of company you'd want to work for anyway, and that you're terribly sorry that the company was so inconsiderate of their time. Ask them to please forgive what happened. And they should -- this is obviously not your fault. The two references who have said they won't speak on your behalf again -- what's up with them? This is obviously the employer's fault, not yours, and it's not as if there's something about you that's likely to provoke this sort of thing again in the future. Apologize profusely and ask if they'll reconsider; if they won't, they weren't great references to start with anyway. Great references are your champions and want to help you.
And yes, in the future it's absolutely okay to request that your references not be contacted until the employer is seriously interested in making you an offer. It's reasonable to want to protect your references from fatigue.
Friday, April 16, 2010
retaliation for not accepting previous job offer?
A reader writes:
I recently applied for a position in a company. A few months ago, I had interviewed for a different position in another division within the same company and received an offer. I reflected on where I wanted to go with my career and what I am presently working on and decided that this was not an opportunity that would help me move forward career-wise. I explained that to the recruiter and the hiring manager at the time, when turning down that offer.
Back to my applying for a different position with them now. When the hiring manager for the new position discussed my application with the hiring manager for the previous position and the HR person handling that previous position, apparently they raised a large number of objections and ultimately convinced the new hiring manager to not extend an offer. I also know that the new hiring manager was extremely interested in hiring me because I was an employee referral and was very impressed when we met for a brief two hour chat.
Is this kind of retaliation legal? What connection does a previous job offer have to do with another position in another division even though they are within the same company?
Yes, it's legal. Their reasons could be petty (taking it personally that you turned down an earlier offer) or rooted in something legitimate: for instance, maybe they felt that you hadn't been straight with them about your interest level for the other job earlier in the process, and that you'd wasted their time when you'd never had serious intentions of taking that job if offered. If they feel that way, they could be right, or they could be misinterpreting in an uncharitable way, or they could be flat-out wrong.
(By the way, one way to try to head that off when turning down an offer is to explicitly assure them that your interest in the position had been strong and genuine all the way through.)
But the real question here is whether there's anything that you can do about it now. It may be too late, but if they haven't yet firmly closed the door, it might be worth reaching out to the hiring manager for the second position and say that you're worried that the two others are reacting to the fact that you turned down their earlier offer, that your reasons for doing so were ____, and that that doesn't apply to this new position because _____.
Good luck!
I recently applied for a position in a company. A few months ago, I had interviewed for a different position in another division within the same company and received an offer. I reflected on where I wanted to go with my career and what I am presently working on and decided that this was not an opportunity that would help me move forward career-wise. I explained that to the recruiter and the hiring manager at the time, when turning down that offer.
Back to my applying for a different position with them now. When the hiring manager for the new position discussed my application with the hiring manager for the previous position and the HR person handling that previous position, apparently they raised a large number of objections and ultimately convinced the new hiring manager to not extend an offer. I also know that the new hiring manager was extremely interested in hiring me because I was an employee referral and was very impressed when we met for a brief two hour chat.
Is this kind of retaliation legal? What connection does a previous job offer have to do with another position in another division even though they are within the same company?
Yes, it's legal. Their reasons could be petty (taking it personally that you turned down an earlier offer) or rooted in something legitimate: for instance, maybe they felt that you hadn't been straight with them about your interest level for the other job earlier in the process, and that you'd wasted their time when you'd never had serious intentions of taking that job if offered. If they feel that way, they could be right, or they could be misinterpreting in an uncharitable way, or they could be flat-out wrong.
(By the way, one way to try to head that off when turning down an offer is to explicitly assure them that your interest in the position had been strong and genuine all the way through.)
But the real question here is whether there's anything that you can do about it now. It may be too late, but if they haven't yet firmly closed the door, it might be worth reaching out to the hiring manager for the second position and say that you're worried that the two others are reacting to the fact that you turned down their earlier offer, that your reasons for doing so were ____, and that that doesn't apply to this new position because _____.
Good luck!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
