Some ugly truths about job hunting

[Chennaiite]

Here's a listing (excerpted, not complete details) of one recruiter specializing in lawyersThe ugly truth is that the firms seeking such lawyers are not so much looking for competent lawyers as they are looking for lawyers who can bring clients with them (rainmakers.)

As some know, I was an investment banker for a number of years. That industry is notorious for body snatching rainmakers. There were and continue to be a number of headhunters who specialize in body snatching (sometimes to "buy" knowledge about a specific company or industry.)

There are also corporate spies masquerading as headhunters who cold call executives at target companies, dangling a "job offer from an unidentified company" and proceed to subtly extract inside information under the guise of an "interview."

Certainly this is aimed at gaining the so-called *Competitive edge* at the cost of Ethics. In any case, IMO Business and Ethics seldom goes hand-in-hand.

 

[Wes Bucey]

The interview: Some ugly truths about job hunting

I've added to the thread title for this post:
"The interview: Some ugly truths about job hunting"

There are some relatively new surveys about the need to display "people skills" to have a better chance a landing a job (both getting to the interview via what you say in cover letter and resume and how you perform during the interview)
Here's a press release for one from last autumn.

A pertinent quote from the press release applies equally to quality professionals - note what I have highlighted in bold red

“Interpersonal skills take center stage in a collaborative workplace,” said Max Messmer, chairman of Accountemps and author of Job Hunting For Dummies®, 2nd Edition (John Wiley & Sons, Inc.). “Accountants must be able to present financial information to nonfinancial audiences, make strategic recommendations and work with colleagues from diverse departments.”

Substitute the word "quality" for "financial" and it illustrates a shortcoming many in our profession exhibit: They know what they mean, but are unable to articulate it well enough to get support from coworkers and bosses, sometimes alienating the very people from whom they need cooperation by displaying a "Kwality Kop" attitude.

We all need a reality check from time to time to ensure our workplace personality does not sabotage our career. Next week, I'll present some ideas on getting that reality check.

Any comments so far?

 

[zekeQA]

Wes,

I am a young quality minded individual who is making less almost one year after a layoff than before. Thankfully I do have a job and thus do have opportunies for personal, then career, advancement. It is challenging to advance your career while unemployed.

In my new position I have to "sell" quality methods to my suppliers. Fortunalty I have sales experience, but it is a challenge to hang a red tag on a part and then "sell" the supplier on the idea that it is nonconforming when it clearly does not meet specifications. I wish that I had this realization four months ago... I tend to be very direct, and when defensive, people have a problem with directness. I think of it as honest...but admittedly at times I can use more tact.

Thank you for your informative posts.

 

[Wes Bucey]

Wes,

I am a young quality minded individual who is making less almost one year after a layoff than before. Thankfully I do have a job and thus do have opportunies for personal, then career, advancement. It is challenging to advance your career while unemployed.

In my new position I have to "sell" quality methods to my suppliers. Fortunalty I have sales experience, but it is a challenge to hang a red tag on a part and then "sell" the supplier on the idea that it is nonconforming when it clearly does not meet specifications. I wish that I had this realization four months ago... I tend to be very direct, and when defensive, people have a problem with directness. I think of it as honest...but admittedly at times I can use more tact.

Thank you for your informative posts.

One of the few good things the American Society for Quality (ASQ) has done relatively recently is put some emphasis on communicating quality issues to higher levels of management without being the messenger who gets slain for bringing bad news. Folks who recognize their own shortcomings in this aspect of being a quality professional can gain some good tips from this segment at ASQ
(Note: some of these articles may be restricted to members only - I haven't time to check now, but, if so, write a post to alert us and I will create a synopsis (review) which will meet copyright rules for "fair use")

Primary resource:
A 16 page white paper:
(broken link removed)
An ASQ White Paper by John Ryan
ISM Makes the Business Case for Social Responsibility

[URL="https://www.asq.org/qic/display-item/index.pl?item=19512"]ASQ: Does Baldrige Make a Business Case for Quality[/URL]


ASQ: A Business Case Perspective: Building Information Quality ...

ASQ - Key Elements of a Knowledge Management Business Case

 

[AnaMariaVR2]

Re: The interview: Some ugly truths about job hunting

Wess...I've also seen the articles such as the one you posted earlier https://www.11alive.com/news/news_story.aspx?storyid=144719&catid=40
...or just like this one: "Out-of-work job applicants told unemployed need not apply" (broken link removed)

...it seems like it is the unspoken 'modus operandi' during this recession. My radar screen lights up with the acronym: EEO, the Equal Employment Opportunity. I can't be the only one bringing this to discussion.

Why is this not being addressed? That is my question. In my view, it seems like these unemployed candidates are being discriminated. And I'm not playing the political-correctness card here.

Any thoughts?

Regards & thank you in advance your posts on this topic,
Ana

 

[Wes Bucey]

Re: The interview: Some ugly truths about job hunting

Wess...I've also seen the articles such as the one you posted earlier https://www.11alive.com/news/news_story.aspx?storyid=144719&catid=40
...or just like this one: "Out-of-work job applicants told unemployed need not apply" (broken link removed)

...it seems like it is the unspoken 'modus operandi' during this recession. My radar screen lights up with the acronym: EEO, the Equal Employment Opportunity. I can't be the only one bringing this to discussion.

