Posted on Jul 7, 2014
Headspace and timing errors in the job search
3.04K
27
19
5
5
0
In reviewing job applications today, I decided that it might be worthwhile to point out self-inflicted damage I see on a sadly regular basis. I'll update as I notice things. Feel free to add your own.
- "Can we contact this employer? No."
My spidey-sense is going off like the 4th of July. You have issues at your current place of employ, are about to be fired, or are generally held in low regard.
What is that you say? You don't want to telegraph that you are looking? Pretty much all employers get that you don't want to spill the beans to your current employer. And we wouldn't call them until after we interviewed you in the first place. If THAT is your reason, knock it off.
Moreover, if you do well in the interview, we are going to require that you sign a release (or give verbal permission, in other organizations, I guess) to check references/background - and that is ALL references that we can find, not just the ones you listed. You'd better believe we are going to contact the one where the red flags went up!!
That is IF you get the interview in the first place. Unless your resume & cover are exceptionally strong - or the candidate pool sucks, you may have just talked yourself out of an interview. Just because there is smoke doesn't mean there is fire, but it's the smart/safe way to bet.
- "Can we contact this employer? No."
My spidey-sense is going off like the 4th of July. You have issues at your current place of employ, are about to be fired, or are generally held in low regard.
What is that you say? You don't want to telegraph that you are looking? Pretty much all employers get that you don't want to spill the beans to your current employer. And we wouldn't call them until after we interviewed you in the first place. If THAT is your reason, knock it off.
Moreover, if you do well in the interview, we are going to require that you sign a release (or give verbal permission, in other organizations, I guess) to check references/background - and that is ALL references that we can find, not just the ones you listed. You'd better believe we are going to contact the one where the red flags went up!!
That is IF you get the interview in the first place. Unless your resume & cover are exceptionally strong - or the candidate pool sucks, you may have just talked yourself out of an interview. Just because there is smoke doesn't mean there is fire, but it's the smart/safe way to bet.
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 10
Perhaps there is a different way to view this challenge? What if the way we are looking for talent is broken, altogether? What if the interview process doesn't really result in the best fit for the company? What if the systems we are using constrain the ability for talent to find work, and companies to find talent?
LTC Stoneking's example is an interesting one; if I were unhappy in a job and were looking, why would I want you to talk to my supervisor, who, in fact, actually values my work quite a bit so that I have to deal with him while I interview with you?
The talent-opportunity continuum is broken, and has been for many, many years. We value process over eliciting the real value an individual adds.
If someone lies on their resume, that is a red flag, but what if the current system simply doesn't see them because they didn't use the right keyword?
There is a far, far better way to get exceptional veteran talent into great organizations - 15-second reviews of resumes will not lead us there.
LTC Stoneking's example is an interesting one; if I were unhappy in a job and were looking, why would I want you to talk to my supervisor, who, in fact, actually values my work quite a bit so that I have to deal with him while I interview with you?
The talent-opportunity continuum is broken, and has been for many, many years. We value process over eliciting the real value an individual adds.
If someone lies on their resume, that is a red flag, but what if the current system simply doesn't see them because they didn't use the right keyword?
There is a far, far better way to get exceptional veteran talent into great organizations - 15-second reviews of resumes will not lead us there.
(2)
(0)
Another thing I really do not like is when a potential employee inflates their job descriptions with other companies for me to just find out what they actually are skilled at and they lied on their application. I have seen way too many resumes from veterans that inflate their job skills beyond what they actually know.
(2)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Exactly! Hey, I'm a Soldier too and I can look at your unit and rank and guess your role. If a SPC tries to make him/herself sound like the company commander, it's an immediate turn off. I no longer believe a word of what I am reading! Vets should not assume that they are only dealing with civilians.
(2)
(0)
COL Vincent Stoneking
CPT (Join to see) that's another good one right there. And I have seen it with vets E4-E6 whose resumes sound like they were the 1SG/Co CDR and BN S3 and S1 all rolled into one. (I haven't seen this on O resumes, for whatever reason. I'm sure it's just dumb luck and I will over time.)
(0)
(0)
SGT Brian Paine
If you are a vet or soon to be separated, be honest with the would be employer. You have earn their trust. Make them believe in you and that you would make an integral part of their team. You may not be the best, but the employer will take your honesty and integrity onto question and I can almost guarantee 9 out of 10 times that employer is going to take a second look.
(0)
(0)
I run into this all the time. After a few prying questions I find that most do not want their employer contacted due to retaliation. In other words the current employer either threatens to cut their hours, fire them, and/or tells the company that is calling that sm is a terrible employee just so they can keep them there. Most companies feel that they have spent time and money on an employee training them to work for them, not someone else. I admit I am skeptical about a would be employee if they say I can not contact their current employer.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next