Un-Fabulous Employer: asking for too much upfront
July 09, 2008 By: almostgotit Category: Management, Uncategorized, bad bosses, business, employment, interviewing
Is this guy you? |
~The first part of this post can be found here.~
Everywhere I turn, I find advice for the job-seeker. Revamp the resume. Write a killer cover letter. Hire an interviewing coach. In short, it’s all about how fabulous every job applicant must be.
Why isn’t anyone telling employers that they need to be fabulous, too?
If there is a recession going on, and so long as we insist upon using dire, Darwinian terms with job applicants, we ought to be giving the same talk to businesses, as well.
HR writers, though, seem only to take two approaches. If not cajoling employees (and potential employees) to behave themselves, they are chuckling with their fellows about how dumb employees are, particularly when the latter expect that “good enough” ever really is.
Meanwhile, I am reviewing potential employers who address me like this:
“Applications submitted without salary history will not be considered.”
Oh, don’t worry, is my knee-jerk reaction. Applications allowing you to decide in advance how cheap you can be will not be submitted, either!
Nevertheless, this also translates into another lost job opportunity, and I’m not sure how many more of those I can afford.
“Submit application along with contact information for three references.”
References up front? No sir. My references are an extremely valuable commodity. As a courtesy to them, and for my own sake as well, I need to prep my references every time I invoke their names, and I’d rather not spend that vocational capital unless I know there’s at least some chance of a return on my investment. I should not be asked for them until I am interviewed, and that used to be the rule. References, once given, can be “spent” by a potential employer at any time, and some lazy employers routinely plow through any number of contact calls quite early on, before they’ve even decided on their pool of finalists.
What if I’m forced to prep my contacts so many times that they themselves begin to doubt my employability? What if a contact is also a current employer, who didn’t know I was applying for a job? This topic of references, alone, is worth several more posts on its own. I’ve been burned, and I have issues.
In any case, an intelligent employer should do his or her own evaluation before trusting an applicant’s obviously- biased list of references. It’s okay to sniff around. I don’t mind. I’d be honored to work for a smart employer who cares that much about doing a good job search. It’s right there on my resume, so how about contacting my *previous* employer on your own? How about talking to someone you trust who might know me? How about (here’s an idea) actually reviewing my online portfolio and making your own decision about whether my work is good or not? Everyone uses web analytics now, so I can tell when you haven’t!
——————-
Related Posts:
Employers: It’s Your Turn to be Fabulous (part 1 of this series)
Blind Box Ads: Bad-Ass, or Just Bad? (part 3 of this series)
July 9th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
You go Almostgotit! I’ve seen the results of lazy work on the part of hiring committees who didn’t look themselves at portfolios, but read letters of recommendation and too readily believed them. We employers have an obligation–if we want our organization to flourish–to work hard to find the really good applicants, rather than finding reasons not to consider people.
July 9th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
I so relate to what you are saying. I have been job hunting pretty regularly for the last year or so. I’ve been successful (I currently have FOUR part-time jobs teaching), and unsuccessful, but I have also refused to even consider some employers because of things like you mentioned above. I’m happy to say I just accepted a full-time job last week.
I read your comment that you linked to in the first half of this post (the one about Fred).– I think you could do an entire post about inappropriate job-related e-mails on both sides. I don’t think e-mail is an appropriate way to let someone know they didn’t get a job (unless it is for an all-online job).
July 9th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Wow, never thought of that… and I certainly hope Fred wasn’t informed by email that he didn’t have the job! I’ve been assuming his email was in response to the more typical snail-mail letter.
Email is a tricky medium, though, and probably an entire BLOG could be dedicated to appropriate/inappropriate job-related emails.
CONGRATULATIONS on the new job, BTW!! I hope you are pleased as punch. Four part-time jobs *and* a mom? Gee willikers, too much, says me.
July 9th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
I’m interested to hear more about the objections to using email to notify someone they didn’t get a job. My organization uses email for this because it’s faster than postal mail (cheaper too). Phone is out as an option, unfortunately, because too many candidates have tried to use the phone call as a way to dispute the decision. Personally, I wouldn’t mind receiving a job rejection over email, and I’m curious to learn why you dislike it.
July 9th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Confession: I have heard via email that I didn’t get a job, but always because I’ve emailed some inside person first to informally ask (many places wait to send out rejection letters until the job is filled, which in my experience — mostly with universities — can be WEEKS after the final candidates have already been chosen. And sometimes I’ve just grown tired of waiting!)