Why is this not being addressed? That is my question. In my view, it seems like these unemployed candidates are being discriminated. And I'm not playing the political-correctness card here.

Any thoughts?

Regards & thank you in advance your posts on this topic,
Ana

Yep! This kind of apparent contradiction gets more than a few people riled up. Sorry to say, there is no contradiction because the EEO statutes do not yet list "unemployed" as a protected category. It rankles folks as unfair, but, in the USA, we have to lobby our elected representatives to add more protected categories. It's the process we've used to have the current categories. If you'd like some info on how to organize a lobbying campaign, start a new thread asking that.

 

[zekeQA]

Re: The interview: Some ugly truths about job hunting

Yep! This kind of apparent contradiction gets more than a few people riled up. Sorry to say, there is no contradiction because the EEO statutes do not yet list "unemployed" as a protected category. It rankles folks as unfair, but, in the USA, we have to lobby our elected representatives to add more protected categories. It's the process we've used to have the current categories. If you'd like some info on how to organize a lobbying campaign, start a new thread asking that.

Wes,

I'm not sure that I agree with you here. I took a job at well under my pay expectation to build skills and be working... even though I could have made about the same ammont on unemployment. I did not go deliver pizzas...although I would have if I needed to. When an acceptable (even if minimally acceptable) opportunity came along I took it.

Those who get out and work show motivation and other skills that others who are still unemployed may not be showing.

Additionally, I don't want to be discrimated against if I look for a higher paying job and cannot get it because I am working, and somone with lower skills who is unemployed gets it. If I move to another opportunity it will leave an opening here that may be filled by someone who is curently unemployed.

 

[ralphsulser]

I am in no way defending companies or firms that do this. Cannot they specify the qualifications and requirements and hire whom ever they want?
I am not aware of any legal or regulatory issues being violated. Ethics would be in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Wes Bucey]

Wes,

I'm not sure that I agree with you here. I took a job at well under my pay expectation to build skills and be working... even though I could have made about the same ammont on unemployment. I did not go deliver pizzas...although I would have if I needed to. When an acceptable (even if minimally acceptable) opportunity came along I took it.

Those who get out and work show motivation and other skills that others who are still unemployed may not be showing.

Additionally, I don't want to be discrimated against if I look for a higher paying job and cannot get it because I am working, and somone with lower skills who is unemployed gets it. If I move to another opportunity it will leave an opening here that may be filled by someone who is curently unemployed.

What, exactly, don't you agree with?

1. the premise companies do nothing illegal by openly refusing to consider unemployed workers? (this is a fact of law in the USA, not my opinion.)
2. the statistics that say workers, as a group, who are laid off versus resigning for another job, earn less over their life times? (Again - statistics! Some folks make more, some a lot less, but, as a whole, the gross and net incomes of the group are lower.)
3. any of my comments in the first post?

• They got laid off.
• They were ineffective in the job hunt
• They didn't have sufficient resources to sustain an effective job hunt.
• They stopped aggressively looking for the ideal job
• They repeat poor habits

Remember, I also emphasize:
The first question in our minds should be: "How can I separate myself from the pack and stand out in a prospective employer's eyes so I can earn the optimum salary and improve my lot in life instead of falling behind?"

Frankly, I hope most of my readers here in the Cove will take the advice we offer here to set themselves above the "average" worker.

I am in no way defending companies or firms that do this. Cannot they specify the qualifications and requirements and hire whom ever they want?
I am not aware of any legal or regulatory issues being violated. Ethics would be in the eye of the beholder.

Yep. I think you are on the money, here, Ralph. Even "ethics" has to be considered in context when the "greater good" for ALL workers in the organization will depend on whether the new hires have their acts in gear and are able to contribute strongly for the benefit of the organization.

Here's the deal: the primary function of the organization is to stay in business and support the entire staff plus investors. It is probably NOT in the business of providing charity to workers who have not yet figured out how to be valuable contributors to the welfare of the organization.

Thus, a person who remains unemployed because he hasn't discovered a way to declare and prove his value to an organization is not entitled to be considered for employment.

An analogy: we would not demand a carpentry firm hire someone who has never held a hammer for the position of master carpenter. Basketball teams don't hire guys who aren't able to work with the existing team. Ultimately, the job candidate must convince the employer the candidate will provide as much or more value to the organization as every other employee. Part of that value is in how well the candidate functioned with other organizations. Employers cannot read a candidate's mind! The candidate has all the responsibility of showing his value in a competent, reasonable, understandable way.

 

[zekeQA]

What I disagreed with was what seemed to be a suggestion on your part that unemployed workers be considered a protected class and given preferential treatment over employed workers for jobs.

A hope I have in overcomming your earnings statistic is that I am young. I heard a different statistic that a persons most profitable years in earnings occurs in their fifties. If I was 52 and laid off and then underemployed I could see that I would have a problem. I do not see this as a problem right now as I have many years to recover.