I do think that formal “rejections” should arrive by postal mail, and as a courtesy should be sent out as soon as possible. I have invested time and care in applying, and I think I deserve a little of both in return. Using the mail-merge function on a form letter would be formal enough, and should be both quick and relatively inexpensive. Granted, job searches do take time and cost money, but that’s appropriate in my opinion. They are (again, according to Peter Drucker) the most important thing any organization does! I’ll have to write a longer post on “Rejection Letters” sometime soon, based on my extensive collection.
Thanks for the terrific comments!
July 9th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Couple of things to add to the discussion…first, I totally agree that if I was looking for a job I would NEVER apply for a job that required past salary info and/or references up front. That’s part of me valuing myself as a candidate and seeking out employers where I think I can be a match. Also, when I am helping clients staff a job I don’t request that info in the job posting. In fact, I don’t see many jobs that do request that info these days except for government joobs and academic jobs.
Second – I totally agree with Ask A Manager about e-mail. I tell candidates during the interview what the process will be if they are selected to move on, and that if they are not selected they will hear from me via e-mail by a certain date. That way they shouldn’t be surprised by the e-mail. I use it for the exact reasons Ask A Manager suggests – because it’s faster and because once the decision is made I don’t intend to dispute it with the candidate.
Finally – I agree with Mr. Budd. Lazy hiring procedures will be the death of any organization. I have made my business not as a headhunter, but as an external consultant who comes into organizations to run search committees. It’s amazing how hungry the hiring managers are for someone to help them “get it right” and how they are so grateful to have someone outline a good quality process that treats the candidates well – and also treats the committee and the existing staff well. It’s so fun to make a good hire under those circumstances!
July 9th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
If you aren’t seeing blog posts and articles about how “employers need to be fabulous too” then I think maybe you’re looking in the wrong places. This is a topic I talk about all the time on my blog…and not just as a job seeker, as an HR professional.
But I agree, in the mainstream media, the topic is always how job seekers need to act. Well, I think that is because individuals consume mainstream media. Companies consume industry/field specific media.
There are tons of sites out there that try to smack companies up side the head when it comes to their crappy recruiting processes. Many companies are listening. Many are not. Go with the ones that appear to be listening
That’s what I do.
Just like being a job seeker, being in HR is no picnic. You wouldn’t believe the craptacular things we go through with bad candidates, bad hiring managers and bad policies. Fighting the good fight can be very, very tiring. We get cranky too
July 9th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Great comments, C.E. and Wenchie! I was hoping for a little HR
attitudebalance, here!July 9th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
You be hot, almostgotit.
You be smokin’.
Brava!
July 9th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
Almostgotit –
Thanks for asking for my input. I’ve spent some time reading your blog and I love your writing style. I’m now a subscriber.
From where I sit, I’m not seeing an imbalance between blogs (or books) on how to be a better job candidate and how to be a better employer (or leader).
The bloggers I read – and their readers – seem to spend as much time boss bashing as they do sharing whacky job candidate stories – probably even more so.
Great companies – and great leaders – will usually attract and retain the best employees. I’ll admit, often in spite of some obnoxious and silly HR systems and practices.
July 11th, 2008 at 9:34 am
Since I’m the one that mentioned e-mail rejections, I wanted to clarify. I’ve applied for writing jobs online, such as columnists, and I’ve learned I didn’t get the job by reading posts from the writer who DID get the job before I heard from the employer. Sometimes days past before I finally received an e-mail saying I didn’t get it. I definitely think candidates who didn’t get the job need to be notified pretty quickly. And if you make it clear you will be notifying by e-mail, I don’t have a problem with it.
When do I think an e-mail rejection is inappropriate? There does come a time in the search process when there are just two or three candidates for a top-level position. Often the job hiring process involves travel from both the candidate and often the search committee. When I worked as a reporter, I witnessed a number of superintendent job searches. Final candidates came to the area and spent at least two days. The search committee also traveled to the candidate’s current school district. A lot of time, effort and money was spent by both sides. It was a very public process, and I just think candidates with that much invested should hear they didn’t get the job through a phone call instead of by e-mail or worse yet — reading about it in the newspaper.
Of course, this extensive interview process doesn’t happen for all positions.
July 12th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Linda, thanks very much for this illustration. I agree that some clarification re te email-rejection-rule is in order, and I think I share your sense of things. An email rejection would be fine in almost any case that I’ve been forewarned email would be used, for one . And I think it would also be appropriate if, say, an applicantion is received when there has been no solicitation for applications. BUT. Once an individual candidacy has reached the point where quite a lot of time (and often money) has been invested by both parties, a quick email rejection is no longer sufficient.
July 21st, 2008 at 12:08 pm
[...] away. ————- Related posts: Employers: It’s Your Turn to be Fabulous Un-Fabulous Employers: Asking for Too Much Upfront Blind Box Ads: Bad-Ass, or just [...]